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
Normal Preferences Are Shamed
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
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Something Here
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Triteleia Laxa gets the ball rolling on questions about cryptocurrencies:

Crypto currencies are infinite. Expect their value to eventually reflect that.

There can only ever be ~21 million Bitcoin, ergo it is by definition ultimately inflation-proof. But where are the limits on how many bitcoin wannabes can be introduced? There are already over 5,000 of them. Ethereum is approaching half of Bitcoin’s market cap.

A couple of other good faith questions for Bitcoin boosters and crypto enthusiasts more generally:

– To the assertion that Bitcoin is a store of value are the wild swings in its valuation. A big day for a traditional store of value like gold is a move of 2%. For cryptos, swings an order of magnitude larger than that are not uncommon. Dogecoin, which had been the fourth highest crypto in market capitalization going into the weekend, dropped 30% in a matter of hours. Does this not reveal crypto to be a class of speculative asset with huge upside and downside potential–that is, the opposite of a store of value?

– To the assertion that Bitcoin is a medium of exchange, nothing is actually priced in it. There are an increasing number of vendors who will convert to fiat the market price of Bitcoin at the time a transaction occurs, but things aren’t priced directly in cryptos. If Bitcoin is $55k, a Tesla Y goes for a Bitcoin. If Bitcoin drops 10% tomorrow though, a Tesla Y will continue to sell for $55k but will now go for 1.1 Bitcoin.

On the other side is the potential decentralization of money and ultimately the end of empire. Here’s to its continued success!

Not only wrathful on how a message of negative white identity–not negative in the vicious sense of white fragility and white guilt, but in terms of defining identity in contrast to that of another group–is so often dead on arrival:

Your opinion is a very minor one among white people. It is almost non-existent among the educated and the young. You hope to persuade them to agree with you, but you don’t even give these people the respect of acknowledging that they are not merely brainwashed or totally ignorant. Instead you tell them that their ideals are actually an aggressive war of genocide against them. Just imagine how that comes across! They support those ideals, so they obviously don’t consider it genocide. How low a regard can you hold people to think they would all love their own genocide? And then think you’ll win them over?

If you want to engage with people, you need to begin with where they are at and take their stated preferences and ideals seriously. But instead you take away all of their agency and ability to think and give it to the Jews. This is the real reason why they find your ideas so personally offensive – because they are personally offensive.

A black negative identity views blacks primarily in relation to whites. It is and continues to be viable, for better or worse (the latter in this blogger’s view), because many blacks and a substantial number of non-blacks embrace it. A white negative identity isn’t because whites don’t.

Mark G. provides an opportunity to hit on a perennial theme here:

I just went back and re-read one of my favorite books, Coming Apart by Charles Murray. It starts with a prologue that gives an extensive description of the U.S. in 1963 before the massive changes that started in the later sixties. It occurred to me while reading it that wokism is an attempt to take the America of 1963 and turn it into the exact opposite. Murray says that Americans of 1963 smoked liked chimneys and drank like fish but the use of drugs was rare and exotic so if you take the reverse of that you would have widespread drug use and more restrictions on tobacco and alcohol.

The U.S. of 1963 actually had much less income inequality than the U.S. of today. The newly created wealthy elites prefer the woke America of today over the unwoke America of 1963 because going back to something like 1963 would mean the loss of a large part of that additional wealth that has been transferred up to them.

Wokeism neutralizes the progressive left by preempting their criticisms of the system with accusations of anti-wokeness. Have a problem with the CIA killing brown people overseas? Sounds like what you really have a problem with is women of color overcoming white supremacy in traditionally male spaces:

Have a problem with the largest upward transfer of wealth in the history of the world? Sounds like you’re anti-science, anti-Semitic, and homophobic:

While it perverts the left into boot-licking apologists for the corpotocracy, the intelligence agencies, the war on terror, and tech censorship, it takes for granted the high regard respectable Republicans have for business. If woke means broke, the problems will fix themselves, and if not, well, the market has spoken and who are we to argue with that? Just make sure our the value of our houses and 401(k)s keep going up and we’re on board.

The only contingent Wokeism can’t absorb is the dissident right and a handful of independent leftists like Glenn Greenwald and Jimmy Dore, but their numbers are small, their institutional support even smaller, and all the cultural guns are pointed at them if they ever manage to seriously threaten the power structure in any way.

Jay Fink makes an observation illustrating why the phrase “clown world” resonates the way it does:

If I was to go on my Facebook today and be honest about who I am attracted to…. conventionally attractive women, mostly younger than me, not obese etc I think I would get a lot of negative feedback. Some would shame me, others might delete me.

Now if I was to lie and say that I was gay, transexual etc I think I would get much love and support. There is something really wrong about this. Biologically normal preferences are shamed while deviant choices are praised.

So much for being proud of who you are.

 
Hide 149 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. anonymous[139] • Disclaimer says:

    I think that while “clown world” is effective rhetoric(which goes far these days) it is not an accurate description of the U.S.

    I think the U.S. is not a “fanciful” or “whimsical” or “silly” place, as clown world would imply, but rather, a SELF DESTRUCTIVE place. Most of these behaviors, world views, values systems, and the like, if followed, would absolutely ruin a person’s (or nations) existence. We are talking life destroying, civilization ruining actions, and the U.S. govt is both promoting and actively following them.

    In my profession, I travel to many foreign countries. Everyone I speak to about the U.S. is dumbfounded by all of this stuff. They literally do not understand how a society like the U.S. can continue to exist with these core “values.” Many of them are assuming it will not, and are acting accordingly.

    • Disagree: Corvinus
    • Replies: @Sollipsist
    @anonymous

    You're forgetting that the clowns are ALWAYS sad when nobody is watching. Take it from Smokey Robinson and a million black velvet pictures.

  2. Jay Fink makes an observation illustrating why the phrase “clown world” resonates the way it does:

    Clown World is a thing, but this isn’t a Clown World thing. This is rather a straightforward instance of the general rule that people shouldn’t be a$$holes.

    To say that a preference is “normal” is to acknowledge that it goes without saying. Therefore, to sayit in so many words is to pile on and punch down. People don’t like that.

    Moreover, ought does not follow from is. Men’s attraction to younger, nulliparous women is, frankly, antisocial. It is advantageous for individual males, but destructive to society as a whole. Anyone who claims to support monogamy must acknowledge this. No one can be blamed for their preferences, but one can be blamed for offending people’s social sensibilities by boasting about it.

    • Disagree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Jay Fink
    @Rosie

    Having the preference in itself is not boasting. Now if a man said their wife was getting too old so he traded her in for a younger model because she looks better...that would be boasting and make the guy seem like an a**hole. If that same man did the same thing, married a young pretty woman, but didn't mention ages or looks it could go over a lot better.

    Middle aged men being attracted to women younger than them does not affect monogamy one way or another. When monogamy was at it's strongest men were still attracted to good looking younger women. It doesn't mean they acted on that attraction or could if they wanted to.

    For monogamy to thrive couples need to pair up when they are relatively young. They pair bond while at the peak of attractiveness. Ideally as the couple ages they are still attracted to each other because the pair bond is deep. The attraction becomes more than physical.

    If monogamy is weak you will have more single people running loose in the world. As they age they might not feel any attraction towards other older people since they never had that pair bond with them.

    Replies: @My SIMPLE Pseudonymic Handle

    , @GazaPlanet
    @Rosie

    "Men’s attraction to younger, nulliparous women is, frankly, antisocial."

    Says abortion supporting baggage, the vicious female not so much "punching down" as "tearing out." What about younger women's attraction to older "established" men? Is that anti-social too?

    "Wokeism" is just the latest "ideological" iteration of the brazen egotism of "liberal" sociopathy. There is no moral sensibility involved. For example, I don't believe most these people actually care about "racism." They know it is dangerous to express themselves frankly about racial matters, they know they can gain sympathy by affecting sympathy for drugged out criminals like George Floyd and hatred for white Christians. Some enjoy being bullies in the mob, they enjoy getting people fired and tirelessly working to destroy reputations, in some cases forming virtual hordes of mentally ill cyber-bullies. Ultimately, they express sentiments of "anti-racism" because they fear, directly or indirectly, the dominant social power of the Jews. For the same reason, they are mostly very uncomfortable with criticizing Jews for doing what they do to the Palestinians.

    Replies: @Rosie

    , @dfordoom
    @Rosie


    To say that a preference is “normal” is to acknowledge that it goes without saying. Therefore, to sayit in so many words is to pile on and punch down. People don’t like that.
     
    It depends on exactly what you mean by "normal". If you mean that a particular sexual preference is the only acceptable sexual preference then yes, that could be seen as imposing that preference on others and that could be seen as offensive. If someone argued that the only acceptable sexual preference for men was for young busty blondes then that would indeed be problematic (as our liberal friends would say).

    But Jay Fink is not using the term in that sense. He's using it in the sense of its being commonplace, perfectly healthy and nobody else's damn business.

    For a man to be attracted to pretty young women (over the age of consent) is very commonplace, perfectly healthy and very much nobody else's damn business. He is not arguing that that particular attraction is the only acceptable attraction and he is certainly not trying to impose it on anybody else.

    Moreover, ought does not follow from is. Men’s attraction to younger, nulliparous women is, frankly, antisocial.
     
    That's complete nonsense. Look back at history and you'll find very healthy very functional societies (with high birth rates) in which marriages between older men and much younger women were extremely common. And often extremely happy.

    You're the one trying to impose your views on sexual preferences on other people.

    Anyone who claims to support monogamy must acknowledge this.
     
    In the Victorian era marriages between older men and much younger women were extremely common. It didn't do any harm at all to monogamy.

    As long as both parties are over the age of consent men are entitled to be attracted to whatever type of women they choose, and women are entitled to be attracted to whatever type of men they choose.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Curle

    , @Triteleia Laxa
    @Rosie


    Men’s attraction to younger, nulliparous women is, frankly, antisocial
     
    This attraction is a common reason for men and women to engage with society productively.

    It isn't anti-social. You just don't like it.
    , @Chrisnonymous
    @Rosie


    Men’s attraction to younger, nulliparous women is, frankly, antisocial.
     
    LOL. Yes, society would function so much better if men chasing women who were the most experienced and best educated. I'm sure skirt-chasing the 40-60 year olds would have no effect on the birthrate or fetal quality.

    Replies: @Rosie

    , @Anonymous
    @Rosie

    If men's attraction to younger women is anti-social, please explain the consequences affecting our country.


    Men's attraction to younger women isn't contributing to the low rate of marriage, higher rate of suicide and alcohol/drug abuse, higher rate of mental illness, stubboenly low fertility rates, the insane and unnecessarily high cost of housing/living, price gouging, etc.

    These are the most pressing anti-social problems that exist in our society, and younger women marrying older men could have reduced them. Instead, women were shamed by feminists such as yourself for preferring older men, and increasingly remained single.


    So it's obvious your fixation on the "anti-sociality" of older men preferring younger women is motivated by an entirely self-centered personal hatred for natural selection. You yourself are the anti-social one. There's absolutely nothing about older men's preference for younger women that is contributing to the social decay that has afflicted our society. It's just something you don't like, because you're old and you hate men.


    Complain about the low fertility rate, the persistently high of suicide and substance abuse, the skyrocketing price of housing driven by the greed of your own generation... But not older men's preferences... That never caused any problems for society. It's just something you don't like, because it makes you feel like you're not the most important human being in the world who is in control of all things.

    , @Jim Christian
    @Rosie


    Men’s attraction to younger, nulliparous women is, frankly, antisocial.
     
    Well, antisocial towards fatties, women who are way past their stale dates, women who are old enough to have learned how to be hideous, feminist shrews. It is feminists who hate youth and beauty in women, which is itself antisocial. Feminism makes women who take up that putrid mindset intolerable, mannish and fat. They deserve rejection and scorn. They deserve banishment to their own camps, they're unfit for public view. They aren't part of any decent citizens' society. They are themselves terribly antisocial.

    You really comfort yourself with that ironic little twist of the script, Rosie? That men chasing beauty is antisocial? Yer a hoot.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    , @Mario Partisan
    @Rosie

    Rosie “Defender of Roasties” says:


    Men’s attraction to younger, nulliparous women is, frankly, antisocial.
     
    In the interest of full disclosure, I had to look up “nulliparous.” Okay, so male attraction to young women who have not had children yet is anti-social?

    The implication is that men should be lusting after “older” women who have had children with one or more other men. In my opinion, not only would that lusting be anti-social, but expecting that men should want to settle down with and provide for another man’s offspring because a woman made a rash decision is even more anti-social!

    Rosie, I don’t generally dislike you as a commenter, but I am always amazed at your insistence on defending women as if you are all part of a big sorority. There is no sorority. In fact, in my experience a large chunk of (white) women are steeped in clown world BS and would throw you to the wolves if they knew you posted at UR.

    Now, so you don’t misunderstand me, I do not advocate men pursuing jailbait or leaving their wives for younger women. But male attraction is rooted in the reptilian limbic system and is oriented towards signs of fertility – and youth is the quintessential sign of that.

    From previous comments I have gathered that you are happily married with children. That’s great. But understand that we are living in a world where women like you are getting harder and harder to find. What is out there in the real world is a large chunk of women who have spent their fertile years partying it up with one short-term lust interest after another. They have turned down the hand of many men who would have loved to settle down with them. At a certain age, 30+, they finally decide they want to settle down with a beta male provider. But at that point the assets that they have to bring to the table are rather depreciated and there is no reason that a man who has things going for him can’t choose to pursue women 5 or 10 years younger.

    I suspect a lot of this shaming of men for their normal, natural, Darwinian instincts is mere blame shifting. These “roasties” can’t accept that they are responsible for being single and they are trying to shame men into taking them after having pushed those same arms away only a few years earlier.

    The fact is, what is happening between men and women is a collective problem that goes beyond individual blame. In short, tech progress has been too fast and is clashing with our atavistic natures.

    I’ll tell a little anecdote. My dad was born in 1946, in Italy. When he was still a little kid, he went to the market one day with his mom. There was a man on the corner giving free samples of bouillon cube broth (it was a new thing for them.) This product soon developed a nick name – “brodo dei becchi” or “broth of the cucked husbands.” Quasi-literate carpenters and metal workers understood far more than the “enlightened” literati of today.

    Replies: @Rosie

    , @DanHessinMD
    @Rosie

    If a forty-something or fifty-something man abandons his family for a fling with a younger woman with no intention to have a family with that younger woman, that is antisocial. Or if a man who could have a family instead plays the field without settling down to have children, that is antisocial.

    If an established man makes a family with a younger woman, that strikes me as quite pro-social. In fact it may give a young woman an opportunity to marry and have children that she would not otherwise have, if many young men in her cohort can't support a family or are just playing video games.

    In fact, it is surely preferable for society if men marry women with the intention of forming families than if men marry women who can no longer have children.

    Replies: @Rosie

    , @AnotherDad
    @Rosie

    World ends: Men's attraction to fertile women to blame.

    , @Dumbo
    @Rosie


    Men’s attraction to younger, nulliparous women is, frankly, antisocial.
     
    Why? Men can always try, but as a general rule the only older men that attract "younger nulliparous women" are either famous, rich or powerful, and women's attraction to a loaded wallet or to men of power and fame/high status will probably never end.

    Really, women are to blame here. If they marry or have sex with older (rich) men, it's because they choose it.

    As for the male instinct to be attracted to younger female women, it's completely natural. Even a few tottering 70 year old fools probably are attracted to them, doesn't mean that they will even can do anything about it.

    , @Rattus Norwegius
    @Rosie

    Most men prefer younger women, and women prefer somewhat older men than themselves. This has likely been the reality for thousands of years. However the age and gender structure of today is not the same as it was in the past. Male mortality is much lower than in the past, therefore there are more young males to court young women. Attributes associated with young men like strenght, are also much less valueable than in the past. Recently falling birth rates has also inverted the age pyramid. There are now more older men than young women. Which is the opposite of the historic norm. This is to say that age gaps impacts the population differently now, than in used to historically.

  3. @Rosie

    Jay Fink makes an observation illustrating why the phrase “clown world” resonates the way it does:
     
    Clown World is a thing, but this isn't a Clown World thing. This is rather a straightforward instance of the general rule that people shouldn't be a$$holes.

    To say that a preference is "normal" is to acknowledge that it goes without saying. Therefore, to sayit in so many words is to pile on and punch down. People don't like that.

    Moreover, ought does not follow from is. Men's attraction to younger, nulliparous women is, frankly, antisocial. It is advantageous for individual males, but destructive to society as a whole. Anyone who claims to support monogamy must acknowledge this. No one can be blamed for their preferences, but one can be blamed for offending people's social sensibilities by boasting about it.

    Replies: @Jay Fink, @GazaPlanet, @dfordoom, @Triteleia Laxa, @Chrisnonymous, @Anonymous, @Jim Christian, @Mario Partisan, @DanHessinMD, @AnotherDad, @Dumbo, @Rattus Norwegius

    Having the preference in itself is not boasting. Now if a man said their wife was getting too old so he traded her in for a younger model because she looks better…that would be boasting and make the guy seem like an a**hole. If that same man did the same thing, married a young pretty woman, but didn’t mention ages or looks it could go over a lot better.

    Middle aged men being attracted to women younger than them does not affect monogamy one way or another. When monogamy was at it’s strongest men were still attracted to good looking younger women. It doesn’t mean they acted on that attraction or could if they wanted to.

    For monogamy to thrive couples need to pair up when they are relatively young. They pair bond while at the peak of attractiveness. Ideally as the couple ages they are still attracted to each other because the pair bond is deep. The attraction becomes more than physical.

    If monogamy is weak you will have more single people running loose in the world. As they age they might not feel any attraction towards other older people since they never had that pair bond with them.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @My SIMPLE Pseudonymic Handle
    @Jay Fink

    That's really funny.

    Why are women in general still hung up on why older men are attracted to younger women? Why does it even bother them? Is it because they know their egg production years and ability to bear children is limited. And, that every year they get older and they haven't gotten married with children is one more year closer to cat lady status. It used to be if a woman wasn't married by at least age 21 or so they were considered old maids. Even though in our modern society that is no longer expected I suspect it still gnaws at them subconsciously.

    And yet, they never seem to be concerned with why women themselves at a young age are attracted to older bad boys that use them up and toss them aside when they're done with them.

    And, it seems they're more than willing to bed hop in the vain hope they won't become cat ladies in their old age. For some odd reason women just can't imagine life without a man in their bed. Is it because they're afraid of being alone. Why this obsessive need to have a boyfriend or get married?

    Maybe Rosie should concern herself with the two of the latest female fads. Older women, cougars, on the prowl for young studs to satisfy their carnal lust. And, white women dating black men and bearing their children but not expecting the black man to stick around and help raise the children. Does she even know the latter enrages black women more than anything else? It cuts in on their territory.

  4. @Rosie

    Jay Fink makes an observation illustrating why the phrase “clown world” resonates the way it does:
     
    Clown World is a thing, but this isn't a Clown World thing. This is rather a straightforward instance of the general rule that people shouldn't be a$$holes.

    To say that a preference is "normal" is to acknowledge that it goes without saying. Therefore, to sayit in so many words is to pile on and punch down. People don't like that.

    Moreover, ought does not follow from is. Men's attraction to younger, nulliparous women is, frankly, antisocial. It is advantageous for individual males, but destructive to society as a whole. Anyone who claims to support monogamy must acknowledge this. No one can be blamed for their preferences, but one can be blamed for offending people's social sensibilities by boasting about it.

    Replies: @Jay Fink, @GazaPlanet, @dfordoom, @Triteleia Laxa, @Chrisnonymous, @Anonymous, @Jim Christian, @Mario Partisan, @DanHessinMD, @AnotherDad, @Dumbo, @Rattus Norwegius

    “Men’s attraction to younger, nulliparous women is, frankly, antisocial.”

    Says abortion supporting baggage, the vicious female not so much “punching down” as “tearing out.” What about younger women’s attraction to older “established” men? Is that anti-social too?

    “Wokeism” is just the latest “ideological” iteration of the brazen egotism of “liberal” sociopathy. There is no moral sensibility involved. For example, I don’t believe most these people actually care about “racism.” They know it is dangerous to express themselves frankly about racial matters, they know they can gain sympathy by affecting sympathy for drugged out criminals like George Floyd and hatred for white Christians. Some enjoy being bullies in the mob, they enjoy getting people fired and tirelessly working to destroy reputations, in some cases forming virtual hordes of mentally ill cyber-bullies. Ultimately, they express sentiments of “anti-racism” because they fear, directly or indirectly, the dominant social power of the Jews. For the same reason, they are mostly very uncomfortable with criticizing Jews for doing what they do to the Palestinians.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @GazaPlanet


    What about younger women’s attraction to older “established” men? Is that anti-social too?
     
    Most younger women are not attracted to older men. The overwhelming majority of women marry men very close to their own age, and the closer their age, the more likely the marriage will last.

    Nonetheless, for those women who are attracted to older, established men, yes, it very often is antisocial, especially if that older, established man is someone else's husband. And if he is not someone else's husband, he should be. After all, what has he been doing all these years? Pumping and dumping, I assume.

    Replies: @JohnPlywood

  5. Wokeism makes sense from the Ruling Class point of view.

    What percentage of the US population is straight, and white, and male? 20%? So the other 80% is 264 million people. That’s a lot of people subdue, and there’s a lot of guns out there. Expand the PMC so it is somewhat representative of the people it rules over. There’s a logic to this; it seems crazy, but the Ruling Class is crazy… like a fox.

  6. @Rosie

    Jay Fink makes an observation illustrating why the phrase “clown world” resonates the way it does:
     
    Clown World is a thing, but this isn't a Clown World thing. This is rather a straightforward instance of the general rule that people shouldn't be a$$holes.

    To say that a preference is "normal" is to acknowledge that it goes without saying. Therefore, to sayit in so many words is to pile on and punch down. People don't like that.

    Moreover, ought does not follow from is. Men's attraction to younger, nulliparous women is, frankly, antisocial. It is advantageous for individual males, but destructive to society as a whole. Anyone who claims to support monogamy must acknowledge this. No one can be blamed for their preferences, but one can be blamed for offending people's social sensibilities by boasting about it.

    Replies: @Jay Fink, @GazaPlanet, @dfordoom, @Triteleia Laxa, @Chrisnonymous, @Anonymous, @Jim Christian, @Mario Partisan, @DanHessinMD, @AnotherDad, @Dumbo, @Rattus Norwegius

    To say that a preference is “normal” is to acknowledge that it goes without saying. Therefore, to sayit in so many words is to pile on and punch down. People don’t like that.

    It depends on exactly what you mean by “normal”. If you mean that a particular sexual preference is the only acceptable sexual preference then yes, that could be seen as imposing that preference on others and that could be seen as offensive. If someone argued that the only acceptable sexual preference for men was for young busty blondes then that would indeed be problematic (as our liberal friends would say).

    But Jay Fink is not using the term in that sense. He’s using it in the sense of its being commonplace, perfectly healthy and nobody else’s damn business.

    For a man to be attracted to pretty young women (over the age of consent) is very commonplace, perfectly healthy and very much nobody else’s damn business. He is not arguing that that particular attraction is the only acceptable attraction and he is certainly not trying to impose it on anybody else.

    Moreover, ought does not follow from is. Men’s attraction to younger, nulliparous women is, frankly, antisocial.

    That’s complete nonsense. Look back at history and you’ll find very healthy very functional societies (with high birth rates) in which marriages between older men and much younger women were extremely common. And often extremely happy.

    You’re the one trying to impose your views on sexual preferences on other people.

    Anyone who claims to support monogamy must acknowledge this.

    In the Victorian era marriages between older men and much younger women were extremely common. It didn’t do any harm at all to monogamy.

    As long as both parties are over the age of consent men are entitled to be attracted to whatever type of women they choose, and women are entitled to be attracted to whatever type of men they choose.

    • Thanks: Jay Fink
    • Replies: @Rosie
    @dfordoom


    But Jay Fink is not using the term in that sense. He’s using it in the sense of its being commonplace, perfectly healthy and nobody else’s damn business.
     
    If you will recall, Mr. Fink's hypothetical involved him announcing on social media that he is attracted to young, slim women. If it is nobody else's damned business, then he should probably keep it to himself.

    Moreover, this whole "nobody else's damned business" thing is just liberal relativism that fails to take account of the immense harm that flows from inappropriate sexual desire.

    You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

    Matthew 5:27-28

     

    Now, being human, you cannot help this. I didn’t actually say there is anything wrong with Mr. Fink. Nor did I say Mr. Fink did anything wrong. What I said is that boasting on social media about being an adulterer of the heart (or, at minimum, a future adulterer of the heart) would be wrong.

    And often extremely happy.
     
    You can’t possibly know this, and modern data indicate that it is probably wrong.

    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-bigger-the-age-gap-the-shorter-the-marriage-2014-11-11

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Jay Fink, @dfordoom

    , @Curle
    @dfordoom

    “ Look back at history and you’ll find very healthy very functional societies (with high birth rates) in which marriages between older men and much younger women were extremely common. And often extremely happy.”

    You sound like Juliet Capulet’s dad. But, I suspect Juliet Capulet’s position was more the norm even then.

  7. As long as both parties are over the age of consent men are entitled to be attracted to whatever type of women they choose, and women are entitled to be attracted to whatever type of men they choose.

    It still looks yucky to see old geezers with trophy wives.

    And, I agree with Rosie that “the norm” should be that both are close to the same age.

    There is something seriously wrong with a 55 year old man who “thinks” that some hot 25 year old woman is “attracted” to him.

    “It doesn’t have to be physical attraction.” BS with a capital B.

    • Replies: @Jay Fink
    @iffen

    There is a difference between a 55 year old man being attracted to a hot 25 year old woman and him thinking she is attracted to him. Those are two different things.

    When I was a kid I recall my grandpa who was in his mid 70s (and married for 50 years) telling me he thought my neighbor, a hot 23 year old woman was very pretty. I was only 9 and felt the same way. I totally understood what my grandpa was thinking. I understood it then and I understand it now. Neither one of us were plotting to date her. We were attracted to her and enjoyed the attraction for what it was, not as a means to an end.

    Also in my original post I said "mostly younger" which does not necessarily mean 30 years younger.

    , @dfordoom
    @iffen



    As long as both parties are over the age of consent men are entitled to be attracted to whatever type of women they choose, and women are entitled to be attracted to whatever type of men they choose.
     
    It still looks yucky to see old geezers with trophy wives.

    And, I agree with Rosie that “the norm” should be that both are close to the same age.
     
    You're missing the point. It doesn't matter a damn if you (or I or Rosie) think it's yucky. It's not my business or your business or Rosie's business to tell either men or women who they should or should not be attracted to, or sleep with, or marry. Is anybody holding a gun to a 25-year-old woman's head and telling her she has to marry a 55-year-old man?

    What is it with people here thinking they should have the right to lecture other people about their choices in partners?

    This is why social conservatives always lose. Like SJWs and health nazis they're busybodies and control freaks. It antagonises normal people.

    As far as age differences between people in a relationship are concerned I simply have no opinion. It's none of my business.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  8. @iffen
    As long as both parties are over the age of consent men are entitled to be attracted to whatever type of women they choose, and women are entitled to be attracted to whatever type of men they choose.

    It still looks yucky to see old geezers with trophy wives.

    And, I agree with Rosie that "the norm" should be that both are close to the same age.

    There is something seriously wrong with a 55 year old man who "thinks" that some hot 25 year old woman is "attracted" to him.

    "It doesn't have to be physical attraction." BS with a capital B.

    Replies: @Jay Fink, @dfordoom

    There is a difference between a 55 year old man being attracted to a hot 25 year old woman and him thinking she is attracted to him. Those are two different things.

    When I was a kid I recall my grandpa who was in his mid 70s (and married for 50 years) telling me he thought my neighbor, a hot 23 year old woman was very pretty. I was only 9 and felt the same way. I totally understood what my grandpa was thinking. I understood it then and I understand it now. Neither one of us were plotting to date her. We were attracted to her and enjoyed the attraction for what it was, not as a means to an end.

    Also in my original post I said “mostly younger” which does not necessarily mean 30 years younger.

    • Agree: dfordoom, RadicalCenter
  9. @Rosie

    Jay Fink makes an observation illustrating why the phrase “clown world” resonates the way it does:
     
    Clown World is a thing, but this isn't a Clown World thing. This is rather a straightforward instance of the general rule that people shouldn't be a$$holes.

    To say that a preference is "normal" is to acknowledge that it goes without saying. Therefore, to sayit in so many words is to pile on and punch down. People don't like that.

    Moreover, ought does not follow from is. Men's attraction to younger, nulliparous women is, frankly, antisocial. It is advantageous for individual males, but destructive to society as a whole. Anyone who claims to support monogamy must acknowledge this. No one can be blamed for their preferences, but one can be blamed for offending people's social sensibilities by boasting about it.

    Replies: @Jay Fink, @GazaPlanet, @dfordoom, @Triteleia Laxa, @Chrisnonymous, @Anonymous, @Jim Christian, @Mario Partisan, @DanHessinMD, @AnotherDad, @Dumbo, @Rattus Norwegius

    Men’s attraction to younger, nulliparous women is, frankly, antisocial

    This attraction is a common reason for men and women to engage with society productively.

    It isn’t anti-social. You just don’t like it.

    • Agree: AnotherDad
  10. @Rosie

    Jay Fink makes an observation illustrating why the phrase “clown world” resonates the way it does:
     
    Clown World is a thing, but this isn't a Clown World thing. This is rather a straightforward instance of the general rule that people shouldn't be a$$holes.

    To say that a preference is "normal" is to acknowledge that it goes without saying. Therefore, to sayit in so many words is to pile on and punch down. People don't like that.

    Moreover, ought does not follow from is. Men's attraction to younger, nulliparous women is, frankly, antisocial. It is advantageous for individual males, but destructive to society as a whole. Anyone who claims to support monogamy must acknowledge this. No one can be blamed for their preferences, but one can be blamed for offending people's social sensibilities by boasting about it.

    Replies: @Jay Fink, @GazaPlanet, @dfordoom, @Triteleia Laxa, @Chrisnonymous, @Anonymous, @Jim Christian, @Mario Partisan, @DanHessinMD, @AnotherDad, @Dumbo, @Rattus Norwegius

    Men’s attraction to younger, nulliparous women is, frankly, antisocial.

    LOL. Yes, society would function so much better if men chasing women who were the most experienced and best educated. I’m sure skirt-chasing the 40-60 year olds would have no effect on the birthrate or fetal quality.

    • LOL: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Chrisnonymous


    LOL. Yes, society would function so much better if men chasing women who were the most experienced and best educated. I’m sure skirt-chasing the 40-60 year olds would have no effect on the birthrate or fetal quality.
     
    This is absurd. Of course, a man should pursue young women. Then he should marry one and stay with her for the rest of his life rather than going out and replacing her with a younger model. How is this controversial?

    Replies: @RadicalCenter

  11. TG says:

    “The U.S. of 1963 actually had much less income inequality than the U.S. of today. The newly created wealthy elites prefer the woke America of today over the unwoke America of 1963 because going back to something like 1963 would mean the loss of a large part of that additional wealth that has been transferred up to them.”

    Indeed! Which is why the lites are so utterly focused on using immigration to force population growth. Nothing beats the law of supply and demand: if there are two job openings and one qualified worker, the worker has a lot of leverage and the employers see their profits limited. And the reverse.

    Look at the faction of the economy going to wages and the fraction going to profits, there is a massive divergence around 1970. Just like there was around 1888….

    • Replies: @Mark G.
    @TG


    Nothing beats the law of supply and demand: if there are two job openings and one qualified worker, the worker has a lot of leverage and the employers see their profits limited. And the reverse.
     
    There was rapid economic growth in the fifty year period from 1865 to 1915 but it was combined with high levels of income inequality. The 1924 immigration act was one of the factors that helped to reduce this income inequality. It started increasing again after the 1965 immigration act opened the door to large scale immigration again.

    Another major factor was the adoption of an inflationary policy by the Fed. In the fifties the Fed chairman said the job of the Fed was to take the punch bowl away just as the party is getting started. LBJ decided to launch both a war on poverty and another war in Vietnam. To pay for the welfare-warfare state, rather than raise taxes it was decided to just print money. The inflation that was caused by this raised stock prices which helped the 10% of the population which owned 90% of the stocks. The inflation also raised domestic wages which made American workers less competitive on the world market and led to an outflow of jobs.

    The fifty year period from the end of World War I until the beginning of the Vietnam war was probably the golden age of the American middle class. It was also a golden age for American culture. It was an era of great novels, movies, music, art and architecture. Since 1965 we have gone from singers like Diana Ross to singers like Cardi B. The last fifty years is worse than the era before World War I because now we have the high levels of income inequality of that period but this time we have almost no economic growth.
  12. @GazaPlanet
    @Rosie

    "Men’s attraction to younger, nulliparous women is, frankly, antisocial."

    Says abortion supporting baggage, the vicious female not so much "punching down" as "tearing out." What about younger women's attraction to older "established" men? Is that anti-social too?

    "Wokeism" is just the latest "ideological" iteration of the brazen egotism of "liberal" sociopathy. There is no moral sensibility involved. For example, I don't believe most these people actually care about "racism." They know it is dangerous to express themselves frankly about racial matters, they know they can gain sympathy by affecting sympathy for drugged out criminals like George Floyd and hatred for white Christians. Some enjoy being bullies in the mob, they enjoy getting people fired and tirelessly working to destroy reputations, in some cases forming virtual hordes of mentally ill cyber-bullies. Ultimately, they express sentiments of "anti-racism" because they fear, directly or indirectly, the dominant social power of the Jews. For the same reason, they are mostly very uncomfortable with criticizing Jews for doing what they do to the Palestinians.

    Replies: @Rosie

    What about younger women’s attraction to older “established” men? Is that anti-social too?

    Most younger women are not attracted to older men. The overwhelming majority of women marry men very close to their own age, and the closer their age, the more likely the marriage will last.

    Nonetheless, for those women who are attracted to older, established men, yes, it very often is antisocial, especially if that older, established man is someone else’s husband. And if he is not someone else’s husband, he should be. After all, what has he been doing all these years? Pumping and dumping, I assume.

    • Replies: @JohnPlywood
    @Rosie

    Who people marry, in the 21st century United States, is not evidence of innate biological preference or attraction. There's a wealth of research to indicate that, on a raw, primal level, yes, women are attracted to older men. This may not translate over to marriages in this country, but it certainly does in the media, where old men and young women dominate, and in the third world where there is less political correctness. Feminists such as yourself have shamed old man - young woman couples to the extent that it's no longer socially acceptable for them to get married in the United States. A practice that has contributed fo widespread poverty, social dysfunction and declining marriage and birthrates there.

    Assuming women prefer men of a similar age, because of marriage patterns, would be like assuming white men prefer white women, because of the white men who get married, most marry white. Yet there's multiple studies confirming that white men rare Asian women's appearances, and also half-Asian composite faces, as more attractive than white women's.


    Most young people aren't even married in this country, and never will be again. There's a ton of sugar daddy relationships out there that you're not seeing in the marriage data.

    Replies: @Supply and Demand

  13. @Chrisnonymous
    @Rosie


    Men’s attraction to younger, nulliparous women is, frankly, antisocial.
     
    LOL. Yes, society would function so much better if men chasing women who were the most experienced and best educated. I'm sure skirt-chasing the 40-60 year olds would have no effect on the birthrate or fetal quality.

    Replies: @Rosie

    LOL. Yes, society would function so much better if men chasing women who were the most experienced and best educated. I’m sure skirt-chasing the 40-60 year olds would have no effect on the birthrate or fetal quality.

    This is absurd. Of course, a man should pursue young women. Then he should marry one and stay with her for the rest of his life rather than going out and replacing her with a younger model. How is this controversial?

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    @Rosie

    Wholeheartedly agree there, Rosie. But an older guy who is widowed, or who hasn’t been married yet for whatever reason, will naturally and instinctively try to get a much younger woman.

    Most crucially, if the man hopefully is aiming to be a father, he knows that a younger woman has a much greater chance of conceiving healthy children without major genetic problems and carrying them to term without harm to her or the babies. Then she’ll be alive to further love, guide, and help those children after the man dies (perhaps long after he dies, if she lives sensibly).

    My wife is more than a decade younger than I am. I specifically sought a much younger woman. Among other things, I knew that I wanted to have a larger family, God willing; as you well know, that is physically and mentally a lot of work for both parents, especially the woman (and especially later pregnancies). We have been blessed with numerous children, and that would have been either impossible or unsafe with a woman close to my age. Anyway, I don’t think you were criticizing this kind of couple, just noting our perspective.

    Replies: @Rosie

  14. Bitcoin is a pyramid scheme.

    Here’s to [Bitcoin’s] continued success!

    One cannot pay taxes with Bitcoin. Without the power to satisfy a tax bill, Bitcoin lacks value.

    There do exist obscure variants like LBRY tokens that have the power to satisfy a bill of sorts (in LBRY’s case, to satisfy the bill due for promotion of a video online), so their value is at least tethered to something; but Bitcoin’s value is tethered to nothing at all except its own network effect as far as I know.

    If you doubt me, consider shares in Lehman Brothers. A share in Lehman Brothers, a bankrupt company, lacks no relevant attribute a Bitcoin has. It is scarce. It is well-known. It is associated with a network. It is electronically exchangeable. There is no way to acquire one except from a person who has one and will trade it to you.

    But no one ever thought that shares in Lehman Brothers were money.

    I do not believe that Bitcoin can suspend itself in midair by the back of its own belt forever. Bitcoin is a fascinating farce. You can buy if you like. If I had a Bitcoin, I would gladly sell it to you.

    • Replies: @anon
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Bitcoin is a pyramid scheme.

    Nope. Suggest you look into exactly what Charles Ponzi and others, including Bernie Madoff, were actually doing. Compare and contrast with the finite number of Bitcoins.

    One cannot pay taxes with Bitcoin.

    Nor can one pay taxes with gold coin. Yet your local coin dealer believes a 1 ounce Kruggerand has value.

    Without the power to satisfy a tax bill, Bitcoin lacks value.

    Ridiculous.

    , @AnotherDad
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I don't think Bitcoin is a pyramid scheme. It's simply a hard--libertarian, autistic--cope.

    The bottom line is this point:

    One cannot pay taxes with Bitcoin.

    The problem remains--as it always has been--the guys with the guns. Since the neolithic agricultural revolution the "guys-with-guns"--before that with swords and bows, before that pikes and clubs--could demand stuff from productive people.

    The US Constitution was conceived as a reasonable republican restraint upon that. (Limited government of productive people governing themselves.) But 50+ now of minoritarianism have pretty much eviscerated that. Lots of other places are even worse.

    That's the problem. You can try and fix your local situation. You can move. But there is no techno "fix" to this problem. The idea there is a yet another clueless techno-libertarian cope.

  15. @dfordoom
    @Rosie


    To say that a preference is “normal” is to acknowledge that it goes without saying. Therefore, to sayit in so many words is to pile on and punch down. People don’t like that.
     
    It depends on exactly what you mean by "normal". If you mean that a particular sexual preference is the only acceptable sexual preference then yes, that could be seen as imposing that preference on others and that could be seen as offensive. If someone argued that the only acceptable sexual preference for men was for young busty blondes then that would indeed be problematic (as our liberal friends would say).

    But Jay Fink is not using the term in that sense. He's using it in the sense of its being commonplace, perfectly healthy and nobody else's damn business.

    For a man to be attracted to pretty young women (over the age of consent) is very commonplace, perfectly healthy and very much nobody else's damn business. He is not arguing that that particular attraction is the only acceptable attraction and he is certainly not trying to impose it on anybody else.

    Moreover, ought does not follow from is. Men’s attraction to younger, nulliparous women is, frankly, antisocial.
     
    That's complete nonsense. Look back at history and you'll find very healthy very functional societies (with high birth rates) in which marriages between older men and much younger women were extremely common. And often extremely happy.

    You're the one trying to impose your views on sexual preferences on other people.

    Anyone who claims to support monogamy must acknowledge this.
     
    In the Victorian era marriages between older men and much younger women were extremely common. It didn't do any harm at all to monogamy.

    As long as both parties are over the age of consent men are entitled to be attracted to whatever type of women they choose, and women are entitled to be attracted to whatever type of men they choose.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Curle

    But Jay Fink is not using the term in that sense. He’s using it in the sense of its being commonplace, perfectly healthy and nobody else’s damn business.

    If you will recall, Mr. Fink’s hypothetical involved him announcing on social media that he is attracted to young, slim women. If it is nobody else’s damned business, then he should probably keep it to himself.

    Moreover, this whole “nobody else’s damned business” thing is just liberal relativism that fails to take account of the immense harm that flows from inappropriate sexual desire.

    You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

    Matthew 5:27-28

    Now, being human, you cannot help this. I didn’t actually say there is anything wrong with Mr. Fink. Nor did I say Mr. Fink did anything wrong. What I said is that boasting on social media about being an adulterer of the heart (or, at minimum, a future adulterer of the heart) would be wrong.

    And often extremely happy.

    You can’t possibly know this, and modern data indicate that it is probably wrong.

    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-bigger-the-age-gap-the-shorter-the-marriage-2014-11-11

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Rosie


    If you will recall, Mr. Fink’s hypothetical involved him announcing on social media that he is attracted to young, slim women. If it is nobody else’s damned business, then he should probably keep it to himself.
     
    You missed his point completely. He wasn't saying that he had any intention of announcing such a thing on social media and he wasn't suggesting that anyone should do so. He was making the point that some kinds of sexual preferences (which in this case happen to be perfectly legal heterosexual preferences) nowadays attract social disapproval while other sexual preferences (that happen to fall outside the range of normal heterosexuality) attract strong social approval.

    This is part of the attempt to denormalise heterosexuality. Heterosexuality is becoming The Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Rosie, @Paperback Writer, @Paperback Writer

    , @Jay Fink
    @Rosie

    Don't forget I compared it to confessing on social media that you are gay or transsexual. What triggered that thought is that a few years ago I had a FB friend confess he was gay. I saw the overwhelming amount of love and support he got.

    Replies: @RSDB

    , @dfordoom
    @Rosie

    Let's put it this way. If you had a social media account and you posted a picture of an attractive 19-year-old male and you said, "I'm a 45-year-old gay man and I think this guy is so hot" you'd get hundreds of Likes.

    If you posted a picture of an attractive 19-year-old girl and you said, "I'm a 45-year-old heterosexual man and I think this girl is so hot" you'd get an incredibly hostile response and lots of people would defriend you.

    This is a point I've tried to make before - what we have today is a culture which celebrates sexual libertinism for homosexuals and trannssexuals and promotes puritanism for heterosexuals.

  16. @iffen
    As long as both parties are over the age of consent men are entitled to be attracted to whatever type of women they choose, and women are entitled to be attracted to whatever type of men they choose.

    It still looks yucky to see old geezers with trophy wives.

    And, I agree with Rosie that "the norm" should be that both are close to the same age.

    There is something seriously wrong with a 55 year old man who "thinks" that some hot 25 year old woman is "attracted" to him.

    "It doesn't have to be physical attraction." BS with a capital B.

    Replies: @Jay Fink, @dfordoom

    As long as both parties are over the age of consent men are entitled to be attracted to whatever type of women they choose, and women are entitled to be attracted to whatever type of men they choose.

    It still looks yucky to see old geezers with trophy wives.

    And, I agree with Rosie that “the norm” should be that both are close to the same age.

    You’re missing the point. It doesn’t matter a damn if you (or I or Rosie) think it’s yucky. It’s not my business or your business or Rosie’s business to tell either men or women who they should or should not be attracted to, or sleep with, or marry. Is anybody holding a gun to a 25-year-old woman’s head and telling her she has to marry a 55-year-old man?

    What is it with people here thinking they should have the right to lecture other people about their choices in partners?

    This is why social conservatives always lose. Like SJWs and health nazis they’re busybodies and control freaks. It antagonises normal people.

    As far as age differences between people in a relationship are concerned I simply have no opinion. It’s none of my business.

    • Agree: Adam Smith
    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @dfordoom


    This is why social conservatives always lose. Like SJWs and health nazis they’re busybodies and control freaks. It antagonises normal people.
     
    They fail to realise how arrogantly they come across. They tell people, who are only an abstraction to them, that their individual and complex life choices are incorrect.

    Epistemologically, this is equivalent to texting a random mobile number to instruct the receiver to throw out their wardrobe and go buy only clothes of a certain size, colour and fit.
  17. @Rosie
    @dfordoom


    But Jay Fink is not using the term in that sense. He’s using it in the sense of its being commonplace, perfectly healthy and nobody else’s damn business.
     
    If you will recall, Mr. Fink's hypothetical involved him announcing on social media that he is attracted to young, slim women. If it is nobody else's damned business, then he should probably keep it to himself.

    Moreover, this whole "nobody else's damned business" thing is just liberal relativism that fails to take account of the immense harm that flows from inappropriate sexual desire.

    You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

    Matthew 5:27-28

     

    Now, being human, you cannot help this. I didn’t actually say there is anything wrong with Mr. Fink. Nor did I say Mr. Fink did anything wrong. What I said is that boasting on social media about being an adulterer of the heart (or, at minimum, a future adulterer of the heart) would be wrong.

    And often extremely happy.
     
    You can’t possibly know this, and modern data indicate that it is probably wrong.

    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-bigger-the-age-gap-the-shorter-the-marriage-2014-11-11

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Jay Fink, @dfordoom

    If you will recall, Mr. Fink’s hypothetical involved him announcing on social media that he is attracted to young, slim women. If it is nobody else’s damned business, then he should probably keep it to himself.

    You missed his point completely. He wasn’t saying that he had any intention of announcing such a thing on social media and he wasn’t suggesting that anyone should do so. He was making the point that some kinds of sexual preferences (which in this case happen to be perfectly legal heterosexual preferences) nowadays attract social disapproval while other sexual preferences (that happen to fall outside the range of normal heterosexuality) attract strong social approval.

    This is part of the attempt to denormalise heterosexuality. Heterosexuality is becoming The Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom

    Rosie is a one-woman illustration of why, when our civilization is rebuilt from the ashes, the women's franchise will have vanished along with the rest of women's emancipation.

    Her behavior is perfectly normal female behavior.

    No one has asked my opinion regarding marriage and the relative ages of grooms and brides, so I will give my opinion anyway. I strongly agree with you: it's no one's business but the couple's—and I don't mean that in a libertarian way. I mean that old men have been marrying young women since the days of the patriarchs.

    However, most marriages of the kind of which you speak are second marriages of men who already have children. It's hard on the children. If a man can bear his loneliness for his children's sake, as St. Paul recommends, that is admirable. There is a reason Tolkien's great novel The Lord of the Rings is motivated, at its root, by the grand tragedy that unfolds from the second marriage of Galadriel's grandfather.

    If a man cannot bear his loneliness, ... well, that is a very old tale and no blame to him, but as the late Barry Farber observed, it is indeed unseemly when a man marries a woman who is too young even to have babysat his children.

    Notwithstanding, as I said, I wholly agree with you, because the entire history of civilization stands on your side.

    Replies: @Rosie

    , @Rosie
    @dfordoom

    I get that, but what I am telling you is that attraction to younger women is, however "normal" it may be, at least as threatening to the social order as homosexuality. Indeed, the very fact that it is "normal" may make it a great deal more so.

    A 2020 poll revealed that a whopping 15.9% of Gen Z identifies as LGBTQ*#&"&>÷&÷&:*÷>@`. As we know from AE's recent post on the matter, bisexuals are mostly heterosexual. Hence, the need to progress to physical mutilation to further disrupt the surprisingly durable heterosexual norm.


    This is why social conservatives always lose. Like SJWs and health nazis they’re busybodies and control freaks. It antagonises normal people.
     
    Do-as-you-please moral relativism is popular. News at 11.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @My SIMPLE Pseudonymic Handle

    , @Paperback Writer
    @dfordoom


    You missed his point completely.

     

    You're talking to Rosie, that's taken for granted. /grins/

    Only nitpick: we can't read Rosie's mind. She distorted.
    , @Paperback Writer
    @dfordoom

    And yet, the overwhelming majority of my PMC (professional managerial class) friends are married with children.

    Marriage and children are NOT going out of style. Richard Spencer of all people pointed out in a discussion with Ed Dutton that PMCs have a higher birthrate than working class (although, as Dutton countered, there are more of the working class than PMCs).

    Let's stop catastrophizing. Let's start explaining.

    What explains the disconnect?

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  18. @TG
    "The U.S. of 1963 actually had much less income inequality than the U.S. of today. The newly created wealthy elites prefer the woke America of today over the unwoke America of 1963 because going back to something like 1963 would mean the loss of a large part of that additional wealth that has been transferred up to them."

    Indeed! Which is why the lites are so utterly focused on using immigration to force population growth. Nothing beats the law of supply and demand: if there are two job openings and one qualified worker, the worker has a lot of leverage and the employers see their profits limited. And the reverse.

    Look at the faction of the economy going to wages and the fraction going to profits, there is a massive divergence around 1970. Just like there was around 1888....

    Replies: @Mark G.

    Nothing beats the law of supply and demand: if there are two job openings and one qualified worker, the worker has a lot of leverage and the employers see their profits limited. And the reverse.

    There was rapid economic growth in the fifty year period from 1865 to 1915 but it was combined with high levels of income inequality. The 1924 immigration act was one of the factors that helped to reduce this income inequality. It started increasing again after the 1965 immigration act opened the door to large scale immigration again.

    Another major factor was the adoption of an inflationary policy by the Fed. In the fifties the Fed chairman said the job of the Fed was to take the punch bowl away just as the party is getting started. LBJ decided to launch both a war on poverty and another war in Vietnam. To pay for the welfare-warfare state, rather than raise taxes it was decided to just print money. The inflation that was caused by this raised stock prices which helped the 10% of the population which owned 90% of the stocks. The inflation also raised domestic wages which made American workers less competitive on the world market and led to an outflow of jobs.

    The fifty year period from the end of World War I until the beginning of the Vietnam war was probably the golden age of the American middle class. It was also a golden age for American culture. It was an era of great novels, movies, music, art and architecture. Since 1965 we have gone from singers like Diana Ross to singers like Cardi B. The last fifty years is worse than the era before World War I because now we have the high levels of income inequality of that period but this time we have almost no economic growth.

  19. @Rosie
    @dfordoom


    But Jay Fink is not using the term in that sense. He’s using it in the sense of its being commonplace, perfectly healthy and nobody else’s damn business.
     
    If you will recall, Mr. Fink's hypothetical involved him announcing on social media that he is attracted to young, slim women. If it is nobody else's damned business, then he should probably keep it to himself.

    Moreover, this whole "nobody else's damned business" thing is just liberal relativism that fails to take account of the immense harm that flows from inappropriate sexual desire.

    You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

    Matthew 5:27-28

     

    Now, being human, you cannot help this. I didn’t actually say there is anything wrong with Mr. Fink. Nor did I say Mr. Fink did anything wrong. What I said is that boasting on social media about being an adulterer of the heart (or, at minimum, a future adulterer of the heart) would be wrong.

    And often extremely happy.
     
    You can’t possibly know this, and modern data indicate that it is probably wrong.

    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-bigger-the-age-gap-the-shorter-the-marriage-2014-11-11

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Jay Fink, @dfordoom

    Don’t forget I compared it to confessing on social media that you are gay or transsexual. What triggered that thought is that a few years ago I had a FB friend confess he was gay. I saw the overwhelming amount of love and support he got.

    • Replies: @RSDB
    @Jay Fink

    Supposing the man in the other instance had instead said that he was only or primarily attracted to ... conventionally attractive men, mostly younger than me, not obese etc, would he have gotten the same outpouring of support?

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Jay Fink

  20. @dfordoom
    @Rosie


    If you will recall, Mr. Fink’s hypothetical involved him announcing on social media that he is attracted to young, slim women. If it is nobody else’s damned business, then he should probably keep it to himself.
     
    You missed his point completely. He wasn't saying that he had any intention of announcing such a thing on social media and he wasn't suggesting that anyone should do so. He was making the point that some kinds of sexual preferences (which in this case happen to be perfectly legal heterosexual preferences) nowadays attract social disapproval while other sexual preferences (that happen to fall outside the range of normal heterosexuality) attract strong social approval.

    This is part of the attempt to denormalise heterosexuality. Heterosexuality is becoming The Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Rosie, @Paperback Writer, @Paperback Writer

    Rosie is a one-woman illustration of why, when our civilization is rebuilt from the ashes, the women’s franchise will have vanished along with the rest of women’s emancipation.

    Her behavior is perfectly normal female behavior.

    No one has asked my opinion regarding marriage and the relative ages of grooms and brides, so I will give my opinion anyway. I strongly agree with you: it’s no one’s business but the couple’s—and I don’t mean that in a libertarian way. I mean that old men have been marrying young women since the days of the patriarchs.

    However, most marriages of the kind of which you speak are second marriages of men who already have children. It’s hard on the children. If a man can bear his loneliness for his children’s sake, as St. Paul recommends, that is admirable. There is a reason Tolkien’s great novel The Lord of the Rings is motivated, at its root, by the grand tragedy that unfolds from the second marriage of Galadriel’s grandfather.

    If a man cannot bear his loneliness, … well, that is a very old tale and no blame to him, but as the late Barry Farber observed, it is indeed unseemly when a man marries a woman who is too young even to have babysat his children.

    Notwithstanding, as I said, I wholly agree with you, because the entire history of civilization stands on your side.

    • LOL: Rosie
    • Replies: @Rosie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Rosie is a one-woman illustration of why, when our civilization is rebuilt from the ashes, the women’s franchise will have vanished along with the rest of women’s emancipation.
     
    Dream on.

    Notwithstanding, as I said, I wholly agree with you, because the entire history of civilization stands on your side.
     
    It is not the history of civilization that stands on his side, but rather the history of violence, barbarism, and the most appalling degeneracy. If old men are marrying young women, what are the young men doing? Whoremongering? Dying in combat? A little from column A and a little from column B.

    "It is not good that the man should be alone. "
    -God

    Replies: @dfordoom

  21. @Rosie
    @GazaPlanet


    What about younger women’s attraction to older “established” men? Is that anti-social too?
     
    Most younger women are not attracted to older men. The overwhelming majority of women marry men very close to their own age, and the closer their age, the more likely the marriage will last.

    Nonetheless, for those women who are attracted to older, established men, yes, it very often is antisocial, especially if that older, established man is someone else's husband. And if he is not someone else's husband, he should be. After all, what has he been doing all these years? Pumping and dumping, I assume.

    Replies: @JohnPlywood

    Who people marry, in the 21st century United States, is not evidence of innate biological preference or attraction. There’s a wealth of research to indicate that, on a raw, primal level, yes, women are attracted to older men. This may not translate over to marriages in this country, but it certainly does in the media, where old men and young women dominate, and in the third world where there is less political correctness. Feminists such as yourself have shamed old man – young woman couples to the extent that it’s no longer socially acceptable for them to get married in the United States. A practice that has contributed fo widespread poverty, social dysfunction and declining marriage and birthrates there.

    Assuming women prefer men of a similar age, because of marriage patterns, would be like assuming white men prefer white women, because of the white men who get married, most marry white. Yet there’s multiple studies confirming that white men rare Asian women’s appearances, and also half-Asian composite faces, as more attractive than white women’s.

    Most young people aren’t even married in this country, and never will be again. There’s a ton of sugar daddy relationships out there that you’re not seeing in the marriage data.

    • Agree: Supply and Demand
    • Replies: @Supply and Demand
    @JohnPlywood

    It's not worth arguing with this dusty old crone.

    As an American millennial retarded enough to marry another millennial in my early 20s, I advise every young white millennial/zoomer on a study abroad here to avoid American women their age like the plague. They are demonic.

    American women can be displaced and replaced with Eastern Europeans and Asians.

  22. @Jay Fink
    @Rosie

    Don't forget I compared it to confessing on social media that you are gay or transsexual. What triggered that thought is that a few years ago I had a FB friend confess he was gay. I saw the overwhelming amount of love and support he got.

    Replies: @RSDB

    Supposing the man in the other instance had instead said that he was only or primarily attracted to … conventionally attractive men, mostly younger than me, not obese etc, would he have gotten the same outpouring of support?

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @RSDB


    Supposing the man in the other instance had instead said that he was only or primarily attracted to … conventionally attractive men, mostly younger than me, not obese etc, would he have gotten the same outpouring of support?
     
    My guess is that the answer is yes.

    If you're a male homosexual or you're trans you're largely immune to criticism and everything you do gets celebrated. If you're heterosexual you're constantly walking on eggshells. You have to constantly self-police.

    Oddly enough lesbians are to some extent in the same position as heterosexual men. Being a lesbian is no longer a Get Out of Jail free card. God help you if you're a lesbian and you admit that you're not attracted to fat women or men in frocks who claim to be lesbians.
    , @Jay Fink
    @RSDB

    Good question. My guess is it would have lowered the enthusiam he was receiving to a small degree (he occasionally posts pictures of young men he finds attractive but nobody cares one way or another). But I don't think it would cause the anger a heterosexual man would get with those same stated preferences. Part of this is because many women would be indifferent towards the gay male preference but would be offended at the straight male preference.

  23. @dfordoom
    @Rosie


    If you will recall, Mr. Fink’s hypothetical involved him announcing on social media that he is attracted to young, slim women. If it is nobody else’s damned business, then he should probably keep it to himself.
     
    You missed his point completely. He wasn't saying that he had any intention of announcing such a thing on social media and he wasn't suggesting that anyone should do so. He was making the point that some kinds of sexual preferences (which in this case happen to be perfectly legal heterosexual preferences) nowadays attract social disapproval while other sexual preferences (that happen to fall outside the range of normal heterosexuality) attract strong social approval.

    This is part of the attempt to denormalise heterosexuality. Heterosexuality is becoming The Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Rosie, @Paperback Writer, @Paperback Writer

    I get that, but what I am telling you is that attraction to younger women is, however “normal” it may be, at least as threatening to the social order as homosexuality. Indeed, the very fact that it is “normal” may make it a great deal more so.

    A 2020 poll revealed that a whopping 15.9% of Gen Z identifies as LGBTQ*#&”&>÷&÷&:*÷>@`. As we know from AE’s recent post on the matter, bisexuals are mostly heterosexual. Hence, the need to progress to physical mutilation to further disrupt the surprisingly durable heterosexual norm.

    This is why social conservatives always lose. Like SJWs and health nazis they’re busybodies and control freaks. It antagonises normal people.

    Do-as-you-please moral relativism is popular. News at 11.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Rosie


    I get that, but what I am telling you is that attraction to younger women is, however “normal” it may be, at least as threatening to the social order as homosexuality.
     
    I still can't figure out the logic of that.

    I think you're confusing two separate issues. You're worried about middle-aged married men dumping their wives for younger women. That is a bad thing but it's a separate issue. That's an issue related to monogamy and commitment to marriage. Which is important, but as I said, it's a separate issue.

    Let's say a man is 50 years old and he's never married. Or he's a widower. Or his wife has dumped him. In those cases would you see any problem if he married a 25-year-old woman?

    I'm trying to clarify whether it's the age difference thing or the monogamy thing that bothers you.

    If it's the monogamy thing then I more or less agree with you that monogamy is highly desirable and commitment to marriage is highly desirable.

    Replies: @Rosie

    , @My SIMPLE Pseudonymic Handle
    @Rosie

    What you fail to take into account is the history of humankind over the past couple million years.

    If you accept the notion that humans evolved from lower primates to great apes to proto-humans to the final product modern humans. We see that each involves a type of culture and society used to control behavior.

    If we look at the lower primates, for the most part, only the dominate males get to procreate. Violence is used to enforce the rules by dominate males. Although, in this form of society King of the Mountain is the primary driver and kings are replaced quite often through old age or death.



    For the great apes large dominate males still rule but sexual exclusion for young males is enforced by the females preference for older dominate males. This can be seen quite easily in chimpanzees. Although bonobos present a different form of society. Another outlier is orangutans.

    Marriage for love was unheard of until fairly recently and has only really been acknowledged for the last couple hundred years. Before that arranged marriages was the acceptable practice. In fact it's still a traditional way of getting married in of all places India. As well as other cultures. It was generally accepted to marry off females that had reached the age of puberty to older, hopefully financially well off older males. Older men marrying young females was acceptable as far back as colonial times. Societies in the past only considered females for their child bearing abilities and their ability to run a household. Stifling as it sounds but that's the way it was.

    Females in the past needed men for their ability to provide protection against marauding males and the ability to hunt and bring home the proverbial bacon. Obviously males needed women to bear and raise the children and keep the household. As provincial as that sounds that's the way societies were formed. Were there anomalies to this form of society. Yes there were, but they were few and far between.

    You might think these practices are parochial or barbaric but other cultures and societies think it's normal. Even up to WW2 women were expected to get married and have children and run the household. It really wasn't until WW2 that job/career opportunities opened up for women in general. Before that women were relegated to secretary/hospitality/services work.

    Progressives (Soviets) may like to think they can mold the New Soviet Man but you can't override millions of years of conditioning with a political slogan. Everything going on now is an aberration. Eventually the pendulum will swing back to what it was before because female emancipation and homosexuality does not produce the next generation. You can try to form a society around babies conceived in a bottle and raised by the state as in the novel Brave New World. But, you'll only end up with a society that closely resembles that of fatherless blacks in Democrat run ghettos.

    We can look at elephants as an observable example. Young elephants are raised by their mother's with the help of other female elephants in the herd. When young males reach a certain age, before musk, they are pushed out of the herd for the following reason. When male elephants reach puberty they enter musk. Musk drives the young males berserk. They go on a rampage destroying everything and anything they see. They're so full of testosterone they think they can destroy the world and attempt to do so. That's why they're kicked out of the herd. Out on the African plain the young males run into the old bulls and the old bulls not only have the size but the strength to push back against the young bulls which helps to temper the young bull's testosterone fueled drive to smash and destroy. This has been going on for millions of years since the first elephants walked the Earth. Do you think you can change this type of behavior anytime soon? Other than castrating the poor boys.

    A good example of this phenomenon can be seen in of all places the TV series Rick and Morty.

    When you get a chance watch Season 1 Episode 7 Raising Gazorpazorp.

    For some reason progressives seem to think they can override millions of years of genetic programming.

    Replies: @Rosie

  24. @Rosie
    @dfordoom


    But Jay Fink is not using the term in that sense. He’s using it in the sense of its being commonplace, perfectly healthy and nobody else’s damn business.
     
    If you will recall, Mr. Fink's hypothetical involved him announcing on social media that he is attracted to young, slim women. If it is nobody else's damned business, then he should probably keep it to himself.

    Moreover, this whole "nobody else's damned business" thing is just liberal relativism that fails to take account of the immense harm that flows from inappropriate sexual desire.

    You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

    Matthew 5:27-28

     

    Now, being human, you cannot help this. I didn’t actually say there is anything wrong with Mr. Fink. Nor did I say Mr. Fink did anything wrong. What I said is that boasting on social media about being an adulterer of the heart (or, at minimum, a future adulterer of the heart) would be wrong.

    And often extremely happy.
     
    You can’t possibly know this, and modern data indicate that it is probably wrong.

    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-bigger-the-age-gap-the-shorter-the-marriage-2014-11-11

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Jay Fink, @dfordoom

    Let’s put it this way. If you had a social media account and you posted a picture of an attractive 19-year-old male and you said, “I’m a 45-year-old gay man and I think this guy is so hot” you’d get hundreds of Likes.

    If you posted a picture of an attractive 19-year-old girl and you said, “I’m a 45-year-old heterosexual man and I think this girl is so hot” you’d get an incredibly hostile response and lots of people would defriend you.

    This is a point I’ve tried to make before – what we have today is a culture which celebrates sexual libertinism for homosexuals and trannssexuals and promotes puritanism for heterosexuals.

    • Agree: Jay Fink
    • Disagree: Corvinus
  25. @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom

    Rosie is a one-woman illustration of why, when our civilization is rebuilt from the ashes, the women's franchise will have vanished along with the rest of women's emancipation.

    Her behavior is perfectly normal female behavior.

    No one has asked my opinion regarding marriage and the relative ages of grooms and brides, so I will give my opinion anyway. I strongly agree with you: it's no one's business but the couple's—and I don't mean that in a libertarian way. I mean that old men have been marrying young women since the days of the patriarchs.

    However, most marriages of the kind of which you speak are second marriages of men who already have children. It's hard on the children. If a man can bear his loneliness for his children's sake, as St. Paul recommends, that is admirable. There is a reason Tolkien's great novel The Lord of the Rings is motivated, at its root, by the grand tragedy that unfolds from the second marriage of Galadriel's grandfather.

    If a man cannot bear his loneliness, ... well, that is a very old tale and no blame to him, but as the late Barry Farber observed, it is indeed unseemly when a man marries a woman who is too young even to have babysat his children.

    Notwithstanding, as I said, I wholly agree with you, because the entire history of civilization stands on your side.

    Replies: @Rosie

    Rosie is a one-woman illustration of why, when our civilization is rebuilt from the ashes, the women’s franchise will have vanished along with the rest of women’s emancipation.

    Dream on.

    Notwithstanding, as I said, I wholly agree with you, because the entire history of civilization stands on your side.

    It is not the history of civilization that stands on his side, but rather the history of violence, barbarism, and the most appalling degeneracy. If old men are marrying young women, what are the young men doing? Whoremongering? Dying in combat? A little from column A and a little from column B.

    “It is not good that the man should be alone. ”
    -God

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Rosie


    It is not the history of civilization that stands on his side, but rather the history of violence, barbarism, and the most appalling degeneracy. If old men are marrying young women, what are the young men doing? Whoremongering? Dying in combat? A little from column A and a little from column B.
     
    Now you're changing the subject again.

    Oddly enough, you're also launching a bitter attack on western civilisation.

    I also detest the history of violence and barbarism that is the history of our civilisation. I think my posting history makes that clear. I'm pretty close to being a pacifist for goodness' sake.

    I'm not sure I agree that the history of our civilisation is a history of the most appalling degeneracy.

    Replies: @Rosie

  26. Anonymous[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Jay Fink makes an observation illustrating why the phrase “clown world” resonates the way it does:
     
    Clown World is a thing, but this isn't a Clown World thing. This is rather a straightforward instance of the general rule that people shouldn't be a$$holes.

    To say that a preference is "normal" is to acknowledge that it goes without saying. Therefore, to sayit in so many words is to pile on and punch down. People don't like that.

    Moreover, ought does not follow from is. Men's attraction to younger, nulliparous women is, frankly, antisocial. It is advantageous for individual males, but destructive to society as a whole. Anyone who claims to support monogamy must acknowledge this. No one can be blamed for their preferences, but one can be blamed for offending people's social sensibilities by boasting about it.

    Replies: @Jay Fink, @GazaPlanet, @dfordoom, @Triteleia Laxa, @Chrisnonymous, @Anonymous, @Jim Christian, @Mario Partisan, @DanHessinMD, @AnotherDad, @Dumbo, @Rattus Norwegius

    If men’s attraction to younger women is anti-social, please explain the consequences affecting our country.

    Men’s attraction to younger women isn’t contributing to the low rate of marriage, higher rate of suicide and alcohol/drug abuse, higher rate of mental illness, stubboenly low fertility rates, the insane and unnecessarily high cost of housing/living, price gouging, etc.

    These are the most pressing anti-social problems that exist in our society, and younger women marrying older men could have reduced them. Instead, women were shamed by feminists such as yourself for preferring older men, and increasingly remained single.

    So it’s obvious your fixation on the “anti-sociality” of older men preferring younger women is motivated by an entirely self-centered personal hatred for natural selection. You yourself are the anti-social one. There’s absolutely nothing about older men’s preference for younger women that is contributing to the social decay that has afflicted our society. It’s just something you don’t like, because you’re old and you hate men.

    Complain about the low fertility rate, the persistently high of suicide and substance abuse, the skyrocketing price of housing driven by the greed of your own generation… But not older men’s preferences… That never caused any problems for society. It’s just something you don’t like, because it makes you feel like you’re not the most important human being in the world who is in control of all things.

  27. @RSDB
    @Jay Fink

    Supposing the man in the other instance had instead said that he was only or primarily attracted to ... conventionally attractive men, mostly younger than me, not obese etc, would he have gotten the same outpouring of support?

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Jay Fink

    Supposing the man in the other instance had instead said that he was only or primarily attracted to … conventionally attractive men, mostly younger than me, not obese etc, would he have gotten the same outpouring of support?

    My guess is that the answer is yes.

    If you’re a male homosexual or you’re trans you’re largely immune to criticism and everything you do gets celebrated. If you’re heterosexual you’re constantly walking on eggshells. You have to constantly self-police.

    Oddly enough lesbians are to some extent in the same position as heterosexual men. Being a lesbian is no longer a Get Out of Jail free card. God help you if you’re a lesbian and you admit that you’re not attracted to fat women or men in frocks who claim to be lesbians.

  28. @Rosie

    Jay Fink makes an observation illustrating why the phrase “clown world” resonates the way it does:
     
    Clown World is a thing, but this isn't a Clown World thing. This is rather a straightforward instance of the general rule that people shouldn't be a$$holes.

    To say that a preference is "normal" is to acknowledge that it goes without saying. Therefore, to sayit in so many words is to pile on and punch down. People don't like that.

    Moreover, ought does not follow from is. Men's attraction to younger, nulliparous women is, frankly, antisocial. It is advantageous for individual males, but destructive to society as a whole. Anyone who claims to support monogamy must acknowledge this. No one can be blamed for their preferences, but one can be blamed for offending people's social sensibilities by boasting about it.

    Replies: @Jay Fink, @GazaPlanet, @dfordoom, @Triteleia Laxa, @Chrisnonymous, @Anonymous, @Jim Christian, @Mario Partisan, @DanHessinMD, @AnotherDad, @Dumbo, @Rattus Norwegius

    Men’s attraction to younger, nulliparous women is, frankly, antisocial.

    Well, antisocial towards fatties, women who are way past their stale dates, women who are old enough to have learned how to be hideous, feminist shrews. It is feminists who hate youth and beauty in women, which is itself antisocial. Feminism makes women who take up that putrid mindset intolerable, mannish and fat. They deserve rejection and scorn. They deserve banishment to their own camps, they’re unfit for public view. They aren’t part of any decent citizens’ society. They are themselves terribly antisocial.

    You really comfort yourself with that ironic little twist of the script, Rosie? That men chasing beauty is antisocial? Yer a hoot.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Jim Christian

    Jim, you should know as well as any reader how much I despise optics-cucking. That's almost as much as I despise white knights and other assorted simps, so I'm with you.

    But you can't get anywhere this way. Your comment simply corners a woman like Rosie. Women are irrational, not incapable. Our civilization cannot survive the blowback from cornered women. No civilization could.

    You've got to leave them a dignified way out. As long as you do, women like Rosie are great. Who else would put up with all our disorderly, irresponsible nonsense, after all, but the wives who irrationally love us?

    Such women won't leave you and me a dignified way out. They'll corner us, or try to, as naturally as they breathe. I realize this, but that is why the weight of civilization rests on our shoulders, not theirs.

    It's worth remembering the next time one's wife packs one's lunch and washes one's socks.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Jim Christian

  29. @Rosie
    @dfordoom

    I get that, but what I am telling you is that attraction to younger women is, however "normal" it may be, at least as threatening to the social order as homosexuality. Indeed, the very fact that it is "normal" may make it a great deal more so.

    A 2020 poll revealed that a whopping 15.9% of Gen Z identifies as LGBTQ*#&"&>÷&÷&:*÷>@`. As we know from AE's recent post on the matter, bisexuals are mostly heterosexual. Hence, the need to progress to physical mutilation to further disrupt the surprisingly durable heterosexual norm.


    This is why social conservatives always lose. Like SJWs and health nazis they’re busybodies and control freaks. It antagonises normal people.
     
    Do-as-you-please moral relativism is popular. News at 11.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @My SIMPLE Pseudonymic Handle

    I get that, but what I am telling you is that attraction to younger women is, however “normal” it may be, at least as threatening to the social order as homosexuality.

    I still can’t figure out the logic of that.

    I think you’re confusing two separate issues. You’re worried about middle-aged married men dumping their wives for younger women. That is a bad thing but it’s a separate issue. That’s an issue related to monogamy and commitment to marriage. Which is important, but as I said, it’s a separate issue.

    Let’s say a man is 50 years old and he’s never married. Or he’s a widower. Or his wife has dumped him. In those cases would you see any problem if he married a 25-year-old woman?

    I’m trying to clarify whether it’s the age difference thing or the monogamy thing that bothers you.

    If it’s the monogamy thing then I more or less agree with you that monogamy is highly desirable and commitment to marriage is highly desirable.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @dfordoom


    it’s a separate issue.
     
    Not really. You are attempting to separate what is inextricably linked.

    Let’s say a man is 50 years old and he’s never married.
     
    Why not and what has he been up to all this time?

    Or he’s a widower. Or his wife has dumped him. In those cases would you see any problem if he married a 25-year-old woman?
     
    If you acknowledge the possibility that a wife may dump a husband, do you likewise acknowledge that a husband may dump a wife? If so, do you consider the interest of the dumped 50-year-old wife to be equal to, or less than, the interests of the 50-year-old dumped husband?

    If the woman's interests matter to you, it would seem that you would have to acknowledge that it would be better if your hypothetical dumped husband hooked up with her rather than a 25-year-old. That way, rather than two people in a relationship that is unusually likely to fail, and two people with noone, you'd have four people in a relationship that is rather likely to succeed.

    Now, suppose the woman's interests don't matter to you. What about the 27-year-old man whom she would have married but for your hypothetical cross-generational match? What is he supposed to do? Marry the 50-year-old woman rejected by the 50-year-old man? Visit whores? Or maybe he could just go kidnap a little girl from Nepal and hold her prisoner until she hits puberty.

    https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/insights/25630/the-danger-of-human-trafficking-is-no-secret-in-nepal-why-is-it-still-so-common

    Look, you want to believe that your actions are "nobody else's damned business," and maybe that's true, but it doesn't change the fact that you are not an island. Your actions affect other people. Unyielding mathematical reality gets in the way of your preference for maximum personal liberty without moral judgment. There are almost as many men as women. Cross-generational marriage has the same effect on the marriage market as outright bigamy.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Jim Christian, @dfordoom

  30. Beauty is a quality of youth, as society becomes older, I think it naturally loses something of its ability to admire beauty.

  31. Not only wrathful on how a message of negative white identity–not negative in the vicious sense of white fragility and white guilt, but in terms of defining identity in contrast to that of another group–is so often dead on arrival:

    Explicit neo-Norman Identity then. Not the one from the TV show Cheers. Or the Hitchcockian one; or the golfer.

    Devise a political campaign that says George Washington was a Norman American colonial aristocrat from the Virginia Company and say matter of factly that the Virginia Company was a neo-Viking raid on what was beyond the Atlantic Ocean from England and state that the Normans in England still own huge chunks of land in England and that what is needed in the USA is a political company devoted to dislodging from power the evil and treasonous JEW/WASP Ruling Class of the American Empire.

    EXPLICIT WHITE IDENTITY POLITICS is on the march and nothing will stop it but total victory over the treasonous filth in the JEW/WASP Ruling Class.

    William the Conqueror was part Saxon and he felt he was the rightful inheritor of the English crown and George Washington was part Saxon too and plenty of Americans with Southern ancestry have both Norman and Saxon ancestry and they may have heard enough of all the worship of that rodentine scumbag shyster boy corporate lawyer named Lincoln.

    AMERICAN NATIONAL IDENTITY

    I don’t give a damn what form it takes.

    The current Republican Party Ruling Class will do anything to avoid campaigning on simple matters of national identity and the European Christian ancestral core of the USA is getting restless and they are banging on the hollow log and the fire in the clearing of the German forest that created this nation is burning bright and the ale is flowing and the JEW/WASP Ruling Class is using monetary extremism to retain power.

    New England Harvard goon Sam Huntington had it right. Huntington question time is here.

    Who are we as a nation and what are we fighting for as a nation?

    EXPLICIT WHITE IDENTITY POLITICS NOW!

  32. @Jim Christian
    @Rosie


    Men’s attraction to younger, nulliparous women is, frankly, antisocial.
     
    Well, antisocial towards fatties, women who are way past their stale dates, women who are old enough to have learned how to be hideous, feminist shrews. It is feminists who hate youth and beauty in women, which is itself antisocial. Feminism makes women who take up that putrid mindset intolerable, mannish and fat. They deserve rejection and scorn. They deserve banishment to their own camps, they're unfit for public view. They aren't part of any decent citizens' society. They are themselves terribly antisocial.

    You really comfort yourself with that ironic little twist of the script, Rosie? That men chasing beauty is antisocial? Yer a hoot.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    Jim, you should know as well as any reader how much I despise optics-cucking. That’s almost as much as I despise white knights and other assorted simps, so I’m with you.

    But you can’t get anywhere this way. Your comment simply corners a woman like Rosie. Women are irrational, not incapable. Our civilization cannot survive the blowback from cornered women. No civilization could.

    You’ve got to leave them a dignified way out. As long as you do, women like Rosie are great. Who else would put up with all our disorderly, irresponsible nonsense, after all, but the wives who irrationally love us?

    Such women won’t leave you and me a dignified way out. They’ll corner us, or try to, as naturally as they breathe. I realize this, but that is why the weight of civilization rests on our shoulders, not theirs.

    It’s worth remembering the next time one’s wife packs one’s lunch and washes one’s socks.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Women are irrational, not incapable. Our civilization cannot survive the blowback from cornered women. No civilization could.

    You’ve got to leave them a dignified way out
     
    How do these women differ from men?

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    , @Jim Christian
    @V. K. Ovelund


    But you can’t get anywhere this way. Your comment simply corners a woman like Rosie. Women are irrational, not incapable.
     
    The women I'm talking about are useless EEOC journalism/liberal arts sorts that make up cancel culture and screech endlessly about White men and their racism, while siding with the blacks who kill them in droves. They are incapable of anything productive. They are the feminist movement in total. And I'm not granting them a way out. They built it, it ain't coming down, they can live with it. All over Europe the women are asking what happened to all the White European men who won't protect them from the african guests THEY, women, welcomed into and filled the continent with that rape, rob and murder White Euro-women with impunity. The men? And by what process were the men weakened? Feminism. It's happening here all over, just check out Kersey sometime.

    Rosie is an outlier, but staunch defender of feminist depravity. She's married, has a hubby, has three or four kids, she's the antithesis of feminist dogma, a slave to a man and children. Cis-normal, a horrible slur in the organization. Rosie will ignore the comments, these things are self-evident and the feminist position cannot be defended except by those who celebrate the destruction. There's no dignity there.

    Heh, i pack my own lunches. My ex chose the I'm Not Haaaaapy route and tried to divorce-rape me, but it didn't work. I got out clean for $500.00 and 1 child to support. Expensive, but worth it. I never gave any others a chance to try that again. Released into Bill Clinton's Washington in 1992 I began a party that continues to this day. And to this day, every chick in town is STILL channeling her inner Monica Lewinski. Especially Jewish chicks. Gotta love those girls.

    Replies: @Rosie

  33. @dfordoom
    @Rosie


    I get that, but what I am telling you is that attraction to younger women is, however “normal” it may be, at least as threatening to the social order as homosexuality.
     
    I still can't figure out the logic of that.

    I think you're confusing two separate issues. You're worried about middle-aged married men dumping their wives for younger women. That is a bad thing but it's a separate issue. That's an issue related to monogamy and commitment to marriage. Which is important, but as I said, it's a separate issue.

    Let's say a man is 50 years old and he's never married. Or he's a widower. Or his wife has dumped him. In those cases would you see any problem if he married a 25-year-old woman?

    I'm trying to clarify whether it's the age difference thing or the monogamy thing that bothers you.

    If it's the monogamy thing then I more or less agree with you that monogamy is highly desirable and commitment to marriage is highly desirable.

    Replies: @Rosie

    it’s a separate issue.

    Not really. You are attempting to separate what is inextricably linked.

    Let’s say a man is 50 years old and he’s never married.

    Why not and what has he been up to all this time?

    Or he’s a widower. Or his wife has dumped him. In those cases would you see any problem if he married a 25-year-old woman?

    If you acknowledge the possibility that a wife may dump a husband, do you likewise acknowledge that a husband may dump a wife? If so, do you consider the interest of the dumped 50-year-old wife to be equal to, or less than, the interests of the 50-year-old dumped husband?

    If the woman’s interests matter to you, it would seem that you would have to acknowledge that it would be better if your hypothetical dumped husband hooked up with her rather than a 25-year-old. That way, rather than two people in a relationship that is unusually likely to fail, and two people with noone, you’d have four people in a relationship that is rather likely to succeed.

    Now, suppose the woman’s interests don’t matter to you. What about the 27-year-old man whom she would have married but for your hypothetical cross-generational match? What is he supposed to do? Marry the 50-year-old woman rejected by the 50-year-old man? Visit whores? Or maybe he could just go kidnap a little girl from Nepal and hold her prisoner until she hits puberty.

    https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/insights/25630/the-danger-of-human-trafficking-is-no-secret-in-nepal-why-is-it-still-so-common

    Look, you want to believe that your actions are “nobody else’s damned business,” and maybe that’s true, but it doesn’t change the fact that you are not an island. Your actions affect other people. Unyielding mathematical reality gets in the way of your preference for maximum personal liberty without moral judgment. There are almost as many men as women. Cross-generational marriage has the same effect on the marriage market as outright bigamy.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Rosie


    If you acknowledge the possibility that a wife may dump a husband, do you likewise acknowledge that a husband may dump a wife? If so, do you consider the interest of the dumped 50-year-old wife to be equal to, or less than, the interests of the 50-year-old dumped husband?

    If the woman’s interests matter to you, it would seem that you would have to acknowledge that it would be better if your hypothetical dumped husband hooked up with her rather than a 25-year-old. That way, rather than two people in a relationship that is unusually likely to fail, and two people with noone, you’d have four people in a relationship that is rather likely to succeed
     
    I would not treat an orchid in a pot with the roughness that you believe should be used to cultivate an entire civilisation.
    , @Jim Christian
    @Rosie


    Now, suppose the woman’s interests don’t matter to you. What about the 27-year-old man whom she would have married but for your hypothetical cross-generational match? What is he supposed to do? Marry the 50-year-old woman rejected by the 50-year-old man? Visit whores?
     
    Really, Rosie? Why you putting that on the man when the younger woman hooked up willingly with the wealthy 50 year old. See, this is what I love about you. In this scenario, where women make ALL the rules, you blame the man of wealth and some age for the choice of the 27 year old. What, the young woman has no agency in this? You always default to 'men bad'. That's the American Way these days.

    Screw the young man who won't shape up and attract a girl, women are currency and everyone wants some. We all know it's a competition. No one cares about men who can't get women and in fact, the biggest joke on campus is the Incel. Well, until the Incel starts shooting. But don't blame the men, we do what we do and the women do what THEY do, and willingly.

    Replies: @Rosie

    , @dfordoom
    @Rosie


    If you acknowledge the possibility that a wife may dump a husband, do you likewise acknowledge that a husband may dump a wife? If so, do you consider the interest of the dumped 50-year-old wife to be equal to, or less than, the interests of the 50-year-old dumped husband?
     
    Obviously yes.

    If the woman’s interests matter to you, it would seem that you would have to acknowledge that it would be better if your hypothetical dumped husband hooked up with her rather than a 25-year-old. That way, rather than two people in a relationship that is unusually likely to fail, and two people with noone, you’d have four people in a relationship that is rather likely to succeed.
     
    No, because now you're trying to control other people's lives. If someone has been dumped (or has remained unmarried until middle age or has been widowed) and that person finds someone that he wants to marry and that person is happy to marry him then it is nobody else's damned business to tell him that he shouldn't. And if a 50-year-old woman has been dumped (or has remained unmarried until middle age or has been widowed) and finds someone that she wants to marry and that person is happy to marry her then it is also nobody else's damned business to tell her that she shouldn't.

    Another person's choice of marriage partner is none of my business and it's none of your business.

    What about the 27-year-old man whom she would have married but for your hypothetical cross-generational match? What is he supposed to do?
     
    Again you're wanting to control other people's lives. Are you seriously suggesting that a woman should not be allowed to marry whatever man she happens to want to marry? The only person who knows what man that woman wants to marry is that woman herself and it's her choice. Or are you advocating that the woman should be compelled to marry the sort of man you think she should marry? That's getting very close to advocating not just arranged marriages but forced marriages. "I'm sorry Miss Smith but your application for a permit to marry Bob Jones has been rejected but don't worry we've arranged a more suitable marriage for you."

    Are you sure you've really thought this through?

    Replies: @Rosie

  34. @Rosie
    @dfordoom


    it’s a separate issue.
     
    Not really. You are attempting to separate what is inextricably linked.

    Let’s say a man is 50 years old and he’s never married.
     
    Why not and what has he been up to all this time?

    Or he’s a widower. Or his wife has dumped him. In those cases would you see any problem if he married a 25-year-old woman?
     
    If you acknowledge the possibility that a wife may dump a husband, do you likewise acknowledge that a husband may dump a wife? If so, do you consider the interest of the dumped 50-year-old wife to be equal to, or less than, the interests of the 50-year-old dumped husband?

    If the woman's interests matter to you, it would seem that you would have to acknowledge that it would be better if your hypothetical dumped husband hooked up with her rather than a 25-year-old. That way, rather than two people in a relationship that is unusually likely to fail, and two people with noone, you'd have four people in a relationship that is rather likely to succeed.

    Now, suppose the woman's interests don't matter to you. What about the 27-year-old man whom she would have married but for your hypothetical cross-generational match? What is he supposed to do? Marry the 50-year-old woman rejected by the 50-year-old man? Visit whores? Or maybe he could just go kidnap a little girl from Nepal and hold her prisoner until she hits puberty.

    https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/insights/25630/the-danger-of-human-trafficking-is-no-secret-in-nepal-why-is-it-still-so-common

    Look, you want to believe that your actions are "nobody else's damned business," and maybe that's true, but it doesn't change the fact that you are not an island. Your actions affect other people. Unyielding mathematical reality gets in the way of your preference for maximum personal liberty without moral judgment. There are almost as many men as women. Cross-generational marriage has the same effect on the marriage market as outright bigamy.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Jim Christian, @dfordoom

    If you acknowledge the possibility that a wife may dump a husband, do you likewise acknowledge that a husband may dump a wife? If so, do you consider the interest of the dumped 50-year-old wife to be equal to, or less than, the interests of the 50-year-old dumped husband?

    If the woman’s interests matter to you, it would seem that you would have to acknowledge that it would be better if your hypothetical dumped husband hooked up with her rather than a 25-year-old. That way, rather than two people in a relationship that is unusually likely to fail, and two people with noone, you’d have four people in a relationship that is rather likely to succeed

    I would not treat an orchid in a pot with the roughness that you believe should be used to cultivate an entire civilisation.

  35. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Jim Christian

    Jim, you should know as well as any reader how much I despise optics-cucking. That's almost as much as I despise white knights and other assorted simps, so I'm with you.

    But you can't get anywhere this way. Your comment simply corners a woman like Rosie. Women are irrational, not incapable. Our civilization cannot survive the blowback from cornered women. No civilization could.

    You've got to leave them a dignified way out. As long as you do, women like Rosie are great. Who else would put up with all our disorderly, irresponsible nonsense, after all, but the wives who irrationally love us?

    Such women won't leave you and me a dignified way out. They'll corner us, or try to, as naturally as they breathe. I realize this, but that is why the weight of civilization rests on our shoulders, not theirs.

    It's worth remembering the next time one's wife packs one's lunch and washes one's socks.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Jim Christian

    Women are irrational, not incapable. Our civilization cannot survive the blowback from cornered women. No civilization could.

    You’ve got to leave them a dignified way out

    How do these women differ from men?

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Triteleia Laxa


    How do these women differ from men?
     
    In most ways.
  36. Governor Greg Abbott of Texas is a treasonous dirtbag who pushes nation-killing mass legal immigration.

    Republican Party dirtbag Greg Abbott has aided and abetted the illegal alien invasion of Texas and the USA.

    Governor Greg Abbott must be legally removed from power.

    GOD BLESS TEXAS

    GOD BLESS THE USA

    Bushes ain’t Texans; the Bushes are plutocrat globalizer dirtbags who push mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration.

  37. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Jim Christian

    Jim, you should know as well as any reader how much I despise optics-cucking. That's almost as much as I despise white knights and other assorted simps, so I'm with you.

    But you can't get anywhere this way. Your comment simply corners a woman like Rosie. Women are irrational, not incapable. Our civilization cannot survive the blowback from cornered women. No civilization could.

    You've got to leave them a dignified way out. As long as you do, women like Rosie are great. Who else would put up with all our disorderly, irresponsible nonsense, after all, but the wives who irrationally love us?

    Such women won't leave you and me a dignified way out. They'll corner us, or try to, as naturally as they breathe. I realize this, but that is why the weight of civilization rests on our shoulders, not theirs.

    It's worth remembering the next time one's wife packs one's lunch and washes one's socks.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Jim Christian

    But you can’t get anywhere this way. Your comment simply corners a woman like Rosie. Women are irrational, not incapable.

    The women I’m talking about are useless EEOC journalism/liberal arts sorts that make up cancel culture and screech endlessly about White men and their racism, while siding with the blacks who kill them in droves. They are incapable of anything productive. They are the feminist movement in total. And I’m not granting them a way out. They built it, it ain’t coming down, they can live with it. All over Europe the women are asking what happened to all the White European men who won’t protect them from the african guests THEY, women, welcomed into and filled the continent with that rape, rob and murder White Euro-women with impunity. The men? And by what process were the men weakened? Feminism. It’s happening here all over, just check out Kersey sometime.

    Rosie is an outlier, but staunch defender of feminist depravity. She’s married, has a hubby, has three or four kids, she’s the antithesis of feminist dogma, a slave to a man and children. Cis-normal, a horrible slur in the organization. Rosie will ignore the comments, these things are self-evident and the feminist position cannot be defended except by those who celebrate the destruction. There’s no dignity there.

    Heh, i pack my own lunches. My ex chose the I’m Not Haaaaapy route and tried to divorce-rape me, but it didn’t work. I got out clean for $500.00 and 1 child to support. Expensive, but worth it. I never gave any others a chance to try that again. Released into Bill Clinton’s Washington in 1992 I began a party that continues to this day. And to this day, every chick in town is STILL channeling her inner Monica Lewinski. Especially Jewish chicks. Gotta love those girls.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Jim Christian


    All over Europe the women are asking what happened to all the White European men who won’t protect them from the african guests THEY, women, welcomed into and filled the continent with
     
    Lie. Women did NOT fill Europe with Africans and their presence there has nothing to do with feminism.

    Replies: @Jim Christian

  38. @Rosie
    @dfordoom


    it’s a separate issue.
     
    Not really. You are attempting to separate what is inextricably linked.

    Let’s say a man is 50 years old and he’s never married.
     
    Why not and what has he been up to all this time?

    Or he’s a widower. Or his wife has dumped him. In those cases would you see any problem if he married a 25-year-old woman?
     
    If you acknowledge the possibility that a wife may dump a husband, do you likewise acknowledge that a husband may dump a wife? If so, do you consider the interest of the dumped 50-year-old wife to be equal to, or less than, the interests of the 50-year-old dumped husband?

    If the woman's interests matter to you, it would seem that you would have to acknowledge that it would be better if your hypothetical dumped husband hooked up with her rather than a 25-year-old. That way, rather than two people in a relationship that is unusually likely to fail, and two people with noone, you'd have four people in a relationship that is rather likely to succeed.

    Now, suppose the woman's interests don't matter to you. What about the 27-year-old man whom she would have married but for your hypothetical cross-generational match? What is he supposed to do? Marry the 50-year-old woman rejected by the 50-year-old man? Visit whores? Or maybe he could just go kidnap a little girl from Nepal and hold her prisoner until she hits puberty.

    https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/insights/25630/the-danger-of-human-trafficking-is-no-secret-in-nepal-why-is-it-still-so-common

    Look, you want to believe that your actions are "nobody else's damned business," and maybe that's true, but it doesn't change the fact that you are not an island. Your actions affect other people. Unyielding mathematical reality gets in the way of your preference for maximum personal liberty without moral judgment. There are almost as many men as women. Cross-generational marriage has the same effect on the marriage market as outright bigamy.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Jim Christian, @dfordoom

    Now, suppose the woman’s interests don’t matter to you. What about the 27-year-old man whom she would have married but for your hypothetical cross-generational match? What is he supposed to do? Marry the 50-year-old woman rejected by the 50-year-old man? Visit whores?

    Really, Rosie? Why you putting that on the man when the younger woman hooked up willingly with the wealthy 50 year old. See, this is what I love about you. In this scenario, where women make ALL the rules, you blame the man of wealth and some age for the choice of the 27 year old. What, the young woman has no agency in this? You always default to ‘men bad’. That’s the American Way these days.

    Screw the young man who won’t shape up and attract a girl, women are currency and everyone wants some. We all know it’s a competition. No one cares about men who can’t get women and in fact, the biggest joke on campus is the Incel. Well, until the Incel starts shooting. But don’t blame the men, we do what we do and the women do what THEY do, and willingly.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Jim Christian


    you blame the man of wealth and some age
     
    Snickers. Note the assumption that he's wealthy, and acknowledgement that the woman who marries him is a whore, and the claim that there's nothing wrong with that, as if prostitution is every bit the moral equal of a companionable match based on love. In so many ways, dissident right morality, if you can call it that, is every bit as warped as the Woke Left.

    https://cdn.quotes.pub/1920x1080/if-you-marry-for-money-you-end-up-earning-ev-410321.jpg

    Replies: @Jim Christian

  39. @dfordoom
    @Rosie


    If you will recall, Mr. Fink’s hypothetical involved him announcing on social media that he is attracted to young, slim women. If it is nobody else’s damned business, then he should probably keep it to himself.
     
    You missed his point completely. He wasn't saying that he had any intention of announcing such a thing on social media and he wasn't suggesting that anyone should do so. He was making the point that some kinds of sexual preferences (which in this case happen to be perfectly legal heterosexual preferences) nowadays attract social disapproval while other sexual preferences (that happen to fall outside the range of normal heterosexuality) attract strong social approval.

    This is part of the attempt to denormalise heterosexuality. Heterosexuality is becoming The Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Rosie, @Paperback Writer, @Paperback Writer

    You missed his point completely.

    You’re talking to Rosie, that’s taken for granted. /grins/

    Only nitpick: we can’t read Rosie’s mind. She distorted.

  40. There can only ever be ~21 million Bitcoin, ergo it is by definition ultimately inflation-proof.

    Unless the bitcoin developers decide to raise the 21 million limit in the future. Or someone successfully takes over 51% of the bitcoin network and changes the code. Wouldn’t it also be possible for a hard fork or a large double spend to alter this hypothetical limit?

    On the other side is the potential decentralization of money and ultimately the end of empire.

    Are you sure that Satoshi Nakamoto and bitcoin aren’t covert creations of the Rothschild central banking system? An experiment in digital currency?

  41. The woke are like zombies. You do not engage them. You escape from them or destroy them.

    • Agree: Jim Christian
  42. @dfordoom
    @Rosie


    If you will recall, Mr. Fink’s hypothetical involved him announcing on social media that he is attracted to young, slim women. If it is nobody else’s damned business, then he should probably keep it to himself.
     
    You missed his point completely. He wasn't saying that he had any intention of announcing such a thing on social media and he wasn't suggesting that anyone should do so. He was making the point that some kinds of sexual preferences (which in this case happen to be perfectly legal heterosexual preferences) nowadays attract social disapproval while other sexual preferences (that happen to fall outside the range of normal heterosexuality) attract strong social approval.

    This is part of the attempt to denormalise heterosexuality. Heterosexuality is becoming The Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Rosie, @Paperback Writer, @Paperback Writer

    And yet, the overwhelming majority of my PMC (professional managerial class) friends are married with children.

    Marriage and children are NOT going out of style. Richard Spencer of all people pointed out in a discussion with Ed Dutton that PMCs have a higher birthrate than working class (although, as Dutton countered, there are more of the working class than PMCs).

    Let’s stop catastrophizing. Let’s start explaining.

    What explains the disconnect?

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Paperback Writer

    PMC jobs are kind to women with children, once they have promoted past a certain point.

    Noticeably, that point, which is hit around 30+, is also when PMC women start having children.

    Most working class jobs are not kind to women with children at any point.

    It seems that women will choose their jobs over children, if forced to choose.

    Pro-natalists can therefore either improve how kind those jobs are to women with children, or they can change women's minds for them.

    The approach by those on this site is as if Hercules was told he could either clean his room or complete the 12 tasks, and he chose the 12 tasks because he decided it would be easier!

  43. @Rosie
    @Chrisnonymous


    LOL. Yes, society would function so much better if men chasing women who were the most experienced and best educated. I’m sure skirt-chasing the 40-60 year olds would have no effect on the birthrate or fetal quality.
     
    This is absurd. Of course, a man should pursue young women. Then he should marry one and stay with her for the rest of his life rather than going out and replacing her with a younger model. How is this controversial?

    Replies: @RadicalCenter

    Wholeheartedly agree there, Rosie. But an older guy who is widowed, or who hasn’t been married yet for whatever reason, will naturally and instinctively try to get a much younger woman.

    Most crucially, if the man hopefully is aiming to be a father, he knows that a younger woman has a much greater chance of conceiving healthy children without major genetic problems and carrying them to term without harm to her or the babies. Then she’ll be alive to further love, guide, and help those children after the man dies (perhaps long after he dies, if she lives sensibly).

    My wife is more than a decade younger than I am. I specifically sought a much younger woman. Among other things, I knew that I wanted to have a larger family, God willing; as you well know, that is physically and mentally a lot of work for both parents, especially the woman (and especially later pregnancies). We have been blessed with numerous children, and that would have been either impossible or unsafe with a woman close to my age. Anyway, I don’t think you were criticizing this kind of couple, just noting our perspective.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @RadicalCenter


    Wholeheartedly agree there, Rosie. But an older guy who is widowed, or who hasn’t been married yet for whatever reason, will naturally and instinctively try to get a much younger woman.
     
    OK, but that doesn't tell us anything about the rightness or wrongness of doing so.

    Anyway, I don’t think you were criticizing this kind of couple, just noting our perspective.
     
    You would certainly be low on my list of priorities, but I still think it is better for a man to marry a woman as near as possible his own age and vice versa.

    Jimbob Duggar, father of 19, was born in July, 1965. His wife, Michelle, was born in September, 1966.

    https://www.purposedrivenlawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Age-Gap-and-Marriage.png

    Replies: @JohnPlywood, @dfordoom, @res

  44. Another thread derailed by Rosie, and the guys who can’t help taking the bait.

    • Agree: William Badwhite
    • LOL: SunBakedSuburb
    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Catdog


    Another thread derailed by Rosie, and the guys who can’t help taking the bait.
     
    Hrm. Dammit.

    Well, there's always next time.
    , @anon
    @Catdog

    Yes. There are many Betaized men commenting on Unz.

    Scrolling past the noise is a rational response.

    , @Jay Fink
    @Catdog

    Agreed and I did it myself. Yet she sure made this thread active.

    Replies: @anon, @Rosie

  45. @Jay Fink
    @Rosie

    Having the preference in itself is not boasting. Now if a man said their wife was getting too old so he traded her in for a younger model because she looks better...that would be boasting and make the guy seem like an a**hole. If that same man did the same thing, married a young pretty woman, but didn't mention ages or looks it could go over a lot better.

    Middle aged men being attracted to women younger than them does not affect monogamy one way or another. When monogamy was at it's strongest men were still attracted to good looking younger women. It doesn't mean they acted on that attraction or could if they wanted to.

    For monogamy to thrive couples need to pair up when they are relatively young. They pair bond while at the peak of attractiveness. Ideally as the couple ages they are still attracted to each other because the pair bond is deep. The attraction becomes more than physical.

    If monogamy is weak you will have more single people running loose in the world. As they age they might not feel any attraction towards other older people since they never had that pair bond with them.

    Replies: @My SIMPLE Pseudonymic Handle

    That’s really funny.

    Why are women in general still hung up on why older men are attracted to younger women? Why does it even bother them? Is it because they know their egg production years and ability to bear children is limited. And, that every year they get older and they haven’t gotten married with children is one more year closer to cat lady status. It used to be if a woman wasn’t married by at least age 21 or so they were considered old maids. Even though in our modern society that is no longer expected I suspect it still gnaws at them subconsciously.

    And yet, they never seem to be concerned with why women themselves at a young age are attracted to older bad boys that use them up and toss them aside when they’re done with them.

    And, it seems they’re more than willing to bed hop in the vain hope they won’t become cat ladies in their old age. For some odd reason women just can’t imagine life without a man in their bed. Is it because they’re afraid of being alone. Why this obsessive need to have a boyfriend or get married?

    Maybe Rosie should concern herself with the two of the latest female fads. Older women, cougars, on the prowl for young studs to satisfy their carnal lust. And, white women dating black men and bearing their children but not expecting the black man to stick around and help raise the children. Does she even know the latter enrages black women more than anything else? It cuts in on their territory.

  46. @Catdog
    Another thread derailed by Rosie, and the guys who can't help taking the bait.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @anon, @Jay Fink

    Another thread derailed by Rosie, and the guys who can’t help taking the bait.

    Hrm. Dammit.

    Well, there’s always next time.

  47. @dfordoom
    @iffen



    As long as both parties are over the age of consent men are entitled to be attracted to whatever type of women they choose, and women are entitled to be attracted to whatever type of men they choose.
     
    It still looks yucky to see old geezers with trophy wives.

    And, I agree with Rosie that “the norm” should be that both are close to the same age.
     
    You're missing the point. It doesn't matter a damn if you (or I or Rosie) think it's yucky. It's not my business or your business or Rosie's business to tell either men or women who they should or should not be attracted to, or sleep with, or marry. Is anybody holding a gun to a 25-year-old woman's head and telling her she has to marry a 55-year-old man?

    What is it with people here thinking they should have the right to lecture other people about their choices in partners?

    This is why social conservatives always lose. Like SJWs and health nazis they're busybodies and control freaks. It antagonises normal people.

    As far as age differences between people in a relationship are concerned I simply have no opinion. It's none of my business.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    This is why social conservatives always lose. Like SJWs and health nazis they’re busybodies and control freaks. It antagonises normal people.

    They fail to realise how arrogantly they come across. They tell people, who are only an abstraction to them, that their individual and complex life choices are incorrect.

    Epistemologically, this is equivalent to texting a random mobile number to instruct the receiver to throw out their wardrobe and go buy only clothes of a certain size, colour and fit.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
  48. @RadicalCenter
    @Rosie

    Wholeheartedly agree there, Rosie. But an older guy who is widowed, or who hasn’t been married yet for whatever reason, will naturally and instinctively try to get a much younger woman.

    Most crucially, if the man hopefully is aiming to be a father, he knows that a younger woman has a much greater chance of conceiving healthy children without major genetic problems and carrying them to term without harm to her or the babies. Then she’ll be alive to further love, guide, and help those children after the man dies (perhaps long after he dies, if she lives sensibly).

    My wife is more than a decade younger than I am. I specifically sought a much younger woman. Among other things, I knew that I wanted to have a larger family, God willing; as you well know, that is physically and mentally a lot of work for both parents, especially the woman (and especially later pregnancies). We have been blessed with numerous children, and that would have been either impossible or unsafe with a woman close to my age. Anyway, I don’t think you were criticizing this kind of couple, just noting our perspective.

    Replies: @Rosie

    Wholeheartedly agree there, Rosie. But an older guy who is widowed, or who hasn’t been married yet for whatever reason, will naturally and instinctively try to get a much younger woman.

    OK, but that doesn’t tell us anything about the rightness or wrongness of doing so.

    Anyway, I don’t think you were criticizing this kind of couple, just noting our perspective.

    You would certainly be low on my list of priorities, but I still think it is better for a man to marry a woman as near as possible his own age and vice versa.

    Jimbob Duggar, father of 19, was born in July, 1965. His wife, Michelle, was born in September, 1966.

    • Replies: @JohnPlywood
    @Rosie

    Your chart is fake.

    , @dfordoom
    @Rosie



    Wholeheartedly agree there, Rosie. But an older guy who is widowed, or who hasn’t been married yet for whatever reason, will naturally and instinctively try to get a much younger woman.
     
    OK, but that doesn’t tell us anything about the rightness or wrongness of doing so.
     
    Do you really think it's appropriate to talk about right and wrong in this context?
    , @res
    @Rosie

    The original (sort of, see below, notice how Rosie's graphic cut off the Randy Olson source attribution which was lame of her source https://www.purposedrivenlawyers.com/age-gap-and-marriage/ ) source of that graphic is actually kind of interesting.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/11/why-to-marry-someone-your-own-age/382520/

    The graphic that really struck me was this. Note that this was from an earlier article looking at the same study.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/10/the-divorce-proof-marriage/381401/

    https://cdn.theatlantic.com/thumbor/QleWwqjYerZ-r95yWk-0gD55V_M=/570x374/filters:format(png)/media/img/posts/2014/10/Screen_Shot_2014_10_13_at_7.19.01_PM/original.png

    The real original source of most of the graphics appears to be this data visualization blog post.
    http://www.randalolson.com/2014/10/10/what-makes-for-a-stable-marriage/

    An interesting point from the author in the comments.


    They don’t have any data on having sex before marriage, but they do have data on having a kid in or out of wedlock. Both significantly decrease the chances of eventual divorce — having kids in wedlock moreso.
     
    The source of the age difference graphic appears to be this followup.
    http://www.randalolson.com/2014/11/06/what-makes-for-a-stable-marriage-part-2/

    But notice the graphic has been replaced with this text.


    Perhaps unsurprisingly, the larger the age gap between you and your partner, the more likely your marriage will end in divorce. Only being 1-5 years away from your partner is nothing to worry about, but if you’re old enough to be your partner’s parent, then your marriage might be in trouble.

    Hugh Hefner, anyone?

    Note: A previous version of this article showed a chart giving specific relative percent likelihoods of divorce occurring based on number of years married. The original authors of the study have pointed out that although there is a significant correlation between wider age gaps and increased divorce, it is not possible to determine the relative percent likelihood from their study. That is left to future research.
     

    An interesting comment there.

    What I’ve seen in the past is that divorce rates are higher when the woman is older, and are actually lower when the man is older.
     
    The source of the data is this paper.
    ‘A Diamond is Forever’ and Other Fairy Tales: The Relationship between Wedding Expenses and Marriage Duration
    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2501480

    The paper is interesting, and appears to be serious, but I'm not sure how far I would trust this data.


    we carried out an online survey of over 3,000 evermarried persons residing in the United States.
     
    They give detailed tables of their models along with hazard ratios for the variables. Age difference is interesting in that it is one of the few continuous variables (age and marriage age are others, notice those two are strictly positive).

    Where things become extremely interesting is digging into their age difference variable. Table 1 gives means for all/men/women as -0.87/1.14/-2.59 which appears to mean:

    1. They preserved negative numbers (which would imply there is a negative difference portion missing from the graphic, remember that the graphic was not produced by the researchers and has since been removed).

    2. Given the male mean is positive and the female mean is negative it appears the age difference is relative to the responder. IMO this along with preserving negative numbers makes this variable useless given how it conflates whether the man or woman is older (and in a way which IMO would be worse than just using the absolute value of the age difference!).

    I'd hope the study authors really weren't that stupid though. Can someone else take a look at the paper and see what they think?

    But let's engage with the data anyway. It appears that
    Table 2. Hazard model predicting marital dissolution as a function of wedding expenses, population-weighted regressions
    is the most relevant.

    We start by noting the bivariant model hazard ratio is 0.994 which is interesting (variable superficially seems irrelevant). The multivariate hazard ratios are probably more important though. For all respondents that is a highly significant 1.022, but for reasons given above I don't think this is very useful. This would be the variable used in the graphic. Notice how the graphic extrapolates this out to different specific age differences. Given that the data probably does not even have any 30 year age difference marriages (much less enough to be statistically significant) this seems egregious to me.

    An interesting aspect of Table 2 is it breaks out separate models by responder sex so we can actually avoid the issue of the age difference being relative to responder sex. For men the coefficient is a 5% significant 1.041 while for women the coefficient is a not significant 1.014. I'm not sure how to interpret these. Especially given the nonzero means have larger magnitudes for the two sexes than for everyone lumped.

    What I would like to see is a spline fit for an age difference variable that was sex based (e.g. male age - female age).

    AE, do you have any thoughts on all of this?

    TLDR: I think that graphic is useless and the study not much better as concerns the age difference variable. We need better data. Or at least a reanalysis of the data they have.

    P.S. Looks like an own goal by Rosie citing a source she did not understand.

  49. SCTV – All Girl Friday Night Pajama Party

  50. @Paperback Writer
    @dfordoom

    And yet, the overwhelming majority of my PMC (professional managerial class) friends are married with children.

    Marriage and children are NOT going out of style. Richard Spencer of all people pointed out in a discussion with Ed Dutton that PMCs have a higher birthrate than working class (although, as Dutton countered, there are more of the working class than PMCs).

    Let's stop catastrophizing. Let's start explaining.

    What explains the disconnect?

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    PMC jobs are kind to women with children, once they have promoted past a certain point.

    Noticeably, that point, which is hit around 30+, is also when PMC women start having children.

    Most working class jobs are not kind to women with children at any point.

    It seems that women will choose their jobs over children, if forced to choose.

    Pro-natalists can therefore either improve how kind those jobs are to women with children, or they can change women’s minds for them.

    The approach by those on this site is as if Hercules was told he could either clean his room or complete the 12 tasks, and he chose the 12 tasks because he decided it would be easier!

  51. @Jim Christian
    @V. K. Ovelund


    But you can’t get anywhere this way. Your comment simply corners a woman like Rosie. Women are irrational, not incapable.
     
    The women I'm talking about are useless EEOC journalism/liberal arts sorts that make up cancel culture and screech endlessly about White men and their racism, while siding with the blacks who kill them in droves. They are incapable of anything productive. They are the feminist movement in total. And I'm not granting them a way out. They built it, it ain't coming down, they can live with it. All over Europe the women are asking what happened to all the White European men who won't protect them from the african guests THEY, women, welcomed into and filled the continent with that rape, rob and murder White Euro-women with impunity. The men? And by what process were the men weakened? Feminism. It's happening here all over, just check out Kersey sometime.

    Rosie is an outlier, but staunch defender of feminist depravity. She's married, has a hubby, has three or four kids, she's the antithesis of feminist dogma, a slave to a man and children. Cis-normal, a horrible slur in the organization. Rosie will ignore the comments, these things are self-evident and the feminist position cannot be defended except by those who celebrate the destruction. There's no dignity there.

    Heh, i pack my own lunches. My ex chose the I'm Not Haaaaapy route and tried to divorce-rape me, but it didn't work. I got out clean for $500.00 and 1 child to support. Expensive, but worth it. I never gave any others a chance to try that again. Released into Bill Clinton's Washington in 1992 I began a party that continues to this day. And to this day, every chick in town is STILL channeling her inner Monica Lewinski. Especially Jewish chicks. Gotta love those girls.

    Replies: @Rosie

    All over Europe the women are asking what happened to all the White European men who won’t protect them from the african guests THEY, women, welcomed into and filled the continent with

    Lie. Women did NOT fill Europe with Africans and their presence there has nothing to do with feminism.

    • Agree: Daniel H
    • Replies: @Jim Christian
    @Rosie


    Lie. Women did NOT fill Europe with Africans and their presence there has nothing to do with feminism.
     
    Lies? What is Merkle but an unmarried, dry, childless EU feminist? Also, there are these ladies, clearly in the feminist mold:
    https://www.motherjones.com/wp-content/uploads/german-girls.jpg?w=990

    https://media.pri.org/s3fs-public/styles/story_main/public/story/images/RTX3FI68.jpg?itok=aNsM9n1s

    https://www.snopes.com/tachyon/2017/05/legs_open_refugees_feature.jpg?resize=1200,630&quality=65

    No, no, Rosie, immigration of savages is a distinctly leftist, feminist activity. Most destructive, disloyal, traitorous choices are favorite activities for feminists in this day and age. Be it against country, family, or race, you can always count on liberal, college-age Democrat feminists the world over for juicy betrayals all over the sociological map.

    It had EVERYTHING to do with feminism. Everything.

    Replies: @anon, @Resartus

  52. @Rosie
    @RadicalCenter


    Wholeheartedly agree there, Rosie. But an older guy who is widowed, or who hasn’t been married yet for whatever reason, will naturally and instinctively try to get a much younger woman.
     
    OK, but that doesn't tell us anything about the rightness or wrongness of doing so.

    Anyway, I don’t think you were criticizing this kind of couple, just noting our perspective.
     
    You would certainly be low on my list of priorities, but I still think it is better for a man to marry a woman as near as possible his own age and vice versa.

    Jimbob Duggar, father of 19, was born in July, 1965. His wife, Michelle, was born in September, 1966.

    https://www.purposedrivenlawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Age-Gap-and-Marriage.png

    Replies: @JohnPlywood, @dfordoom, @res

    Your chart is fake.

  53. @Jim Christian
    @Rosie


    Now, suppose the woman’s interests don’t matter to you. What about the 27-year-old man whom she would have married but for your hypothetical cross-generational match? What is he supposed to do? Marry the 50-year-old woman rejected by the 50-year-old man? Visit whores?
     
    Really, Rosie? Why you putting that on the man when the younger woman hooked up willingly with the wealthy 50 year old. See, this is what I love about you. In this scenario, where women make ALL the rules, you blame the man of wealth and some age for the choice of the 27 year old. What, the young woman has no agency in this? You always default to 'men bad'. That's the American Way these days.

    Screw the young man who won't shape up and attract a girl, women are currency and everyone wants some. We all know it's a competition. No one cares about men who can't get women and in fact, the biggest joke on campus is the Incel. Well, until the Incel starts shooting. But don't blame the men, we do what we do and the women do what THEY do, and willingly.

    Replies: @Rosie

    you blame the man of wealth and some age

    Snickers. Note the assumption that he’s wealthy, and acknowledgement that the woman who marries him is a whore, and the claim that there’s nothing wrong with that, as if prostitution is every bit the moral equal of a companionable match based on love. In so many ways, dissident right morality, if you can call it that, is every bit as warped as the Woke Left.

    • Replies: @Jim Christian
    @Rosie

    We're only arguing price. That's your gender's issue.

  54. @Rosie
    @dfordoom

    I get that, but what I am telling you is that attraction to younger women is, however "normal" it may be, at least as threatening to the social order as homosexuality. Indeed, the very fact that it is "normal" may make it a great deal more so.

    A 2020 poll revealed that a whopping 15.9% of Gen Z identifies as LGBTQ*#&"&>÷&÷&:*÷>@`. As we know from AE's recent post on the matter, bisexuals are mostly heterosexual. Hence, the need to progress to physical mutilation to further disrupt the surprisingly durable heterosexual norm.


    This is why social conservatives always lose. Like SJWs and health nazis they’re busybodies and control freaks. It antagonises normal people.
     
    Do-as-you-please moral relativism is popular. News at 11.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @My SIMPLE Pseudonymic Handle

    What you fail to take into account is the history of humankind over the past couple million years.

    If you accept the notion that humans evolved from lower primates to great apes to proto-humans to the final product modern humans. We see that each involves a type of culture and society used to control behavior.

    If we look at the lower primates, for the most part, only the dominate males get to procreate. Violence is used to enforce the rules by dominate males. Although, in this form of society King of the Mountain is the primary driver and kings are replaced quite often through old age or death.

    [MORE]

    For the great apes large dominate males still rule but sexual exclusion for young males is enforced by the females preference for older dominate males. This can be seen quite easily in chimpanzees. Although bonobos present a different form of society. Another outlier is orangutans.

    Marriage for love was unheard of until fairly recently and has only really been acknowledged for the last couple hundred years. Before that arranged marriages was the acceptable practice. In fact it’s still a traditional way of getting married in of all places India. As well as other cultures. It was generally accepted to marry off females that had reached the age of puberty to older, hopefully financially well off older males. Older men marrying young females was acceptable as far back as colonial times. Societies in the past only considered females for their child bearing abilities and their ability to run a household. Stifling as it sounds but that’s the way it was.

    Females in the past needed men for their ability to provide protection against marauding males and the ability to hunt and bring home the proverbial bacon. Obviously males needed women to bear and raise the children and keep the household. As provincial as that sounds that’s the way societies were formed. Were there anomalies to this form of society. Yes there were, but they were few and far between.

    You might think these practices are parochial or barbaric but other cultures and societies think it’s normal. Even up to WW2 women were expected to get married and have children and run the household. It really wasn’t until WW2 that job/career opportunities opened up for women in general. Before that women were relegated to secretary/hospitality/services work.

    Progressives (Soviets) may like to think they can mold the New Soviet Man but you can’t override millions of years of conditioning with a political slogan. Everything going on now is an aberration. Eventually the pendulum will swing back to what it was before because female emancipation and homosexuality does not produce the next generation. You can try to form a society around babies conceived in a bottle and raised by the state as in the novel Brave New World. But, you’ll only end up with a society that closely resembles that of fatherless blacks in Democrat run ghettos.

    We can look at elephants as an observable example. Young elephants are raised by their mother’s with the help of other female elephants in the herd. When young males reach a certain age, before musk, they are pushed out of the herd for the following reason. When male elephants reach puberty they enter musk. Musk drives the young males berserk. They go on a rampage destroying everything and anything they see. They’re so full of testosterone they think they can destroy the world and attempt to do so. That’s why they’re kicked out of the herd. Out on the African plain the young males run into the old bulls and the old bulls not only have the size but the strength to push back against the young bulls which helps to temper the young bull’s testosterone fueled drive to smash and destroy. This has been going on for millions of years since the first elephants walked the Earth. Do you think you can change this type of behavior anytime soon? Other than castrating the poor boys.

    A good example of this phenomenon can be seen in of all places the TV series Rick and Morty.

    When you get a chance watch Season 1 Episode 7 Raising Gazorpazorp.

    For some reason progressives seem to think they can override millions of years of genetic programming.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @My SIMPLE Pseudonymic Handle

    Look, I cling to the notion that men are not equivalent to chimpanzees and elephants. I'm not interested in any conversation that proceeds from the contrary assumption.

    Nor am I interested in anything Indians are doing. Theirs is the most heinously misogynistic culture on the face of the Earth, with a future so bleak their mothers often kill them when they're born.

    https://www.patheos.com/blogs/goodletters/2012/10/the-three-deadliest-words-in-the-world-its-a-girl/

    Replies: @but an humble craftsman

  55. Ro Ro Rosey

    Rosey Row Your Boat Ashore, Halleluja

    Bribe The White Lady Voters

    Keep Bribing Till You Get their Votes

    White Women Want Mailbox Money

    All eligible White Women will get ten thousand dollars a month from White Core America.

    Political parties within political parties and White Core America will take over the Republican Party and rename it White Core America.

    Repeal the 19th Amendment or bribe the White Lady bastards

    I say bribe the White Lady voters

    What Do White Women Want?

    White Women Want The Pewitt Conjured Loot Portion(PCLP) Now!

    The Pewitt Conjured Loot Portion(PCLP) will pay each American who has all blood ancestry born in colonial America or the USA before 1924 a cool ten thousand dollars a month. The US Treasury and the Federal Reserve Bank shall work together to conjure up the cash out of thin air, just like the ruling class is doing now.

    Van Morrison Is Under Attack From The Evil Scum In The Corporate Propaganda Apparatus

    Ro Ro Rosey:

  56. anon[163] • Disclaimer says:
    @V. K. Ovelund
    Bitcoin is a pyramid scheme.

    Here’s to [Bitcoin's] continued success!
     
    One cannot pay taxes with Bitcoin. Without the power to satisfy a tax bill, Bitcoin lacks value.

    There do exist obscure variants like LBRY tokens that have the power to satisfy a bill of sorts (in LBRY's case, to satisfy the bill due for promotion of a video online), so their value is at least tethered to something; but Bitcoin's value is tethered to nothing at all except its own network effect as far as I know.

    If you doubt me, consider shares in Lehman Brothers. A share in Lehman Brothers, a bankrupt company, lacks no relevant attribute a Bitcoin has. It is scarce. It is well-known. It is associated with a network. It is electronically exchangeable. There is no way to acquire one except from a person who has one and will trade it to you.

    But no one ever thought that shares in Lehman Brothers were money.

    I do not believe that Bitcoin can suspend itself in midair by the back of its own belt forever. Bitcoin is a fascinating farce. You can buy if you like. If I had a Bitcoin, I would gladly sell it to you.

    Replies: @anon, @AnotherDad

    Bitcoin is a pyramid scheme.

    Nope. Suggest you look into exactly what Charles Ponzi and others, including Bernie Madoff, were actually doing. Compare and contrast with the finite number of Bitcoins.

    One cannot pay taxes with Bitcoin.

    Nor can one pay taxes with gold coin. Yet your local coin dealer believes a 1 ounce Kruggerand has value.

    Without the power to satisfy a tax bill, Bitcoin lacks value.

    Ridiculous.

  57. @Catdog
    Another thread derailed by Rosie, and the guys who can't help taking the bait.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @anon, @Jay Fink

    Yes. There are many Betaized men commenting on Unz.

    Scrolling past the noise is a rational response.

    • Troll: Corvinus
  58. Not only wrathful on how a message of negative white identity–not negative in the vicious sense of white fragility and white guilt, but in terms of defining identity in contrast to that of another group–is so often dead on arrival:

    The identity of the origins of the BAT SOUP FEVER was China and the Chinese have powerful friends within the JEW/WASP Ruling Class of the American Empire.

    Nasty treasonous whores such as baby boomer dirtbags Bill Clinton and George W Bush and Barack Obama crawled into bed with the Chinese Communist Party and when those scumbags got there they discovered that rodentine whore globalizer geezer boy named Biden had been getting crumbs from his corn pops in bed with the Chinese Communists. Biden has been in bed with the Chinese Communist Party for decades now.

    China Labor Arbitrage Sell Out From JEW/WASP Ruling Class

    WHITE IDENTITY POLITICS will remove the treasonous JEW/WASP Ruling Class of the American Empire from power.

  59. @RSDB
    @Jay Fink

    Supposing the man in the other instance had instead said that he was only or primarily attracted to ... conventionally attractive men, mostly younger than me, not obese etc, would he have gotten the same outpouring of support?

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Jay Fink

    Good question. My guess is it would have lowered the enthusiam he was receiving to a small degree (he occasionally posts pictures of young men he finds attractive but nobody cares one way or another). But I don’t think it would cause the anger a heterosexual man would get with those same stated preferences. Part of this is because many women would be indifferent towards the gay male preference but would be offended at the straight male preference.

    • Agree: dfordoom
  60. @Catdog
    Another thread derailed by Rosie, and the guys who can't help taking the bait.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @anon, @Jay Fink

    Agreed and I did it myself. Yet she sure made this thread active.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Jay Fink

    Do not confuse quantity of comments with quality.

    , @Rosie
    @Jay Fink


    Agreed and I did it myself. Yet she sure made this thread active.
     
    If stimulating a lively discussion = derailing a thread, then what exactly is the point of this site?

    Replies: @anon

  61. @Jay Fink
    @Catdog

    Agreed and I did it myself. Yet she sure made this thread active.

    Replies: @anon, @Rosie

    Do not confuse quantity of comments with quality.

  62. @Triteleia Laxa
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Women are irrational, not incapable. Our civilization cannot survive the blowback from cornered women. No civilization could.

    You’ve got to leave them a dignified way out
     
    How do these women differ from men?

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    How do these women differ from men?

    In most ways.

  63. Couple of things:
    First, this “The only contingent Wokeism can’t absorb is the dissident right and a handful of independent leftists like Glenn Greenwald and Jimmy Dore, but their numbers are small, their institutional support even smaller, and all the cultural guns are pointed at them if they ever manage to seriously threaten the power structure in any way.” is spot on. Nobody on the dissident Right or Left (horrible terms, but that is what they allot us) matters. Anyone that ever does is cancelled or eliminated. We really are completely unimportant and without influence. They hope. Some pray also. They won’t see how wrong they are until they fell cold steel or hot lead, or hairy rope. Would that it be sooner than later.

    Second: “Biologically normal preferences are shamed while deviant choices are praised.” Read Defining Deviancy Down, by William Bennet. it must be forty years old by now. He was righ then as well.

  64. The “biological imperative” explains everything. This is all wiring and instinct. Elements include: Quality-of-life-seeking, reproduction, competition. The bio imperative explains this thread, and also why apparently sane people are latching onto the ethos that has unraveled the country. They sense at some level that this insanity is now better for their bio imperative.

    Why does a pretty high-school junior girl go steady with a senior? Because he makes more money than a boy in her own year?
    Why does the HS senior boy steady-date a very pretty junior girl? The pretty senior girl is hardly shriveled-up with age. She is not past her sell-by date. But the junior is slightly prettier.

    Rosie?

    • Replies: @Wency
    @SafeNow


    This is all wiring and instinct.
     
    I think this is partly true here. I actually think many of Rosie's points are valid, but it's surely not a coincidence that she's the only self-identified woman posting here and also that she, like practically all women, doesn't like the idea of older men going for younger women (unless they're the younger woman in question), regardless of whether they've come up with an intellectual reason to dislike it or they just think it's "gross".

    Men don't really hate the idea that much, even though, for young men, it is a very real source of competition. We're just not wired to hate it that much, I suppose because we'll all someday be old and still interested in fertile women, and that outweighs the desire to rail against it in our youth.

    Why does the HS senior boy steady-date a very pretty junior girl? The pretty senior girl is hardly shriveled-up with age. She is not past her sell-by date. But the junior is slightly prettier.
     
    I don't think this part is true though -- the senior is probably slightly prettier, since most men tend to think that most women peak in their early 20s, though there's some variation. But he probably goes for the junior because she's more likely to go for him.

    It seems women at basically every age tend to seek men who are slightly older. Probably because they see that as the best balance of a secure pair-bond and resource provision. But they'll flip to much older men under some conditions -- sacrifice the security of the pair-bond in exchange for more security on resource provision. This trend continues past menopause, but nature doesn't much care and therefore doesn't much select based on women's preferences after that age, so inertia prevails.

    Replies: @Rosie

  65. @anonymous
    I think that while "clown world" is effective rhetoric(which goes far these days) it is not an accurate description of the U.S.

    I think the U.S. is not a "fanciful" or "whimsical" or "silly" place, as clown world would imply, but rather, a SELF DESTRUCTIVE place. Most of these behaviors, world views, values systems, and the like, if followed, would absolutely ruin a person's (or nations) existence. We are talking life destroying, civilization ruining actions, and the U.S. govt is both promoting and actively following them.

    In my profession, I travel to many foreign countries. Everyone I speak to about the U.S. is dumbfounded by all of this stuff. They literally do not understand how a society like the U.S. can continue to exist with these core "values." Many of them are assuming it will not, and are acting accordingly.

    Replies: @Sollipsist

    You’re forgetting that the clowns are ALWAYS sad when nobody is watching. Take it from Smokey Robinson and a million black velvet pictures.

  66. @SafeNow
    The “biological imperative” explains everything. This is all wiring and instinct. Elements include: Quality-of-life-seeking, reproduction, competition. The bio imperative explains this thread, and also why apparently sane people are latching onto the ethos that has unraveled the country. They sense at some level that this insanity is now better for their bio imperative.

    Why does a pretty high-school junior girl go steady with a senior? Because he makes more money than a boy in her own year?
    Why does the HS senior boy steady-date a very pretty junior girl? The pretty senior girl is hardly shriveled-up with age. She is not past her sell-by date. But the junior is slightly prettier.

    Rosie?

    Replies: @Wency

    This is all wiring and instinct.

    I think this is partly true here. I actually think many of Rosie’s points are valid, but it’s surely not a coincidence that she’s the only self-identified woman posting here and also that she, like practically all women, doesn’t like the idea of older men going for younger women (unless they’re the younger woman in question), regardless of whether they’ve come up with an intellectual reason to dislike it or they just think it’s “gross”.

    Men don’t really hate the idea that much, even though, for young men, it is a very real source of competition. We’re just not wired to hate it that much, I suppose because we’ll all someday be old and still interested in fertile women, and that outweighs the desire to rail against it in our youth.

    Why does the HS senior boy steady-date a very pretty junior girl? The pretty senior girl is hardly shriveled-up with age. She is not past her sell-by date. But the junior is slightly prettier.

    I don’t think this part is true though — the senior is probably slightly prettier, since most men tend to think that most women peak in their early 20s, though there’s some variation. But he probably goes for the junior because she’s more likely to go for him.

    It seems women at basically every age tend to seek men who are slightly older. Probably because they see that as the best balance of a secure pair-bond and resource provision. But they’ll flip to much older men under some conditions — sacrifice the security of the pair-bond in exchange for more security on resource provision. This trend continues past menopause, but nature doesn’t much care and therefore doesn’t much select based on women’s preferences after that age, so inertia prevails.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Wency


    I think this is partly true here. I actually think many of Rosie’s points are valid, but it’s surely not a coincidence that she’s the only self-identified woman posting here and also that she, like practically all women, doesn’t like the idea of older men going for younger women (unless they’re the younger woman in question),

     

    No, indeed. I also happen to be correct. These matches are bad for most people. I never hear the end of how terrible divorce is for kids, and this is mostly true. Yet, everyone here wants to ignore the very clear data that age gaps increase the risk of divorce. What happened to all that concern for the children?

    regardless of whether they’ve come up with an intellectual reason to dislike it or they just think it’s “gross”.
     I have given numerous intellectual reasons, to wit:

    1. Higher risk of divorce.
    2. More difficulty for young men in finding a mate.
    3. Lengthy, and very lonely, widowhood for women, who may live alone for 20 years waiting to die.
    4. No romantic prospects for women abandoned in middle age.
  67. I think that large age gaps like 10-20 years are completely natural and make a lot of sense, maybe even more in this day and age where women are often very demanding of what they desire in men and so it may take a man a while from when he starts dating maybe around 17 to really get a relationship to work, it could be anywhere from 4-15 years or even longer, some men are lucky and manage to find an ideal lady when young but that is often dependent on the girl really desiring him, as we know a lot of men fail or trip up with women and so they may not get into a proper relationship until their early 30s especially if they are the sort of men who won’t fall for the first woman that smiles at them and are more discriminating.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @oliver elkington


    maybe even more in this day and age where women are often very demanding of what they desire in men
     
    Still waiting for evidence of this claim.
    , @Resartus
    @oliver elkington


    I think that large age gaps like 10-20 years are completely natural and make a lot of sense, maybe even more in this day and age where women are often very demanding of what they desire in men and so it may take a man a while from when he starts dating
     
    Then some women look at, if the man is much older, he may pass away (unlikely to dragged off to war), then she is still young enough to start over......

    Replies: @Rosie

  68. @My SIMPLE Pseudonymic Handle
    @Rosie

    What you fail to take into account is the history of humankind over the past couple million years.

    If you accept the notion that humans evolved from lower primates to great apes to proto-humans to the final product modern humans. We see that each involves a type of culture and society used to control behavior.

    If we look at the lower primates, for the most part, only the dominate males get to procreate. Violence is used to enforce the rules by dominate males. Although, in this form of society King of the Mountain is the primary driver and kings are replaced quite often through old age or death.



    For the great apes large dominate males still rule but sexual exclusion for young males is enforced by the females preference for older dominate males. This can be seen quite easily in chimpanzees. Although bonobos present a different form of society. Another outlier is orangutans.

    Marriage for love was unheard of until fairly recently and has only really been acknowledged for the last couple hundred years. Before that arranged marriages was the acceptable practice. In fact it's still a traditional way of getting married in of all places India. As well as other cultures. It was generally accepted to marry off females that had reached the age of puberty to older, hopefully financially well off older males. Older men marrying young females was acceptable as far back as colonial times. Societies in the past only considered females for their child bearing abilities and their ability to run a household. Stifling as it sounds but that's the way it was.

    Females in the past needed men for their ability to provide protection against marauding males and the ability to hunt and bring home the proverbial bacon. Obviously males needed women to bear and raise the children and keep the household. As provincial as that sounds that's the way societies were formed. Were there anomalies to this form of society. Yes there were, but they were few and far between.

    You might think these practices are parochial or barbaric but other cultures and societies think it's normal. Even up to WW2 women were expected to get married and have children and run the household. It really wasn't until WW2 that job/career opportunities opened up for women in general. Before that women were relegated to secretary/hospitality/services work.

    Progressives (Soviets) may like to think they can mold the New Soviet Man but you can't override millions of years of conditioning with a political slogan. Everything going on now is an aberration. Eventually the pendulum will swing back to what it was before because female emancipation and homosexuality does not produce the next generation. You can try to form a society around babies conceived in a bottle and raised by the state as in the novel Brave New World. But, you'll only end up with a society that closely resembles that of fatherless blacks in Democrat run ghettos.

    We can look at elephants as an observable example. Young elephants are raised by their mother's with the help of other female elephants in the herd. When young males reach a certain age, before musk, they are pushed out of the herd for the following reason. When male elephants reach puberty they enter musk. Musk drives the young males berserk. They go on a rampage destroying everything and anything they see. They're so full of testosterone they think they can destroy the world and attempt to do so. That's why they're kicked out of the herd. Out on the African plain the young males run into the old bulls and the old bulls not only have the size but the strength to push back against the young bulls which helps to temper the young bull's testosterone fueled drive to smash and destroy. This has been going on for millions of years since the first elephants walked the Earth. Do you think you can change this type of behavior anytime soon? Other than castrating the poor boys.

    A good example of this phenomenon can be seen in of all places the TV series Rick and Morty.

    When you get a chance watch Season 1 Episode 7 Raising Gazorpazorp.

    For some reason progressives seem to think they can override millions of years of genetic programming.

    Replies: @Rosie

    Look, I cling to the notion that men are not equivalent to chimpanzees and elephants. I’m not interested in any conversation that proceeds from the contrary assumption.

    Nor am I interested in anything Indians are doing. Theirs is the most heinously misogynistic culture on the face of the Earth, with a future so bleak their mothers often kill them when they’re born.

    https://www.patheos.com/blogs/goodletters/2012/10/the-three-deadliest-words-in-the-world-its-a-girl/

    • Replies: @but an humble craftsman
    @Rosie

    We are, madam, and you know it, nearer to animals than we like to be.

    Please stop trolling.

    Replies: @Rosie

  69. @Wency
    @SafeNow


    This is all wiring and instinct.
     
    I think this is partly true here. I actually think many of Rosie's points are valid, but it's surely not a coincidence that she's the only self-identified woman posting here and also that she, like practically all women, doesn't like the idea of older men going for younger women (unless they're the younger woman in question), regardless of whether they've come up with an intellectual reason to dislike it or they just think it's "gross".

    Men don't really hate the idea that much, even though, for young men, it is a very real source of competition. We're just not wired to hate it that much, I suppose because we'll all someday be old and still interested in fertile women, and that outweighs the desire to rail against it in our youth.

    Why does the HS senior boy steady-date a very pretty junior girl? The pretty senior girl is hardly shriveled-up with age. She is not past her sell-by date. But the junior is slightly prettier.
     
    I don't think this part is true though -- the senior is probably slightly prettier, since most men tend to think that most women peak in their early 20s, though there's some variation. But he probably goes for the junior because she's more likely to go for him.

    It seems women at basically every age tend to seek men who are slightly older. Probably because they see that as the best balance of a secure pair-bond and resource provision. But they'll flip to much older men under some conditions -- sacrifice the security of the pair-bond in exchange for more security on resource provision. This trend continues past menopause, but nature doesn't much care and therefore doesn't much select based on women's preferences after that age, so inertia prevails.

    Replies: @Rosie

    I think this is partly true here. I actually think many of Rosie’s points are valid, but it’s surely not a coincidence that she’s the only self-identified woman posting here and also that she, like practically all women, doesn’t like the idea of older men going for younger women (unless they’re the younger woman in question),

    No, indeed. I also happen to be correct. These matches are bad for most people. I never hear the end of how terrible divorce is for kids, and this is mostly true. Yet, everyone here wants to ignore the very clear data that age gaps increase the risk of divorce. What happened to all that concern for the children?

    regardless of whether they’ve come up with an intellectual reason to dislike it or they just think it’s “gross”.

    I have given numerous intellectual reasons, to wit:

    1. Higher risk of divorce.
    2. More difficulty for young men in finding a mate.
    3. Lengthy, and very lonely, widowhood for women, who may live alone for 20 years waiting to die.
    4. No romantic prospects for women abandoned in middle age.

  70. @oliver elkington
    I think that large age gaps like 10-20 years are completely natural and make a lot of sense, maybe even more in this day and age where women are often very demanding of what they desire in men and so it may take a man a while from when he starts dating maybe around 17 to really get a relationship to work, it could be anywhere from 4-15 years or even longer, some men are lucky and manage to find an ideal lady when young but that is often dependent on the girl really desiring him, as we know a lot of men fail or trip up with women and so they may not get into a proper relationship until their early 30s especially if they are the sort of men who won't fall for the first woman that smiles at them and are more discriminating.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Resartus

    maybe even more in this day and age where women are often very demanding of what they desire in men

    Still waiting for evidence of this claim.

  71. @oliver elkington
    I think that large age gaps like 10-20 years are completely natural and make a lot of sense, maybe even more in this day and age where women are often very demanding of what they desire in men and so it may take a man a while from when he starts dating maybe around 17 to really get a relationship to work, it could be anywhere from 4-15 years or even longer, some men are lucky and manage to find an ideal lady when young but that is often dependent on the girl really desiring him, as we know a lot of men fail or trip up with women and so they may not get into a proper relationship until their early 30s especially if they are the sort of men who won't fall for the first woman that smiles at them and are more discriminating.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Resartus

    I think that large age gaps like 10-20 years are completely natural and make a lot of sense, maybe even more in this day and age where women are often very demanding of what they desire in men and so it may take a man a while from when he starts dating

    Then some women look at, if the man is much older, he may pass away (unlikely to dragged off to war), then she is still young enough to start over……

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Resartus


    Then some women look at, if the man is much older, he may pass away (unlikely to dragged off to war), then she is still young enough to start over……
     
    Good grief. Did we not just establish the fact that men prefer younger women? Who is she going to start over with? Crusty old geezer 2.0?

    Replies: @Resartus

  72. @Rosie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Rosie is a one-woman illustration of why, when our civilization is rebuilt from the ashes, the women’s franchise will have vanished along with the rest of women’s emancipation.
     
    Dream on.

    Notwithstanding, as I said, I wholly agree with you, because the entire history of civilization stands on your side.
     
    It is not the history of civilization that stands on his side, but rather the history of violence, barbarism, and the most appalling degeneracy. If old men are marrying young women, what are the young men doing? Whoremongering? Dying in combat? A little from column A and a little from column B.

    "It is not good that the man should be alone. "
    -God

    Replies: @dfordoom

    It is not the history of civilization that stands on his side, but rather the history of violence, barbarism, and the most appalling degeneracy. If old men are marrying young women, what are the young men doing? Whoremongering? Dying in combat? A little from column A and a little from column B.

    Now you’re changing the subject again.

    Oddly enough, you’re also launching a bitter attack on western civilisation.

    I also detest the history of violence and barbarism that is the history of our civilisation. I think my posting history makes that clear. I’m pretty close to being a pacifist for goodness’ sake.

    I’m not sure I agree that the history of our civilisation is a history of the most appalling degeneracy.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @dfordoom


    Oddly enough, you’re also launching a bitter attack on western civilisation.
     
    Nothing could be further from the truth.

    What I am telling you is that wherever it is found, polygamy in all its forms, including the contemporary "serial monogamy" variation, is associated with a life that is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" as excess men are sent away to kill each other and/or women are enslaved in brothels to "service" all these excess men.

    Depending on what day it is, this may be considered an article of faith in the dissident right, such as when some poster wants to demonize women for "hypergamy." Or it may be considered an outrage, such as when I object to double-dipping dirty old men who poach mates from the generation.
  73. @Jay Fink
    @Catdog

    Agreed and I did it myself. Yet she sure made this thread active.

    Replies: @anon, @Rosie

    Agreed and I did it myself. Yet she sure made this thread active.

    If stimulating a lively discussion = derailing a thread, then what exactly is the point of this site?

    • Replies: @anon
    @Rosie

    https://positek.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/sign-do-not-feed-trolls-image-from-shutterstock.jpg

    Replies: @Rosie

  74. @Resartus
    @oliver elkington


    I think that large age gaps like 10-20 years are completely natural and make a lot of sense, maybe even more in this day and age where women are often very demanding of what they desire in men and so it may take a man a while from when he starts dating
     
    Then some women look at, if the man is much older, he may pass away (unlikely to dragged off to war), then she is still young enough to start over......

    Replies: @Rosie

    Then some women look at, if the man is much older, he may pass away (unlikely to dragged off to war), then she is still young enough to start over……

    Good grief. Did we not just establish the fact that men prefer younger women? Who is she going to start over with? Crusty old geezer 2.0?

    • Replies: @Resartus
    @Rosie


    Did we not just establish the fact that men prefer younger women?
     
    Yet you skip right over, that some young women like older men......
  75. @Rosie
    @Jay Fink


    Agreed and I did it myself. Yet she sure made this thread active.
     
    If stimulating a lively discussion = derailing a thread, then what exactly is the point of this site?

    Replies: @anon

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @anon

    From the unz.com glossary:

    Feed the troll = have a grown-up discussion with someone who disagrees with you.

  76. @dfordoom
    @Rosie


    It is not the history of civilization that stands on his side, but rather the history of violence, barbarism, and the most appalling degeneracy. If old men are marrying young women, what are the young men doing? Whoremongering? Dying in combat? A little from column A and a little from column B.
     
    Now you're changing the subject again.

    Oddly enough, you're also launching a bitter attack on western civilisation.

    I also detest the history of violence and barbarism that is the history of our civilisation. I think my posting history makes that clear. I'm pretty close to being a pacifist for goodness' sake.

    I'm not sure I agree that the history of our civilisation is a history of the most appalling degeneracy.

    Replies: @Rosie

    Oddly enough, you’re also launching a bitter attack on western civilisation.

    Nothing could be further from the truth.

    What I am telling you is that wherever it is found, polygamy in all its forms, including the contemporary “serial monogamy” variation, is associated with a life that is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” as excess men are sent away to kill each other and/or women are enslaved in brothels to “service” all these excess men.

    Depending on what day it is, this may be considered an article of faith in the dissident right, such as when some poster wants to demonize women for “hypergamy.” Or it may be considered an outrage, such as when I object to double-dipping dirty old men who poach mates from the generation.

  77. @Rosie
    @dfordoom


    it’s a separate issue.
     
    Not really. You are attempting to separate what is inextricably linked.

    Let’s say a man is 50 years old and he’s never married.
     
    Why not and what has he been up to all this time?

    Or he’s a widower. Or his wife has dumped him. In those cases would you see any problem if he married a 25-year-old woman?
     
    If you acknowledge the possibility that a wife may dump a husband, do you likewise acknowledge that a husband may dump a wife? If so, do you consider the interest of the dumped 50-year-old wife to be equal to, or less than, the interests of the 50-year-old dumped husband?

    If the woman's interests matter to you, it would seem that you would have to acknowledge that it would be better if your hypothetical dumped husband hooked up with her rather than a 25-year-old. That way, rather than two people in a relationship that is unusually likely to fail, and two people with noone, you'd have four people in a relationship that is rather likely to succeed.

    Now, suppose the woman's interests don't matter to you. What about the 27-year-old man whom she would have married but for your hypothetical cross-generational match? What is he supposed to do? Marry the 50-year-old woman rejected by the 50-year-old man? Visit whores? Or maybe he could just go kidnap a little girl from Nepal and hold her prisoner until she hits puberty.

    https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/insights/25630/the-danger-of-human-trafficking-is-no-secret-in-nepal-why-is-it-still-so-common

    Look, you want to believe that your actions are "nobody else's damned business," and maybe that's true, but it doesn't change the fact that you are not an island. Your actions affect other people. Unyielding mathematical reality gets in the way of your preference for maximum personal liberty without moral judgment. There are almost as many men as women. Cross-generational marriage has the same effect on the marriage market as outright bigamy.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Jim Christian, @dfordoom

    If you acknowledge the possibility that a wife may dump a husband, do you likewise acknowledge that a husband may dump a wife? If so, do you consider the interest of the dumped 50-year-old wife to be equal to, or less than, the interests of the 50-year-old dumped husband?

    Obviously yes.

    If the woman’s interests matter to you, it would seem that you would have to acknowledge that it would be better if your hypothetical dumped husband hooked up with her rather than a 25-year-old. That way, rather than two people in a relationship that is unusually likely to fail, and two people with noone, you’d have four people in a relationship that is rather likely to succeed.

    No, because now you’re trying to control other people’s lives. If someone has been dumped (or has remained unmarried until middle age or has been widowed) and that person finds someone that he wants to marry and that person is happy to marry him then it is nobody else’s damned business to tell him that he shouldn’t. And if a 50-year-old woman has been dumped (or has remained unmarried until middle age or has been widowed) and finds someone that she wants to marry and that person is happy to marry her then it is also nobody else’s damned business to tell her that she shouldn’t.

    Another person’s choice of marriage partner is none of my business and it’s none of your business.

    What about the 27-year-old man whom she would have married but for your hypothetical cross-generational match? What is he supposed to do?

    Again you’re wanting to control other people’s lives. Are you seriously suggesting that a woman should not be allowed to marry whatever man she happens to want to marry? The only person who knows what man that woman wants to marry is that woman herself and it’s her choice. Or are you advocating that the woman should be compelled to marry the sort of man you think she should marry? That’s getting very close to advocating not just arranged marriages but forced marriages. “I’m sorry Miss Smith but your application for a permit to marry Bob Jones has been rejected but don’t worry we’ve arranged a more suitable marriage for you.”

    Are you sure you’ve really thought this through?

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @dfordoom


    Or are you advocating that the woman should be compelled to marry the sort of man you think she should marry?
     
    No. That's a Straw Man. Noone should ever be compelled to marry anyone. That said, do you think people should also be free from negative constraint in whom they may not marry? If so, you are flirting with relativism.

    In any event, people are free to marry whomever they wish and should remain so. I should likewise be free to have nothing to do with said person. When you ask me to pretend it's "normal" to marry someone young enough to be your own child, you are out of hounds. It’s not normal, and it’s not Godly.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  78. “ Your opinion is a very minor one among white people. It is almost non-existent among the educated and the young.”

    ‘Educated’ doesn’t have the meaning it once did.

  79. @dfordoom
    @Rosie


    To say that a preference is “normal” is to acknowledge that it goes without saying. Therefore, to sayit in so many words is to pile on and punch down. People don’t like that.
     
    It depends on exactly what you mean by "normal". If you mean that a particular sexual preference is the only acceptable sexual preference then yes, that could be seen as imposing that preference on others and that could be seen as offensive. If someone argued that the only acceptable sexual preference for men was for young busty blondes then that would indeed be problematic (as our liberal friends would say).

    But Jay Fink is not using the term in that sense. He's using it in the sense of its being commonplace, perfectly healthy and nobody else's damn business.

    For a man to be attracted to pretty young women (over the age of consent) is very commonplace, perfectly healthy and very much nobody else's damn business. He is not arguing that that particular attraction is the only acceptable attraction and he is certainly not trying to impose it on anybody else.

    Moreover, ought does not follow from is. Men’s attraction to younger, nulliparous women is, frankly, antisocial.
     
    That's complete nonsense. Look back at history and you'll find very healthy very functional societies (with high birth rates) in which marriages between older men and much younger women were extremely common. And often extremely happy.

    You're the one trying to impose your views on sexual preferences on other people.

    Anyone who claims to support monogamy must acknowledge this.
     
    In the Victorian era marriages between older men and much younger women were extremely common. It didn't do any harm at all to monogamy.

    As long as both parties are over the age of consent men are entitled to be attracted to whatever type of women they choose, and women are entitled to be attracted to whatever type of men they choose.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Curle

    “ Look back at history and you’ll find very healthy very functional societies (with high birth rates) in which marriages between older men and much younger women were extremely common. And often extremely happy.”

    You sound like Juliet Capulet’s dad. But, I suspect Juliet Capulet’s position was more the norm even then.

    • Agree: Rosie
  80. One ideal age gap at the time of marriage that has been proposed is the “rule of sevens“:

    y=1/2X+7

    where y=the age of the groom and x= the age of the bride.

    The rule also appears in The Autobiography of Malcolm X. In the 1950s, Nation of Islam leader Elijah Muhammad “taught that a wife’s ideal age was half the man’s age plus seven”; this age gap should make up for women’s maturing more quickly than men, as well as ensure that the husband was sufficiently authoritative over his wife.”

    This seems very reasonable to me. I have shared this rule with my sons. I wasn’t aware of it when I married but I see it’s wisdom now that I am older and my wife is older still…

    • LOL: Rosie
    • Replies: @Agathoklis
    @PennTothal

    From memory, Aristotle recommended in his Politics, the best age for marriage for men was 37 or a little earlier and a woman should be about 18. That would given them about 10 years to produce about 4-5 children. Their production was primarily to satisfy the City-State rather than their for their own enjoyment. Difficult to argue against one of the most intelligent men in history. Unfortunately, I did not follow his advice to the letter.

    Replies: @Rosie

  81. @PennTothal
    One ideal age gap at the time of marriage that has been proposed is the "rule of sevens":

    y=1/2X+7

    where y=the age of the groom and x= the age of the bride.

    "The rule also appears in The Autobiography of Malcolm X. In the 1950s, Nation of Islam leader Elijah Muhammad “taught that a wife’s ideal age was half the man’s age plus seven”; this age gap should make up for women’s maturing more quickly than men, as well as ensure that the husband was sufficiently authoritative over his wife."

    This seems very reasonable to me. I have shared this rule with my sons. I wasn't aware of it when I married but I see it's wisdom now that I am older and my wife is older still...

    Replies: @Agathoklis

    From memory, Aristotle recommended in his Politics, the best age for marriage for men was 37 or a little earlier and a woman should be about 18. That would given them about 10 years to produce about 4-5 children. Their production was primarily to satisfy the City-State rather than their for their own enjoyment. Difficult to argue against one of the most intelligent men in history. Unfortunately, I did not follow his advice to the letter.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Agathoklis


    Difficult to argue against one of the most intelligent men in history.
     
    Aristotle, for all his virtues, was notoriously misogynist, Pythagoras, Plato, and Socrates took a much different view.
  82. @dfordoom
    @Rosie


    If you acknowledge the possibility that a wife may dump a husband, do you likewise acknowledge that a husband may dump a wife? If so, do you consider the interest of the dumped 50-year-old wife to be equal to, or less than, the interests of the 50-year-old dumped husband?
     
    Obviously yes.

    If the woman’s interests matter to you, it would seem that you would have to acknowledge that it would be better if your hypothetical dumped husband hooked up with her rather than a 25-year-old. That way, rather than two people in a relationship that is unusually likely to fail, and two people with noone, you’d have four people in a relationship that is rather likely to succeed.
     
    No, because now you're trying to control other people's lives. If someone has been dumped (or has remained unmarried until middle age or has been widowed) and that person finds someone that he wants to marry and that person is happy to marry him then it is nobody else's damned business to tell him that he shouldn't. And if a 50-year-old woman has been dumped (or has remained unmarried until middle age or has been widowed) and finds someone that she wants to marry and that person is happy to marry her then it is also nobody else's damned business to tell her that she shouldn't.

    Another person's choice of marriage partner is none of my business and it's none of your business.

    What about the 27-year-old man whom she would have married but for your hypothetical cross-generational match? What is he supposed to do?
     
    Again you're wanting to control other people's lives. Are you seriously suggesting that a woman should not be allowed to marry whatever man she happens to want to marry? The only person who knows what man that woman wants to marry is that woman herself and it's her choice. Or are you advocating that the woman should be compelled to marry the sort of man you think she should marry? That's getting very close to advocating not just arranged marriages but forced marriages. "I'm sorry Miss Smith but your application for a permit to marry Bob Jones has been rejected but don't worry we've arranged a more suitable marriage for you."

    Are you sure you've really thought this through?

    Replies: @Rosie

    Or are you advocating that the woman should be compelled to marry the sort of man you think she should marry?

    No. That’s a Straw Man. Noone should ever be compelled to marry anyone. That said, do you think people should also be free from negative constraint in whom they may not marry? If so, you are flirting with relativism.

    In any event, people are free to marry whomever they wish and should remain so. I should likewise be free to have nothing to do with said person. When you ask me to pretend it’s “normal” to marry someone young enough to be your own child, you are out of hounds. It’s not normal, and it’s not Godly.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Rosie


    No. That’s a Straw Man. Noone should ever be compelled to marry anyone. That said, do you think people should also be free from negative constraint in whom they may not marry? If so, you are flirting with relativism.
     
    If you believe that there should be negative constraints on people in order to coerce them into marrying the sort of people you think they should marry then you're flirting with the concept of arranged marriage.

    The only concept I'm flirting with here is the concept of free choice. Free of coercion, either direct or indirect.


    In any event, people are free to marry whomever they wish and should remain so. I should likewise be free to have nothing to do with said person. When you ask me to pretend it’s “normal” to marry someone young enough to be your own child, you are out of hounds. It’s not normal, and it’s not Godly.
     
    So I assume you would never ever vote for a man like Donald Trump, who married a woman young enough to be his daughter.

    This gets back to the point I made earlier. Social conservatives are often regarded as harsh, rigid, humourless and lacking in any real empathy because they are often harsh, rigid, humourless and lacking in any real empathy.

    Replies: @Rosie

  83. @Agathoklis
    @PennTothal

    From memory, Aristotle recommended in his Politics, the best age for marriage for men was 37 or a little earlier and a woman should be about 18. That would given them about 10 years to produce about 4-5 children. Their production was primarily to satisfy the City-State rather than their for their own enjoyment. Difficult to argue against one of the most intelligent men in history. Unfortunately, I did not follow his advice to the letter.

    Replies: @Rosie

    Difficult to argue against one of the most intelligent men in history.

    Aristotle, for all his virtues, was notoriously misogynist, Pythagoras, Plato, and Socrates took a much different view.

  84. @anon
    @Rosie

    https://positek.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/sign-do-not-feed-trolls-image-from-shutterstock.jpg

    Replies: @Rosie

    From the unz.com glossary:

    Feed the troll = have a grown-up discussion with someone who disagrees with you.

  85. @Rosie

    Jay Fink makes an observation illustrating why the phrase “clown world” resonates the way it does:
     
    Clown World is a thing, but this isn't a Clown World thing. This is rather a straightforward instance of the general rule that people shouldn't be a$$holes.

    To say that a preference is "normal" is to acknowledge that it goes without saying. Therefore, to sayit in so many words is to pile on and punch down. People don't like that.

    Moreover, ought does not follow from is. Men's attraction to younger, nulliparous women is, frankly, antisocial. It is advantageous for individual males, but destructive to society as a whole. Anyone who claims to support monogamy must acknowledge this. No one can be blamed for their preferences, but one can be blamed for offending people's social sensibilities by boasting about it.

    Replies: @Jay Fink, @GazaPlanet, @dfordoom, @Triteleia Laxa, @Chrisnonymous, @Anonymous, @Jim Christian, @Mario Partisan, @DanHessinMD, @AnotherDad, @Dumbo, @Rattus Norwegius

    Rosie “Defender of Roasties” says:

    Men’s attraction to younger, nulliparous women is, frankly, antisocial.

    In the interest of full disclosure, I had to look up “nulliparous.” Okay, so male attraction to young women who have not had children yet is anti-social?

    The implication is that men should be lusting after “older” women who have had children with one or more other men. In my opinion, not only would that lusting be anti-social, but expecting that men should want to settle down with and provide for another man’s offspring because a woman made a rash decision is even more anti-social!

    Rosie, I don’t generally dislike you as a commenter, but I am always amazed at your insistence on defending women as if you are all part of a big sorority. There is no sorority. In fact, in my experience a large chunk of (white) women are steeped in clown world BS and would throw you to the wolves if they knew you posted at UR.

    Now, so you don’t misunderstand me, I do not advocate men pursuing jailbait or leaving their wives for younger women. But male attraction is rooted in the reptilian limbic system and is oriented towards signs of fertility – and youth is the quintessential sign of that.

    From previous comments I have gathered that you are happily married with children. That’s great. But understand that we are living in a world where women like you are getting harder and harder to find. What is out there in the real world is a large chunk of women who have spent their fertile years partying it up with one short-term lust interest after another. They have turned down the hand of many men who would have loved to settle down with them. At a certain age, 30+, they finally decide they want to settle down with a beta male provider. But at that point the assets that they have to bring to the table are rather depreciated and there is no reason that a man who has things going for him can’t choose to pursue women 5 or 10 years younger.

    I suspect a lot of this shaming of men for their normal, natural, Darwinian instincts is mere blame shifting. These “roasties” can’t accept that they are responsible for being single and they are trying to shame men into taking them after having pushed those same arms away only a few years earlier.

    The fact is, what is happening between men and women is a collective problem that goes beyond individual blame. In short, tech progress has been too fast and is clashing with our atavistic natures.

    I’ll tell a little anecdote. My dad was born in 1946, in Italy. When he was still a little kid, he went to the market one day with his mom. There was a man on the corner giving free samples of bouillon cube broth (it was a new thing for them.) This product soon developed a nick name – “brodo dei becchi” or “broth of the cucked husbands.” Quasi-literate carpenters and metal workers understood far more than the “enlightened” literati of today.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Mario Partisan


    Okay, so male attraction to young women who have not had children yet is anti-social?
     
    It is antisocial in the sense that women are only nulliparous until they have their first child. If you are married to a woman for 40 years, she is only going to have her prebaby figure for the first few years of that. What about the next ~35 years?

    He is going to have to overcome his preference at that point. It won't do to blather on about it being "natural" to prefer women who haven't had children.
    Whether if is natural or not is neither here nor there. Note that I am saying that the preference is antisocial, not the person, by which I mean, simply that a man is more likely to engage on antisocial conduct with that preference than he would be without it.

    I suspect a lot of this shaming of men for their normal, natural, Darwinian instincts is mere blame shifting. These “roasties” can’t accept that they are responsible for being single and they are trying to shame men into taking them after having pushed those same arms away only a few years earlier.
     

    I don't believe this whole narrative about "roasties" resisting marriage and have said so repeatedly and given ample reasons for this. Fifty percent of young people are married or cohabiting by age 24, and the numbers go up from there.

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/109402/age-24-marriage-wins.aspx

    That said, I'm sure there are individual men for whom something like this happens, and in that case, I'm not going to fuss about 5-10 year age gap. I just don't think that's what is going on most of the time. I do not share your assumption that women are to blame for their single status, but men are not.

    I rather suspect that what is happening is the opposite. Men don’t want to get married until there hair starts falling out, at which point, they're not interested in any of their same-age peers whom they have pumped and dumped over the years, whom they consider "damaged goods." Rather, they want a woman 10 years younger.

    It seems that our dispute is as to the facts on the ground rather than moral principles.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @DanHessinMD, @Curle

  86. To Rosie’s defense.

  87. Another for Rosie.

  88. @Mario Partisan
    @Rosie

    Rosie “Defender of Roasties” says:


    Men’s attraction to younger, nulliparous women is, frankly, antisocial.
     
    In the interest of full disclosure, I had to look up “nulliparous.” Okay, so male attraction to young women who have not had children yet is anti-social?

    The implication is that men should be lusting after “older” women who have had children with one or more other men. In my opinion, not only would that lusting be anti-social, but expecting that men should want to settle down with and provide for another man’s offspring because a woman made a rash decision is even more anti-social!

    Rosie, I don’t generally dislike you as a commenter, but I am always amazed at your insistence on defending women as if you are all part of a big sorority. There is no sorority. In fact, in my experience a large chunk of (white) women are steeped in clown world BS and would throw you to the wolves if they knew you posted at UR.

    Now, so you don’t misunderstand me, I do not advocate men pursuing jailbait or leaving their wives for younger women. But male attraction is rooted in the reptilian limbic system and is oriented towards signs of fertility – and youth is the quintessential sign of that.

    From previous comments I have gathered that you are happily married with children. That’s great. But understand that we are living in a world where women like you are getting harder and harder to find. What is out there in the real world is a large chunk of women who have spent their fertile years partying it up with one short-term lust interest after another. They have turned down the hand of many men who would have loved to settle down with them. At a certain age, 30+, they finally decide they want to settle down with a beta male provider. But at that point the assets that they have to bring to the table are rather depreciated and there is no reason that a man who has things going for him can’t choose to pursue women 5 or 10 years younger.

    I suspect a lot of this shaming of men for their normal, natural, Darwinian instincts is mere blame shifting. These “roasties” can’t accept that they are responsible for being single and they are trying to shame men into taking them after having pushed those same arms away only a few years earlier.

    The fact is, what is happening between men and women is a collective problem that goes beyond individual blame. In short, tech progress has been too fast and is clashing with our atavistic natures.

    I’ll tell a little anecdote. My dad was born in 1946, in Italy. When he was still a little kid, he went to the market one day with his mom. There was a man on the corner giving free samples of bouillon cube broth (it was a new thing for them.) This product soon developed a nick name – “brodo dei becchi” or “broth of the cucked husbands.” Quasi-literate carpenters and metal workers understood far more than the “enlightened” literati of today.

    Replies: @Rosie

    Okay, so male attraction to young women who have not had children yet is anti-social?

    It is antisocial in the sense that women are only nulliparous until they have their first child. If you are married to a woman for 40 years, she is only going to have her prebaby figure for the first few years of that. What about the next ~35 years?

    He is going to have to overcome his preference at that point. It won’t do to blather on about it being “natural” to prefer women who haven’t had children.
    Whether if is natural or not is neither here nor there. Note that I am saying that the preference is antisocial, not the person, by which I mean, simply that a man is more likely to engage on antisocial conduct with that preference than he would be without it.

    I suspect a lot of this shaming of men for their normal, natural, Darwinian instincts is mere blame shifting. These “roasties” can’t accept that they are responsible for being single and they are trying to shame men into taking them after having pushed those same arms away only a few years earlier.

    I don’t believe this whole narrative about “roasties” resisting marriage and have said so repeatedly and given ample reasons for this. Fifty percent of young people are married or cohabiting by age 24, and the numbers go up from there.

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/109402/age-24-marriage-wins.aspx

    That said, I’m sure there are individual men for whom something like this happens, and in that case, I’m not going to fuss about 5-10 year age gap. I just don’t think that’s what is going on most of the time. I do not share your assumption that women are to blame for their single status, but men are not.

    I rather suspect that what is happening is the opposite. Men don’t want to get married until there hair starts falling out, at which point, they’re not interested in any of their same-age peers whom they have pumped and dumped over the years, whom they consider “damaged goods.” Rather, they want a woman 10 years younger.

    It seems that our dispute is as to the facts on the ground rather than moral principles.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @Rosie


    ... they’re not interested in any of their same-age peers whom they have pumped and dumped over the years, whom they consider “damaged goods.” Rather, they want a woman 10 years younger.
     
    After a twenty+ year bachelorhood of pumping and mutual moving on, not "dumping,"

    ... one that even included a girl ten years younger (even then!) for a couple of years, and in an open relationship, no less!

    ... I married a woman ten years younger.

    Now twenty, faithful years later, I am still married to that "young chick," and she still has a nice butt.

    Am I a bad man?

    Rosie, with all due respect, your comments here now on this one issue call to mind to me the fundamental flaw of communism: The idea that human nature can be changed. It cannot, and any system that is not honestly designed to work with it will fail. Men will always lust after fertile women. The only thing they need to do is carefully act on that when the time is right, and to do it with the same respect I am showing you right now.

    Replies: @Rosie, @DanHessinMD

    , @DanHessinMD
    @Rosie

    "I rather suspect that what is happening is the opposite. Men don’t want to get married until there hair starts falling out, at which point, they’re not interested in any of their same-age peers whom they have pumped and dumped over the years, whom they consider “damaged goods.” Rather, they want a woman 10 years younger."

    Pumping and dumping is morally wrong and antisocial. Women for centuries had a solution to this: No sex without the ring.

    Replies: @Rosie

    , @Curle
    @Rosie

    “ Men don’t want to get married until there hair starts falling out, at which point,”

    I think men do want marriage earlier but the social forces that compelled, tricked or encouraged women to postpone motherhood had the same deleterious effect on men that it had on women. Most men I know had a slower career launch than they would have before the career woman/gay’s with prestige phenom.

  89. @Rosie
    @My SIMPLE Pseudonymic Handle

    Look, I cling to the notion that men are not equivalent to chimpanzees and elephants. I'm not interested in any conversation that proceeds from the contrary assumption.

    Nor am I interested in anything Indians are doing. Theirs is the most heinously misogynistic culture on the face of the Earth, with a future so bleak their mothers often kill them when they're born.

    https://www.patheos.com/blogs/goodletters/2012/10/the-three-deadliest-words-in-the-world-its-a-girl/

    Replies: @but an humble craftsman

    We are, madam, and you know it, nearer to animals than we like to be.

    Please stop trolling.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @but an humble craftsman


    Please stop trolling.
     
    Yawn. Tell me what "trolling" is and I'll think about it.
  90. @Rosie
    @RadicalCenter


    Wholeheartedly agree there, Rosie. But an older guy who is widowed, or who hasn’t been married yet for whatever reason, will naturally and instinctively try to get a much younger woman.
     
    OK, but that doesn't tell us anything about the rightness or wrongness of doing so.

    Anyway, I don’t think you were criticizing this kind of couple, just noting our perspective.
     
    You would certainly be low on my list of priorities, but I still think it is better for a man to marry a woman as near as possible his own age and vice versa.

    Jimbob Duggar, father of 19, was born in July, 1965. His wife, Michelle, was born in September, 1966.

    https://www.purposedrivenlawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Age-Gap-and-Marriage.png

    Replies: @JohnPlywood, @dfordoom, @res

    Wholeheartedly agree there, Rosie. But an older guy who is widowed, or who hasn’t been married yet for whatever reason, will naturally and instinctively try to get a much younger woman.

    OK, but that doesn’t tell us anything about the rightness or wrongness of doing so.

    Do you really think it’s appropriate to talk about right and wrong in this context?

  91. @Rosie
    @dfordoom


    Or are you advocating that the woman should be compelled to marry the sort of man you think she should marry?
     
    No. That's a Straw Man. Noone should ever be compelled to marry anyone. That said, do you think people should also be free from negative constraint in whom they may not marry? If so, you are flirting with relativism.

    In any event, people are free to marry whomever they wish and should remain so. I should likewise be free to have nothing to do with said person. When you ask me to pretend it's "normal" to marry someone young enough to be your own child, you are out of hounds. It’s not normal, and it’s not Godly.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    No. That’s a Straw Man. Noone should ever be compelled to marry anyone. That said, do you think people should also be free from negative constraint in whom they may not marry? If so, you are flirting with relativism.

    If you believe that there should be negative constraints on people in order to coerce them into marrying the sort of people you think they should marry then you’re flirting with the concept of arranged marriage.

    The only concept I’m flirting with here is the concept of free choice. Free of coercion, either direct or indirect.

    In any event, people are free to marry whomever they wish and should remain so. I should likewise be free to have nothing to do with said person. When you ask me to pretend it’s “normal” to marry someone young enough to be your own child, you are out of hounds. It’s not normal, and it’s not Godly.

    So I assume you would never ever vote for a man like Donald Trump, who married a woman young enough to be his daughter.

    This gets back to the point I made earlier. Social conservatives are often regarded as harsh, rigid, humourless and lacking in any real empathy because they are often harsh, rigid, humourless and lacking in any real empathy.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @dfordoom


    If you believe that there should be negative constraints on people in order to coerce them into marrying the sort of people you think they should marry then you’re flirting with the concept of arranged marriage.
     
    Stop, Doom, you're being silly. Are you going to start advocating for people to be able to marry their siblings, now or something?

    So I assume you would never ever vote for a man like Donald Trump, who married a woman young enough to be his daughter.
     
    I certainly wouldn't invite him over for dinner, and I wouldn't want to bake him a cake either.


    This gets back to the point I made earlier. Social conservatives are often regarded as harsh, rigid, humourless and lacking in any real empathy because they are often harsh, rigid, humourless and lacking in any real empathy.

     

    Where is your empathy for lonely older women abandoned or widowed at 50? Or young men who can't find spouse because of serial monogamy?

    Replies: @Rosie

  92. @dfordoom
    @Rosie


    No. That’s a Straw Man. Noone should ever be compelled to marry anyone. That said, do you think people should also be free from negative constraint in whom they may not marry? If so, you are flirting with relativism.
     
    If you believe that there should be negative constraints on people in order to coerce them into marrying the sort of people you think they should marry then you're flirting with the concept of arranged marriage.

    The only concept I'm flirting with here is the concept of free choice. Free of coercion, either direct or indirect.


    In any event, people are free to marry whomever they wish and should remain so. I should likewise be free to have nothing to do with said person. When you ask me to pretend it’s “normal” to marry someone young enough to be your own child, you are out of hounds. It’s not normal, and it’s not Godly.
     
    So I assume you would never ever vote for a man like Donald Trump, who married a woman young enough to be his daughter.

    This gets back to the point I made earlier. Social conservatives are often regarded as harsh, rigid, humourless and lacking in any real empathy because they are often harsh, rigid, humourless and lacking in any real empathy.

    Replies: @Rosie

    If you believe that there should be negative constraints on people in order to coerce them into marrying the sort of people you think they should marry then you’re flirting with the concept of arranged marriage.

    Stop, Doom, you’re being silly. Are you going to start advocating for people to be able to marry their siblings, now or something?

    So I assume you would never ever vote for a man like Donald Trump, who married a woman young enough to be his daughter.

    I certainly wouldn’t invite him over for dinner, and I wouldn’t want to bake him a cake either.

    This gets back to the point I made earlier. Social conservatives are often regarded as harsh, rigid, humourless and lacking in any real empathy because they are often harsh, rigid, humourless and lacking in any real empathy.

    Where is your empathy for lonely older women abandoned or widowed at 50? Or young men who can’t find spouse because of serial monogamy?

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Rosie

    Doom, here is a post from such a woman. Consider and think about the pain she must be in.

    ***

    Hi Mike.
    Some of us may have found that one true love, but still end up at the same place you are. Lonely, feeling out of place….like you’re just sitting back watching everyone else live THEIR lives.
    My name is Lisa. I’m about to turn 52, and for the first time in my life, I feel lost, alone and alone of times scared.
    I was married to the love of my life for 24 yr. Literally half of my life. Three yrs ago, without warning, my best friend, the person i was going to grow old with, walked in the house and told me he was leaving. And he left. He was re-married in 6 months. I was devastated. I didn’t know what to do or how to live without him. For 25 yrs, I didnt make a single decision, no matter how big or how small, without discussing it with him first. That same year, 7 months later, my mom passed. She was my rock, and was my person to go to for everything. We talked EVERY NIGHT. :)
    Within 7 months, I lost my husband and my momma. I have children and siblings, but my kids are grown with families of their own and my siblings are both happily married and have wonderful lives. Of course, I’m happy for them all, but it sure gets gut wrenching, lonely watching them all be happy together, a d sharing their lives with each other. I smile, and pretend to be ok. But I cant remember not a single night in the last 3 yrs, I haven’t gone to bed and cried. People say time heals everything. For me….not so much. I’m just as sad and lonely today that I was the day he walked out of my life, and the day I held my mommas hand as she exhaled her last breath.
    I mentioned my age, and I often get angry and wonder ” why couldnt he have left me when I was still young, and had it going on??” Lol ya know..would be easy to have found someone else. But now, I’m old, fat and sad… who wants that?? :) i would LOVE to have that kind of love again…I ache for it. But the reality of it all is I’ll most likely never have it again. I guess I should be grateful that at least I DID have that kind of love, right?
    I’m just lonely. IM scared of getting older alone and having no one there to help me. I often feel forgotten.
    You sound like a man with a huge heart Mike. I pray God sends a wonderful woman to you. :)
    …..if ya have a minute, ya think you might could pray that same prayer for me? Thatd be great.
    Take care of yourself.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Triteleia Laxa

  93. @but an humble craftsman
    @Rosie

    We are, madam, and you know it, nearer to animals than we like to be.

    Please stop trolling.

    Replies: @Rosie

    Please stop trolling.

    Yawn. Tell me what “trolling” is and I’ll think about it.

  94. @Rosie
    @dfordoom


    If you believe that there should be negative constraints on people in order to coerce them into marrying the sort of people you think they should marry then you’re flirting with the concept of arranged marriage.
     
    Stop, Doom, you're being silly. Are you going to start advocating for people to be able to marry their siblings, now or something?

    So I assume you would never ever vote for a man like Donald Trump, who married a woman young enough to be his daughter.
     
    I certainly wouldn't invite him over for dinner, and I wouldn't want to bake him a cake either.


    This gets back to the point I made earlier. Social conservatives are often regarded as harsh, rigid, humourless and lacking in any real empathy because they are often harsh, rigid, humourless and lacking in any real empathy.

     

    Where is your empathy for lonely older women abandoned or widowed at 50? Or young men who can't find spouse because of serial monogamy?

    Replies: @Rosie

    Doom, here is a post from such a woman. Consider and think about the pain she must be in.

    ***

    Hi Mike.
    Some of us may have found that one true love, but still end up at the same place you are. Lonely, feeling out of place….like you’re just sitting back watching everyone else live THEIR lives.
    My name is Lisa. I’m about to turn 52, and for the first time in my life, I feel lost, alone and alone of times scared.
    I was married to the love of my life for 24 yr. Literally half of my life. Three yrs ago, without warning, my best friend, the person i was going to grow old with, walked in the house and told me he was leaving. And he left. He was re-married in 6 months. I was devastated. I didn’t know what to do or how to live without him. For 25 yrs, I didnt make a single decision, no matter how big or how small, without discussing it with him first. That same year, 7 months later, my mom passed. She was my rock, and was my person to go to for everything. We talked EVERY NIGHT. 🙂
    Within 7 months, I lost my husband and my momma. I have children and siblings, but my kids are grown with families of their own and my siblings are both happily married and have wonderful lives. Of course, I’m happy for them all, but it sure gets gut wrenching, lonely watching them all be happy together, a d sharing their lives with each other. I smile, and pretend to be ok. But I cant remember not a single night in the last 3 yrs, I haven’t gone to bed and cried. People say time heals everything. For me….not so much. I’m just as sad and lonely today that I was the day he walked out of my life, and the day I held my mommas hand as she exhaled her last breath.
    I mentioned my age, and I often get angry and wonder ” why couldnt he have left me when I was still young, and had it going on??” Lol ya know..would be easy to have found someone else. But now, I’m old, fat and sad… who wants that?? 🙂 i would LOVE to have that kind of love again…I ache for it. But the reality of it all is I’ll most likely never have it again. I guess I should be grateful that at least I DID have that kind of love, right?
    I’m just lonely. IM scared of getting older alone and having no one there to help me. I often feel forgotten.
    You sound like a man with a huge heart Mike. I pray God sends a wonderful woman to you. 🙂
    …..if ya have a minute, ya think you might could pray that same prayer for me? Thatd be great.
    Take care of yourself.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Rosie

    I forgot to post the link.

    https://seniorplanet.org/aging-alone-doesnt-have-to-mean-lonely/

    , @Triteleia Laxa
    @Rosie

    I feel sad and powerless when I read that. The sadness is heartbreaking, but that space, I feel, might be used by her to examine how she has created her own situation. Were she to reflect and discover how she has done this and, most importantly, why it benefited her, then she might find gratitude and peace.

    The above paragraph outlines a difficult process, but one that is enlightening. I sense, from her letter, that she is yet to begin this; as the letter only details things which happened to her and shows little insight beyond her own sadness and sense of powerlessness.

    Perhaps it still isn't the time for her to do so, and perhaps she needs simple stories of good and bad to offset her pain, but she could gain a lot from her situation if she can find the courage. Or maybe she already is and that letter is a tiny fraction of her thoughts on the matter...

    Replies: @Rosie, @Curle

  95. You’ve confused ‘medium of exchange’ for ‘unit of account.’ BTW, there is no reason a volatile medium of exchange can’t be a store of value; it is merely a volatile store of value. Compare Bitcoin to the USD, which has lost 99%of its value in a little more than a century.

    Clown World is the modern day version of Bizzaro World, except that it perhaps isn’t as White.

  96. @Rosie
    @Rosie

    Doom, here is a post from such a woman. Consider and think about the pain she must be in.

    ***

    Hi Mike.
    Some of us may have found that one true love, but still end up at the same place you are. Lonely, feeling out of place….like you’re just sitting back watching everyone else live THEIR lives.
    My name is Lisa. I’m about to turn 52, and for the first time in my life, I feel lost, alone and alone of times scared.
    I was married to the love of my life for 24 yr. Literally half of my life. Three yrs ago, without warning, my best friend, the person i was going to grow old with, walked in the house and told me he was leaving. And he left. He was re-married in 6 months. I was devastated. I didn’t know what to do or how to live without him. For 25 yrs, I didnt make a single decision, no matter how big or how small, without discussing it with him first. That same year, 7 months later, my mom passed. She was my rock, and was my person to go to for everything. We talked EVERY NIGHT. :)
    Within 7 months, I lost my husband and my momma. I have children and siblings, but my kids are grown with families of their own and my siblings are both happily married and have wonderful lives. Of course, I’m happy for them all, but it sure gets gut wrenching, lonely watching them all be happy together, a d sharing their lives with each other. I smile, and pretend to be ok. But I cant remember not a single night in the last 3 yrs, I haven’t gone to bed and cried. People say time heals everything. For me….not so much. I’m just as sad and lonely today that I was the day he walked out of my life, and the day I held my mommas hand as she exhaled her last breath.
    I mentioned my age, and I often get angry and wonder ” why couldnt he have left me when I was still young, and had it going on??” Lol ya know..would be easy to have found someone else. But now, I’m old, fat and sad… who wants that?? :) i would LOVE to have that kind of love again…I ache for it. But the reality of it all is I’ll most likely never have it again. I guess I should be grateful that at least I DID have that kind of love, right?
    I’m just lonely. IM scared of getting older alone and having no one there to help me. I often feel forgotten.
    You sound like a man with a huge heart Mike. I pray God sends a wonderful woman to you. :)
    …..if ya have a minute, ya think you might could pray that same prayer for me? Thatd be great.
    Take care of yourself.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Triteleia Laxa

  97. @Rosie
    @Mario Partisan


    Okay, so male attraction to young women who have not had children yet is anti-social?
     
    It is antisocial in the sense that women are only nulliparous until they have their first child. If you are married to a woman for 40 years, she is only going to have her prebaby figure for the first few years of that. What about the next ~35 years?

    He is going to have to overcome his preference at that point. It won't do to blather on about it being "natural" to prefer women who haven't had children.
    Whether if is natural or not is neither here nor there. Note that I am saying that the preference is antisocial, not the person, by which I mean, simply that a man is more likely to engage on antisocial conduct with that preference than he would be without it.

    I suspect a lot of this shaming of men for their normal, natural, Darwinian instincts is mere blame shifting. These “roasties” can’t accept that they are responsible for being single and they are trying to shame men into taking them after having pushed those same arms away only a few years earlier.
     

    I don't believe this whole narrative about "roasties" resisting marriage and have said so repeatedly and given ample reasons for this. Fifty percent of young people are married or cohabiting by age 24, and the numbers go up from there.

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/109402/age-24-marriage-wins.aspx

    That said, I'm sure there are individual men for whom something like this happens, and in that case, I'm not going to fuss about 5-10 year age gap. I just don't think that's what is going on most of the time. I do not share your assumption that women are to blame for their single status, but men are not.

    I rather suspect that what is happening is the opposite. Men don’t want to get married until there hair starts falling out, at which point, they're not interested in any of their same-age peers whom they have pumped and dumped over the years, whom they consider "damaged goods." Rather, they want a woman 10 years younger.

    It seems that our dispute is as to the facts on the ground rather than moral principles.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @DanHessinMD, @Curle

    … they’re not interested in any of their same-age peers whom they have pumped and dumped over the years, whom they consider “damaged goods.” Rather, they want a woman 10 years younger.

    After a twenty+ year bachelorhood of pumping and mutual moving on, not “dumping,”

    … one that even included a girl ten years younger (even then!) for a couple of years, and in an open relationship, no less!

    … I married a woman ten years younger.

    Now twenty, faithful years later, I am still married to that “young chick,” and she still has a nice butt.

    Am I a bad man?

    Rosie, with all due respect, your comments here now on this one issue call to mind to me the fundamental flaw of communism: The idea that human nature can be changed. It cannot, and any system that is not honestly designed to work with it will fail. Men will always lust after fertile women. The only thing they need to do is carefully act on that when the time is right, and to do it with the same respect I am showing you right now.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Buzz Mohawk


    After a twenty+ year bachelorhood of pumping and mutual moving on, not “dumping,”
     
    I'm skeptical of this, Buzz. Women who pretend to be all cavalier about casual sex are usually fooling themselves.

    Now twenty, faithful years later, I am still married
     

    Excellent!

    the fundamental flaw of communism: The idea that human nature can be changed. It cannot
     
    Human nature cannot be changed, but behavior can be. The appeal to incorrigible male nature has, unfortunately, been used to resist all manner of attempts at reform, even eliminating underage prostitution.

    What I appreciate about you, Buzz, is that you don't disparage women who aren't virgins as "damaged goods" and then turn around and justify and defend the men who did the "damaging." (Madonna/Whore) That kind of hypocrisy really stings, and your more relaxed and egalitarian point of view is most welcome.

    , @DanHessinMD
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Playing the field with a string of young women and then settling down with a young woman and choosing not to have kids is literally antisocial. It is harmful for society.

    If childless self-indulgence by many of society's best isn't the biggest cause of civilizational decline, I cannot right now think of a bigger one.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @dfordoom

  98. @Buzz Mohawk
    @Rosie


    ... they’re not interested in any of their same-age peers whom they have pumped and dumped over the years, whom they consider “damaged goods.” Rather, they want a woman 10 years younger.
     
    After a twenty+ year bachelorhood of pumping and mutual moving on, not "dumping,"

    ... one that even included a girl ten years younger (even then!) for a couple of years, and in an open relationship, no less!

    ... I married a woman ten years younger.

    Now twenty, faithful years later, I am still married to that "young chick," and she still has a nice butt.

    Am I a bad man?

    Rosie, with all due respect, your comments here now on this one issue call to mind to me the fundamental flaw of communism: The idea that human nature can be changed. It cannot, and any system that is not honestly designed to work with it will fail. Men will always lust after fertile women. The only thing they need to do is carefully act on that when the time is right, and to do it with the same respect I am showing you right now.

    Replies: @Rosie, @DanHessinMD

    After a twenty+ year bachelorhood of pumping and mutual moving on, not “dumping,”

    I’m skeptical of this, Buzz. Women who pretend to be all cavalier about casual sex are usually fooling themselves.

    Now twenty, faithful years later, I am still married

    Excellent!

    the fundamental flaw of communism: The idea that human nature can be changed. It cannot

    Human nature cannot be changed, but behavior can be. The appeal to incorrigible male nature has, unfortunately, been used to resist all manner of attempts at reform, even eliminating underage prostitution.

    What I appreciate about you, Buzz, is that you don’t disparage women who aren’t virgins as “damaged goods” and then turn around and justify and defend the men who did the “damaging.” (Madonna/Whore) That kind of hypocrisy really stings, and your more relaxed and egalitarian point of view is most welcome.

    • Thanks: Buzz Mohawk
  99. @Rosie

    Jay Fink makes an observation illustrating why the phrase “clown world” resonates the way it does:
     
    Clown World is a thing, but this isn't a Clown World thing. This is rather a straightforward instance of the general rule that people shouldn't be a$$holes.

    To say that a preference is "normal" is to acknowledge that it goes without saying. Therefore, to sayit in so many words is to pile on and punch down. People don't like that.

    Moreover, ought does not follow from is. Men's attraction to younger, nulliparous women is, frankly, antisocial. It is advantageous for individual males, but destructive to society as a whole. Anyone who claims to support monogamy must acknowledge this. No one can be blamed for their preferences, but one can be blamed for offending people's social sensibilities by boasting about it.

    Replies: @Jay Fink, @GazaPlanet, @dfordoom, @Triteleia Laxa, @Chrisnonymous, @Anonymous, @Jim Christian, @Mario Partisan, @DanHessinMD, @AnotherDad, @Dumbo, @Rattus Norwegius

    If a forty-something or fifty-something man abandons his family for a fling with a younger woman with no intention to have a family with that younger woman, that is antisocial. Or if a man who could have a family instead plays the field without settling down to have children, that is antisocial.

    If an established man makes a family with a younger woman, that strikes me as quite pro-social. In fact it may give a young woman an opportunity to marry and have children that she would not otherwise have, if many young men in her cohort can’t support a family or are just playing video games.

    In fact, it is surely preferable for society if men marry women with the intention of forming families than if men marry women who can no longer have children.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @DanHessinMD


    In fact it may give a young woman an opportunity to marry and have children that she would not otherwise have, if many young men in her cohort can’t support a family or are just playing video games.
     
    That's true, but I don’t think we should just accept the inability of young men to support a family as an inescapable fact of life. The role of old men* is to help young men take over the reins of society. Instead, they have outsourced their jobs to foreign sweatshops and demanded cheap immigrant labor to replace them. It's unseemly to then congratulate themselves for "providing an opportunity for a young woman to marry and have children."

    *Yes, I said men, not because I buy into all the patriarchy bs, but because most women just aren't that ambitious, especially White women, and there's nothing wrong with that.


    https://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2013/12/SDT-gender-and-work-12-2013-3-08.png

    Replies: @dfordoom, @DanHessinMD

  100. @Rosie
    @Rosie

    Doom, here is a post from such a woman. Consider and think about the pain she must be in.

    ***

    Hi Mike.
    Some of us may have found that one true love, but still end up at the same place you are. Lonely, feeling out of place….like you’re just sitting back watching everyone else live THEIR lives.
    My name is Lisa. I’m about to turn 52, and for the first time in my life, I feel lost, alone and alone of times scared.
    I was married to the love of my life for 24 yr. Literally half of my life. Three yrs ago, without warning, my best friend, the person i was going to grow old with, walked in the house and told me he was leaving. And he left. He was re-married in 6 months. I was devastated. I didn’t know what to do or how to live without him. For 25 yrs, I didnt make a single decision, no matter how big or how small, without discussing it with him first. That same year, 7 months later, my mom passed. She was my rock, and was my person to go to for everything. We talked EVERY NIGHT. :)
    Within 7 months, I lost my husband and my momma. I have children and siblings, but my kids are grown with families of their own and my siblings are both happily married and have wonderful lives. Of course, I’m happy for them all, but it sure gets gut wrenching, lonely watching them all be happy together, a d sharing their lives with each other. I smile, and pretend to be ok. But I cant remember not a single night in the last 3 yrs, I haven’t gone to bed and cried. People say time heals everything. For me….not so much. I’m just as sad and lonely today that I was the day he walked out of my life, and the day I held my mommas hand as she exhaled her last breath.
    I mentioned my age, and I often get angry and wonder ” why couldnt he have left me when I was still young, and had it going on??” Lol ya know..would be easy to have found someone else. But now, I’m old, fat and sad… who wants that?? :) i would LOVE to have that kind of love again…I ache for it. But the reality of it all is I’ll most likely never have it again. I guess I should be grateful that at least I DID have that kind of love, right?
    I’m just lonely. IM scared of getting older alone and having no one there to help me. I often feel forgotten.
    You sound like a man with a huge heart Mike. I pray God sends a wonderful woman to you. :)
    …..if ya have a minute, ya think you might could pray that same prayer for me? Thatd be great.
    Take care of yourself.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Triteleia Laxa

    I feel sad and powerless when I read that. The sadness is heartbreaking, but that space, I feel, might be used by her to examine how she has created her own situation. Were she to reflect and discover how she has done this and, most importantly, why it benefited her, then she might find gratitude and peace.

    The above paragraph outlines a difficult process, but one that is enlightening. I sense, from her letter, that she is yet to begin this; as the letter only details things which happened to her and shows little insight beyond her own sadness and sense of powerlessness.

    Perhaps it still isn’t the time for her to do so, and perhaps she needs simple stories of good and bad to offset her pain, but she could gain a lot from her situation if she can find the courage. Or maybe she already is and that letter is a tiny fraction of her thoughts on the matter…

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Triteleia Laxa


    how she has created her own situation.
     
    Of course, blame the victim.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    , @Curle
    @Triteleia Laxa

    “ The above paragraph outlines a difficult process, but one that is enlightening.”

    Enlightenment brings understanding not cures. Her pain will become manageable but it won’t go away. Ever.

    Best immediate and long term solution is the one Queen Liz adopted; dogs. There are an endless number of things people and dogs can do together. Planned hikes in new locations is just the start.

  101. @Rosie
    @Mario Partisan


    Okay, so male attraction to young women who have not had children yet is anti-social?
     
    It is antisocial in the sense that women are only nulliparous until they have their first child. If you are married to a woman for 40 years, she is only going to have her prebaby figure for the first few years of that. What about the next ~35 years?

    He is going to have to overcome his preference at that point. It won't do to blather on about it being "natural" to prefer women who haven't had children.
    Whether if is natural or not is neither here nor there. Note that I am saying that the preference is antisocial, not the person, by which I mean, simply that a man is more likely to engage on antisocial conduct with that preference than he would be without it.

    I suspect a lot of this shaming of men for their normal, natural, Darwinian instincts is mere blame shifting. These “roasties” can’t accept that they are responsible for being single and they are trying to shame men into taking them after having pushed those same arms away only a few years earlier.
     

    I don't believe this whole narrative about "roasties" resisting marriage and have said so repeatedly and given ample reasons for this. Fifty percent of young people are married or cohabiting by age 24, and the numbers go up from there.

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/109402/age-24-marriage-wins.aspx

    That said, I'm sure there are individual men for whom something like this happens, and in that case, I'm not going to fuss about 5-10 year age gap. I just don't think that's what is going on most of the time. I do not share your assumption that women are to blame for their single status, but men are not.

    I rather suspect that what is happening is the opposite. Men don’t want to get married until there hair starts falling out, at which point, they're not interested in any of their same-age peers whom they have pumped and dumped over the years, whom they consider "damaged goods." Rather, they want a woman 10 years younger.

    It seems that our dispute is as to the facts on the ground rather than moral principles.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @DanHessinMD, @Curle

    “I rather suspect that what is happening is the opposite. Men don’t want to get married until there hair starts falling out, at which point, they’re not interested in any of their same-age peers whom they have pumped and dumped over the years, whom they consider “damaged goods.” Rather, they want a woman 10 years younger.”

    Pumping and dumping is morally wrong and antisocial. Women for centuries had a solution to this: No sex without the ring.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @DanHessinMD


    Women for centuries had a solution to this: No sex without the ring.
     
    This has never worked and doesn't work now. Women have always had sex without the ring. In more primitive times, they were considered "damaged goods" and were relegated to prostitution. More recently, without contraception, they got pregnant and the fathers were, ahem, persuaded to do right by them.

    We are in new territory for which there is no guidance to be found in the past.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  102. @Buzz Mohawk
    @Rosie


    ... they’re not interested in any of their same-age peers whom they have pumped and dumped over the years, whom they consider “damaged goods.” Rather, they want a woman 10 years younger.
     
    After a twenty+ year bachelorhood of pumping and mutual moving on, not "dumping,"

    ... one that even included a girl ten years younger (even then!) for a couple of years, and in an open relationship, no less!

    ... I married a woman ten years younger.

    Now twenty, faithful years later, I am still married to that "young chick," and she still has a nice butt.

    Am I a bad man?

    Rosie, with all due respect, your comments here now on this one issue call to mind to me the fundamental flaw of communism: The idea that human nature can be changed. It cannot, and any system that is not honestly designed to work with it will fail. Men will always lust after fertile women. The only thing they need to do is carefully act on that when the time is right, and to do it with the same respect I am showing you right now.

    Replies: @Rosie, @DanHessinMD

    Playing the field with a string of young women and then settling down with a young woman and choosing not to have kids is literally antisocial. It is harmful for society.

    If childless self-indulgence by many of society’s best isn’t the biggest cause of civilizational decline, I cannot right now think of a bigger one.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @DanHessinMD

    Well, yeah, you have a point, Dan.

    You could take it up with my parents if they weren't dead.

    Their blatant, violent, drunken abuse had a large part in making me the man I am -- and in causing my insecurity about having children at all.

    I am lucky I didn't die homeless, because I ended up on the verge of it. After years of severe OCD, dropping out and magically getting back into school, I wisely erred on the side of precaution and did not place any helpless, little humans under my care.

    Sure, I am probably more affluent than you now, but I had no way of knowing that would happen. And, BTW, ALL of my success is due to my hard work and sheer hard-headedness in the face of terrible odds.

    When I got married, I had a vasectomy, with my wife's understanding. I could have done it years earlier and enjoyed even better sex -- and given even more pleasure, BTW, to the women I knew -- without all the contraceptive contraptions. I wish I had. God never wanted me to procreate. If he had, he would have given me better parents and a normally-functioning brain.

    I still live with OCD, daily, and you don't know what it is like in its real, non-media-hyped form. We are talking about a real, debilitating mental illness.

    I would not want to pass it on to anybody, and that is my biggest point!

    Unlike the vast majority of humans, who are, more often than not, foolish, I am capable of assessing the current situation, thinking ahead, and then making a plan. That's how smart people operate.

    I am not the man you want to shepherd your future white people into adulthood. I wish I were.

    Go ahead, Dan, call me antisocial!

    I sincerely wish I were not.

    Replies: @DanHessinMD

    , @dfordoom
    @DanHessinMD


    If childless self-indulgence by many of society’s best isn’t the biggest cause of civilizational decline, I cannot right now think of a bigger one.

     

    I can think of half a dozen bigger causes of civilisational decline just off the top of my head. Mass media. Social media. The replacement of the one-income family with the two-income family. The corruption of the political system. Wokeness. Excessively easy consumer credit. Militarism. Consumerism. The disconnectedness of people today from their own history and culture.
  103. @DanHessinMD
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Playing the field with a string of young women and then settling down with a young woman and choosing not to have kids is literally antisocial. It is harmful for society.

    If childless self-indulgence by many of society's best isn't the biggest cause of civilizational decline, I cannot right now think of a bigger one.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @dfordoom

    Well, yeah, you have a point, Dan.

    You could take it up with my parents if they weren’t dead.

    Their blatant, violent, drunken abuse had a large part in making me the man I am — and in causing my insecurity about having children at all.

    I am lucky I didn’t die homeless, because I ended up on the verge of it. After years of severe OCD, dropping out and magically getting back into school, I wisely erred on the side of precaution and did not place any helpless, little humans under my care.

    Sure, I am probably more affluent than you now, but I had no way of knowing that would happen. And, BTW, ALL of my success is due to my hard work and sheer hard-headedness in the face of terrible odds.

    When I got married, I had a vasectomy, with my wife’s understanding. I could have done it years earlier and enjoyed even better sex — and given even more pleasure, BTW, to the women I knew — without all the contraceptive contraptions. I wish I had. God never wanted me to procreate. If he had, he would have given me better parents and a normally-functioning brain.

    I still live with OCD, daily, and you don’t know what it is like in its real, non-media-hyped form. We are talking about a real, debilitating mental illness.

    I would not want to pass it on to anybody, and that is my biggest point!

    Unlike the vast majority of humans, who are, more often than not, foolish, I am capable of assessing the current situation, thinking ahead, and then making a plan. That’s how smart people operate.

    I am not the man you want to shepherd your future white people into adulthood. I wish I were.

    Go ahead, Dan, call me antisocial!

    I sincerely wish I were not.

    • Replies: @DanHessinMD
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Not trying to single you out. But the view of sex as primarily carnal pleasure rather than a pathway for something much greater is a big problem, maybe the biggest problem.

    "I am not the man you want to shepherd your future white people into adulthood. I wish I were."

    Don't put words in my mouth. That isn't how I talk. And this really is a global issue. As I have often pointed out, the issue of childless indulgence is biggest in East Asia where South Koreans have the lowest birthrate of all.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @dfordoom

  104. Normal Preferences Are Shamed

    I have a normal preference not to understand what a Bollinger Band is or a Fibonacci Tag or a Shooting Star Reversal Candle or Chart Mumbo Jumbo or Green Candles or any of this other crud that this Viking living in England who must get a Danegeld stipend from the Queen or something. Fancies himself a woodsman; maybe he thinks he’s in a David Lynch movie; the Fed is more than crazy and devious enough to be the villain in a David Lynch movie.

    I flunked logic twice at Middlesex County College but I walked up Mt Kearsarge in a light rain without a jacket or oxygen or Sherpas, so maybe I’m ahead of the game.

  105. @V. K. Ovelund
    Bitcoin is a pyramid scheme.

    Here’s to [Bitcoin's] continued success!
     
    One cannot pay taxes with Bitcoin. Without the power to satisfy a tax bill, Bitcoin lacks value.

    There do exist obscure variants like LBRY tokens that have the power to satisfy a bill of sorts (in LBRY's case, to satisfy the bill due for promotion of a video online), so their value is at least tethered to something; but Bitcoin's value is tethered to nothing at all except its own network effect as far as I know.

    If you doubt me, consider shares in Lehman Brothers. A share in Lehman Brothers, a bankrupt company, lacks no relevant attribute a Bitcoin has. It is scarce. It is well-known. It is associated with a network. It is electronically exchangeable. There is no way to acquire one except from a person who has one and will trade it to you.

    But no one ever thought that shares in Lehman Brothers were money.

    I do not believe that Bitcoin can suspend itself in midair by the back of its own belt forever. Bitcoin is a fascinating farce. You can buy if you like. If I had a Bitcoin, I would gladly sell it to you.

    Replies: @anon, @AnotherDad

    I don’t think Bitcoin is a pyramid scheme. It’s simply a hard–libertarian, autistic–cope.

    The bottom line is this point:

    One cannot pay taxes with Bitcoin.

    The problem remains–as it always has been–the guys with the guns. Since the neolithic agricultural revolution the “guys-with-guns”–before that with swords and bows, before that pikes and clubs–could demand stuff from productive people.

    The US Constitution was conceived as a reasonable republican restraint upon that. (Limited government of productive people governing themselves.) But 50+ now of minoritarianism have pretty much eviscerated that. Lots of other places are even worse.

    That’s the problem. You can try and fix your local situation. You can move. But there is no techno “fix” to this problem. The idea there is a yet another clueless techno-libertarian cope.

    • Agree: Mark G.
  106. The rancid Republican Party is evil and it must be destroyed with extreme prejudice.

    You would think mothers staying at home with their children, especially when the children are young, would be the policy prescription of the GOP, but you would be mistaken.

    Mitch McConnel and Kevin McCarthy are evil disgusting scum of the worst sort ever.

    The Ruling Class of the Republican Party, and by that I mean the disgusting money-grubbing GOP donors, is completely and totally vile and putrid.

    Trump sniffed out an impending Civil War over immigration and globalization and financialization between the GOP donors/politician whores and the GOP voters in 2016, and Trump rode that to victory over his GOP primary competitors and then Trump defeated that evil baby boomer bitch Hillary Clinton to win the White House.

    Trump then went along with Ryan and McConnell and Trump stabbed his voter base in the back and now we have that rancid treasonous whore for the Chinese Communist Party named Biden in the White House.

    Joe Biden is a bought and paid for whore for the Chinese Communist Party. Biden is a concubine skank who probably had his feet binded by the Chinese.

  107. @DanHessinMD
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Playing the field with a string of young women and then settling down with a young woman and choosing not to have kids is literally antisocial. It is harmful for society.

    If childless self-indulgence by many of society's best isn't the biggest cause of civilizational decline, I cannot right now think of a bigger one.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @dfordoom

    If childless self-indulgence by many of society’s best isn’t the biggest cause of civilizational decline, I cannot right now think of a bigger one.

    I can think of half a dozen bigger causes of civilisational decline just off the top of my head. Mass media. Social media. The replacement of the one-income family with the two-income family. The corruption of the political system. Wokeness. Excessively easy consumer credit. Militarism. Consumerism. The disconnectedness of people today from their own history and culture.

    • Agree: Buzz Mohawk
  108. @Buzz Mohawk
    @DanHessinMD

    Well, yeah, you have a point, Dan.

    You could take it up with my parents if they weren't dead.

    Their blatant, violent, drunken abuse had a large part in making me the man I am -- and in causing my insecurity about having children at all.

    I am lucky I didn't die homeless, because I ended up on the verge of it. After years of severe OCD, dropping out and magically getting back into school, I wisely erred on the side of precaution and did not place any helpless, little humans under my care.

    Sure, I am probably more affluent than you now, but I had no way of knowing that would happen. And, BTW, ALL of my success is due to my hard work and sheer hard-headedness in the face of terrible odds.

    When I got married, I had a vasectomy, with my wife's understanding. I could have done it years earlier and enjoyed even better sex -- and given even more pleasure, BTW, to the women I knew -- without all the contraceptive contraptions. I wish I had. God never wanted me to procreate. If he had, he would have given me better parents and a normally-functioning brain.

    I still live with OCD, daily, and you don't know what it is like in its real, non-media-hyped form. We are talking about a real, debilitating mental illness.

    I would not want to pass it on to anybody, and that is my biggest point!

    Unlike the vast majority of humans, who are, more often than not, foolish, I am capable of assessing the current situation, thinking ahead, and then making a plan. That's how smart people operate.

    I am not the man you want to shepherd your future white people into adulthood. I wish I were.

    Go ahead, Dan, call me antisocial!

    I sincerely wish I were not.

    Replies: @DanHessinMD

    Not trying to single you out. But the view of sex as primarily carnal pleasure rather than a pathway for something much greater is a big problem, maybe the biggest problem.

    “I am not the man you want to shepherd your future white people into adulthood. I wish I were.”

    Don’t put words in my mouth. That isn’t how I talk. And this really is a global issue. As I have often pointed out, the issue of childless indulgence is biggest in East Asia where South Koreans have the lowest birthrate of all.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @DanHessinMD

    God/nature designed human sex a a way to bond woman and man long enough to rear children together.

    Period.

    Carnal pleasure is essential. It is, in fact an essential part of what makes humans intelligent.

    You think like a kindergartener, and you owe me an apology, an apology you have not given.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    , @dfordoom
    @DanHessinMD


    Not trying to single you out. But the view of sex as primarily carnal pleasure rather than a pathway for something much greater is a big problem, maybe the biggest problem.
     
    Maybe sex should be for more than carnal pleasure, but the reality is that those people who think it is about carnal pleasure are going to think so whether you approve of it or not. Unless you have some strategy for changing their minds?

    And this really is a global issue.
     
    Yes, I agree.

    As I have often pointed out, the issue of childless indulgence is biggest in East Asia where South Koreans have the lowest birthrate of all.
     
    Yes, I agree. But childless indulgence is a consequence, not a cause. It's a consequence of a myriad of social and cultural and technological changes over the past century or more.

    To reverse all those social, cultural and technological changes would require an incredibly drastic social, cultural and political revolution. Do you have a strategy for achieving that?

    Replies: @DanHessinMD

  109. @DanHessinMD
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Not trying to single you out. But the view of sex as primarily carnal pleasure rather than a pathway for something much greater is a big problem, maybe the biggest problem.

    "I am not the man you want to shepherd your future white people into adulthood. I wish I were."

    Don't put words in my mouth. That isn't how I talk. And this really is a global issue. As I have often pointed out, the issue of childless indulgence is biggest in East Asia where South Koreans have the lowest birthrate of all.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @dfordoom

    God/nature designed human sex a a way to bond woman and man long enough to rear children together.

    Period.

    Carnal pleasure is essential. It is, in fact an essential part of what makes humans intelligent.

    You think like a kindergartener, and you owe me an apology, an apology you have not given.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Greatest and worst parts of life are irrational and can potentially be the same thing if done a certain way, from carnal delight to drunkenness to unbridled rage and intensity.

    This extends everywhere. I myself feel more akin to a junkie or a teenage boy seeing a gorgeous woman walking by or like I am Eddie Van Halen drunkenly on stage in 1979 than the calculating precise machine people seem to envision guys like me as when I see a beautiful contour integral or piece of code. It is a wonderful, beautiful feeling, something deeply human in our capacity to appreciate it, but can lead to self destructive behavior (I forget to eat, sleep, I get too angry if interrupted, etc) if I do not temper it.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

  110. @DanHessinMD
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Not trying to single you out. But the view of sex as primarily carnal pleasure rather than a pathway for something much greater is a big problem, maybe the biggest problem.

    "I am not the man you want to shepherd your future white people into adulthood. I wish I were."

    Don't put words in my mouth. That isn't how I talk. And this really is a global issue. As I have often pointed out, the issue of childless indulgence is biggest in East Asia where South Koreans have the lowest birthrate of all.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @dfordoom

    Not trying to single you out. But the view of sex as primarily carnal pleasure rather than a pathway for something much greater is a big problem, maybe the biggest problem.

    Maybe sex should be for more than carnal pleasure, but the reality is that those people who think it is about carnal pleasure are going to think so whether you approve of it or not. Unless you have some strategy for changing their minds?

    And this really is a global issue.

    Yes, I agree.

    As I have often pointed out, the issue of childless indulgence is biggest in East Asia where South Koreans have the lowest birthrate of all.

    Yes, I agree. But childless indulgence is a consequence, not a cause. It’s a consequence of a myriad of social and cultural and technological changes over the past century or more.

    To reverse all those social, cultural and technological changes would require an incredibly drastic social, cultural and political revolution. Do you have a strategy for achieving that?

    • Replies: @DanHessinMD
    @dfordoom

    From your handle, doom is plainly what you are selling. Solutions exist. Do you you have a solution-seeking mindset? It is doesn't seem so.

    Most faiths teach that sex primarily for carnal pleasure is a sin. And that belief does make a huge difference. I know a lot of great middle aged men who could go for someone younger and toss their families aside. At that age, the market is in their favor. Yet they generally don't because of religious and moral understanding that this is wrong.

    This is a solution.

    Even aside from faith, the notion that family formation is much better than a libertine approach to sex is achievable, and it fact it already exists to a significant extent. Certainly libertine behavior has been substantially pushed out of the workplace by MeToo. The left has no problem pushing norms.

    The idea that social pressure doesn't work is nonsense. Where I live, even all the vaccinated people are wearing masks, showing the very great power of social norms. This was completely foreign to almost everyone until the moment the left pushed it and it was instantaneously the norm. A year of school shutdowns? Easy. Everybody works from home? Trivial to enforce at the drop of a hat.

    The left pushes extraordinary social norms quickly at will, giving lie to the idea that this is impossible. If the left wanted norms of family formation and fidelity, it would become a thing very quickly.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

  111. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Rosie

    I feel sad and powerless when I read that. The sadness is heartbreaking, but that space, I feel, might be used by her to examine how she has created her own situation. Were she to reflect and discover how she has done this and, most importantly, why it benefited her, then she might find gratitude and peace.

    The above paragraph outlines a difficult process, but one that is enlightening. I sense, from her letter, that she is yet to begin this; as the letter only details things which happened to her and shows little insight beyond her own sadness and sense of powerlessness.

    Perhaps it still isn't the time for her to do so, and perhaps she needs simple stories of good and bad to offset her pain, but she could gain a lot from her situation if she can find the courage. Or maybe she already is and that letter is a tiny fraction of her thoughts on the matter...

    Replies: @Rosie, @Curle

    how she has created her own situation.

    Of course, blame the victim.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Rosie

    The only "blame" you see in my statement is what you put in there. Please don't attribute your criticism to me.

  112. @Rosie

    Jay Fink makes an observation illustrating why the phrase “clown world” resonates the way it does:
     
    Clown World is a thing, but this isn't a Clown World thing. This is rather a straightforward instance of the general rule that people shouldn't be a$$holes.

    To say that a preference is "normal" is to acknowledge that it goes without saying. Therefore, to sayit in so many words is to pile on and punch down. People don't like that.

    Moreover, ought does not follow from is. Men's attraction to younger, nulliparous women is, frankly, antisocial. It is advantageous for individual males, but destructive to society as a whole. Anyone who claims to support monogamy must acknowledge this. No one can be blamed for their preferences, but one can be blamed for offending people's social sensibilities by boasting about it.

    Replies: @Jay Fink, @GazaPlanet, @dfordoom, @Triteleia Laxa, @Chrisnonymous, @Anonymous, @Jim Christian, @Mario Partisan, @DanHessinMD, @AnotherDad, @Dumbo, @Rattus Norwegius

    World ends: Men’s attraction to fertile women to blame.

  113. @DanHessinMD
    @Rosie

    "I rather suspect that what is happening is the opposite. Men don’t want to get married until there hair starts falling out, at which point, they’re not interested in any of their same-age peers whom they have pumped and dumped over the years, whom they consider “damaged goods.” Rather, they want a woman 10 years younger."

    Pumping and dumping is morally wrong and antisocial. Women for centuries had a solution to this: No sex without the ring.

    Replies: @Rosie

    Women for centuries had a solution to this: No sex without the ring.

    This has never worked and doesn’t work now. Women have always had sex without the ring. In more primitive times, they were considered “damaged goods” and were relegated to prostitution. More recently, without contraception, they got pregnant and the fathers were, ahem, persuaded to do right by them.

    We are in new territory for which there is no guidance to be found in the past.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Rosie


    We are in new territory for which there is no guidance to be found in the past.
     
    Now that I agree with. Society has undergone social, cultural and technological changes that can't be undone. That doesn't mean that we just have to accept the way things are now, but finding solutions will require more than yearning for a return to the past.

    Finding solutions will also require finding ways to make people want to change the way things are now, rather than just telling them that they should change. When it comes to things like birth rates there's no hope unless we can make people actually want to have more children. You have to offer people a vision of the future that will be more attractive than the current situation.

    This is something that social conservatives have, so far, failed to do. Their solutions are usually solutions that most people simply do not want.

    Replies: @DanHessinMD

  114. @DanHessinMD
    @Rosie

    If a forty-something or fifty-something man abandons his family for a fling with a younger woman with no intention to have a family with that younger woman, that is antisocial. Or if a man who could have a family instead plays the field without settling down to have children, that is antisocial.

    If an established man makes a family with a younger woman, that strikes me as quite pro-social. In fact it may give a young woman an opportunity to marry and have children that she would not otherwise have, if many young men in her cohort can't support a family or are just playing video games.

    In fact, it is surely preferable for society if men marry women with the intention of forming families than if men marry women who can no longer have children.

    Replies: @Rosie

    In fact it may give a young woman an opportunity to marry and have children that she would not otherwise have, if many young men in her cohort can’t support a family or are just playing video games.

    That’s true, but I don’t think we should just accept the inability of young men to support a family as an inescapable fact of life. The role of old men* is to help young men take over the reins of society. Instead, they have outsourced their jobs to foreign sweatshops and demanded cheap immigrant labor to replace them. It’s unseemly to then congratulate themselves for “providing an opportunity for a young woman to marry and have children.”

    *Yes, I said men, not because I buy into all the patriarchy bs, but because most women just aren’t that ambitious, especially White women, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

    [MORE]

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Rosie


    That’s true, but I don’t think we should just accept the inability of young men to support a family as an inescapable fact of life.
     
    The Right has failed dismally here. And the alt-right has failed as well.

    If you want to succeed politically focus on bread-and-butter issues. Housing. Healthcare. Ensuring that a man can earn enough money to support a family without the wife having to work (I'm not saying that the wife should be prevented from working but she shouldn't be compelled to work for financial reasons). Financial security (which means job security). These are the Big Four.

    Focus on these four issues and you will win.

    As Steve Sailer keeps saying, it's all about affordable family formation.

    It's basically the program of the Old Left.
    , @DanHessinMD
    @Rosie

    Rosie -- I do agree with you more than most commenters here. Sexual libertinism is big a problem for society.

    But older men who are family oriented can make a lot of positive difference.

    I know a man who was sort of loose as a young man. Finally past the age of 40 he married a woman of faith about 10 years younger, and he has been a faithful husband and devoted and hard-working father ever since. They have 11 children and are respected greatly in their community and they are a light for many.

    This is a great story. The same man who was unmarriageable flake in his youth was a rock-solid family man eventually.

    Many such cases.

  115. @Rosie
    @Triteleia Laxa


    how she has created her own situation.
     
    Of course, blame the victim.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    The only “blame” you see in my statement is what you put in there. Please don’t attribute your criticism to me.

  116. @Rosie
    @DanHessinMD


    Women for centuries had a solution to this: No sex without the ring.
     
    This has never worked and doesn't work now. Women have always had sex without the ring. In more primitive times, they were considered "damaged goods" and were relegated to prostitution. More recently, without contraception, they got pregnant and the fathers were, ahem, persuaded to do right by them.

    We are in new territory for which there is no guidance to be found in the past.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    We are in new territory for which there is no guidance to be found in the past.

    Now that I agree with. Society has undergone social, cultural and technological changes that can’t be undone. That doesn’t mean that we just have to accept the way things are now, but finding solutions will require more than yearning for a return to the past.

    Finding solutions will also require finding ways to make people want to change the way things are now, rather than just telling them that they should change. When it comes to things like birth rates there’s no hope unless we can make people actually want to have more children. You have to offer people a vision of the future that will be more attractive than the current situation.

    This is something that social conservatives have, so far, failed to do. Their solutions are usually solutions that most people simply do not want.

    • Replies: @DanHessinMD
    @dfordoom

    If you hold that there is no guidance to be found in past success, you aren't a constructive thinker.

    Regarding family formation, pro-family religious communities with moral teachings are the primary success model. To attack the only model of success around without offering any solutions of your own is be not very different from Antifa or BLM.

    Being a critic is easy. Being constructive is much harder.

  117. @Rosie
    @DanHessinMD


    In fact it may give a young woman an opportunity to marry and have children that she would not otherwise have, if many young men in her cohort can’t support a family or are just playing video games.
     
    That's true, but I don’t think we should just accept the inability of young men to support a family as an inescapable fact of life. The role of old men* is to help young men take over the reins of society. Instead, they have outsourced their jobs to foreign sweatshops and demanded cheap immigrant labor to replace them. It's unseemly to then congratulate themselves for "providing an opportunity for a young woman to marry and have children."

    *Yes, I said men, not because I buy into all the patriarchy bs, but because most women just aren't that ambitious, especially White women, and there's nothing wrong with that.


    https://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2013/12/SDT-gender-and-work-12-2013-3-08.png

    Replies: @dfordoom, @DanHessinMD

    That’s true, but I don’t think we should just accept the inability of young men to support a family as an inescapable fact of life.

    The Right has failed dismally here. And the alt-right has failed as well.

    If you want to succeed politically focus on bread-and-butter issues. Housing. Healthcare. Ensuring that a man can earn enough money to support a family without the wife having to work (I’m not saying that the wife should be prevented from working but she shouldn’t be compelled to work for financial reasons). Financial security (which means job security). These are the Big Four.

    Focus on these four issues and you will win.

    As Steve Sailer keeps saying, it’s all about affordable family formation.

    It’s basically the program of the Old Left.

  118. @dfordoom
    @DanHessinMD


    Not trying to single you out. But the view of sex as primarily carnal pleasure rather than a pathway for something much greater is a big problem, maybe the biggest problem.
     
    Maybe sex should be for more than carnal pleasure, but the reality is that those people who think it is about carnal pleasure are going to think so whether you approve of it or not. Unless you have some strategy for changing their minds?

    And this really is a global issue.
     
    Yes, I agree.

    As I have often pointed out, the issue of childless indulgence is biggest in East Asia where South Koreans have the lowest birthrate of all.
     
    Yes, I agree. But childless indulgence is a consequence, not a cause. It's a consequence of a myriad of social and cultural and technological changes over the past century or more.

    To reverse all those social, cultural and technological changes would require an incredibly drastic social, cultural and political revolution. Do you have a strategy for achieving that?

    Replies: @DanHessinMD

    From your handle, doom is plainly what you are selling. Solutions exist. Do you you have a solution-seeking mindset? It is doesn’t seem so.

    Most faiths teach that sex primarily for carnal pleasure is a sin. And that belief does make a huge difference. I know a lot of great middle aged men who could go for someone younger and toss their families aside. At that age, the market is in their favor. Yet they generally don’t because of religious and moral understanding that this is wrong.

    This is a solution.

    Even aside from faith, the notion that family formation is much better than a libertine approach to sex is achievable, and it fact it already exists to a significant extent. Certainly libertine behavior has been substantially pushed out of the workplace by MeToo. The left has no problem pushing norms.

    The idea that social pressure doesn’t work is nonsense. Where I live, even all the vaccinated people are wearing masks, showing the very great power of social norms. This was completely foreign to almost everyone until the moment the left pushed it and it was instantaneously the norm. A year of school shutdowns? Easy. Everybody works from home? Trivial to enforce at the drop of a hat.

    The left pushes extraordinary social norms quickly at will, giving lie to the idea that this is impossible. If the left wanted norms of family formation and fidelity, it would become a thing very quickly.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @DanHessinMD


    Most faiths teach that sex primarily for carnal pleasure is a sin.
     
    And where did those faiths come from? What basis do they have in reality?

    Sex is pleasurable. Do you blame God and/or nature for that? (God and nature and man are part of the same thing, but you wouldn't understand that.) You would rather preach that sex for pleasure is a sin, because some religion that some other guys wrote for you long ago says so, in the face of the sheer pleasure and celebration of life that it gives you and your loved one. That is sick and unnatural.

    It is sick and unnatural to make people ashamed of the pleasure that God and nature gave them. No wonder certain religions cut off part of their boy's penises and some cut out their girls' clitorises.


    I know a lot of great middle aged men who could go for someone younger and toss their families aside. At that age, the market is in their favor. Yet they generally don’t because of religious and moral understanding that this is wrong.
     
    No, the reason a non-psychopath would not do that is because it would make him feel bad, because he has empathy and he takes his vows seriously.

    Your religions rely on people thinking like psychopathic children who would hurt others if it gave them pleasure and Big Daddy God didn't punish them for it.

    That too, is sick.

    Remember: After twenty years of happily fucking around, I married the right woman and have stayed faithful to her for another twenty years of my life since. I did this because I want to, but I also promised. I know God exists, but I am a grown man and I don't need to keep my promises in fear of God (though I have joked about that here) or social pressure. I keep them because I made them and I love my wife.

    Replies: @DanHessinMD

  119. @dfordoom
    @Rosie


    We are in new territory for which there is no guidance to be found in the past.
     
    Now that I agree with. Society has undergone social, cultural and technological changes that can't be undone. That doesn't mean that we just have to accept the way things are now, but finding solutions will require more than yearning for a return to the past.

    Finding solutions will also require finding ways to make people want to change the way things are now, rather than just telling them that they should change. When it comes to things like birth rates there's no hope unless we can make people actually want to have more children. You have to offer people a vision of the future that will be more attractive than the current situation.

    This is something that social conservatives have, so far, failed to do. Their solutions are usually solutions that most people simply do not want.

    Replies: @DanHessinMD

    If you hold that there is no guidance to be found in past success, you aren’t a constructive thinker.

    Regarding family formation, pro-family religious communities with moral teachings are the primary success model. To attack the only model of success around without offering any solutions of your own is be not very different from Antifa or BLM.

    Being a critic is easy. Being constructive is much harder.

  120. @Rosie
    @DanHessinMD


    In fact it may give a young woman an opportunity to marry and have children that she would not otherwise have, if many young men in her cohort can’t support a family or are just playing video games.
     
    That's true, but I don’t think we should just accept the inability of young men to support a family as an inescapable fact of life. The role of old men* is to help young men take over the reins of society. Instead, they have outsourced their jobs to foreign sweatshops and demanded cheap immigrant labor to replace them. It's unseemly to then congratulate themselves for "providing an opportunity for a young woman to marry and have children."

    *Yes, I said men, not because I buy into all the patriarchy bs, but because most women just aren't that ambitious, especially White women, and there's nothing wrong with that.


    https://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2013/12/SDT-gender-and-work-12-2013-3-08.png

    Replies: @dfordoom, @DanHessinMD

    Rosie — I do agree with you more than most commenters here. Sexual libertinism is big a problem for society.

    But older men who are family oriented can make a lot of positive difference.

    I know a man who was sort of loose as a young man. Finally past the age of 40 he married a woman of faith about 10 years younger, and he has been a faithful husband and devoted and hard-working father ever since. They have 11 children and are respected greatly in their community and they are a light for many.

    This is a great story. The same man who was unmarriageable flake in his youth was a rock-solid family man eventually.

    Many such cases.

    • Thanks: Rosie
  121. @Buzz Mohawk
    @DanHessinMD

    God/nature designed human sex a a way to bond woman and man long enough to rear children together.

    Period.

    Carnal pleasure is essential. It is, in fact an essential part of what makes humans intelligent.

    You think like a kindergartener, and you owe me an apology, an apology you have not given.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    Greatest and worst parts of life are irrational and can potentially be the same thing if done a certain way, from carnal delight to drunkenness to unbridled rage and intensity.

    This extends everywhere. I myself feel more akin to a junkie or a teenage boy seeing a gorgeous woman walking by or like I am Eddie Van Halen drunkenly on stage in 1979 than the calculating precise machine people seem to envision guys like me as when I see a beautiful contour integral or piece of code. It is a wonderful, beautiful feeling, something deeply human in our capacity to appreciate it, but can lead to self destructive behavior (I forget to eat, sleep, I get too angry if interrupted, etc) if I do not temper it.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @nebulafox

    You are walking the path between. Tuned like a radio. (The only way that used to happen with pre-digital was to go a little above and a little below, to find the middle.) You know the high and the low. That's much better than following someone else's threatening prescription, because you have it within yourself, where it always was. Nobody stole it from you and then sold it back via religion.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  122. @DanHessinMD
    @dfordoom

    From your handle, doom is plainly what you are selling. Solutions exist. Do you you have a solution-seeking mindset? It is doesn't seem so.

    Most faiths teach that sex primarily for carnal pleasure is a sin. And that belief does make a huge difference. I know a lot of great middle aged men who could go for someone younger and toss their families aside. At that age, the market is in their favor. Yet they generally don't because of religious and moral understanding that this is wrong.

    This is a solution.

    Even aside from faith, the notion that family formation is much better than a libertine approach to sex is achievable, and it fact it already exists to a significant extent. Certainly libertine behavior has been substantially pushed out of the workplace by MeToo. The left has no problem pushing norms.

    The idea that social pressure doesn't work is nonsense. Where I live, even all the vaccinated people are wearing masks, showing the very great power of social norms. This was completely foreign to almost everyone until the moment the left pushed it and it was instantaneously the norm. A year of school shutdowns? Easy. Everybody works from home? Trivial to enforce at the drop of a hat.

    The left pushes extraordinary social norms quickly at will, giving lie to the idea that this is impossible. If the left wanted norms of family formation and fidelity, it would become a thing very quickly.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    Most faiths teach that sex primarily for carnal pleasure is a sin.

    And where did those faiths come from? What basis do they have in reality?

    Sex is pleasurable. Do you blame God and/or nature for that? (God and nature and man are part of the same thing, but you wouldn’t understand that.) You would rather preach that sex for pleasure is a sin, because some religion that some other guys wrote for you long ago says so, in the face of the sheer pleasure and celebration of life that it gives you and your loved one. That is sick and unnatural.

    It is sick and unnatural to make people ashamed of the pleasure that God and nature gave them. No wonder certain religions cut off part of their boy’s penises and some cut out their girls’ clitorises.

    I know a lot of great middle aged men who could go for someone younger and toss their families aside. At that age, the market is in their favor. Yet they generally don’t because of religious and moral understanding that this is wrong.

    No, the reason a non-psychopath would not do that is because it would make him feel bad, because he has empathy and he takes his vows seriously.

    Your religions rely on people thinking like psychopathic children who would hurt others if it gave them pleasure and Big Daddy God didn’t punish them for it.

    That too, is sick.

    Remember: After twenty years of happily fucking around, I married the right woman and have stayed faithful to her for another twenty years of my life since. I did this because I want to, but I also promised. I know God exists, but I am a grown man and I don’t need to keep my promises in fear of God (though I have joked about that here) or social pressure. I keep them because I made them and I love my wife.

    • Replies: @DanHessinMD
    @Buzz Mohawk

    You brag about your exploits and meanwhile lament what is happening to society.

    This reminds me of the old saw about the child on trial for killing his parents who pleads for mercy from the court because he is an orphan.

    Who owes an apology now? I am not sure what you want an apology from me for, noticing?

    You wrote:

    "God/nature designed human sex a a way to bond woman and man long enough to rear children together."

    "Carnal pleasure is essential. It is, in fact an essential part of what makes humans intelligent."

    These are literally opposing views.

    Me, I take a more middle of the road view, that sex is for both children and pleasure but the former is much more important. That seems like the commonsensical view.

    The heading of this post is, "Normal Preferences Are Shamed". I would add that normal viewpoints are shamed.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

  123. @Buzz Mohawk
    @DanHessinMD


    Most faiths teach that sex primarily for carnal pleasure is a sin.
     
    And where did those faiths come from? What basis do they have in reality?

    Sex is pleasurable. Do you blame God and/or nature for that? (God and nature and man are part of the same thing, but you wouldn't understand that.) You would rather preach that sex for pleasure is a sin, because some religion that some other guys wrote for you long ago says so, in the face of the sheer pleasure and celebration of life that it gives you and your loved one. That is sick and unnatural.

    It is sick and unnatural to make people ashamed of the pleasure that God and nature gave them. No wonder certain religions cut off part of their boy's penises and some cut out their girls' clitorises.


    I know a lot of great middle aged men who could go for someone younger and toss their families aside. At that age, the market is in their favor. Yet they generally don’t because of religious and moral understanding that this is wrong.
     
    No, the reason a non-psychopath would not do that is because it would make him feel bad, because he has empathy and he takes his vows seriously.

    Your religions rely on people thinking like psychopathic children who would hurt others if it gave them pleasure and Big Daddy God didn't punish them for it.

    That too, is sick.

    Remember: After twenty years of happily fucking around, I married the right woman and have stayed faithful to her for another twenty years of my life since. I did this because I want to, but I also promised. I know God exists, but I am a grown man and I don't need to keep my promises in fear of God (though I have joked about that here) or social pressure. I keep them because I made them and I love my wife.

    Replies: @DanHessinMD

    You brag about your exploits and meanwhile lament what is happening to society.

    This reminds me of the old saw about the child on trial for killing his parents who pleads for mercy from the court because he is an orphan.

    Who owes an apology now? I am not sure what you want an apology from me for, noticing?

    You wrote:

    “God/nature designed human sex a a way to bond woman and man long enough to rear children together.”

    “Carnal pleasure is essential. It is, in fact an essential part of what makes humans intelligent.”

    These are literally opposing views.

    Me, I take a more middle of the road view, that sex is for both children and pleasure but the former is much more important. That seems like the commonsensical view.

    The heading of this post is, “Normal Preferences Are Shamed”. I would add that normal viewpoints are shamed.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @DanHessinMD

    Of course sex exists to procreate. Duh. But sex is very pleasurable and part of a sexual union. As humans, we have the ability to enjoy life in many ways. We make a variety of cheeses from the milk of animals. Is that to be discouraged because the primary purpose of animal milk is to nourish baby animals?

    You are not really making any point at all. Your approach is fine for you. Where you went very wrong was when you initially stated that my approach was anti-social. You literally accused me, and the millions of other human beings, male and female who enjoy sex without procreation, of committing some kind of social crime.

    I explained to you my reasons for not having children, and I described my bachelorhood -- plus my long, faithful marriage. I did not brag; if I had, you would be even more disgusted with me.

    My comments are not contradictory at all. It is you who are not capable of holding two thoughts in mind at the same time.

    God/nature made cows milk to nourish calves. Men figured out how to make delicious cheeses from the milk. Both are true.

    Replies: @DanHessinMD

  124. @nebulafox
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Greatest and worst parts of life are irrational and can potentially be the same thing if done a certain way, from carnal delight to drunkenness to unbridled rage and intensity.

    This extends everywhere. I myself feel more akin to a junkie or a teenage boy seeing a gorgeous woman walking by or like I am Eddie Van Halen drunkenly on stage in 1979 than the calculating precise machine people seem to envision guys like me as when I see a beautiful contour integral or piece of code. It is a wonderful, beautiful feeling, something deeply human in our capacity to appreciate it, but can lead to self destructive behavior (I forget to eat, sleep, I get too angry if interrupted, etc) if I do not temper it.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    You are walking the path between. Tuned like a radio. (The only way that used to happen with pre-digital was to go a little above and a little below, to find the middle.) You know the high and the low. That’s much better than following someone else’s threatening prescription, because you have it within yourself, where it always was. Nobody stole it from you and then sold it back via religion.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Above all, one has to do oneself. Something tells me that those in power are allergic and hostile to authenticity simply because on some level, they sense an absence of that in their own lives as courtiers and CV grabbers.

    That said, heheh: I wish. There's so much to be done, really. I've had my whole adult life more or less blocked, and I've come to realize how unformed I essentially am. Some of what happened was beyond my control... but a lot of it wasn't. I read on your life story. Despite the horrific childhood, you lived life. You didn't analyze it behind a screen. That, other commentators here: that's what I envy, and what I see disappearing with disturbing amounts of people in my own generation. And how I can help fix others if I don't fix myself, set an example first? World is full of people who love to talk, few who set examples through their own actions. The latter will be worth their weight in gold in coming decades.

    It's out there. Soon I'm going to be out there. I wish I spent my confined time improving myself, but I had no faith that it would ever end. I don't have enough time left for regrets, though. I can't have quantity, so I'll damned well make up for it in quality and intensity. The saving grace of my Y chromosome: men get the luxury to be exponential.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

  125. @DanHessinMD
    @Buzz Mohawk

    You brag about your exploits and meanwhile lament what is happening to society.

    This reminds me of the old saw about the child on trial for killing his parents who pleads for mercy from the court because he is an orphan.

    Who owes an apology now? I am not sure what you want an apology from me for, noticing?

    You wrote:

    "God/nature designed human sex a a way to bond woman and man long enough to rear children together."

    "Carnal pleasure is essential. It is, in fact an essential part of what makes humans intelligent."

    These are literally opposing views.

    Me, I take a more middle of the road view, that sex is for both children and pleasure but the former is much more important. That seems like the commonsensical view.

    The heading of this post is, "Normal Preferences Are Shamed". I would add that normal viewpoints are shamed.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    Of course sex exists to procreate. Duh. But sex is very pleasurable and part of a sexual union. As humans, we have the ability to enjoy life in many ways. We make a variety of cheeses from the milk of animals. Is that to be discouraged because the primary purpose of animal milk is to nourish baby animals?

    You are not really making any point at all. Your approach is fine for you. Where you went very wrong was when you initially stated that my approach was anti-social. You literally accused me, and the millions of other human beings, male and female who enjoy sex without procreation, of committing some kind of social crime.

    I explained to you my reasons for not having children, and I described my bachelorhood — plus my long, faithful marriage. I did not brag; if I had, you would be even more disgusted with me.

    My comments are not contradictory at all. It is you who are not capable of holding two thoughts in mind at the same time.

    God/nature made cows milk to nourish calves. Men figured out how to make delicious cheeses from the milk. Both are true.

    • Replies: @DanHessinMD
    @Buzz Mohawk

    "You literally accused me, and the millions of other human beings, male and female who enjoy sex without procreation, of committing some kind of social crime."

    Most don't spend their days on rightist blogs lamenting what is happening to the world and then bragging about and talking up the very thing, sexual libertinism, that has caused so many of the social ills they are upset about.

    Look, I am not trying to drag you personally. Heartiste was much the same, only more so. His blog was great fun, but probably not a force for good.

    RooshV seems to be at least consistent, regretting that and advocating something different now. But he seemed to have rushed from one extreme living and teaching debauchery to men to the another, the solitary life of a monk. The later isn't ideal either in my view.

    My seemingly centrist view, that sexual energy is good but should be channeled constructively into family life, was the common sense of almost every civilized people until now.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @DanHessinMD, @Dumbo

  126. @Buzz Mohawk
    @DanHessinMD

    Of course sex exists to procreate. Duh. But sex is very pleasurable and part of a sexual union. As humans, we have the ability to enjoy life in many ways. We make a variety of cheeses from the milk of animals. Is that to be discouraged because the primary purpose of animal milk is to nourish baby animals?

    You are not really making any point at all. Your approach is fine for you. Where you went very wrong was when you initially stated that my approach was anti-social. You literally accused me, and the millions of other human beings, male and female who enjoy sex without procreation, of committing some kind of social crime.

    I explained to you my reasons for not having children, and I described my bachelorhood -- plus my long, faithful marriage. I did not brag; if I had, you would be even more disgusted with me.

    My comments are not contradictory at all. It is you who are not capable of holding two thoughts in mind at the same time.

    God/nature made cows milk to nourish calves. Men figured out how to make delicious cheeses from the milk. Both are true.

    Replies: @DanHessinMD

    “You literally accused me, and the millions of other human beings, male and female who enjoy sex without procreation, of committing some kind of social crime.”

    Most don’t spend their days on rightist blogs lamenting what is happening to the world and then bragging about and talking up the very thing, sexual libertinism, that has caused so many of the social ills they are upset about.

    Look, I am not trying to drag you personally. Heartiste was much the same, only more so. His blog was great fun, but probably not a force for good.

    RooshV seems to be at least consistent, regretting that and advocating something different now. But he seemed to have rushed from one extreme living and teaching debauchery to men to the another, the solitary life of a monk. The later isn’t ideal either in my view.

    My seemingly centrist view, that sexual energy is good but should be channeled constructively into family life, was the common sense of almost every civilized people until now.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @DanHessinMD


    Most don’t spend their days on rightist blogs lamenting what is happening to the world and then bragging about and talking up the very thing, sexual libertinism, that has caused so many of the social ills they are upset about.
     
    "... the very thing, sexual libertinism, that has caused so many of the social ills..."

    Maybe that one phrase exemplifies where we disagree.

    If you want to get hung up on sex as the biggest problem (oh, excuse me, "sexual libertinism") then go ahead. My view, as openly expressed here for a long time, is that "there is nothing new under the sun," and there has always been this libertinism. In fact, sex for fun has always been with us and always will -- for men and women both.

    I respect your views, and I especially am happy to see you mention a middle way. You have a balance that works for you and many others. My suspicion is that most people, though, have always placed more emphasis on sex for pleasure than you are willing to give them credit for. They always have, whether inside or outside of marriage, and they have always found ways around obstacles to it, like grass growing though the cracks in a sidewalk. It's nature.

    Go well.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @DanHessinMD
    @DanHessinMD

    Although in Heartiste's defense (he is a reader), telling truth is a pretty big deal in a world of lies.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    , @Dumbo
    @DanHessinMD

    Perhaps the issue is more than just about "sex for procreation" vs "sex for pleasure". Even when children do not happen (be it by conscious choice or merely for natural reasons, infertility etc), there is (or was) a transcendental aspect to marriage, which no longer is the norm. Marriage was always about more than just about "sex for pleasure" (or most people wouldn't even marry, as that's not what you find in marriage usually). Sex just for pleasure, without commitment or outside marriage, was almost always traditionally seen as negative (except perhaps in certain festivals or fertility cults). And of course it could also lead to children that would end in orphanages or created in non-ideal conditions. If some (like a lot of modern people) make children but do not properly take care of them, or abuse them, this does not make things better. It would be preferably that such people do not have children, in that case.

    So I think there is something else that is broken in modern society besides sexual libertinism (which as someone said, always existed). Perhaps it is the idea that there is nothing transcendental at all in life, so that even when there are families with children they are dysfunctional and easily broken. Because all that matters is the immediate well-being and material concerns.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  127. @DanHessinMD
    @Buzz Mohawk

    "You literally accused me, and the millions of other human beings, male and female who enjoy sex without procreation, of committing some kind of social crime."

    Most don't spend their days on rightist blogs lamenting what is happening to the world and then bragging about and talking up the very thing, sexual libertinism, that has caused so many of the social ills they are upset about.

    Look, I am not trying to drag you personally. Heartiste was much the same, only more so. His blog was great fun, but probably not a force for good.

    RooshV seems to be at least consistent, regretting that and advocating something different now. But he seemed to have rushed from one extreme living and teaching debauchery to men to the another, the solitary life of a monk. The later isn't ideal either in my view.

    My seemingly centrist view, that sexual energy is good but should be channeled constructively into family life, was the common sense of almost every civilized people until now.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @DanHessinMD, @Dumbo

    Most don’t spend their days on rightist blogs lamenting what is happening to the world and then bragging about and talking up the very thing, sexual libertinism, that has caused so many of the social ills they are upset about.

    “… the very thing, sexual libertinism, that has caused so many of the social ills…”

    Maybe that one phrase exemplifies where we disagree.

    If you want to get hung up on sex as the biggest problem (oh, excuse me, “sexual libertinism”) then go ahead. My view, as openly expressed here for a long time, is that “there is nothing new under the sun,” and there has always been this libertinism. In fact, sex for fun has always been with us and always will — for men and women both.

    I respect your views, and I especially am happy to see you mention a middle way. You have a balance that works for you and many others. My suspicion is that most people, though, have always placed more emphasis on sex for pleasure than you are willing to give them credit for. They always have, whether inside or outside of marriage, and they have always found ways around obstacles to it, like grass growing though the cracks in a sidewalk. It’s nature.

    Go well.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Buzz Mohawk


    “… the very thing, sexual libertinism, that has caused so many of the social ills…”

    Maybe that one phrase exemplifies where we disagree.
     
    I'm with Buzz on this one. Whether one thinks sexual libertinism is a good thing or a bad thing i's pretty obvious that it's not in itself the cause of our social ills.

    If you want to get hung up on sex as the biggest problem (oh, excuse me, “sexual libertinism”) then go ahead. My view, as openly expressed here for a long time, is that “there is nothing new under the sun,” and there has always been this libertinism. In fact, sex for fun has always been with us and always will — for men and women both.
     
    Yes. And as contraception became steadily cheaper, easier and more reliable it was inevitable that people would take advantage of the technology to have more recreational sex. We cannot un-invent contraception. We have to live in a world in which recreational sex is now a much easier and more attractive option. Maybe we need to realise that recreational sex isn't the Worst Thing Ever. Maybe it's really fairly harmless. Maybe there are much much bigger problems we need to worry about.

    It's possible that falling birth rates may actually turn out to be the Worst Thing Ever. We're not going to solve that problem by fretting about people having recreational sex.
  128. @DanHessinMD
    @Buzz Mohawk

    "You literally accused me, and the millions of other human beings, male and female who enjoy sex without procreation, of committing some kind of social crime."

    Most don't spend their days on rightist blogs lamenting what is happening to the world and then bragging about and talking up the very thing, sexual libertinism, that has caused so many of the social ills they are upset about.

    Look, I am not trying to drag you personally. Heartiste was much the same, only more so. His blog was great fun, but probably not a force for good.

    RooshV seems to be at least consistent, regretting that and advocating something different now. But he seemed to have rushed from one extreme living and teaching debauchery to men to the another, the solitary life of a monk. The later isn't ideal either in my view.

    My seemingly centrist view, that sexual energy is good but should be channeled constructively into family life, was the common sense of almost every civilized people until now.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @DanHessinMD, @Dumbo

    Although in Heartiste’s defense (he is a reader), telling truth is a pretty big deal in a world of lies.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @DanHessinMD


    Although in Heartiste’s defense (he is a reader), telling truth is a pretty big deal in a world of lies.

     

    I'm glad to even be mentioned in the same company. Thank you for making that happen!
  129. @Rosie
    @Resartus


    Then some women look at, if the man is much older, he may pass away (unlikely to dragged off to war), then she is still young enough to start over……
     
    Good grief. Did we not just establish the fact that men prefer younger women? Who is she going to start over with? Crusty old geezer 2.0?

    Replies: @Resartus

    Did we not just establish the fact that men prefer younger women?

    Yet you skip right over, that some young women like older men……

  130. @Buzz Mohawk
    @nebulafox

    You are walking the path between. Tuned like a radio. (The only way that used to happen with pre-digital was to go a little above and a little below, to find the middle.) You know the high and the low. That's much better than following someone else's threatening prescription, because you have it within yourself, where it always was. Nobody stole it from you and then sold it back via religion.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    Above all, one has to do oneself. Something tells me that those in power are allergic and hostile to authenticity simply because on some level, they sense an absence of that in their own lives as courtiers and CV grabbers.

    That said, heheh: I wish. There’s so much to be done, really. I’ve had my whole adult life more or less blocked, and I’ve come to realize how unformed I essentially am. Some of what happened was beyond my control… but a lot of it wasn’t. I read on your life story. Despite the horrific childhood, you lived life. You didn’t analyze it behind a screen. That, other commentators here: that’s what I envy, and what I see disappearing with disturbing amounts of people in my own generation. And how I can help fix others if I don’t fix myself, set an example first? World is full of people who love to talk, few who set examples through their own actions. The latter will be worth their weight in gold in coming decades.

    It’s out there. Soon I’m going to be out there. I wish I spent my confined time improving myself, but I had no faith that it would ever end. I don’t have enough time left for regrets, though. I can’t have quantity, so I’ll damned well make up for it in quality and intensity. The saving grace of my Y chromosome: men get the luxury to be exponential.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @nebulafox


    I read on your life story. Despite the horrific childhood, you lived life.
     
    Thanks, that's true, and I don't want to give the impression that my whole childhood was "horrific." The truth is, people like me, who grew up with violent, alcoholic parents like mine, have difficulty knowing what is normal, so I'm not sure how bad it was.

    There were many good times and things, and I often brag about my father's career here (because it is brag-worthy and because he got a lot better. My mother did not.) What I do know is that the whole thing was unusual. There were no other kids in any of my neighborhoods going through that. I know that, because I would have heard and known about it. My house was the only one where that shit happened, but I am sure there were and are still thousands of others across America.

    Frankly, I will never know if that was the cause of my OCD. Personally, I think I was genetically susceptible, and that the environment pushed me over the line. I am still more fortunate than many people -- but I do feel strongly that I was wise not to have children.

    Now, what I want to do is encourage YOU to get out any way you can. Live something "real," out there. I don't know how you can do it, because I don't know your situation. Most of the interesting things I did came from how I lived by necessity, not by plan. I look back and I am glad -- but often, at the time, I was scared and only doing the best I could.

    Put yourself out there when you can. It might not seem a big deal at first, but you never know where it will lead you.

    Good luck!

  131. @Rosie

    Jay Fink makes an observation illustrating why the phrase “clown world” resonates the way it does:
     
    Clown World is a thing, but this isn't a Clown World thing. This is rather a straightforward instance of the general rule that people shouldn't be a$$holes.

    To say that a preference is "normal" is to acknowledge that it goes without saying. Therefore, to sayit in so many words is to pile on and punch down. People don't like that.

    Moreover, ought does not follow from is. Men's attraction to younger, nulliparous women is, frankly, antisocial. It is advantageous for individual males, but destructive to society as a whole. Anyone who claims to support monogamy must acknowledge this. No one can be blamed for their preferences, but one can be blamed for offending people's social sensibilities by boasting about it.

    Replies: @Jay Fink, @GazaPlanet, @dfordoom, @Triteleia Laxa, @Chrisnonymous, @Anonymous, @Jim Christian, @Mario Partisan, @DanHessinMD, @AnotherDad, @Dumbo, @Rattus Norwegius

    Men’s attraction to younger, nulliparous women is, frankly, antisocial.

    Why? Men can always try, but as a general rule the only older men that attract “younger nulliparous women” are either famous, rich or powerful, and women’s attraction to a loaded wallet or to men of power and fame/high status will probably never end.

    Really, women are to blame here. If they marry or have sex with older (rich) men, it’s because they choose it.

    As for the male instinct to be attracted to younger female women, it’s completely natural. Even a few tottering 70 year old fools probably are attracted to them, doesn’t mean that they will even can do anything about it.

  132. @nebulafox
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Above all, one has to do oneself. Something tells me that those in power are allergic and hostile to authenticity simply because on some level, they sense an absence of that in their own lives as courtiers and CV grabbers.

    That said, heheh: I wish. There's so much to be done, really. I've had my whole adult life more or less blocked, and I've come to realize how unformed I essentially am. Some of what happened was beyond my control... but a lot of it wasn't. I read on your life story. Despite the horrific childhood, you lived life. You didn't analyze it behind a screen. That, other commentators here: that's what I envy, and what I see disappearing with disturbing amounts of people in my own generation. And how I can help fix others if I don't fix myself, set an example first? World is full of people who love to talk, few who set examples through their own actions. The latter will be worth their weight in gold in coming decades.

    It's out there. Soon I'm going to be out there. I wish I spent my confined time improving myself, but I had no faith that it would ever end. I don't have enough time left for regrets, though. I can't have quantity, so I'll damned well make up for it in quality and intensity. The saving grace of my Y chromosome: men get the luxury to be exponential.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    I read on your life story. Despite the horrific childhood, you lived life.

    Thanks, that’s true, and I don’t want to give the impression that my whole childhood was “horrific.” The truth is, people like me, who grew up with violent, alcoholic parents like mine, have difficulty knowing what is normal, so I’m not sure how bad it was.

    There were many good times and things, and I often brag about my father’s career here (because it is brag-worthy and because he got a lot better. My mother did not.) What I do know is that the whole thing was unusual. There were no other kids in any of my neighborhoods going through that. I know that, because I would have heard and known about it. My house was the only one where that shit happened, but I am sure there were and are still thousands of others across America.

    Frankly, I will never know if that was the cause of my OCD. Personally, I think I was genetically susceptible, and that the environment pushed me over the line. I am still more fortunate than many people — but I do feel strongly that I was wise not to have children.

    Now, what I want to do is encourage YOU to get out any way you can. Live something “real,” out there. I don’t know how you can do it, because I don’t know your situation. Most of the interesting things I did came from how I lived by necessity, not by plan. I look back and I am glad — but often, at the time, I was scared and only doing the best I could.

    Put yourself out there when you can. It might not seem a big deal at first, but you never know where it will lead you.

    Good luck!

  133. Men have an eye for nubile women and women have an eye for high status males. I’m glad we got this figured out.

    We should write it up!

    • LOL: Buzz Mohawk
    • Replies: @Resartus
    @iffen


    We should write it up!
     
    There is a Movie about a long time groupie...
    She told most of her story....
    Several "Documentaries" ??? about groupies "Musical and Sports"....

    Men have an eye for nubile women and women have an eye for high status males.
     
    For those that have some English Comprehension skills,
    it explains Trump's grab them by the [email protected]@@y statement....
  134. @iffen
    Men have an eye for nubile women and women have an eye for high status males. I'm glad we got this figured out.

    We should write it up!

    Replies: @Resartus

    We should write it up!

    There is a Movie about a long time groupie…
    She told most of her story….
    Several “Documentaries” ??? about groupies “Musical and Sports”….

    Men have an eye for nubile women and women have an eye for high status males.

    For those that have some English Comprehension skills,
    it explains Trump’s grab them by the [email protected]@@y statement….

  135. @DanHessinMD
    @DanHessinMD

    Although in Heartiste's defense (he is a reader), telling truth is a pretty big deal in a world of lies.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    Although in Heartiste’s defense (he is a reader), telling truth is a pretty big deal in a world of lies.

    I’m glad to even be mentioned in the same company. Thank you for making that happen!

  136. @DanHessinMD
    @Buzz Mohawk

    "You literally accused me, and the millions of other human beings, male and female who enjoy sex without procreation, of committing some kind of social crime."

    Most don't spend their days on rightist blogs lamenting what is happening to the world and then bragging about and talking up the very thing, sexual libertinism, that has caused so many of the social ills they are upset about.

    Look, I am not trying to drag you personally. Heartiste was much the same, only more so. His blog was great fun, but probably not a force for good.

    RooshV seems to be at least consistent, regretting that and advocating something different now. But he seemed to have rushed from one extreme living and teaching debauchery to men to the another, the solitary life of a monk. The later isn't ideal either in my view.

    My seemingly centrist view, that sexual energy is good but should be channeled constructively into family life, was the common sense of almost every civilized people until now.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @DanHessinMD, @Dumbo

    Perhaps the issue is more than just about “sex for procreation” vs “sex for pleasure”. Even when children do not happen (be it by conscious choice or merely for natural reasons, infertility etc), there is (or was) a transcendental aspect to marriage, which no longer is the norm. Marriage was always about more than just about “sex for pleasure” (or most people wouldn’t even marry, as that’s not what you find in marriage usually). Sex just for pleasure, without commitment or outside marriage, was almost always traditionally seen as negative (except perhaps in certain festivals or fertility cults). And of course it could also lead to children that would end in orphanages or created in non-ideal conditions. If some (like a lot of modern people) make children but do not properly take care of them, or abuse them, this does not make things better. It would be preferably that such people do not have children, in that case.

    So I think there is something else that is broken in modern society besides sexual libertinism (which as someone said, always existed). Perhaps it is the idea that there is nothing transcendental at all in life, so that even when there are families with children they are dysfunctional and easily broken. Because all that matters is the immediate well-being and material concerns.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Dumbo


    So I think there is something else that is broken in modern society besides sexual libertinism (which as someone said, always existed). Perhaps it is the idea that there is nothing transcendental at all in life, so that even when there are families with children they are dysfunctional and easily broken. Because all that matters is the immediate well-being and material concerns.
     
    That sounds like the problem is capitalism. Capitalism encourages the view that immediate well-being and material concerns are all that matter, because those things are good for the corporate bottom line.

    And capitalism has mutated into new and more destructive forms and then you add easy credit, and the idea that you should live your whole life on credit.

    A society based on capitalism and its evil step-sister consumerism is going to be entirely focused on material goods and immediate gratification. Capitalism has no use for transcendentalism because there's no profit in it. Capitalism turns people into nothing but consumers.

    So yeah, sexual libertinism is unlikely to be the root cause of the problem. And sexual libertinism peaked in the 70s and 80s. There's less sexual libertinism today but the birth rate keeps falling and families seem to be getting more dysfunctional.
  137. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Rosie

    I feel sad and powerless when I read that. The sadness is heartbreaking, but that space, I feel, might be used by her to examine how she has created her own situation. Were she to reflect and discover how she has done this and, most importantly, why it benefited her, then she might find gratitude and peace.

    The above paragraph outlines a difficult process, but one that is enlightening. I sense, from her letter, that she is yet to begin this; as the letter only details things which happened to her and shows little insight beyond her own sadness and sense of powerlessness.

    Perhaps it still isn't the time for her to do so, and perhaps she needs simple stories of good and bad to offset her pain, but she could gain a lot from her situation if she can find the courage. Or maybe she already is and that letter is a tiny fraction of her thoughts on the matter...

    Replies: @Rosie, @Curle

    “ The above paragraph outlines a difficult process, but one that is enlightening.”

    Enlightenment brings understanding not cures. Her pain will become manageable but it won’t go away. Ever.

    Best immediate and long term solution is the one Queen Liz adopted; dogs. There are an endless number of things people and dogs can do together. Planned hikes in new locations is just the start.

  138. @Rosie
    @Mario Partisan


    Okay, so male attraction to young women who have not had children yet is anti-social?
     
    It is antisocial in the sense that women are only nulliparous until they have their first child. If you are married to a woman for 40 years, she is only going to have her prebaby figure for the first few years of that. What about the next ~35 years?

    He is going to have to overcome his preference at that point. It won't do to blather on about it being "natural" to prefer women who haven't had children.
    Whether if is natural or not is neither here nor there. Note that I am saying that the preference is antisocial, not the person, by which I mean, simply that a man is more likely to engage on antisocial conduct with that preference than he would be without it.

    I suspect a lot of this shaming of men for their normal, natural, Darwinian instincts is mere blame shifting. These “roasties” can’t accept that they are responsible for being single and they are trying to shame men into taking them after having pushed those same arms away only a few years earlier.
     

    I don't believe this whole narrative about "roasties" resisting marriage and have said so repeatedly and given ample reasons for this. Fifty percent of young people are married or cohabiting by age 24, and the numbers go up from there.

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/109402/age-24-marriage-wins.aspx

    That said, I'm sure there are individual men for whom something like this happens, and in that case, I'm not going to fuss about 5-10 year age gap. I just don't think that's what is going on most of the time. I do not share your assumption that women are to blame for their single status, but men are not.

    I rather suspect that what is happening is the opposite. Men don’t want to get married until there hair starts falling out, at which point, they're not interested in any of their same-age peers whom they have pumped and dumped over the years, whom they consider "damaged goods." Rather, they want a woman 10 years younger.

    It seems that our dispute is as to the facts on the ground rather than moral principles.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @DanHessinMD, @Curle

    “ Men don’t want to get married until there hair starts falling out, at which point,”

    I think men do want marriage earlier but the social forces that compelled, tricked or encouraged women to postpone motherhood had the same deleterious effect on men that it had on women. Most men I know had a slower career launch than they would have before the career woman/gay’s with prestige phenom.

  139. @Dumbo
    @DanHessinMD

    Perhaps the issue is more than just about "sex for procreation" vs "sex for pleasure". Even when children do not happen (be it by conscious choice or merely for natural reasons, infertility etc), there is (or was) a transcendental aspect to marriage, which no longer is the norm. Marriage was always about more than just about "sex for pleasure" (or most people wouldn't even marry, as that's not what you find in marriage usually). Sex just for pleasure, without commitment or outside marriage, was almost always traditionally seen as negative (except perhaps in certain festivals or fertility cults). And of course it could also lead to children that would end in orphanages or created in non-ideal conditions. If some (like a lot of modern people) make children but do not properly take care of them, or abuse them, this does not make things better. It would be preferably that such people do not have children, in that case.

    So I think there is something else that is broken in modern society besides sexual libertinism (which as someone said, always existed). Perhaps it is the idea that there is nothing transcendental at all in life, so that even when there are families with children they are dysfunctional and easily broken. Because all that matters is the immediate well-being and material concerns.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    So I think there is something else that is broken in modern society besides sexual libertinism (which as someone said, always existed). Perhaps it is the idea that there is nothing transcendental at all in life, so that even when there are families with children they are dysfunctional and easily broken. Because all that matters is the immediate well-being and material concerns.

    That sounds like the problem is capitalism. Capitalism encourages the view that immediate well-being and material concerns are all that matter, because those things are good for the corporate bottom line.

    And capitalism has mutated into new and more destructive forms and then you add easy credit, and the idea that you should live your whole life on credit.

    A society based on capitalism and its evil step-sister consumerism is going to be entirely focused on material goods and immediate gratification. Capitalism has no use for transcendentalism because there’s no profit in it. Capitalism turns people into nothing but consumers.

    So yeah, sexual libertinism is unlikely to be the root cause of the problem. And sexual libertinism peaked in the 70s and 80s. There’s less sexual libertinism today but the birth rate keeps falling and families seem to be getting more dysfunctional.

  140. @Buzz Mohawk
    @DanHessinMD


    Most don’t spend their days on rightist blogs lamenting what is happening to the world and then bragging about and talking up the very thing, sexual libertinism, that has caused so many of the social ills they are upset about.
     
    "... the very thing, sexual libertinism, that has caused so many of the social ills..."

    Maybe that one phrase exemplifies where we disagree.

    If you want to get hung up on sex as the biggest problem (oh, excuse me, "sexual libertinism") then go ahead. My view, as openly expressed here for a long time, is that "there is nothing new under the sun," and there has always been this libertinism. In fact, sex for fun has always been with us and always will -- for men and women both.

    I respect your views, and I especially am happy to see you mention a middle way. You have a balance that works for you and many others. My suspicion is that most people, though, have always placed more emphasis on sex for pleasure than you are willing to give them credit for. They always have, whether inside or outside of marriage, and they have always found ways around obstacles to it, like grass growing though the cracks in a sidewalk. It's nature.

    Go well.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    “… the very thing, sexual libertinism, that has caused so many of the social ills…”

    Maybe that one phrase exemplifies where we disagree.

    I’m with Buzz on this one. Whether one thinks sexual libertinism is a good thing or a bad thing i’s pretty obvious that it’s not in itself the cause of our social ills.

    If you want to get hung up on sex as the biggest problem (oh, excuse me, “sexual libertinism”) then go ahead. My view, as openly expressed here for a long time, is that “there is nothing new under the sun,” and there has always been this libertinism. In fact, sex for fun has always been with us and always will — for men and women both.

    Yes. And as contraception became steadily cheaper, easier and more reliable it was inevitable that people would take advantage of the technology to have more recreational sex. We cannot un-invent contraception. We have to live in a world in which recreational sex is now a much easier and more attractive option. Maybe we need to realise that recreational sex isn’t the Worst Thing Ever. Maybe it’s really fairly harmless. Maybe there are much much bigger problems we need to worry about.

    It’s possible that falling birth rates may actually turn out to be the Worst Thing Ever. We’re not going to solve that problem by fretting about people having recreational sex.

  141. res says:
    @Rosie
    @RadicalCenter


    Wholeheartedly agree there, Rosie. But an older guy who is widowed, or who hasn’t been married yet for whatever reason, will naturally and instinctively try to get a much younger woman.
     
    OK, but that doesn't tell us anything about the rightness or wrongness of doing so.

    Anyway, I don’t think you were criticizing this kind of couple, just noting our perspective.
     
    You would certainly be low on my list of priorities, but I still think it is better for a man to marry a woman as near as possible his own age and vice versa.

    Jimbob Duggar, father of 19, was born in July, 1965. His wife, Michelle, was born in September, 1966.

    https://www.purposedrivenlawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Age-Gap-and-Marriage.png

    Replies: @JohnPlywood, @dfordoom, @res

    The original (sort of, see below, notice how Rosie’s graphic cut off the Randy Olson source attribution which was lame of her source https://www.purposedrivenlawyers.com/age-gap-and-marriage/ ) source of that graphic is actually kind of interesting.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/11/why-to-marry-someone-your-own-age/382520/

    The graphic that really struck me was this. Note that this was from an earlier article looking at the same study.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/10/the-divorce-proof-marriage/381401/

    The real original source of most of the graphics appears to be this data visualization blog post.
    http://www.randalolson.com/2014/10/10/what-makes-for-a-stable-marriage/

    An interesting point from the author in the comments.

    They don’t have any data on having sex before marriage, but they do have data on having a kid in or out of wedlock. Both significantly decrease the chances of eventual divorce — having kids in wedlock moreso.

    The source of the age difference graphic appears to be this followup.
    http://www.randalolson.com/2014/11/06/what-makes-for-a-stable-marriage-part-2/

    But notice the graphic has been replaced with this text.

    Perhaps unsurprisingly, the larger the age gap between you and your partner, the more likely your marriage will end in divorce. Only being 1-5 years away from your partner is nothing to worry about, but if you’re old enough to be your partner’s parent, then your marriage might be in trouble.

    Hugh Hefner, anyone?

    Note: A previous version of this article showed a chart giving specific relative percent likelihoods of divorce occurring based on number of years married. The original authors of the study have pointed out that although there is a significant correlation between wider age gaps and increased divorce, it is not possible to determine the relative percent likelihood from their study. That is left to future research.

    An interesting comment there.

    What I’ve seen in the past is that divorce rates are higher when the woman is older, and are actually lower when the man is older.

    The source of the data is this paper.
    ‘A Diamond is Forever’ and Other Fairy Tales: The Relationship between Wedding Expenses and Marriage Duration
    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2501480

    The paper is interesting, and appears to be serious, but I’m not sure how far I would trust this data.

    we carried out an online survey of over 3,000 evermarried persons residing in the United States.

    They give detailed tables of their models along with hazard ratios for the variables. Age difference is interesting in that it is one of the few continuous variables (age and marriage age are others, notice those two are strictly positive).

    Where things become extremely interesting is digging into their age difference variable. Table 1 gives means for all/men/women as -0.87/1.14/-2.59 which appears to mean:

    1. They preserved negative numbers (which would imply there is a negative difference portion missing from the graphic, remember that the graphic was not produced by the researchers and has since been removed).

    2. Given the male mean is positive and the female mean is negative it appears the age difference is relative to the responder. IMO this along with preserving negative numbers makes this variable useless given how it conflates whether the man or woman is older (and in a way which IMO would be worse than just using the absolute value of the age difference!).

    I’d hope the study authors really weren’t that stupid though. Can someone else take a look at the paper and see what they think?

    But let’s engage with the data anyway. It appears that
    Table 2. Hazard model predicting marital dissolution as a function of wedding expenses, population-weighted regressions
    is the most relevant.

    We start by noting the bivariant model hazard ratio is 0.994 which is interesting (variable superficially seems irrelevant). The multivariate hazard ratios are probably more important though. For all respondents that is a highly significant 1.022, but for reasons given above I don’t think this is very useful. This would be the variable used in the graphic. Notice how the graphic extrapolates this out to different specific age differences. Given that the data probably does not even have any 30 year age difference marriages (much less enough to be statistically significant) this seems egregious to me.

    An interesting aspect of Table 2 is it breaks out separate models by responder sex so we can actually avoid the issue of the age difference being relative to responder sex. For men the coefficient is a 5% significant 1.041 while for women the coefficient is a not significant 1.014. I’m not sure how to interpret these. Especially given the nonzero means have larger magnitudes for the two sexes than for everyone lumped.

    What I would like to see is a spline fit for an age difference variable that was sex based (e.g. male age – female age).

    AE, do you have any thoughts on all of this?

    TLDR: I think that graphic is useless and the study not much better as concerns the age difference variable. We need better data. Or at least a reanalysis of the data they have.

    P.S. Looks like an own goal by Rosie citing a source she did not understand.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
  142. @JohnPlywood
    @Rosie

    Who people marry, in the 21st century United States, is not evidence of innate biological preference or attraction. There's a wealth of research to indicate that, on a raw, primal level, yes, women are attracted to older men. This may not translate over to marriages in this country, but it certainly does in the media, where old men and young women dominate, and in the third world where there is less political correctness. Feminists such as yourself have shamed old man - young woman couples to the extent that it's no longer socially acceptable for them to get married in the United States. A practice that has contributed fo widespread poverty, social dysfunction and declining marriage and birthrates there.

    Assuming women prefer men of a similar age, because of marriage patterns, would be like assuming white men prefer white women, because of the white men who get married, most marry white. Yet there's multiple studies confirming that white men rare Asian women's appearances, and also half-Asian composite faces, as more attractive than white women's.


    Most young people aren't even married in this country, and never will be again. There's a ton of sugar daddy relationships out there that you're not seeing in the marriage data.

    Replies: @Supply and Demand

    It’s not worth arguing with this dusty old crone.

    As an American millennial retarded enough to marry another millennial in my early 20s, I advise every young white millennial/zoomer on a study abroad here to avoid American women their age like the plague. They are demonic.

    American women can be displaced and replaced with Eastern Europeans and Asians.

  143. @Rosie
    @Jim Christian


    All over Europe the women are asking what happened to all the White European men who won’t protect them from the african guests THEY, women, welcomed into and filled the continent with
     
    Lie. Women did NOT fill Europe with Africans and their presence there has nothing to do with feminism.

    Replies: @Jim Christian

    Lie. Women did NOT fill Europe with Africans and their presence there has nothing to do with feminism.

    Lies? What is Merkle but an unmarried, dry, childless EU feminist? Also, there are these ladies, clearly in the feminist mold:
    https://www.snopes.com/tachyon/2017/05/legs_open_refugees_feature.jpg?resize=1200,630&quality=65

    No, no, Rosie, immigration of savages is a distinctly leftist, feminist activity. Most destructive, disloyal, traitorous choices are favorite activities for feminists in this day and age. Be it against country, family, or race, you can always count on liberal, college-age Democrat feminists the world over for juicy betrayals all over the sociological map.

    It had EVERYTHING to do with feminism. Everything.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Jim Christian

    Plus...

    https://i.ytimg.com/vi/nF0jdWqH4Y4/maxresdefault.jpg

    ...and...

    https://www.aljazeera.com/mritems/Images/2015/7/15/101c0169110e4d56975bd9e7cbdef8c8_18.JPG

    ...then this classic example of body language. "German couple welcomes refugee", lol.

    https://external-preview.redd.it/UqeCqPkq0DA7smgXz4YEmJmT5Cfdex3I83xfwMgvTog.jpg?s=9583ec0495c630d18f32f96e4f2132ef0da35790

    Replies: @Truth

    , @Resartus
    @Jim Christian


    It had EVERYTHING to do with feminism. Everything.
     
    Sure, that STASI trained commie had nothing to do with Germany turning their back on their own citizens.....
  144. anon[422] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jim Christian
    @Rosie


    Lie. Women did NOT fill Europe with Africans and their presence there has nothing to do with feminism.
     
    Lies? What is Merkle but an unmarried, dry, childless EU feminist? Also, there are these ladies, clearly in the feminist mold:
    https://www.motherjones.com/wp-content/uploads/german-girls.jpg?w=990

    https://media.pri.org/s3fs-public/styles/story_main/public/story/images/RTX3FI68.jpg?itok=aNsM9n1s

    https://www.snopes.com/tachyon/2017/05/legs_open_refugees_feature.jpg?resize=1200,630&quality=65

    No, no, Rosie, immigration of savages is a distinctly leftist, feminist activity. Most destructive, disloyal, traitorous choices are favorite activities for feminists in this day and age. Be it against country, family, or race, you can always count on liberal, college-age Democrat feminists the world over for juicy betrayals all over the sociological map.

    It had EVERYTHING to do with feminism. Everything.

    Replies: @anon, @Resartus

    Plus…

    …and…

    …then this classic example of body language. “German couple welcomes refugee”, lol.

    • Agree: Jim Christian
    • Replies: @Truth
    @anon

    That last picture always makes me laugh, the three of them all look so "satisfied."

  145. @Jim Christian
    @Rosie


    Lie. Women did NOT fill Europe with Africans and their presence there has nothing to do with feminism.
     
    Lies? What is Merkle but an unmarried, dry, childless EU feminist? Also, there are these ladies, clearly in the feminist mold:
    https://www.motherjones.com/wp-content/uploads/german-girls.jpg?w=990

    https://media.pri.org/s3fs-public/styles/story_main/public/story/images/RTX3FI68.jpg?itok=aNsM9n1s

    https://www.snopes.com/tachyon/2017/05/legs_open_refugees_feature.jpg?resize=1200,630&quality=65

    No, no, Rosie, immigration of savages is a distinctly leftist, feminist activity. Most destructive, disloyal, traitorous choices are favorite activities for feminists in this day and age. Be it against country, family, or race, you can always count on liberal, college-age Democrat feminists the world over for juicy betrayals all over the sociological map.

    It had EVERYTHING to do with feminism. Everything.

    Replies: @anon, @Resartus

    It had EVERYTHING to do with feminism. Everything.

    Sure, that STASI trained commie had nothing to do with Germany turning their back on their own citizens…..

  146. @anon
    @Jim Christian

    Plus...

    https://i.ytimg.com/vi/nF0jdWqH4Y4/maxresdefault.jpg

    ...and...

    https://www.aljazeera.com/mritems/Images/2015/7/15/101c0169110e4d56975bd9e7cbdef8c8_18.JPG

    ...then this classic example of body language. "German couple welcomes refugee", lol.

    https://external-preview.redd.it/UqeCqPkq0DA7smgXz4YEmJmT5Cfdex3I83xfwMgvTog.jpg?s=9583ec0495c630d18f32f96e4f2132ef0da35790

    Replies: @Truth

    That last picture always makes me laugh, the three of them all look so “satisfied.”

  147. anon[289] • Disclaimer says:

    ON TOPIC

    Bitcoin’s utility takes a hit as Elon Musk suspends payment for of Tesla cars in that crypto.

    https://www.cnbc.com/video/2021/05/13/tesla-suspends-use-of-bitcoin-as-payment-over-environmental-concerns.html

    Now, he’s saying something about environmental concerns, but I have to wonder if convertability issues aren’t more relevant. Bitcoin’s volatility has picked up lately, the accountants at Tesla would be unhappy if cars were sold for some fraction of a Bitcoin and then the crypto took a drop. Why? Because all the parts, labor and supplies for cars are priced in dollars, not crypto. There is also the tax issue, as far as I know crypto profits are treated like gold profits, the tax is a bit higher than regular income.

  148. @Rosie
    @Jim Christian


    you blame the man of wealth and some age
     
    Snickers. Note the assumption that he's wealthy, and acknowledgement that the woman who marries him is a whore, and the claim that there's nothing wrong with that, as if prostitution is every bit the moral equal of a companionable match based on love. In so many ways, dissident right morality, if you can call it that, is every bit as warped as the Woke Left.

    https://cdn.quotes.pub/1920x1080/if-you-marry-for-money-you-end-up-earning-ev-410321.jpg

    Replies: @Jim Christian

    We’re only arguing price. That’s your gender’s issue.

  149. @Rosie

    Jay Fink makes an observation illustrating why the phrase “clown world” resonates the way it does:
     
    Clown World is a thing, but this isn't a Clown World thing. This is rather a straightforward instance of the general rule that people shouldn't be a$$holes.

    To say that a preference is "normal" is to acknowledge that it goes without saying. Therefore, to sayit in so many words is to pile on and punch down. People don't like that.

    Moreover, ought does not follow from is. Men's attraction to younger, nulliparous women is, frankly, antisocial. It is advantageous for individual males, but destructive to society as a whole. Anyone who claims to support monogamy must acknowledge this. No one can be blamed for their preferences, but one can be blamed for offending people's social sensibilities by boasting about it.

    Replies: @Jay Fink, @GazaPlanet, @dfordoom, @Triteleia Laxa, @Chrisnonymous, @Anonymous, @Jim Christian, @Mario Partisan, @DanHessinMD, @AnotherDad, @Dumbo, @Rattus Norwegius

    Most men prefer younger women, and women prefer somewhat older men than themselves. This has likely been the reality for thousands of years. However the age and gender structure of today is not the same as it was in the past. Male mortality is much lower than in the past, therefore there are more young males to court young women. Attributes associated with young men like strenght, are also much less valueable than in the past. Recently falling birth rates has also inverted the age pyramid. There are now more older men than young women. Which is the opposite of the historic norm. This is to say that age gaps impacts the population differently now, than in used to historically.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS