The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Lance Welton Archive
Shhh! Men CAN Judge Female Faithfulness from Faces—Don’t Let Cultural Marxists Know!
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

If you’re a scientist these days, you need to tread very carefully. If this wasn’t already obvious, it became crystal clear a few weeks ago when t he full fury of the anti-scientific mob was unleashed on young Cambridge University sociologist Dr. Noah Carl with an Open Letter signed by hundreds of bullying “academics” demanding his dismissal. This means that at worst genuine scientists daren’t even look into areas which challenge the new Cult—and, at best, they disseminate their findings in such a way that they stay safely under the PC radar. Which is just what the Springer-published journal Evolutionary Psychological Science appears recently to have done.

The journal published a paper which confirms something that definitely doesn’t fit with CultMarx dogmas: Men can correctly tell how faithful a woman is likely to be just from looking at a photo of her face. (Pictured right, actress Sienna Miller, wife of Jude Law, lover of Daniel Craig.)

In other words, you really can judge people by what they look like.

Had it been a study replicating something that the Left want to hear, such as that religiousness is weakly negatively associated with intelligence, then you can guarantee that Springer would have put out a press release and that that press release would have been lazily regurgitated in Leftist newspapers worldwide, e.g. Atheists are more intelligent than religious people say researchers, By Charlotte England, Independent, May 18, 2018.

But despite the fact that there is a “replication crisis” in psychology, with only 36% of studies being confirmed, this clear confirmation of an important scientific fact—that men can correctly judge a woman’s character from her face—has received no Main Stream Media coverage at all.

Similar previous findings did receive some limited media interest, probably because a press release was put out and robotic MSM journalists pretty much cut and pasted it onto their websites. [Could YOU spot a cheater? Study finds men can tell which women are more likely to have affairs just by looking at their faces, By Sophie Freeman, Mail Online, September 22, 2015 ] But with the current anti-Truth atmosphere being even harsher than just a few years ago, it seems that Springer—and perhaps the authors themselves—have decided that going to the press is not a good idea. After all, press coverage might lead to reporting of the findings on “Alt-Right” websites—and one of the reasons why his detractors insist that Cambridge University shouldn’t have appointed Dr Noah Carl, according to their Open Letter is that “Carl’s work has already been used by extremist and far-right media outlets . . .” .

Earlier this year I reviewed British researcher Edward Dutton’s book How to Judge People By What They Look Like. The new study, Men’s Mating Orientation Does Not Moderate the Accuracy with which they Assess Women’s Mating Orientation from Facial Photographs, [By Tara DeLecce et al., Evolutionary Psychological Science, 2018], adds further credence to Dutton’s central argument, so neatly summed up in his title: You can correctly judge a woman’s moral character by what she looks like.

From an evolutionary perspective, cuckoldry is one of the worst possible things to happen to a man. Not only is the cuckold failing to pass on his own genes, but he’s wasting energy—which could be invested in his genetic interests—on another man’s child and that child’s duplicitous mother. It follows that the ability to accurately assess how likely a woman is to cheat would provide a man with a massive advantage and it would, therefore, be selected for.

In addition, in the unstable and dangerous environment of our evolutionary past, the quicker you can work out whether or not a promising female is likely to sleep around the better. Any energy invested in a loose woman is wasted energy and, in an ecology where you can be wiped-out at any moment, life has to be lived at fast pace. So to be able to infer correctly a woman’s faithfulness just from looking at her face would have been fantastically useful and the capacity to do so would have spread throughout the male population.

The authors looked into this by recruiting 55 female psychology undergraduates (presumably at Oakland University in Michigan where the authors are based) who were 92.7% white and had an average age of 19. These girls’ faces were photographed and they took a test to assess their “mating orientation”—basically their sexual morality. Then 89 males—a combination of Oakland psychology majors and the students from the nearby community college (91% white) with an average age of 24—took the same sexual ethics test and were asked to rate the photos of the girls from 1 to 5 on attractiveness, youth, and faithfulness.

The researchers found, as predicted, there was a weak positive correlation between how likely a female was to be faithful and the males’ assessment of this: the boys could gauge how likely these girls were to cuckold them simply from pictures of their faces.

But there was more . . .

You might think that if you were the kind of man who would yourself two-time your partner then you would invest less in your spouse and your children. Accordingly, the faithfulness of your spouse would be less important to a rake like you, assessing a woman’s sexual scruples wouldn’t be as vital, and thus your adulterous characteristics would be associated with being less able to accurately make judgements on these matters from a female’s face.

The researchers found that there was indeed a weak association between a male’s score on the “Sociosexual Orientation Inventory”—the instrument used to measure sexual attitudes—and the ability to work out accurately a female’s probable score on this inventory from her face. The more adultery-inclined the man, the worse he was at discerning unfaithful tendencies from the faces of women.

However, likely due to a small sample, this correlation was not “statistically significant”—that is, 95% or more probable. It was merely 68% probable. Still, with a larger sample, it seems very likely that it would be 95% or more probable.

And there are other issues that we can only hope that this team continue to have the courage to address. Are we less able to infer “Sociosexual Orientation” from a woman’s face if she’s from a different race or even different ethnicity? Are black people—whose Sociosexual Orientation score is, on average, going to be relatively high as discussed in J. Philippe Rushton’s Race, Evolution and Behavior—less able to infer adulterousness from female faces than white people? Are women less able to infer this than men? Are men better at doing this with females of certain ages?

Let’s hope that these “offensive” questions are answered before too long.

But one question, sadly, seems to have an increasingly obvious answer. Will these important findings be reported in mainstream newspapers?

No, they won’t. The publisher probably won’t even tell the newspapers about them—at least until the Left’s Reign Of Terror is broken.

Lance Welton [Email him] is the pen name of a freelance journalist living in New York.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Science • Tags: Face Shape, Hbd 
Hide 274 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Rosie says:

    But one question, sadly, seems to have an increasingly obvious answer. Will these important findings be reported in mainstream newspapers?

    Do tell, Mr. Welton, what do you think is “vitally important” about these findings? What are the practical implications?

    I don’t understand the manosphere obsession with cuckoldry. Indeed, I suspect it is a ruse to justify totally unnecessary restrictions on women’s freedom. As a wife of 20 plus years with numerous children, I can honestly say that it would have been very nearly impossible for me to pull off any extramarital adventures.

    When I say I’m going to the craft store to pick up art supplies for my daughter, getting my hair done, and then going to the grocery store, lo and behold, I come back three hours later with my daughters’ favorite markers, fabulous hair, and a trunk load of groceries. After months and months and eventually years of always being precisely where you said you would be, doing precisely what you said you would do, a wife ought to be free to come and go as she pleases, unless and until she does something to arouse suspicion.

    A word of advice, if you’re really worried about being cuckolded, don’t rob the cradle.

    Marriage ideally should wait until a young woman has reached the peak on the chart below, followed by some newlywed adventures together. Children should wait until the trend is sloping down.

    I suspect that marriages that follow the pattern I described above are the most stable and long-lasting.

    Here are some follow-up questions:

    Are men more or less likely to pursue the women who look like cheaters? Do they target women with “cheater face” for pumping and dumping? (It would stand to reason that a reproductive advantage would accrue to men who do so.)

    How does “cheater face” correlate with dark triad personality traits in general?

  2. As a wife of 20 plus years with numerous children, I can honestly say that it would have been very nearly impossible for me to pull off any extramarital adventures.

    And that’s the point–wives and mothers have relatively little opportunity to cheat, even if they might be inclined to do so. “Business travel,” on the other hand, is a huge risk for adultery/cuckoldry.

    What does SSS represent on your graph? The graph seems to imply that marriage before 20 is a pretty good idea for both sexes.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Reg Cæsar
  3. Rosie says:
    @Diversity Heretic

    And that’s the point–wives and mothers have relatively little opportunity to cheat, even if they might be inclined to do so.

    So we can agree that “White Sharia” is silly, then I take it?

    “Business travel,” on the other hand, is a huge risk for adultery/cuckoldry.

    Well then, I suppose it’s a good thing men can tell who will cheat just by looking at them, as Mr. Welton tells us.

    What does SSS represent on your graph? The graph seems to imply that marriage before 20 is a pretty good idea for both sexes.

    It stands for “sensation-seeking score.” IOW, wild oats. You’re asking for trouble if you marry a teenager who really hasn’t had much time to grow up and find out what floats their boat, and I’m not talking about sex. I’m talking about sports, travel, reading, artistic pursuits, etc. I have never had any inclination to cheat. Why would I? It would just be a distraction from other things I’m interested in.

    • Replies: @Mark P Miller
  4. Meimou says:

    Rosie

    I don’t understand the manosphere obsession with cuckoldry. Indeed, I suspect it is a ruse to justify totally unnecessary restrictions on women’s freedom.

    I don’t understand how people confuse mere concern with “obsession”, and I suspect you oppose concern with cuckoldry because you know it might lead to restrictions on a women freedom, and we can’t have that can we?

    A word of advice, if you’re really worried about being cuckolded, don’t rob the cradle

    More evidence that advice from women to men is self serving….and useless.

    • Agree: L Woods
    • Replies: @L Woods
  5. Rosie says:

    and I suspect you oppose concern with cuckoldry because you know it might lead to restrictions on a women freedom, and we can’t have that can we?

    No indeed.

    It’s generally considered bad form to deprive other human beings of their freedoms on account of what they might do.

    • Replies: @Anonnu
    , @Alec Leamas
    , @Bill
  6. Anonymous [AKA "Otis"] says:

    I blame sobriety, as my dad was never drunk enough to accept how I looked just like him with my back turned.

  7. OTOH

    If you are a rich beta man with money dripping down your pockets, it’d be better for you to play it down and marry someone who isn’t a stunner. Try to see who’d dig you without them knowing you have all that moolah and go for her.

    But if you use your money to attract a stunning mate, she’ll use you as her ATM machine and perhaps even pop a kid or two with you. But she will never ever be aroused by you the way she would by an alpha. No matter how many wads of money you throw on her.

    Now I’ve got anecdotal evidence but you may agree this is far too common. A friend’s friend, originally Guatemalan, ripped, with a suave personality, with ALPHA written all over him, works as a personal fitness trainer in Dubai (of all places). He has bedded quite a few married women [with pics to prove], his (current) favorite being a stunning Moroccan married to an extremely wealthy Indian [dot]. Moroccans can be quite hot them being a mix of Carthaginians, ancient Semites with some west african blood mixed. They look quite exotic and lovely yet mostly white. She’s an absolute 8 in looks. Her husband would never ever had been able to marry her if he didn’t have the cash he does

    This Moroccan hottie even spends on this alpha while her loser beta husband splurges on her. He makes her feel special the way her husband never can for no fault of his. It’s genetics and you ain’t gonna do anything about it anytime soon.

    It’s kinda sad but such is life. Let this shall be a lesson to all those rich betas not to marry someone above your sexual class no matter how much you make.

  8. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:

    Sorry, Rosie, but rule number one is “Never take advice about women from women.”

    • Agree: Autochthon
    • LOL: Simon in London
  9. El Dato says:

    This is the kind of stuff that Deep Neural Networks can do.

    Time for a funding proposal?

  10. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    Sorry, Rosie, but rule number one is “Never take advice about women from women.”

    Ad feminem.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  11. Rosie says:
    @LostHopeless

    If you are a rich beta man with money dripping down your pockets, it’d be better for you to play it down and marry someone who isn’t a stunner. Try to see who’d dig you without them knowing you have all that moolah and go for her.

    This is very, very good advice.

    I would want a man to hide his wealth. Otherwise, he will never have the respect for you that a poor man has for his wife. I married my husband when he had nothing. We built a life together, and he treats me like a partner not a dependent, even though he is now the sole breadwinner.

  12. Rosie says:
    @Rosie

    BTW, since you don’t want to take advice from a woman, perhaps you’ll consider the data:

    https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2015/07/marriage.png&w=1484

    If you’ll notice, the risk of divorce is lowest at about the age early modern British women married.

    I suppose if you force fifteen year olds to marry men they don’t care for, then yes you’re going to have unruly wives and rampant cuckoldry if you don’t place all women under house arrest.

  13. @Anonymous

    Rule number 1 is “everyone lies.” Yes, even women.

    • Agree: jim jones
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  14. @Diversity Heretic

    What does SSS represent on your graph?

    It sure doesn’t represent “Selective Service System”. Though it may well enough, after the next Congress:

    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/114-2016/s98

  15. @TomSchmidt

    Rule number 1 is “everyone lies.” Yes, even women.

    Women lie down. Men lie up.

  16. The most disturbing statistic here is that only 59% were successful.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @MikeatMikedotMike
  17. Goethe – close to the subject of this post:

    “Whether a woman has a good man? – You can read it in her face.”

    Plus this one:

    “I wish for a cute woman/ Who would not be looking too closely / But would at the same time be very interested / In keeping me alive and well indeed.”

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  18. Rosie says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    The most disturbing statistic here is that only 59% were successful.

    Perhaps this will provide some comfort.

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/06/the-paternity-myth-the-rarity-of-cuckoldry/#.XCEP6nQ8Kf0

  19. That sort of misbehavior is generally confined to the lowest and uppermost classes. They can hide it better. The middle class is too busy working.

    I’d also imagine cheating wives are very, um, religious about taking the Pill. With an IUD or spermicide chaser. Why risk leaving evidence?

    • Replies: @Alfred
  20. This article was a nice read, and it’s all a given. Monkey man has had countless thousands of years to develop this ability through evolution. I can read faces nearly as though they were talking to me. Even my cat makes numerous facial expressions. I can look at a man I’m interacting with and tell in seconds if we’d get along. This is natural. It’s a form of communication.

    Never forget. A woman can get laid as quickly as a man can get into a fist fight. It’s a buyers market, and women are the buyers.

    There is no shortage of talk referring to Alpha males and Beta males. To me, much of that talk is meaningless. Nature has been perverted in our modern society. Sadly, what counts with young women is a pretty face, head games, what her girlfriends think, and money. I never had the pretty face or money. With older women, as they lose their sexual appeal, get fat, become boring, and lose spunk, the demand that a man have a pretty face lessens, but you’d sure better have a nice home and a fat bank account!

    Women kiss-up to authority. From the police officer down to the desk attendant at the gym. Women kiss-up to authority. Women are far more likely to conform. Women are far more accommodating to the growing police state. Women avoid red pills.

    I never fully understood my role in this. I am a 250 pound, 5′ 10″ hard core bodybuilder. (I do not use physique enhancing drugs.) I’ve got the give-of-gab. I can approach and talk to anyone. I can walk into a full room of people and tell a joke, a quick story or clown around – and do it with confidence. I’m educated. I’m well read. I’m as clean-cut as they come. I’m polite, diplomatic, and friendly, but hot-tempered when crossed. (Is that Beta male?) Women go for Alpha males? I don’t think so. Not in my observations. I think women are easily intimidated. They want a passive pussy with a pretty face. Nature might indicate such, but American culture is perverted, in case you haven’t noticed.

    And don’t get me started on the incredible abuse by women against men in the justice(sic) system! And it’s only getting worse

    I thought long and hard trying to think of something positive about women. It took weeks, but I did come up with something. Women are more likely to volunteer for animal welfare, such as an animal shelter.

    I do like YouTube. Check out FACEandLMS if you’ve got the inclination. This (Moldovian?) man nails it! View the older videos only. The recent ones aren’t nearly as good.

    As I hope in my lifetime to see a backlash against the zionist jews detroying western culture and turning everything on its head, I also hope to see a male backlash against the “women’s movement” or whatever you want to call this twisted perversion. Put them in their f”ing place!

    • Agree: byrresheim
    • Replies: @TKK
  21. Why on earth would anybody “study” this? Ordinarily, you guys would be complaining about academics doing pointless ridiculous useless absurd “studies.” But this one fits into your little hobbyhorses, and so suddenly this guy who studies ridiculous things that do not need to be studied is a hero.

    • Replies: @Mark P Miller
    , @Bill
  22. There’s something screwy about the whole alpha male thing that’s promoted by and on the Alt-Right today.

    I mean, look at Tom Jones. That guy got laid by more women than any man who has ever walked on two legs.* Women literally threw themselves at him when he performed onstage. And yet virtually every song he crooned had, as a subject matter, his sorrow and sense of loss and desolation after having gotten dumped by his most recent love. The Right insists that women love winners but this guy made a living out of singing about what a loser he was.

    My take? I think a lot of women love projects. Rescuing abandoned kittens. And Jones tapped into that. That and no woman can resist a man with a good singing voice. So men, learn to sing.

    Also, I think women love a man who can do something, anything well. Show them your stuff and you’re guaranteed to attract some women. “If you’ve got it, flaunt it.” as Zero Mostel said. A man who is confident and can perform masterfully will get a babe or babes, no matter what his field of endeavor is.

    I don’t know what this has to do with reading faces.

    *”Jones has stated that he had sex with up to 250 groupies a year at the height of his fame.” Wiki

    • Replies: @Pericles
    , @kn83
    , @Alec Leamas
    , @Bill
  23. Pericles says:
    @Rosie

    I don’t understand the manosphere obsession with cuckoldry.

    Though hospitals have far more concern that mummy gets the right baby with her back home. Society at large doesn’t give a damn about cuckolds or cuckoldry, except if the husband gets mad (not allowed). Do doctors still hem and haw and lie if it turns out dad can’t be the genetic, which is to say actual, father? Yet a simple test at birth would take care of the question.

    There was even a guy in a southern state, I believe, who was cuckolded whereafter his wife divorced him and moved in with her impregnator; in the end, he had to pay alimony and child support to ex-wife and cuckolder and their spawn. A pretty bitter pill, wouldn’t you say? (The state in question, might have been Louisiana, automatically assigns fatherhood to you if you’re married so he couldn’t even refuse to sign the birth certificate.)

    As a principle, it seems quite unjust to punish the victim of fraud while rewarding the perpetrator. Further aggravated in this class of cases by the sums and times involved.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  24. Pericles says:
    @ThreeCranes

    Women literally threw themselves at him when he performed onstage. And yet virtually every song he crooned had, as a subject matter, his sorrow and sense of loss and desolation after having gotten dumped by his most recent love. The Right insists that women love winners but this guy made a living out of singing about what a loser he was.

    “Here I am standing on this stage, rich, virile and adored by the masses, and my singing voice isn’t bad either, but my most recent woman has abandoned me. Now I’m feeling sad and lonely.”

    Does it really take a genius to figure out that applications are now being accepted? At least all those women got the message.

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    , @byrresheim
  25. Rosie says:
    @Pericles

    Yet a simple test at birth would take care of the question.

    I agree, which is why there is no justification whatsoever for wholesale segregation of innocent women. If men are suspicious, let them ask for a test. Indeed, that is exactly what they do, and the baby turns out to be theirs about two-thirds of the time. Human cuckoldry is exceedingly rare when paternity confidence is high, running between one and three percent, with the evidence increasingly trending toward the lower estimate. Evolutionary psychologists balk at this, because it seems to run counter to what you would expect of women acting in their own reproductive self-interest. The problem is that women are generally risk-averse, and cuckoldry is an exceedingly high-risk strategy. The costs of getting caught would simply be too high.

    https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/04/cuckoldry-is-incredibly-rare-among-humans/

    A pretty bitter pill, wouldn’t you say?

    Absolutely outrageous, no doubt about it.

    The state in question, might have been Louisiana, automatically assigns fatherhood to you if you’re married so he couldn’t even refuse to sign the birth certificate.

    Don’t misunderstand me. If there are unjust laws that men’s rights advocates believe can be reformed to create fairer outcomes, I have no objection to that. By all means, demand that the Louisiana law be changed. My concern is merely that innocent women not be unduly restricted in their freedom of movement.

  26. @LostHopeless

    If you want to be happy for the rest of your life,
    Never make pretty woman your wife.
    So from my personal point of view,
    Find an ugly girl to marry you!

    • Agree: MBlanc46
    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    , @Jay Fink
  27. @Anonymous

    Corollary to Rule Number 1: Never listen to what women say; watch what they do!

    Rule Number 1 may have exceptions: mothers, grandmothers and aunts can be relatively objective sources of advice about prospecctive wives.

  28. Anon[275] • Disclaimer says:

    You can correctly judge a woman’s moral character by what she looks like.

    Maybe you can correctly judge how susceptible to sexuality-denying societal programming, and dutiful in keeping up the pretence her “owner”‘s sense of ownership is matched by reality, she is.
    Probably you can judge her sex and drive.

    Moral character has nothing to do with cleaving to all that, suppressing and repressing natural wants, being the untrue icon the “owner”‘ s insecurity and self-centeredness desires you to pretend you are.
    Morality and loyalty have nothing to do with taking or not other penises inside one’s genitals, nothing to do with assuaging insecurity, misadvised pride and sense of property.

    The chastest people may despise their spouses/mates, cruelly disrespect and deceive and betray them in things that matter far more than ding-dongs and vaginas.
    Luckily for these individuals, nonody at all cares about real honesty and morality — thus they can go on seeding their poison., while feeling righteous.

  29. Anon[275] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    It’s about pride and sense of ownership. Has nothing to do with genuinely being concerned with cheating, dishonesty, and immorality, which all happen in all relationships all the time, without anybody batting an eyelash insofar as pride, sense of power, and vanity aren’t hurt.

    People lie to their partners an average of 8 times a day (which in a socieyy where both work means, basically, they lie whenever they open their mouth key in a text on their internet connected devices).

    Your chart-assisted strategies to make the farce long-lasting are part of the same picture.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  30. Rosie says:

    It’s about pride and sense of ownership…
    sense of power and vanity aren’t hurt.

    Thank you ever so much for your honesty.

    The central question is this: Are women persons, or are we property?

    We insist we are persons; you insist we are property. No compromise or harmony is possible with such a basic ontological dispute, and you are not entitled to the loyalty or respect of those whom you dehumanize.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Anon
    , @Colin Wright
  31. MBlanc46 says:

    This is a pretty small sample of the usual undergraduates, so I wouldn’t put much confidence in that 59% figure. I can’t say that there isn’t some spooky characteristic that allows one to infer that a woman is an adulteress, but I think it’s more likely that if theydid this experiment with thousands of subjects they’d wind up much closer to 50%. Unless, thatis,the cue is the woman’s attractiveness. An attractive woman is likely to get a lot of attention from men, some of which are going to have a higher SMV than her partner has. Which brings up a factor that the researchers ignore: The SMV of the woman’s partner.

    • Agree: MikeatMikedotMike
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Wizard of Oz
  32. @Diversity Heretic

    Find a girl with a dynamite body and a so-so face.

    With her less-than-stellar face she won’t attract incessant attention everywhere you go, but when you unwrap the present, the goods are there. (easier to fulfill these criteria if she’s naturally athletic)

    (This from a guy who had a number of long term relationships with women with beautiful faces. Too many brush fires to put out. Men hitting on them everywhere, all the time. Just my personal point of view.)

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  33. kn83 says:
    @ThreeCranes

    Your Tom Jones example doesn’t work, since the mere fact that he was a major Celebrity singer means he wasn’t a loser.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  34. Rosie says:
    @kn83

    Your Tom Jones example doesn’t work, since the mere fact that he was a major Celebrity singer means he wasn’t a loser.

    The point is that women love musicians, celebrity or not. This fact is inexplicable on the Alpha-male theory of female desire.

    • Replies: @Svigor
    , @AaronB
  35. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:
    @MBlanc46

    “I can’t say that there isn’t some spooky characteristic that allows one to infer that a woman is an adulteress.”

    “You must have come here to find it, you’ve got the look in your eyes…”

  36. Svigor says:
    @Rosie

    Not sure the point is made. Do the bums who sing for change bag 250 a year?

    I think it’s the celebrity, with the music being an enhancer (everybody loves to be entertained).

    And no, being confident enough to go in front of a crowd and sing/dance/bare your soul/etc. is not at all orthogonal to the alpha-omega scale (though I think the level of obsession its adherents show is pretty funny).

    • Replies: @Rosie
  37. @Rosie

    and I suspect you oppose concern with cuckoldry because you know it might lead to restrictions on a women freedom, and we can’t have that can we?

    No indeed.

    It’s generally considered bad form to deprive other human beings of their freedoms on account of what they might do.

    I think you have a childlike notion of “freedom.”

    Few men would want to “deprive [a woman] of her freedoms on account of what they might do.” What they want is assurances that when a woman seeks out a long term or lifelong monogamous relationship with him in which he will invest his material resources that she will have taken the “monogamous” part of the arrangement seriously and entered it in good faith – having resigned herself that he will be her last lover for the duration of his life. They don’t want to build a life together with a woman on a foundation of mud and sand.

    Naturally being part of such an arrangement involves the voluntary surrender of “freedoms.” Obviously this includes the explicit, public promise to “forsake all others,” but it also includes the avoidance of situations which would make the “forsaking all others” more difficult than it needs to be. Men who observe by physical appearance or other means that a prospective mate is less likely to “forsake all others” or to avoid the occasions of temptation to set aside this promise are simply using all available information to their advantage. Proposing that they shouldn’t do this reveals that your concerns are for some infantile notion of female solidarity over and above a stable society.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  38. @ThreeCranes

    This is a stupid take. It turns “watch what they do, not what they say” on its head. Women didn’t listen to the lyrics, they watched what Tom Jones did.

    What did Tom Jones do? He traveled the world, stood on stage up front and center, and held the rapt attention of thousands of adoring women every night he did so.

    It was perhaps more intoxicating to these women that he was singing about lost love while being the object of the affections of thousands of women simultaneously.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  39. Rosie says:
    @Svigor

    Not sure the point is made. Do the bums who sing for change bag 250 a year?

    No. The question is not whether a no-name musician “bags” 250 a year. The question is whether he “bags” more than he would if he wasn’t a musician.

  40. Rosie says:
    @Alec Leamas

    Obviously this includes the explicit, public promise to “forsake all others,” but it also includes the avoidance of situations which would make the “forsaking all others” more difficult than it needs to be.

    What do you have in mind? If you take this logic to its ultimate conclusion, then you wind up with half the population under house arrest. Literally every time you walk out the door, you increase the risk of getting into trouble. What is “childish” about not wanting to be a prisoner in your own home?

    Adultery is every bit as threatening to wives as it is to husbands. Sperm may be cheap, but the other necessities of life are not. Every time a husband leaves the house, there is a chance he will knock someone up, diverting resources from the couples’ children. It is an insecurity that we accept as a fact of life. We do not question your humanity, and the rights that attach to it, in the way that you routinely question ours.

    Proposing that they shouldn’t do this reveals that your concerns are for some infantile notion of female solidarity over and above a stable society.

    Where did I propose that? I couldn’t care less whether you keep an eye out for “cheater face” or not.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
    , @bj
  41. Canute says:

    There is nothing new and exciting here. The first time i looked at Hillary Clinton I knew she’d probably been balling Webb Hubble for the last five or ten years. She had Vince killed off when she decided to go gay.

    • Agree: Alfred
    • Replies: @Reuben Kaspate
  42. Most of the men I know judge by their clothes, not their face expressions. Ekman wrote a book about deception detection and he claimed a small number (<1%) have a gift for it and for the rest of us there is very little to be done.

    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/252429.Telling_Lies

    Or maybe I am making that part about Ekman up because it has been a long time since I read it and I don't have a copy.

    My dad's advice to me was the method to hang onto a woman is make yourself as indispensable as possible.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
  43. L Woods says:
    @Meimou

    Unz.com’s most tedious and annoying troll.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  44. From an evolutionary perspective, cuckoldry is one of the worst possible things to happen to a man. Not only is the cuckold failing to pass on his own genes, but he’s wasting energy—which could be invested in his genetic interests—on another man’s child and that child’s duplicitous mother.

    Weird sentences in article about science.
    Interests are supposed to exist where, to my knowledge, such an interest never has been demonstrated.
    Genetic interest in my opinion is no more than a theory to explain male behaviour, not even universal male behaviour.
    Societies exist, or existed, where who is the biological father is completely irrelevant.
    Children live in an extended household ran exclusively by women.
    We here, in my opinion, see the old misunderstanding about change of species, called evolution, because, in the mindset of the time, man was the highest animal, specially created, fundamentally different.
    Being the last in a long process of changes in species, with the largest brain, a consolation prize for believers in the bible as a historical book.

  45. Wally says:
    @Rosie

    said:
    “My concern is merely that innocent women not be unduly restricted in their freedom of movement.”

    Strawman.

    No one said women should / would be restricted. The point is that men can visually make a high probability assessment of a women’s potential fidelity by her visual signals.

    It’s not that deep. Get a grip.

  46. Wally says:
    @Rosie

    said:
    “The central question is this: Are women persons, or are we property?”

    Yawn.
    One can just as easily say similar things of men.

    Are men people, or just cash cows, providers?

    I bet you have one of those pink pussy hats.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  47. @Rosie

    You don’t seem unintelligent, so what is so hard to understand about the asymmetry here? A man can be cuckolded for life and shut out of reproductive opportunities altogether because he is raising another man’s spawn, and all you can think of is how it might possibly impact your ability to head down to the corner store? You must be an utter narcissist, but that’s no surprise; females benefit from such traits.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  48. Alfred says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    “I’d also imagine cheating wives are very, um, religious about taking the Pill. With an IUD or spermicide chaser. Why risk leaving evidence?”

    Reg,

    I think you totally misunderstood what is going on.

    Many of these women are trying to get the DNA of their lover as they think it is superior to that of their husband. It has always been like that. The husband might be a good provider, but he has (in her judgement) undesirable genes when compared to the lover. Just because she has been unfaithful to him does not mean that she ever intended to leave him.

    There is a huge difference between the way demographics work for men and women. Many men have no biological kids. Fewer women have no kids.

    Other men have biological kids with a many different women – some of them married to others. These days women determine who they will have kids with. They are “shopping around”. Only a few men have that luxury.

    Just look at Trump to see what I mean.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_of_Donald_Trump

  49. The authors looked into this by recruiting 55 female psychology undergraduates (presumably at Oakland University in Michigan where the authors are based) who were 92.7% white and had an average age of 19. These girls’ faces were photographed and they took a test to assess their “mating orientation”—basically their sexual morality. Then 89 males—a combination of Oakland psychology majors and the students from the nearby community college (91% white)

    This is a snippet is posted from the above article. Shouldn’t the scientists have done a control study with males from a university further away, as most will will likely know each other through facecrook and twatter and know about each other ? Where do american students look for casual sex, in nearby towns or Australia?

    This study is flawed

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  50. Nonny says:

    Is there really statistical significance in a 59% success rate on 34 samples?

    • Agree: The scalpel
    • Replies: @ploni almoni
  51. @simple_pseudonymic_handle

    My dad’s advice to me was the method to hang onto a woman is make yourself as indispensable as possible.

    If she wants to leave you, why would you want to hang onto her? There is wisdom in this question. Women find desperation in a man unattractive. A certain air of take-me-or-leave-me makes you a bad boy and more stimulating to her. It makes you an alpha, at the very least in relation to her.

    Of course, this may be a chicken-and-egg thing. It may just be alpha males who have this attitude.

    Anyway, a man really does not need to work at keeping a woman, if she is well suited to him.

    Hold onto your power in the relationship, and you will hold onto her. Be the man you want to be, and let her be the one who worries about hanging onto you. If she does not want to be faithful to you when you are being yourself, then let her go.

  52. Pseudo science, just like dogmatic & “hard” variant of IQ religion.

  53. @Rosie

    The whole thing is complicated by the simple fact that many men actually love their wives, and would forgive them anything and everything.
    Part of evolutionary history, I suppose. If a woman has three kids, two of which are from the economic support (the husband) and one from Harvey Wallbanger (who should have stuck to walls), then the husband gets to chose between losing the potential offspring of two children for sure (assuming the “grandfather” metric of success) and accepting lower (but still nonzero) number of offspring of the two children while supporting a non-relative child. You’d expect this to produce men who would tolerate (but not be happy about) the occasional outside wedlock child. Of course, this is a “just so” story — I haven’t even simulated it.
    Sadly, the just so story often doesn’t play out. The outside wedlock child is often a side-effect of a bad marriage, which tends to lead to loss of all children and their potential offspring. As you say, it’s a high risk move by the woman. OTH, if it’s the nuclear option, perhaps it also provides some nuclear deterrence. It’s a commonplace that men must never let their marriage decay to the point of promoting the wife’s infidelity. In this video, Nelson admits that he, ah, has made a major mistake:

    Still, we’re often left with a situation in which nobody wants to deny the obvious truth, and an easy test would make denial impossible in such cases. By the same token, skipping a routine test on such a sensitive matter would tend to suggest a truth that nobody wanted to know. so routine tests of this sort are not conducted.

    You might be interested in: “Men not marrying? How deep does “the problem” go?”;

    Straughan states an objective case for marriage, fidelity, etc. in a very clear way.
    “The tyranny of female hypoagency” is also worth watching.

    The #MeToo repercussions are developing in accordance with Straughan’s discussion of hypoagency: women are insisting on so much protection that it’s dangerous for men to be around them; this is analogous to the effect of protecting women in Islamic societies.

    Counterinsurgency

    • Agree: Counterinsurgency
    • Replies: @Rosie
  54. @Rosie

    Diss that graph in/from the Washington Post apply only to women? It is hard to believe that the same curve would describe the probabilities for men and averaging wouldn’t make much sense.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  55. @Rosie

    Yep, marriage is life or death for everybody concerned, and it is _so_ easy to destroy from within.

    Counterinsurgency

  56. @Anon

    That lying 8 times a day sounds like rubbish to me, but it is OK on a thread to this article.

  57. Willem says:
    @Rosie

    Totally agree. Well said

  58. The Just So Story is probably weakly true, like women’s hearing being more acute than men”s because in Paleolithic times it was valuable for preserving their babies’ lives. But the MSM would be right to ignore this trivia based on lightweight if not dodgy research.

  59. Rosie says:
    @Wally

    Are men people, or just cash cows, providers?

    People.

    I bet you have one of those pink pussy hats.

    I wouldn’t be caught dead in one.

  60. Rosie says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Diss that graph in/from the Washington Post apply only to women? It is hard to believe that the same curve would describe the probabilities for men and averaging wouldn’t make much sense.

    I believe it is for both men and women.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  61. Rosie says:
    @Counterinsurgency

    The #MeToo repercussions are developing in accordance with Straughan’s discussion of hypoagency: women are insisting on so much protection that it’s dangerous for men to be around them; this is analogous to the effect of protecting women in Islamic societies.

    #MeToo overreach has been a serious problem for women, but I don’t think it’s actually women who are insisting on it. Women do not really control the women’s movement; Jews do. They use women to advance their agendas and attack their enemies (White men) with little regard for the actual consequences for women’s day-to-day lives.

  62. Rosie says:
    @another one

    You don’t seem unintelligent, so what is so hard to understand about the asymmetry here?

    There is no asymmetry. In the evolutionary environment, an abandoned woman replaced by a rival could face death by starvation for her offspring and herself. She literally put her life in the hands of her mate. Even today, having a child is a serious economic handicap for a woman.

    I am wholly dependent on my husband for everything, yet I do not insist that he remain within eyeshot at all times just to alleviate my irrational anxieties. I rarely feel anxious, but when I do, it’s my problem, not his, because he has never, ever given me cause to suspect him.

    A man can be cuckolded for life and shut out of reproductive opportunities altogether because he is raising another man’s spawn, and all you can think of is how it might possibly impact your ability to head down to the corner store?

    I take tremendous pride and joy in my role as wife and mother (helpmeet). These roles require me to go to the corner store, and the doctor’s office, and the baseball field, and the craft store from time to time. My faithful discharge of these duties entitles me to the freedom to move about for my own wellbeing, e.g. to go to the gym, or do lunch and shopping with a girlfriend.

    And BTW, do stop calling children “spawn.” It’s obnoxious, and it reflects poorly on your cause.

    You must be an utter narcissist, but that’s no surprise; females benefit from such traits.

    I would encourage you to take a look at your own character and consider whether you are projecting.

    • Agree: Colin Wright
  63. Rosie says:
    @L Woods

    Unz.com’s most tedious and annoying troll.

    Troll: a woman winning an argument with a MGtard.

  64. Anonymous [AKA "Middle-Aged Male"] says:
    @Alec Leamas

    Don’t forget the tight pants. You could see everything. My mother was in her early/mid 40s in the late 60s and she loved him.

  65. @Rosie

    You don’t understand. No more need be said.

  66. @Pericles

    Does it really take a genius to figure out that applications are now being accepted? At least all those women got the message.

    Seemingly, it does take a male genius to understand.

    For females, low to normal intelligence seems sufficient to get the message.

    I wonder how that works.

    • Replies: @Bill
  67. Anonymous[191] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    I think white men are more attracted to Asian women for the lower risk of infidelity (among other reasons). It exists, but usually only among top professional ranks. A white guy who marries an Asian woman, especially an immigrant, has a much lower likelihood of divorce and almost zero likelihood of infidelity.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    , @Rosie
  68. @Canute

    Why kill a man just because you gonna start munching on a curried carpet with dates in it? It’s gotta be something else!

  69. Antony, Julius and Cleopatra… Nothing has changed!

  70. Anonymous[148] • Disclaimer says:

    What’s the correlation between perceived attractiveness and likelihood of cheating? Perhaps it is as simple as prettier women have more options.

  71. @ThreeCranes

    Would marrying a beautiful-faced woman and putting a ring on her finger, deter most of the guys hitting on her? Have you tried it?

  72. Kit says:

    You’re basing this conclusion on 180 kids from a tiny school in Michigan? How do you know the men didn’t recognize the women? Show me 10,000 responses from people in different states and maybe we can talk.

  73. nsa says:

    “by recruiting 55 female psychology undergraduates”
    Coed psychology majors are 100% sluts…..to a one they’ll put out first or second “date”. You don’t even need to get them drunk first. So this is what passes for scientific methodology….asking lying sluts if they are faithful?
    “the 89 males….psychology majors….”
    Male psychology majors are half fags and the other half airheads. What fool would ask them anything?

    • Agree: Dan Hayes
    • LOL: Bill
    • Replies: @Mark P Miller
  74. eah says:

    I don’t consider myself an expert at much of anything, and my experience in such matters is in no way vast — however I think I “know” the following: 1) people (both men and women) very rarely take (ie act on) advice about relationships, ie they have to learn the hard way (and once they learn, they need less advice); 2) you can tell more about a person by how they behave when a relationship ends (especially if betrayed) than by their behavior during any other phase of the relationship.

  75. @Rev. Spooner

    Well based on (if accurate),

    “”The authors looked into this by recruiting 55 female psychology undergraduates (presumably at Oakland University in Michigan where the authors are based) who were 92.7% white and had an average age of 19. These girls’ faces were photographed and they took a test to assess their “mating orientation”—basically their sexual morality. Then 89 males—a combination of Oakland psychology majors and the students from the nearby community college (91% white)”

    @Rev Spooner / comment #51

    before I buy this as some indicator that I can people by merely looking at them, the article is missing key components that are generally required before declaring it’s conclusions fact.
    just to name a few

    – sample size

    – study model

    – methodology

    – sample composition

    – margin of error

    – replication

    etc.

    9% points over 50% is unlikely to be all that more value than 9% points below at 41%.

    Depending in the margin of error I am likely to come to a correct conclusion about about half the time. If I am married, and I am not, I have a 50/50 chance of falsely accusing my wife of adultery. Well, there’s brand new marital dynamic, the inaccurate accusation/suspicion of cheating- not.

    Not only the sample size an issue, the same is not representative of the general population. It appears the subjects are derived from a demographic who’s training and experience encompasses nonverbal interpretation and investigation, which if one takes the matter at face value indicates their conclusions are wrong 41% of the time.

    I would note that for most of civilization, the most profound discoveries and scientific advances have been made by religious people.
    The study may be valid — whether or not it is generalizable to the whole population is another matter.

    • Agree: Meimou
  76. Unlike the author, I welcome the punitive environment surrounding CrimeThoughts. Consider it information asymmetry. There is a significant minority of increasingly “woke” ethnonationalists quietly assimilating a worldview in stark contradiction to the judeobolshevik edicts on which they were weaned. We are effectively selecting for those men (and increasingly) women. Our ideological enemies are providing a powerful, selective filter. We will always need to win over the herd eventually, but we do not want these soft-headed, weak-willed followers in the vanguard or leadership positions.

    What’s more, the objective observer, upon surveying the European race, invariably comes to the conclusion that a hard and merciless culling is long overdue. We have been spared the Malthusian grindstone for too long and the evidence of the looming dysgenic catastrophe is everywhere.

  77. @nsa

    touche…. for this reason I recommend walking a modern college campus midday from time to time and just observing this cohort. The ones sitting about flapping their voluminous gums or perambulating aimlessly (i.e. the ones you see) are heavily selected for social science majors. The clever and useful ones are busy doing something productive out of sight.

    • Agree: jim jones
  78. @RadicalCenter

    This is already the loser mindset. If you’ve done the job right, she will be an impregnable fortress. Even if you aren’t Richard Branson, it is your responsibility as the male to make her understand the incentive structure, that one in the hand is worth two in her bush, that simply a passing cloud of doubt over her doting visage, the vaguest hint of only the prospect of emotional infidelity, will cut her off from the Good and Giving Hand.

    Resorting to the pimp hand, let alone cockblocking prospective interlopers, means you’ve probably already failed. And while it has some things to recommend it, and in dire situations may be unavoidable, it is still the calling card of low IQ populations and to be avoided.

  79. anarchyst says:

    There is another aspect to women’s behavior that results much controversy and finger-pointing. There is enough blame to go around on both sides, but facing the facts quite often only results in much more consternation and ill feelings.
    The recent University of Michigan “scandal” where female gymnastics competitors were “abused” by their doctor over a period of time comes to mind.
    There are many questions that have not received proper answers, as it is not only unpopular, but inadvisable to ask them, as they go against the grain of “commonly acceptable behavior”.
    I may ruffle feathers here, but I DON’T CARE. The TRUTH must be known.
    Since this “abuse” was (supposedly) going on for years, why didn’t the women bring up their accusations years ago? Why did they keep seeing this doctor, going back for more and more “abuse”?
    The fact is, these women threw themselves at this doctor, as they considered him to be of a high(er) social status, this doctor was put into a position of having many women to choose from, as they all wanted “a piece of the action”..
    I do not absolve the doctor of responsibility to maintain a position of ethical detachment (which he should have known better and maintained), but, the temptation to “get it on” with these women who instigated the encounters were throwing themselves at him must be figured into the equation.
    The attorneys for the women were brilliant as they used the term “survivor” to describe the women, rather than the correct term “victim”. Since these women were in no danger of losing their lives, the term “survivor” was incorrect, but was used to add “gravitas” to the situation.
    Although this doctor must accept responsibility for his actions, they were partially instigated by the women themselves, who should also bear responsibility…

  80. @Rosie

    I love you Rosie!

    • Replies: @Rosie
  81. @Buzz Mohawk

    “My dad’s advice to me was the method to hang onto a woman is make yourself as indispensable as possible.”

    Bad advice. Analogy: blacks, in their heart of hearts, know that they could never sustain the carrying capacity and living standards they enjoy in the West today without Europeans. This realization, like that of the kept and dependent women, is one reason why they are so deeply resentful of the hand that feeds them.

    No, fostering a dependency in anyone is strategic blunder. She must come to you, willing and grateful, knowing that if her enthusiasm ever flags, you are already half way out the door.

    • Agree: Meimou
  82. @Anonymous

    I’ve noticed that with white men who marry Sicilians, Arabs, Hispanics and Asian women have less chance of infidelity.

  83. SafeNow says:
    @RadicalCenter

    Agree; a ring does deter hitting-upon. And not only for married women. An attractive single woman I know deterred unwanted constant male attention by putting a (large, fake-diamond) ring on her finger. Guys can attract by wearing a blazer; deter by adding a pocket protector.

  84. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    A white guy who marries an Asian woman, especially an immigrant, has a much lower likelihood of divorce and almost zero likelihood of infidelity.

    I have no idea if that’s true or not. Here’s what I do know: A White man who marries an Asian woman and raises Hapas has damaged his own genetic interests more than he would have if he had married a cheater and raised White children of another man.

  85. crimson2 says:

    Men can correctly tell how faithful a woman is likely to be just from looking at a photo of her face.

    You’d have to be as stupid as a white supremacist to think that this is what this research suggests.

    Lance Welton

    Oh.

  86. Rosie says:
    @Mark P Miller

    I love you Rosie!

    Right back atcha!

  87. @Rosie

    “White Sharia”

    Consider who actually practices sharia. Losers. From the selfish gene perspective, it makes sense. If you got the short end of the genetic stick, you will try to tilt the odds, by hook or crook.

    But that is such a low bar. For the average beta, hitting the gym, not being a complete cowering, approval hungry fag, will get you 90% there, no sharia required.

  88. crimson2 says:
    @Rosie

    I don’t understand the manosphere obsession with cuckoldry.

    It’s full of shitty men who get cheated on because they are shitty.

    • Replies: @L Woods
  89. @Rosie

    My mistake, you are unintelligent. No one cares where you go, you clucking hen. How hard is that to understand?

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Counterinsurgency
  90. Svigor says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    If she wants to leave you, why would you want to hang onto her?

    This. I want to know if she’s going to be loyal so I can go ahead and tell her to ride out if she isn’t.

  91. Rosie says:
    @another one

    No one cares where you go, you clucking hen. How hard is that to understand?

    Good. We agree. White Sharia is done. Stick a fork in it.

  92. I would add, that most relevant assessments concerning whether one is adulterous if the nature of the relationship and the valuation of said indicators, including looking.

  93. @Reg Cæsar

    Not exactly a slam dunk, is it? I might be wrong, but that % is too close to coin flip odds.

    A better test would have been 3 photos with one cheater among them, but however many photos used the results need to be higher than 59% to be convincing.

  94. L Woods says:
    @crimson2

    I can’t wait until it happens to you, jackass. That is if you weren’t an incel.

  95. L Woods says:

    Rosie is an almost perfect argument for why the restriction of female “freedom” is both eminently necessary and richly deserved. That’s why I still put my money on male troll.

  96. L Woods says:
    @Mark P Miller

    Another clueless boomer. No, it won’t, idiot. 90% doesn’t count for anything anyway — it’s 100% or you’re garbage.

    • Replies: @Mark P Miller
  97. Starting from basic axioms:
    Men are starting from 14 until their death are and always will be sexual conquerors.
    Women starting from 13 until their death are and always will be sexual evaluators.
    But for women there is another factor. That factor is material well being.
    This material factor becomes irrelevant with materially independent women.
    After marriage these factors remain the same no change, except consideration of consequences become very relevant particularly with materially dependent women.
    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
    Considering cuckolding there must be frightening cloud in brain of all women.
    There is now DNA paternal test of the child that may relieve husband from any responsibility for the child. So women may still test other man for sexual evaluation but they have to practice the safe sex.
    No child with the lover.
    I do not think that there are many cuckold around.

  98. @obwandiyag

    Because physiognomy, like race and IQ, is real, i.e. has meaningful predictive power. The too loud protests of those who insist it is not so is just icing on the cake.

    Reading a face as a proxy of endowments (or lack of them) is just as important as discerning the microexpressions in the eternal arms race between the deceived and deceiver, i.e. it is a matter of critical, in fact existential, importance.

    But you already knew this.

  99. @Rosie

    “has damaged his own genetic interests more than he would have if he had married a cheater and raised White children of another man.”

    I’d like to hear more. It seems you’re eliding individual and group incentives.

    Would you say Bob in engineering “damages” his interests by clamoring for a promotion over Steve in sales? Or should he be fine with Steve taking credit for Bob’s initiatives because, hey, in the end it’s what for the good of the company? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not indisposed to some fascist aspects, but only as the desperate response of a compromised immune system.

    So I’m not completely discounting your point, but you should elaborate on the logic here. My sentiments on this matter are, like my hapa children, mixed. What can you say about a race whose collective actions suggest they have lost all their sensibilities wrt to Natural Law? You consider it damaging to my genetic interests to not fall on my sword for such ingrates? Surely you recognize that you are a vanishing breed. Can you count on even one hand the number of females who share your views?

    Is it not within the realm of possibility that the White race is run? That whatever revelations arrive to wake this cohort from its stupor may be too little, too late? As for me, I always play the hand i was dealt, not the one I wish I had.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  100. @another one

    So, you lose the exchange, right?

    Counterinsurgency

  101. @Mark P Miller

    Guy, the “losers” have the Middle East, a good part of Africa, and are starting in on Western Europe and the Anglosphere. What would they have to do to get you to call them “winners”?

    Counterinsurgency

    • Replies: @Mark P Miller
  102. @L Woods

    not a boomer. (43).
    that said, when i look at the dating market today, you have my complete sympathy.
    still, no one does 100%. Not Richard Branson, not Charles Bronson, not even Charlie Manson. You would be surprised what 90% gets you. Most men would be satisfied with the outcome.

  103. KenH says:

    It’s pretty simple. The higher a woman is on the beauty scale the more likely she is to cheat on the male because her looks will afford her many opportunities. Women feel very little if any guilt or shame for cheating since they blame their husband or serious boyfriend for their actions. They’ll just rationalize their actions by saying that their hubby or BF was not meeting their needs or isn’t paying enough attention to them.

    • Replies: @Matthew/Boston
  104. Rosie says:
    @Mark P Miller

    It seems you’re eliding individual and group incentives.

    Guilty

    😉

    Is it not within the realm of possibility that the White race is run?

    That is not a possibility that I’m willing to countenance.

    Can you count on even one hand the number of females who share your views?

    I believe that anti-White conditioning is a mile wide and an inch deep. I believe most White women, deep down, know we (the dissident Right) are right.

    http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2018/08/19/new-survey-what-exactly-does-a-white-nationalist-look-like/

    A whopping 40% of White women were willing to admit “strong feelings of White solidarity” to a pollster, and to themselves. That is a helluva White pill, I’d say.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  105. @KenH

    Simple, accurate, and to the point comment.

    Yes, men are very often considered responsible for a woman’s misbehavior forcing them to act as they have. Men are held accountable for their actions, but women are not. Something that has irked me longer than anything. Women snicker inside knowing this. It should be noted by everyone and treated accordingly.

    Screw all chivalry!

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  106. The appropriate attitude towards this article and the “scientific study” it references is derision. The author seems to have desperately sought validation for his own beliefs. He clings to this shabby excuse of a true scientific study to inflate what is actually a single quite small study of mostly psychology majors that barely shows results beyond what sheer guessing could equally achieve. He does this to arrive at conclusions of universal truth status in order to fit his shockingly paranoid ideas about the interactions of men and women. For the author and likeminded men to examine their own mentality would be time better spent. An intelligent, competent, confident, loving and kind man who actually likes and respects women and takes the time to select a similarly worthy mate should in all likelihood never need worry that she would ever stray when all she could ever want is at home.

    • Replies: @Ilyana_Rozumova
  107. Agent76 says:

    February 1, 2007 How the Rockefellers Re-Engineered Women By Henry Makow Ph.D.

    Feminism is an excellentexample of how the Rockefeller mega cartel uses the awesome power of the mass media (i.e. propaganda.) to control society.

    https://www.henrymakow.com/001904.html

  108. I saw this on 20/20 many years ago (when I was willing to watch the show and before it became a media soapbox for feminist complaints). I never forgot it. I just now made an effort to locate it and was successful. A woman writer lives life a s a man.

    I haven’t watched it (yet) after all those years before posting (due to having slow internet), but I was impressed with it years ago.

    Bottom line: men live a harsher life in American society. I can vouch for that. It’s been brutal in nearly every area for me. Complaining American women should try life in Saudi Arabia, or even Japan.

    And with the widespread abuse by women in the criminal justice(sic) system, men have more to worry about than women in any type of relationship.

    18:42 in length https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip7kP_dd6LU

  109. Bill says:
    @Rosie

    It’s generally considered bad form to deprive other human beings of their freedoms on account of what they might do.

    Seems like the best possible reason to me.

    • Disagree: Rosie
  110. Bill says:
    @obwandiyag

    Ordinarily, you guys would be complaining about academics doing pointless ridiculous useless absurd “studies.”

    No, that’s Hannity-watching, freeper conservatives. This website is for Aspergers-suffering, I fucking love science glibertarians. Try to pay attention.

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
  111. Bill says:
    @ThreeCranes

    A man who is confident and can perform masterfully will get a babe or babes, no matter what his field of endeavor is.

    I was once very good at Advanced Squad Leader, but I don’t recall it getting me much female attention. On the other hand, being very bad at dancing but being both enthusiastic and fearless about it worked reasonably well.

  112. @Matthew/Boston

    Uhhhh,

    I am not prepared to dump chivalry as a principle and practice just yet. Though I am keenly aware that while I am opening the door for some member of the opposite sex/gender, I should not be the least surprised that in her handy bag along with lipstick, a hairbrush, she carries a fine honed knife she intends to plunge into my back.

    Experience is not totally lost on me.

  113. AaronB says:
    @Rosie

    According to Steven Pinker, music serves no evolutionary purpose at all, its an accident.

    So one of the most enjoyable human activities serves no evolutionary purpose at all.

    Women love more than anytjnvg men who are great at this perfectly useless activity.

    Yet Evolutionary Psychology remains the best way to explain human behavior….

    • LOL: Talha
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    , @Rosie
  114. Bill says:
    @byrresheim

    Well, if we are going to be all biological determinism-ish, I guess this means that understanding how women’s minds work was somehow counterproductive (or at least neutral) to male reproductive success in the environment of evolutionary adaptation.

  115. @Rosie

    this “simple test” is banned in France. Not surprising, given European’s fondness for curtailing speech. And many Trotskyites stateside speak glowingly of these programs. As long as these people are far removed from any levers of power, I don’t care. But they seem to be slipping through.

    Just to underscore this: as a Frenchman or German, you are not allowed to conduct a paternity test. France imposes jail time and Germans require the consent of both partners. The catch-22 in the latter is especially charming.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_paternity_testing

    When the data is so circumscribed, why are people confident in this “low” 3% cuckoldry rate? It’s like Iron Joe, “no man, no problem.” No data, why worry.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  116. @AaronB

    Neither evolution nor purpose exists in the universe.
    Both concepts are human creations.
    We have them, my idea, because having them gives the herd, who has them, a competitive advantage over herds without these concepts.

  117. @Counterinsurgency

    it’s a good point, since a significant fraction of European populations can’t even bother to show up (i.e. failure to achieve population replacement rates).

  118. buckwheat says:

    If you are looking for some strange then this is a fantastic trait for men to have.

  119. nebulafox says:
    @Rosie

    Oh, please. My genetic interests are just fine with my Singaporean GF, who would make an awesome mother. I’ve known way too many hapas who’ve killed it with women to buy this BS, and if hapas incels became white, they’d remain incels. They’ve got bigger issues.

    What kind of loser would blow his hard earned resources on some bastard’s bastards because of some mystical throwback racial purism? Answer: white supremacists. Aka, losers.

  120. Rosie says:
    @Mark P Miller

    When the data is so circumscribed, why are people confident in this “low” 3% cuckoldry rate? It’s like Iron Joe, “no man, no problem.” No data, why worry.

    The geneological data support current low estimates of cuckoldry prevalence, particularly interesting given that modern paternity testing was unavailable, and women were therefore more likely to get away with it.

    https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2013.2400

    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome
  121. Rosie says:
    @AaronB

    According to Steven Pinker, music serves no evolutionary purpose at all, its an accident.

    So one of the most enjoyable human activities serves no evolutionary purpose at all.

    Women love more than anytjnvg men who are great at this perfectly useless activity.

    Yet Evolutionary Psychology remains the best way to explain human behavior….

    I disagree. I can’t think of any better overall indicator of general fitness than musical ability. If you’re a Cro-Magnon man playing a flute, potential mates know that you are an efficient hunter. Otherwise, you’d be too busy eking out a living to make a flute out of a mammoth bone and learn how to play nice music with it.

    IOW, music may be useless, but if you can do music, you can also do other things that are not useless.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @Jeff Stryker
  122. @Nonny

    And was one guy right 100% of the time and everybody else wrong? And there so many things wrong that it is ridiculous.

  123. Anon[162] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    We insist we are persons; you insist we are property. No compromise or harmony is possible with such a basic ontological dispute, and you are not entitled to the loyalty or respect of those whom you dehumanize.

    It’s not an ontological dispute. Every right, like personhood, is only a right insofar as it’s backed by force, and women lack the force to enforce any claims to rights like personhood. The enforcers, who are men, ultimately provide the right and thus have ownership. The issue is not whether or not women are property, but rather who owns women: powerful men via the state or husbands and fathers.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @silviosilver
  124. Rosie says:
    @nebulafox

    What kind of loser would blow his hard earned resources on some bastard’s bastards because of some mystical throwback racial purism? Answer: white supremacists. Aka, losers.

    The Jew constructed a false dilemma and you’re falling for it.

    (White women are evil, goyim, go Asian or go your own way!)

  125. Anonymous[384] • Disclaimer says:
    @nebulafox

    She’s confusing asexual and sexual reproduction.

    Asexual reproduction aims to produce offspring genetically identical to the parent. Sexual reproduction involves combining genetic material to produce genetically different offspring.

    • LOL: Rosie
  126. AaronB says:
    @Rosie

    Actually, hunter gatherer society was the original leisure society. Acquiring food daily took, max, five hours, and the rest of the time was spent hanging out.

    So having lots of leisure time could not have been a peacock signal.

    Also, women aren’t attracted to men who simply have leisure time, otherwise they’d like guys who play video games in their basements or just sit around in cafes.

    Plus, hunter gatherer societies were egalitarian where work was equally shared – a successful hunter would be appreciated, but would not have any more leisure time than anyone else. Leisure time was abundant and not a scarce commodity, as it artificially us today.

    Assuming you were serious….

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Jeff Stryker
  127. Rosie says:
    @AaronB

    Assuming you were serious….

    Yes, I was serious, though you make some good points here. I always assumed that women evolved a love for music, and for musicians, on account of the fact that women who were attracted to musicians were unconsciously choosing a capable mate, and they passed down their mating preferences to their daughters. I still think there is probably something to that.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @AaronB
  128. Anonymous [AKA "Butte Bill"] says:
    @Dieter Kief

    “A miss is as good as her smile.”

  129. Rosie says:
    @Anon

    The issue is not whether or not women are property, but rather who owns women: powerful men via the state or husbands and fathers.

    Are powerless, subordinate men also property according to your view?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  130. TKK says:
    @Matthew/Boston

    Good save on adding your Zionist collusion shtick at the end so readers would not comment that you are a braggart bore.

    Women like hot dominant men. Bad boys. If they can’t pull those down… too fat, ugly etc – they want big money. If they can’t get that- they want a pussy to boss around and humiliate.

    If you want a woman- treat her like shit alternated with great, unselfish sex. Then withdraw. It’s foolproof.

    • Replies: @Matthew/Boston
  131. Rosie says:
    @Rosie

    BTW Aaron, does that five hour estimate also hold in cold Northern climes, or is that just an observation based on contemporary HG populations?

    • Replies: @AaronB
  132. @Rosie

    In which case it doesn’t tell either men or women anything accurately useful does it? It would only be by surprising chance that the same curve would apply to both men and women given the long history of women marrying 2 or 3 years younger than men even in modern Western societies.

    Not that it wasn’t worth posting. It gives some confirmation to common sense and intuition.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
  133. I have three problems with this article.

    (1) In itself, this is a fairly weak finding. I would require considerably more confirmation before reaching any hard conclusions here. I certainly wouldn’t be shouting “SCIENCE PROVES…” just yet.

    (2) The MSM is clearly correct in not trumpeting such findings to the world. The average person struggles to even understand correlation, much less to apply it to real world decision-making. It’s hard to see any social value in morons walking around thinking “ah, she’s got big tits, so therefore definitely… x, y, z…” Come off it.

    (3) Even if the finding is true, I don’t see much individual utility in it. I think you can gather more reliable clues about a prospective mate from what she verbally and behaviorally reveals about herself (especially unintentionally) than just from looking at her face. If her words and behavior don’t raise any red flags, then why pass up the opportunity for some fun and happiness on odds not much better than a coin toss?

    Lastly, with respect to ‘face reading’ people more generally. It’s definitely interesting, and I am eager to learn more about it. I can’t see it making much difference to how I behave in the world though. I already judge people by looks all the time. I am quite conscious about it. If I don’t like someone’s look, I avoid having anything to do with them. They could be wonderful people, or they could be scum, but I don’t get close enough to find out. Time is precious. I’m not going to waste it being around people whose very appearance makes me uncomfortable. I’m surely not the only person who behaves like this, even if I may be a rarity in my willingness to admit it.

  134. @Rosie

    Here’s a chance for me to mention something I just picked up in glancing through the latest book by that annoying clever blowhard Nassim Nicholas Taleb, to wit “Skin in the Game” (borrow a copy and feel happy at giving it back).

    He says the modern version of wage slavery, of, generally, employers owning people, is to over pay executives and make them terrified of losing their jobs. His lively imagination gives us the expat who has house, car and driver, maids, school fees paid etc and gets to like it and worry about living in the burbs with a commute by local public transport….

    It would be interesting to see if one could combine elements plausibly to produce a single graph, possibly Gaussian, that would encapsulate the whole range of slavery and control from sugar plantation chattel slavery to pre nup bound spender of $25 million a year [You would be generous to your toyboys wouldn’t you?]. I wonder if all the reciprocities and de facto constraints could be plausibly combined. Even favourite slave girls must have been able to use smiles and charm on at least some of their oppressors…

    • LOL: Rosie
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  135. @Anon

    You’re (rather kookily) equating security with ownership. Most people do not have the power to defend themselves against gang attacks. If the state defends us from such things, do powerful-men-via-the-state “own” us?

  136. Jett Rucker says: • Website

    Other things being equal, a more-attractive woman (or man) is more likely to have cheated than a wallflower. Many of the operative factors presumably aren’t captured by a photograph (or are they?).

    Attractive women who initiate cheating are more likely to have cheated than less-attractive ones who do. Attractive women presumably are presented with more importunings to cheat than less-attractive ones.

    Maybe I’m being too simplistic. After all, there’s attractive and … attractive. Unfortunately, I’m neither.

  137. kiismerhe says:
    @LostHopeless

    Are you serious? I happen to know a very rich Indian in Dubai with a stunning Moroccan wife. I am not sure what kind of personal trainer she has but will investigate…

  138. @Rosie

    ‘…A word of advice, if you’re really worried about being cuckolded, don’t rob the cradle…’

    Hmm. Sounds pretty defensive to me.

    It’s okay. Hang in there, Rosie.

  139. @Wizard of Oz

    ‘…Even favourite slave girls must have been able to use smiles and charm on at least some of their oppressors…’

    ! See the career of the Ukranian concubine Ruslan — aka ‘the laughing one’ — who was able to captivate Suleiman the Magnificent and manipulate him into murdering his heir apparent in favor of her own child.

    …Unfortunately for the Ottoman Empire, while the murdered heir appears to have been a very promising young man, Ruslan’s daughter went on to actually succeed to the throne as ‘Selim the Sot.’

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  140. @Rosie

    ‘…We insist we are persons; you insist we are property. No compromise or harmony is possible with such a basic ontological dispute…’

    Actually, I fail to see why someone can’t be both a person and property at the same time. Why not?

    • Replies: @Rosie
  141. There’s also the possibility that men are reading as evidence of a propensity to cheat an openness and interest in others that is congruent to infidelity but not necessarily identical to it.

    Abigail, Bertha, and Carmen may all read as ‘likely to cheat.’. Only Carmen might actually be likely to do so, but she alone would suffice to drive the selection above average.

    It’s like if I pick cars headed west on the Santa Monica Freeway at 4:00 pm as belonging to wealthy people. Well, I’ll do better than if I just identified people as rich at random, but actually, I’d still be wrong an awfully high percentage of the time. It is perfectly possible to drive west on the Santa Monica Freeway at 4:00 pm and not be wealthy.

  142. @Rosie

    ROSIE

    It does not surprise me. Because white women are the most attractive of the races, they are crudely lusted after by blacks and Jews. The former will often rape them in the most vile circumstances-in laundry rooms, senior citizen homes and so on. Jews exploit white beauty in Hollywood and worse, in pornography.

    Other women are rude to white women, especially black women. Jewish women won’t attack white women physically, but can be nose-flaring confrontational with white women whom they secretly resent for being more attractive.

    If white women were abandoned and left to the tender mercies of these groups, it would be awful. It makes sense that they would be feel this way.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  143. @Buzz Mohawk

    ‘…A certain air of take-me-or-leave-me makes you a bad boy and more stimulating to her…’

    That much is certainly true. I was never really one of the redhot lovers, but back in my puppy years, if I already had a girlfriend, I found other women offering themselves to me far more evidently than if I was single and searching.

    Of course, that could also be taken to mean my technique was truly abysmal, but still…

  144. Cato says:
    @Rosie

    Assuming that the “SSS” in your chart refers to Zuckerman’s Sensation-Seeking Scale. If so, almost all Anglo-Americans already adhere to your prescription: boys and girls should sow their wild oats before marriage. Your advice would perhaps rock conventional wisdom more in Yemen or Afghanistan.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  145. @Rosie

    This was common in Dubai with bored second and third wives of Arab sheikhs, true.

    Despite being a Muslim country, some Englishmen saw the place as Arab sex tourism.

    However, it was a dangerous game.

    That is obviously biology. When a girl is forced at 15 or 20 to marry a man who is twenty years older and has not the stamina to satisfy one wife, much less four, you will see what you described.

  146. AaronB says:
    @Rosie

    Its definitely a possible theory, but I’d say it’s hard to come to conclusions on this – maybe women like musicians because they are sensitive, passionate, emotional, etc.

    I suspect women are attracted not just to traits that increase fitness but also traits that make men more attached to their mates or function better in relationships etc.

    But I think human affairs cannot be fully understood, and we value many ‘useless’ traits. The human brain did not evolve to fully understand reality.

  147. AaronB says:
    @Rosie

    As far as I remember, there is no major difference. Cold weather HGs face different threats, but hunting and food acquisition doesn’t consume too much of their time.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  148. @nebulafox

    Eastern Europeans are something like 13% Asian. Tartar, Mongol, you name it.

    Additionally, most old stock Colonial whites have one or two squaws in the gene pool somewhere. Cherokee, most of the time. You can often see it clearly in people like Burt Reynolds from the South. He could almost pass for Mexican in a sombrero.

    Even Finns have a bit of Asiatic in them from Lapland.

    • Replies: @Plato's Dream
  149. @Rosie

    If the mating game came down to evolutionary purpose alone, then Ron Jeremy and John Holmes would be the most lusted after males to have ever lived because their penis and testicle size indicated greater chance of conception.

    In point of fact few women were ever attracted to them at all.

  150. @AaronB

    This varies depending upon the races.

    Look at the sky-high rate of STD’s among black women. Something like 50% of inner-city black teenage girls have herpes at an age when white girls are not even having sex yet.

    Concubinage seems to have evolved as a reproductive strategy in Africa, but been far less popular in Eurasia.

  151. @Colin Wright

    I don’t remember the detail of that but I do remember learning on my short interesting visit to Istanbul that those magnificent bearers of Islamic civilisation, the Ottoman Sultans were still slaughtering all the other male children of the previous Sultan as soon as the new Sultan succeeded.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  152. @AaronB

    Except when it does. Actually the really cold weather HGs might be able to store food for quite a while. But there must be plenty of HGs in hot arid climates who have had to depend on a day or two’s gathering of seeds and berries by women when a day’s loping after antelope has come across its carcass eaten by big cats.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  153. @Wizard of Oz

    I meant to say “at least till 1600”.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  154. bj says:
    @Rosie

    Adultery is every bit as threatening to wives as it is to husbands.

    No its not. If a man is cucked, his Y-chromosome is extinct. Another man’s Y-lineage is supported by deception. What is it you don’t understand about contractual relationship and evolutionary biology?

    • Replies: @Rosie
  155. AaronB says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    What’s interesting about the bushmen, for instance, is that they only gather food for one day, but seem to lack any anxiety about their food supply and are fully confident that they’ll find enough the next day. They don’t bother to hoard.

    This attitude seems to depend on a complete lack of anxiety.

  156. @Jeff Stryker

    “Eastern Europeans are something like 13% Asian. Tartar, Mongol, you name it.”

    I call bs. show me DNA studies that support this.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  157. Anonymous[181] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    So you want women to be able to have as much freedom as possible, and then men to be literal cuckolds and eunuchs raising the children of these women and other men? Good luck with that vision for society. Sounds like a real winning strategy that’s really going to motivate men. I’m sure it’ll work ’cause men totally don’t like mating with women and would rather raise some other man’s kids instead.

    In reality, a man who gets cuckolded is selecting himself out of the gene pool. It’s no different from him cutting his balls off or becoming a homosexual. Whereas a man who reproduces with a woman is passing on his genetic material.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  158. @Wizard of Oz

    I believe it was Suleiman the Magnificent himself who halted the practice.

    Somewhat ironically, it weakened the empire, as there were now alternative sultans who could be used to replace the incumbent if he annoyed his Janissaries, etc too much. Worse, they would have been kept confined in the harem until they were dragged out into the light of day and plopped onto the throne, so they were rarely fit or ready to rule.

    …and this happened just as Christian Europe was catching up to and surpassing the Ottomans. Not a good move, really. After Suleiman, the empire was still powerful, but it was only governed well at intervals, and then only if a powerful and able vizier happened to be holding office.

  159. @Plato's Dream

    ‘“Eastern Europeans are something like 13% Asian. Tartar, Mongol, you name it.”

    I call bs. show me DNA studies that support this.’

    It’s pretty significant. Maybe not 13%, but significant.

    • Replies: @Plato's dream
  160. Rosie says:
    @bj

    No its not. If a man is cucked, his Y-chromosome is extinct. Another man’s Y-lineage is supported by deception. What is it you don’t understand about contractual relationship and evolutionary biology?

    I’m afraid it’s you who doesn’t understand evolutionary biology:

    For a man, it is adaptive to be able to detect signs of infidelity because of the possibility of cuckoldry and investing in offspring who are not genetically related. For a woman, it is adaptive to be able to detect signs of infidelity so as to avoid diversion of resources by her mate and/or avoid abandonment, which would have left a woman and her offspring vulnerable in the ancestral environment (Buss, 1995; Buss & Shackelford, 1997). Thus, both men and women have different but reproductively necessary reasons for detecting cheaters.emphasis mine

    https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1474704917711513

    • Replies: @Anon
  161. Rosie says:
    @Colin Wright

    Actually, I fail to see why someone can’t be both a person and property at the same time. Why not?

    Because property doesn’t have rights that it’s owners are bound to respect.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    , @Anon
  162. Rosie says:
    @Cato

    Assuming that the “SSS” in your chart refers to Zuckerman’s Sensation-Seeking Scale. If so, almost all Anglo-Americans already adhere to your prescription: boys and girls should sow their wild oats before marriage. Your advice would perhaps rock conventional wisdom more in Yemen or Afghanistan.

    Certain troublemakers unfortunately are trying to turn White civilization into Yemen or Afghanistan.

  163. Mike P says:
    @Rosie

    It seems to me the “law of the jungle” brigade fails to take into account that humans can learn to trust each other. Not only does it “conserve energy”, but we also derive pleasure from it – trusting my wife (and knowing my trust is well placed) gives me pleasure, and receiving her trust does the same. That emotional disposition must also be the result of natural selection, and it could hardly be this way if men and women were generally as unreliable as they are depicted in some of these comments.

    • Agree: Talha
  164. @Colin Wright

    No, it’s not. The attached article (Google-translate it) cites a large-sample study of East European populations – https://ss69100.livejournal.com/3200271.html

    In all of them, the largest non-European haplogroups (E1, J2, G2) are all of Asia Minor / Middle East / NE Africa origin – most likely introduced as part of the Neolithic revolution. If you exclude the Serbs and Bulgarians (who lived under long, recent Turkish occupation), in all other East European nations these Neolithic haplogroups total around 8-15% (Russians are c.10%). On the other hand, all “Asian” haplogroups (principally C and O) which could be attributable to nomadic invasions from the East, are below the margin of error.

  165. @Rosie

    I get and understand your indifference to men’s insecurities, Rose. And yet, your response to them entirely justifies them and exposes more than a few of your own.

    The modern North American female first degenerated into a slut in the 60’s, and an angry, bitchy shrew in the 70’s and 80’s, and finally to lonely, angry cat harpies in the new millennium. During that period women have destroyed their marriages and their families and like you, most refuse to take any responsibility for any of it whatsoever. Were it not for women, these obnoxious jews you so despise would not find themselves in positions of power. Were it not for women, the Feinsteins and Weinsteins would be pushing mops rather than running gov’ts. It’s primarily women that voted for harpies like Hillary Clinton, and soyboys like Macron and Trudeau. Primarily women drive lunacy like homosexuality and the other gender based mental illnesses. Sure, some spaghetti armed soyboys and Jewishsexual predators are mixed in with that – but mostly it’s hormonal estrogen crazed rage heads pushing this stuff. Things have gotten so bad that the argument can now be made that we need to seriously consider a repeal of the 19th Amendment. Whenever women and minorities are allowed to take charge they almost invariably fail. Yes, there are exceptions to that – but they ARE the exceptions. Hey – I don’t like it either. I wish the majority of women were capable, rational adults who could make mature decisions – but the conduct of North American women over the last 30 years is what it is.

    Having dispensed with Rose’s shrillness – let us focus instead on the study itself. I admit I didn’t delve too deeply into it, seeing as it just confirms the obvious… but for any ‘study’ involving statistical analysis the benchmark is usually established with an accuracy statement such as
    “the results of this test are repeatable with an accuracy of +/- 3%, 15 times out of 20…”. I saw no such accuracy statement with this study – which implies to me the usual junk ‘science’ that managed to reach the correct conclusions in spite of itself.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  166. Biff says:

    John McAfee always could tell if the little girl was going to commit infidelity by going off and shitting in someone else’s mouth. Those software engineers are quite intuitive.

  167. Liza says:

    Gotta quit blaming cheating wives for men having to raise children not their own: the majority of men raising other men’s kids do so by happily marrying divorced, sometimes widowed, women who already have offspring by other men in a marriage. This has always rubbed me the wrong way – I could never see why a man would want to do that. Manufacture your own damn kids, you fkg losers. And I think the same of women – this is even worse – marrying a man with children whose biological mother doesn’t have custody of them, so she has to do the day to day work of raising those kids. Just appalling. I could never, ever see myself having done that.

    So many of these men marrying women with small children take such pride in it, too! “I love you more, sweetie, because I CHOSE you to be my child!” I hear this kind of schit all the time. Adoption of complete strangers is even crazier, you don’t know either the father or the mother or their character, health, etc. Better to remain childless. Have some pride, FFS.

    It was only a couple of generation ago, prior to easy abortion, when countless men knocked up single girls, then ran away, never to be heard from again and usually the girl’s parents helped out a lot to raise the unplanned child. So this situation you are discussing here is some kind of cosmic revenge even tho the characters are different. You are being punished for the sins of other men. Maybe there is some truth to the reincarnation theory? 🙂

    • Replies: @Rosie
  168. @TKK

    Thanks for your kind response.

    There’s no shortage of bright and perceptive regulars here in Unz comments. The smarter one is, the more they understand. My comment is more out of frustration and aggravation than vanity, (plus four whiskey’s in my stomach). Hopefully, other readers brighter than you saw that. I did hesitate a bit hitting the send button on that comment, but thought, eh, I’m not hurting anyone, if that’s any consolation to you.

    I am proud though that strenuous athletics has been a major part of my life since early adulthood. I estimate less than 3% of the American public will ever know what it’s like to push your body to its limit through athletic endeavors. It takes many years to master a sport.

    As far as my claim to being an extrovert. I find it humorous in a strange way how so many people in our society are afraid to communicate with others, and very often can’t even approach others they don’t know when they would like to. America is a nation of followers and I pride myself on being apart from the crowd in that respect as well.

    Funny, I’ve been around a long time now and not once has anyone called me a braggart or bore to my face.

  169. Talha says:

    I thought long and hard trying to think of something positive about women.

    When I see these kinds of comments I wonder if people were raised in broken or abnormal homes.

    Give me half an hour and I could come up with an outline for a college-level essay about positive traits of women just based on my own mother. I’m guessing plenty of men could do the same.

    Peace.

    • Agree: Liza, Mike P
  170. This is not science, its a snake oil hucksterism masquerade to justify debunked science propelling a socio-political agenda.

  171. Rosie says:
    @Glenfilthie

    Were it not for women, these obnoxious jews you so despise would not find themselves in positions of power. Were it not for women, the Feinsteins and Weinsteins would be pushing mops rather than running gov’ts.

    Meanwhile, here on planet Earth, White men were totally in control of this country when they handed it over to the Jews wholesale after World War II.

    Primarily women drive lunacy like homosexuality and the other gender based mental illnesses.

    Because it’s women’s fault that men bugger each other and the (((media))) glamorizes it.

    • Replies: @Plato's Dream
  172. Rosie says:
    @Liza

    Better to remain childless.

    Wow. I couldn’t disagree more. I can’t think of any more pointless existence than a life without children.

    • Replies: @Liza
  173. @Rosie

    Nevertheless, women vote disproportionately for abominations such as “gay marriage”, unlimited immigration and other left causes. It’s just an empirical fact I’m afraid.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  174. @Rosie

    ‘Because property doesn’t have rights that it’s owners are bound to respect.’

    Meh. All kinds of people have experienced others not respecting their rights. I’ve experienced others not respecting my rights. I didn’t cease to be a person when that happened.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
  175. Rosie says:
    @Plato's Dream

    Nevertheless, women vote disproportionately for abominations such as “gay marriage”, unlimited immigration and other left causes. It’s just an empirical fact I’m afraid.

    That’s probably true, but we wouldn’t be talking about gay marriage but for (((media))) manipulation. It is true that women are more susceptible to media influence than men, but that’s only a problem if the media is under the control of a hostile, rather than benevolent, elite. Once again, women didn’t surrender control of the media to Jews. Men did.

    As for immigration, it is widely unpopular with both men and women. The only group of White voters that was repelled by Trump’s anti-immigration platform was college-educated White women, but here again you have the problem of hostile elite control of the Academy. No college White women swung to the Republican Party.

    Finally, men’s voting behavior is problematic in its own way. With only White men voting, the GOP could go on winning elections for several more election cycles without having to appeal to populists at all. They just keep coming back, saying, “Thank you, Sir, may I have another!”

    All we’re doing here is precisely what our enemies want us to do. We’re at each other’s throats, just as they like.

  176. Anon[193] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    The cost is greater for men because women are always assured maternity.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  177. Anon[193] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    There were laws restricting violence against slaves, and there are laws currently against abusing pets. There are laws against child abuse by parents, despite parents still being allowed to control their children to a large extent.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  178. Liza says:
    @Rosie

    @Rosie. About remaining childless. Yes, I have thought long and hard about this. It is better to have no children and find meaning elsewhere – as in helping other people with their natural born children and there’s always plenty of help needed – than to adopt an unknown entity.

    I must know at least 15 adopted people. They are disturbed, completely messed – except for one girl, a woman now, who was taken in by her aunt and uncle when her parents both died. As normal and happy a person as you’d want to know. An adoptee knows that something is wrong, they feel it every moment of their lives, even if their adopting parents are wonderful people.

    The point is to be raised by your own blood, then you have a decent chance in life.

    I like your comments here, most of them. You are a good debater and never back down.

  179. Rosie says:

    An adoptee knows that something is wrong, they feel it every moment of their lives, even if their adopting parents are wonderful people.

    Can’t argue with that. I wonder what percentage of adoptees wind up looking for their bio parents.

    I like your comments here, most of them.

    Thanks.

  180. Rosie says:
    @Anon

    There were laws restricting violence against slaves, and there are laws currently against abusing pets. There are laws against child abuse by parents, despite parents still being allowed to control their children to a large extent.

    What you are talking about is guardianship. It is not a proprietary relationship. To whatever extent a ward has any rights, they are not slaves.

    A parent’s right to control children flows from their duty to ensure the child’s wellbeing. What is under discussion here is not about women’s well being; it is about men claiming a proprietary interest in women’s bodies as means to their own ends. Treating human beings as instrumental objects is the very essence of evil according to both timeless philosophy and modern psychology.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  181. Rosie says:
    @Anon

    The cost is greater for men because women are always assured maternity.

    It’s nice to be assured of maternity, but then that doesn’t really matter if both you and your offspring are dead, does it?

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Anonymous
  182. Rosie says:
    @Rosie

    Query:

    After menopause, when women are no longer fertile, but men could theoretically seriously damage their wives’ reproductive interests by impregnating another woman, whose children would have a right to share in the husband’s resources, should women then have a right to control their husband’s comings and goings on account of their greater need for security against adultery?

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    , @Anonymous
  183. @Rosie

    Yes, that is why society has marriage.

    If social constricts were not placed upon the natural male urge to stray with any bimbo or the female knee-jerk arousal to virile Tom Selleck types, society would be full of homeless orphans.

    Look at what black sexual behavior has done to Africa where men have ten kids with 11 women. Or the US black community, where black teen girls have a higher rate of STD’s than a 40 year old white career prostitute.

  184. Anonymous[346] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    I think Asian women are the most attractive. I could’ve had any white woman I wanted but like a lot of other white guys on Unz.com, I intentionally sought and married an Asian. One thing that will never be said openly but is part of every WM/AF marriage, the interracial sex is always a great and exciting thing. When I had relationships with white women the sex was fun and exciting for a little while but got boring. With an Asian wife I get excited every time looking at her narrow epicanthic eyes and thinking, here I am a white man having sex with this woman of another race. It never gets old.

  185. Jay Fink says:
    @LostHopeless

    I would rather be a cuckold to a pretty wife than have an unattractive wife all to myself. I would also rather have no wife than one I wasn’t attracted to both physically and personality wise.

  186. Jay Fink says:
    @Diversity Heretic

    I have a friend who married an ugly woman ten years older than him. He is not happy, he is miserable. She is very naggy and unpleasant to him. He now goes to prostitutes for sexual release.

    • Replies: @LostHopeless
  187. Liza says:

    I could’ve had any white woman I wanted

    LOL!

    • Replies: @Matthew/Boston
  188. @Rosie

    https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2013.2400

    These results suggest that human EPP rates have not changed substantially during the last 400 years in Flanders

    Last 400 years, LOL. Flanders in the year 1613.

    On this date in 1613 …

    Anna of Saxony (1567–1613)
    …1584 … Anna became engaged with John Casimir, Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Eisenach. The marriage finally took place in Dresden … 1586, and she received 30,000 Thalers as a dowry…

    …By the end of September 1593 the Duchess was caught in adultery by her husband; John Casimir immediately orders the arrest of Anna and her lover … Schöppenstuhl (High Court Chamber) in Jena formally annulled her marriage and sentenced both lovers to beheading by sword.

    Are paternity rates from a time when adulteresses were beheaded relevent to the current day?

    • Replies: @Rosie
  189. Rosie says:
    @Hippopotamusdrome

    Are paternity rates from a time when adulteresses were beheaded relevent to the current day?

    If afultresses were being deterred by criminal punishment, one would expect an upward trend in cuckoldry as punishments were lessened and eventually abolished. I don’t recall the article noting any such trend.

    When was the last beheading for adultery in Flanders? Do you know?

  190. @Liza

    His mother told him so.

    • LOL: Liza
  191. Anonymous[409] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Does this mean blacks were not slaves? That pets are not owned?

    I don’t think the difference is relevant because anything resembling guardianship of women is now regarded as ownership and sexism and inequality.

    A parent’s right to control children actually derives from the view that the parent-child relationship is prior to the state and exists in a state of nature. The wellbeing view is one developed later by the state to justify intervening and infringing on the parent-child relationship. The wellbeing view is arbitrary and limitless and potentially gives the state unlimited power to intervene. It has been used to justify intervening and infringing on family relationships and male-female relationships, which are also prior to the state, and undermining the authority of fathers and husbands. The parent-child relationship is harder to crack but it is being eroded, especially that between father and child.

    Anyway, the mainstream view today is that anything like guardianship is either equivalent to slavery or is a slippery slope to slavery, and is thus anathema. Women must be completely free and equal to men. Of course women can’t enforce this view themselves, but need men to do so on their behalf, so in effect you have a group of men via the state enforcing it against the men of society.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  192. Anonymous[409] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    The incentive to cheat for men is that they have more surviving offspring. If cheating did not result in a net gain for men, there’d be no reason for it to evolve.

  193. Anonymous[409] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    A post-menopausal woman’s children are going to have survived childhood already. Men impregnate multiple women when there are enough resources in the environment to support children by multiple women. In an environment where women and children are in danger of death without a man, the only women and children around will be those with a man, who is going to be engaged in mate guarding

    • Replies: @Rosie
  194. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    A post-menopausal woman’s children are going to have survived childhood already.

    False.

    Even if true, a pregnant woman is not fertile, either. By definition, a pregnant woman has more reproductive interest in controlling the comings and goings of her husband than vice versa.

    Men impregnate multiple women when there are enough resources in the environment to support children by multiple women.

    LOL!

    In an environment where women and children are in danger of death without a man, the only women and children around will be those with a man, who is going to be engaged in mate guarding

    Au contraire. I suspect the more hostile the environment, the greater the danger of mate poaching. Your desperation to justify your special pleading and double standards is becoming painfully obvious.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  195. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    Women must be completely free and equal to men.

    Correct, except to the extent you can provide some rationale for the bondage and subordination of women that amounts to more than might makes Right.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Autochthon
  196. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    So you want women to be able to have as much freedom as possible, and then men to be literal cuckolds and eunuchs raising the children of these women and other men.

    This comment is a good illustration of the childish petulance of the MGtard. Like the radical feminist, he demands that all conflicts of interest be resolved in his favor and that the opposite sex bear all the risks and burdens of family formation, or else he’ll take his ball and go home. Being 98.5% sure that his children are his own is not good enough. He demands 100% certainty, even at the expense of women’s freedom to attend their sons’ ball games or go to the gym. Seriously, what can be said about that kind of selfishness?

    When I decided to leave the workforce, I thought seriously about the possibility of being abandoned and left to fend for myself in middle age, but here’s the thing. I knew I was miserable as it was. I thought, “OK, I can make a change and risk being miserable at some point in th future, or I can not make a change and be 100% certain of remaining miserable now. The MGtards have to make a choice whether they will take a risk for a chance at happiness or die miserable, lonely old men.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  197. @Jay Fink

    Point is, you either gotta marry down (difficult for a man as compared to a woman, looks are what arouses us way way more) or marry someone who think complements you aesthetically and temperamentally. But NEVER marry up. It’d mostly be an absolute disaster unless you can shield her from the outside world (again impossible for a post feminist decadent society like ours and increasingly becoming common across many places! )

  198. Breaking everything down to selfish gene choice will not explain all behavior. Maybe a woman likes a musician because he makes her feel good, makes her feel like the world is more than eat, drink, fuck, sleep, feed children. Anyway, MGtards is very funny, though harsh. And believe me Rosie, nobody wants to watch you 24-7. ‘Way too much trouble that would be. Trust, reciprocated, is key.

    • Agree: Mike P
  199. @Colin Wright

    Meh. All kinds of people have experienced others not respecting their rights. I’ve experienced others not respecting my rights. I didn’t cease to be a person when that happened.

    So I guess rights are no big deal then. After all, slaves didn’t cease to be persons when slavery happened.

  200. treg says:

    Ring finger is better. Faces are simply too confusing. This New Years, simply look for the circle of ever so lightly colored skin on the ring finger. If you do not notice it at the beginning of the social gathering but do towards the end, then it is safe to assume you are looking at a cheater or someone who is dead set at leaving the party with you. Works pretty well for both sexes.

  201. @Bill

    By Jove, I think you’ve put your finger on it. I stand corrected!

  202. Talha says:

    Perhaps a better pair of articles for consideration on the subject:
    “Gul and Kupfer take a related tack, but head in a slightly different direction. They suggest that female interest in sexist men, specifically men who display ‘benevolent sexism’ may be seen by women as being more interested in investing resources in a woman…Despite aspects of benevolent sexism appearing chivalrous and romantic, previous research has found that women who endorse these beliefs often demonstrate approval of restrictions on women’s freedoms, independence and autonomy, and may impact women’s support for gender egalitarianism…Despite being attracted to them, and seeing them as good mates and partners, the women saw these males as being undermining and patronizing men who were more likely to place restrictions on the women.”
    https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/women-who-stray/201812/feminists-think-sexist-men-are-sexier-woke-men

    The study that the article was based on:
    “Benevolent Sexism and Mate Preferences: Why Do Women Prefer Benevolent Men Despite Recognizing That They Can Be Undermining?”
    https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0146167218781000?journalCode=pspc&#038;

    Sounds like a good basis for a protective and nurturing patriarchy.

    Peace.

  203. Anonymous[359] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    False.

    A man has an interest in his children surviving childhood. A man who leaves one child, who subsequently dies, to father another child, who survives, has no net gain in children. There would be no tendency towards this behavior unless there tended to be a net gain i.e. children tended to survive.

    Au contraire.

    In an environment in which women and children will not have adequate calories to survive without a provisioning male, each woman will need a man to survive, and will consquently guarded by a male. Men and women are different, so obviously there are different standards.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Rosie
  204. Anonymous[359] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Correct

    This is the mainstream view, which is radically feminist. If one holds this radical, egalitarian view, there’s no basis for rejecting leftist egalitarianism in general.

  205. Anonymous[359] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    It is not selfish for men, being different from women, to be treated differently than women are. It is not selfish for men not to raise the children of other men.

    Women do not fend for themselves when they don’t have husbands. They get employed and paid by men, or they get taxes extracted from men by force. It’s men all the way down.

    • Replies: @Liza
  206. Liza says:
    @Anonymous

    It is not selfish for men, being different from women, to be treated differently than women are. It is not selfish for men not to raise the children of other men.

    Women do not fend for themselves when they don’t have husbands. They get employed and paid by men, or they get taxes extracted from men by force. It’s men all the way down.

    When you put it that way, it is difficult to disagree. Two things:

    However, when you say it’s not selfish for men not to want to raise other men’s children – where can we see such men? Do they even exist anymore? I feel disgusted when I see men doing this – and their number is considerable. I wish I had a $ for every man I see who married a woman with kids from her first marriage, while he himself has none. Instant daddy! Why they would be attracted to such a situation escapes me. Unless it’s to molest the female children of their wife.

    More important is your point that all those self-proclaimed independent, self sufficient women are making tons o’ money working in governments and industries founded by men, men they probably hate. They rarely do the schitwork required to keep comfy (construction/repairs/trades, etc.) but they like to sit at desks in air conditioned offices manipulating other people’s incomes, thinking and entire lives. I do think that men, if we were to go back to older times, would treat most of us women rather badly, but there ain’t no Utopia anywhere, ever. Lurch of the pendulum, as usual.

    Keep in mind that corny essay “Attitude”. It beats being a bitter, woman-hating male dying alone of a heart attack.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Rosie
    , @Jay Fink
  207. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    A man has an interest in his children surviving childhood. A man who leaves one child, who subsequently dies, to father another child, who survives, has no net gain in children. There would be no tendency towards this behavior unless there tended to be a net gain i.e. children tended to survive.

    This is only true if you assume absolute equality of mates. The is no reason whatsoever to assume this. Indeed, women would not have evolved any mate retention strategies if you were correct, because they wouldn’t have needed them. Yet we know this is not true.

    In an environment in which women and children will not have adequate calories to survive without a provisioning male, each woman will need a man to survive, and will consquently guarded by a male.

    Repeating the same argument doesn’t make it any more persuasive than the last time you said it. Tir is simply no evidence for your assertion that women’s anxiety about abandonment is unfounded.

    Men and women are different, so obviously there are different standards.

    Men and women are certainly different, but not in the way that you claim, to wit:

    Men’s freedom pose no threat to women’s reproductive interests, but women’s freedom poses a threat to men’s reproductive interests. Therefore, all women, pregnant or not, on birth control or not, pas menopause or not, should be incarcerated in their own homes.

    Your premise is false, and your conclusion wouldn’t follow even if it were true.

    This is the mainstream view, which is radically feminist.

    Not an argument.

    If one holds this radical, egalitarian view, there’s no basis for rejecting leftist egalitarianism in general.

    Having failed to make your case for the incarceration of half the population, you attempt to claim that anyone who disagrees with you is a “leftist egalitarian.”

    Most nurses are women; most programmers are men. “Leftist egalitarians” have a problem with this. Being a complementarian, I do not.

    It is not selfish for men, being different from women, to be treated differently than women are. It is not selfish for men not to raise the children of other men.

    It is selfish of you to demand that women be incarcerated in their own homes rather than accept that insecurity is part of life and learn to trust, as indeed you demand that women do.

    Women do not fend for themselves when they don’t have husbands. They get employed and paid by men, or they get taxes extracted from men by force. It’s men all the way down.

    This is generally true, though of course it is totally irrelevant, unless you are claiming that women, by virtue of being dependent on men, have no moral standing, which is, indeed what I think you are arguing.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  208. Rosie says:
    @Liza

    I feel disgusted when I see men doing this – and their number is considerable.

    The difference between an egoist, like Anontard here, and a nationalist, is that we nationalists view all White children as our kin. They are not “spawn” or “brats”; they are our own precious blood.

    • Agree: Liza
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  209. Rosie says:
    @Liza

    I do think that men, if we were to go back to older times, would treat most of us women rather badly, but there ain’t no Utopia anywhere, ever. Lurch of the pendulum, as usual.

    Sure there is.

    https://icelandmag.is/article/icelanders-fourth-happiest-people-world-drop-one-spot-finland-takes-lead

    Your pessimism is unwarranted.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  210. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    In an environment in which women and children will not have adequate calories to survive without a provisioning male, each woman will need a man to survive, and will consquently guarded by a male.

    Your error here is that you ignore the possibility that a man will abandon a current (aging) mate for a younger, unattached woman who does not yet have a mate. This error is fatal for your position.

    At the end of the day, your argument amounts to this:

    Men’s interests matter; women’s interests do not.

    That’s all.

    • Agree: Liza
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  211. Iberiano says:

    Black women tend to look more like black men (as every race has observed) so I would imagine in response to the rhetorical question, it would be difficult, at least for a Caucasian, to determine whether or not she has cheater’s face–and obviously, whites were not selected by their ability to read subtle sexual cues in blacks, per se.

    Curious when the big study will come out showing how interrelated (accidental incest) blacks from the inner cities are.

  212. Rosie says:
    @Rosie

    Speaking of Utopia, I have a suggestion for a Mr. Welton’s next article here at Unz.

    Apparently, there is some research to suggest that a male-biased sex ratio tends toward monogamy and early marriage. “Sociosexuality” is actually associated with a female-biased sex ratio.

    That is, whenever women have superior bargaining power in the mating market, sexuality is more restricted. When men have more bargaining power, permissive sexuality prevails. When they perceive an abundance of mates, men are all about free love. When they perceive a scarcity of mates, they’re all about tying the knot. Meanwhile, women consistently prefer sex within a committed relationship.

    How does that square with Devlin’s view that it is women who control access to sex, with men being helpless to resist their uncontrollable urges? It would actually seem that men, and their calculations of how much cheap sex they can get, set the tone of sexual morality.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513814001391

    https://archive.unews.utah.edu/news_releases/men-want-commitment-when-women-are-scarce/

    Indeed, he says that across many groups of animals, monogamy is associated with higher male-female ratios. And Schacht cites earlier research finding higher marriage and marriage fertility rates, and fewer female heads of household and children out of wedlock when men are abundant in urban U.S. communities. “All are indicators of family stability that went up when there were more men,” he adds.

    • Replies: @Liza
  213. Steve says:

    So choosing at random, you’d get 50% right, but men get 59% right. So we’re a bit better than chance.

    We get it wrong 41 times out of 100.

    It hardly justifies the statement we can tell from their faces if they will cheat.

    • Agree: Rosie
  214. Liza says:
    @Rosie

    Big problems coming up, then. It’s hard not to notice that at least here there’s hardly any boys being born anymore. I see few people with baby boys or male children of any age anymore. Just go to the mall, sit down and watch the people going past. Girls girls girls girls… Or go anywhere – downtown or to church or to any public event.

    I notice this applies to both whites and Chinese looking people. Darkies seem to have more boys. Civilization is doing us in. Time for a barbarian/pagan revolution. We were there once, we can not only do it again, we will have to, the way everything is coming apart at the seams.

  215. Jay Fink says:
    @Liza

    You are reading too much into this, especially the part about molesting the daughters. The fact is, especially once you reach a certain age, most women have kids. A lot of men have two choices…a woman with children or stay single.

  216. Anonymous[113] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    This is only true if you assume absolute equality of mates. The is no reason whatsoever to assume this. Indeed, women would not have evolved any mate retention strategies if you were correct, because they wouldn’t have needed them.

    No, what’s relevant for evolution is number of surviving offspring. Men and women do not have the same degree of mate guarding.

    Repeating the same argument doesn’t make it any more persuasive than the last time you said it. Tir is simply no evidence for your assertion that women’s anxiety about abandonment is unfounded.

    I didn’t say it was unfounded. I said men and women are different, including with respect to mate guarding.

    Men’s freedom pose no threat to women’s reproductive interests, but women’s freedom poses a threat to men’s reproductive interests.

    That’s not what I said. I said men and women are different, including with respect to mate guarding and relative costs.

    Not an argument.

    It’s a description, not an argument, of your viewpoint.

    Having failed to make your case for the incarceration of half the population, you attempt to claim that anyone who disagrees with you is a “leftist egalitarian.”

    I didn’t say half the population should be incarcerated. I said that radical feminism is ultimately inconsistent with leftist egalitarianism.

    This is generally true, though of course it is totally irrelevant, unless you are claiming that women, by virtue of being dependent on men, have no moral standing, which is, indeed what I think you are arguing.

    Obviously it is relevant, since your view is that women should have the utmost freedom and independence, equal to men.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Rosie
  217. Anonymous[113] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    It is not selfish or being egoist for men not to raise the children of other men. In fact, it is selfish and egoist for those men and women who urge and get other men to regard their children as their own. You are not going to have a serious, sustainable nationalism by conning men into thinking that someone else’s children are their own. You are only going to have it by giving men a stake i.e. a wife and children of their own. If what that takes is intolerable to you, then you can say goodbye to nationalism.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  218. Anonymous[113] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Your error here is that you ignore the possibility that a man will abandon a current (aging) mate for a younger, unattached woman who does not yet have a mate. This error is fatal for your position.

    That happens in more benign environments with enough calories so that older men can support new or multiple women.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  219. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    That happens in more benign environments with enough calories so that older men can support new or multiple women.

    And leave unattached young men on the loose to menace what little exists that can be called civilization.

    • Agree: Jay Fink
  220. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    It is not selfish or being egoist for men not to raise the children of other men.

    It absolutely is egoist to rule out stepfatherhood out of hand on the grounds that you have no interest or stake in children of your own group.

    Now, you may think egoism is right and natural, but that doesn’t make it anything other than egoism.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_egoism

    You are only going to have it by giving men a stake i.e. a wife and children of their own. If what that takes is intolerable to you, then you can say goodbye to nationalism.

    You claim that you don’t believe half the population should be made prisoners in their homes. You also claim to oppose “freedom and equality” for women. This is a very typical manosphere dodge. You bitch and moan about something that can’t be fixed short of the most draconian restrictions on women, but then you feign innocence when called out for your disregard of our interests. How about you go ahead and clarify your position regarding exactly what rights and freedoms women should and should not have?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  221. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    No, what’s relevant for evolution is number of surviving offspring. Men and women do not have the same degree of mate guarding.

    Let me spell this out for you, a man can maximize his own reproductive fitness by engaging in “serial monogamy” even if he can only effectively provide for one mate and children at a time. This leaves women and her children vulnerable even if she has not yet reached menopause and still has small children.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  222. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    Obviously it is relevant, since your view is that women should have the utmost freedom and independence, equal to men.

    I’m trying to figure out your position, here. Are you saying that women shouldn’t have the right to move about freely on account of the fact that most working women have bosses who are men? Seriously, I’m trying to be charitable, but you’re not making any sense.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Jeff Stryker
  223. Liza says:

    No sane, normal person wants to be cheated on. A wife gets upset about her husband screwing someone else or even just flirting with other women not because she is worried that he’s going to make babies with other women resulting in her and her own offspring living under a bridge – but rather because normal men and women cannot bear to share their mate with another, quite irrespective of money or child support issues. But so far all I hear is talk about “reproductive interests” and sufficient calories and all that. LOL.

    This is not a harem, or at least is not supposed to be. This isn’t mooselimb land. We are white folks and going way back, it was meant for us to be one man + one woman. Christianity (right or wrong though it might have been for us as a race) sealed it. Cheating just hurts really bad and brings about rage not because we were taught that it was wrong, or because there’s young children in the home – it’s an instinctive response. Jealousy is normal and healthy in some circumstances.

    Post reproductive women whose kids are gone and self-supporting don’t want to be cheated on, either. They may say they don’t care what Horny Old Melvin is doing so long as she’s financially comfy but they are lying. The same is true of men who’ve already fathered all the children they want (with their one wife) and wifey is stepping out.

    As a teenager, I knew a woman who at age 51 was dumped by her well off husband for a much younger woman. She was able to support herself but she took to drink in the evenings and would rage to me about how it felt to be treated in this manner after her being the dutiful and loyal wife (with children). She got a boyfriend or two but it didn’t help. She died in her 80s, still scarred. Just a little anecdote, doesn’t mean much etc. etc.

    Silly me, I thought we’d evolved from a purely reproductive and financial outlook on everything.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  224. @Liza

    American sex ratios at birth are very close to even with a slight preponderance of boys.

    https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/2018/

  225. Jay Fink says:
    @Liza

    China itself is at the start of a huge female shortage due to decades of sex selective abortions.

    • Agree: Liza
  226. Anonymous[292] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    It is not egoist for a man not to raise the children of other men. It is egoist of those other men and women who expect or demand that a man raise their children for them.

    Freedom and equality as defined in the current radically feminist context are fundamentally incompatible with the sexist and patriarchal preconditions for nationalism.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  227. Anonymous[292] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Men who typically are able to engage in “serial monogamy” are wealthy and powerful men who can support multiple women and children. These are the kind of men that are able to continually attract women as they age. If Donald Trump were a mailman or a bus driver, he would not have been able to marry multiple times as he has.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  228. Anonymous[292] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Your view that women should be free of dependence on one class of men, husbands, is predicated on women being dependent on another class of men, taxpayers and employers. Moreover, women cannot do basic things like defend a piece of territory militarily and establish a government that provides rights in the first place. That has to be done by men as well. So ultimately women cannot be free and independent as you imagine. If men left the military, stopped paying taxes, working, etc, then women would have to try, but if they did, they would just get defeated by another group of invading males who would just kill them and or seize them as brides, sex slaves and the like.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  229. @Rosie

    ROSIE

    I have lived overseas all of my life and the reality is that white women are more dependent upon the societies that white men create than other white males.

    There are almost no single white women in Asia. I’ve met a few snotty tourists passing through and the spoiled wife of an expat or two, but most there are few white women making a living in Philippines or Thailand.

    All the Westerners are male. We could argue that this is partly because men in these countries are poor and have small penises so they are not desirable to white women, but I don’t think many white women could latch onto them anyhow. There were a few arranged marriages between Spanish white women and local chieftains in Philippines (And I feel sorry for those white colonial women) but unless the King of Spain is arranging the marriage, it is rare.

  230. Liza says:

    @Intelligent Dasein. (splendid name)

    As far as I can interpret that chart it does not break down M to F by race. Just at a glance – what I see in public places + people I know – over the past several years, dark folks are making more boys; and whites, more girls.

    If you click on “Year” going back to 1950 and for the next several years, when whites predominated and life was less degenerate, you will see that there was always more boys being born.

    How do we interpret this. What I’ve read in science minded literature (a relative of mine saw an entire program on this topic and told me about it a few yr. ago) is that men are becoming weak and therefore can’t produce male offspring as often. So, what tribe is likely the weakest, probably from having experienced undue, excessive comfort for longer in their history, not to mention heavy exposure to unnatural forms of medicine and constantly stewing in manmade chemicals from every angle? I would say it is the white race. A short recall: on my first job, in the late 1970s, a Dr. who worked there casually mentioned that men of certain occupations were overrepresented in fathering of girls.

    Soon enough, of course, the rest of “humanity” will catch up with us – they are entitled to all the goodies, too! Lots of women, few men. Men will have it made in the shade. Maybe. It all depends.

  231. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    Your view that women should be free of dependence on one class of men, husbands, is predicated on women being dependent on another class of men, taxpayers and employers.

    That is not my view, so I don’t know what you’re talking about.

    Let’s take it as a given that women will always be dependent on men in one fashion or another. How does it follow from that that I shouldn’t be able to go to my sons’ baseball games?

  232. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    Men who typically are able to engage in “serial monogamy” are wealthy and powerful men who can support multiple women and children. These are the kind of men that are able to continually attract women as they age. If Donald Trump were a mailman or a bus driver, he would not have been able to marry multiple times as he has.

    Not relevant. A man who engages in serial monogamy still diverts resources from his children even if they are adults. Money that should be used to help them establish their own households and families will be diverted to half-siblings instead. Moreover, as I mentioned earlier, when men engage in serial monogamy, it leaves a young man without a mate.

    Since you believe that men are disinclined to abandon their wives, I assume you have no objection to lifelong alimony of half the husband’s earnings?

  233. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    It is not egoist for a man not to raise the children of other men. It is egoist of those other men and women who expect or demand that a man raise their children for them.

    Did someone suggest forcing men to marry women with children? If a man wants 100% certainty, let him ask for a damned test. He has no right to demand that society allow him to imprison his wife so that he can have absolute assurance of paternity, which in any event is available through much less restrictive, and frankly more effective means.

    Freedom and equality as defined in the current radically feminist context are fundamentally incompatible with the sexist and patriarchal preconditions for nationalism.

    There are no sexist conditions for nationalism except the ones you have invented in your own microbrain.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    , @Anonymous
  234. Rosie says:
    @Liza

    Post reproductive women whose kids are gone and self-supporting don’t want to be cheated on, either. They may say they don’t care what Horny Old Melvin is doing so long as she’s financially comfy but they are lying. The same is true of men who’ve already fathered all the children they want (with their one wife) and wifey is stepping out.

    What some of these men either ignore or don’t understand is the deep humiliation that replacement by a younger rival necessarily entails. You go from being Queen of your own castle to a literal nobody, subsisting on whatever paltry sum the court orders for you at best, at worst taking orders from a teenager at Burger King. Now, someone else is Queen of the castle that you scrimped and saved to build up over decades of your life.

    A woman who has been a faithful wife and mother simply does not deserve this. Neither does the young man that the wife poacher would otherwise have married deserve to be left without a mate.

  235. @Rosie

    Nothing could be easier than providing that rationale: all history until about is rife with the evidence undergirding it.

    For bioevolutionary reasons, women are far more irrational, short-sighted, and uncooperative than men. They are more irresponsible than men and excessivley emotional (hence the very word hysteria. They are more disloyal to their groups in the face of attack, invasion, and conquest. They are not self-sufficient, as men are.

    Shall I go on?

    • Replies: @Rosie
  236. @Rosie

    Damn it! I checked the statutes and you are right; now I have to go down to the basement and unlock my wife’s manacles.

    Seriously: I never once, anywhere, read anyone suggesting women should be chattel. The point was that men should have a right to be assured of paternity (i.e., to be spared cuckoldry) and that raising others’ children is generally unwise, especially to the extent it takes respources away from one’s own children.

    The guy keeps saying he disapproves of cuckoldry, and you keep saying women should not be chattel. You are having two unilateral conversations.

    A: Eggs are delicious!

    R: How dare you demand chickens be kept in cages?

    A: People should be allowed to eat eggs; they are so damned tasty and healthy.

    R: Just because you like omelettes you think you can imprison other animals against their will, do you? You monster!

    And so on.

    Yeesh.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  237. @Wizard of Oz

    Jordan Peterson has said all the empirical data show women optimally favour men who are on average four years older than them, and I believe him due to his integrity and intelligence without bothering to check his work.

    So, you are spot on.

  238. Anonymous[273] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    There are no sexist conditions for nationalism except the ones you have invented in your own microbrain.

    The logic is very simple.

    Nationalism requires the willing support and participation of men. The basic infrastructure of the nation-state – the labor, taxes, military defense, etc. – requires men.

    Men will provide their support if they have a stake in it, and for most men, that means wives and children and families of their own. Without a stake, men will withdraw their support, either wholly or in part, eroding the very foundation of any sort of nationalism.

    The conditions that provide most men this stake are regarded in the current environment as being irredeemably “sexist” and “patriarchal”.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  239. Rosie says:
    @Autochthon

    The guy keeps saying he disapproves of cuckoldry, and you keep saying women should not be chattel. You are having two unilateral conversations.

    No we are not. He has made very clear that he thinks women’s freedoms should be restricted to provide men with absolute certainty of paternity, though he refuses to say precisely what those restrictions should be.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
  240. Rosie says:
    @Autochthon

    Nothing could be easier than providing that rationale: all history until about is rife with the evidence undergirding it.

    Then you ought to provide some.

    For bioevolutionary reasons, women are far more irrational, short-sighted, and uncooperative than men.

    Unsubstantiated assertion.

    They are more irresponsible than men and excessivley emotional (hence the very word hysteria.

    Unsubstantiated assertion.

    They are more disloyal to their groups in the face of attack, invasion, and conquest.

    Patent falsehood. (Men are the ones betraying their nations for shekels.)

    They are not self-sufficient, as men are.

    You are not self-sufficient, either. None of you would exist without us.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
  241. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    The conditions that provide most men this stake are regarded in the current environment as being irredeemably “sexist” and “patriarchal”.

    Why don’t you go ahead and specify exactly what you think those conditions are?

    • Replies: @Liza
    , @Anonymous
  242. Liza says:
    @Rosie

    The conditions that provide most men this stake are regarded in the current environment as being irredeemably “sexist” and “patriarchal”.

    Why don’t you go ahead and specify exactly what you think those conditions are?

    Rosie, I know you weren’t talking to me, but, hey, everyone is entitled to my opinion. 🙂

    I found this bit of commentary on Quora. FWIW.

    …It’s probably worth noting that this doesn’t have much of anything to do with actual sharia law, but it’s what one might guess what the meme would mean if one was an Islamophobic misogynist.

    Perhaps surprisingly, this kind of misogyny is a way in which the modern alt-right parts ways with the older generation of American Neo-Nazis, who are more prone to talking about white women as an important part of the future of the white power movement, rather than needing this kind of subjugation.

    There is a fair bit of yap about how White Sharia will make everything right again. There was mention of W.S. a few times here but it is not gone and disappeared as a meme, not by a long shot.

    • Replies: @Talha
  243. @Rosie

    Well, if – by your own admission! – he hasn’t defined any restrictions, how do you know he wants women to be confined to the home, made chattel, and all the other zany stuff you keep suggesting? Have you considered that perhaps he wants women restricted from the freedom they currently have to enslave cuckolded men by having the state force those men, on pain of imprisonment, to support the women’s bastard children? I ask, because that sure seems to me to be what he is proposing, and it is the most reasonable way to interpret his remarks. Assuming any ambiguity in the other fellow’s remarks is best interpreted in that way which would make the remarks most reasonable – rather than in the most unlikely, unreasonable way they might possibly be interpreted – is a hallmark of effective communication.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  244. @Rosie

    I don’t think self-sufficiency means what you think it means. If you take a comparable male and female and abandon them both in any environment from, say, the wilderness of Alaska to slums of Kinshasa, the odds of the male surviving are vastly greater than the odds of the female surviving. In fact, if you stand a male para-rescue trooper or a SEAL in a hostile environment, he is very likely to survive or even escape, whereas a female – oh, wait, females aren’t even capable of completing the training to qualify in those rôles….

    The rest of your rejoinders amount to “I am ignorant of the vast body of literature documenting the empirical claims you make, and I demand you compile a bibliography or be dismissed for a fool.” I don’t have the time or inclination for providing detailed geometrical proofs every time I mention the Pythagorean Theorem, and I am not going to substantiate my assertions that European civilisation is superior to that of Swaziland. Feel free to check the data about things like women’s reliance upon the dole, the history of war-brides, and women’s ability to maintain grace under pressure, cooperate among themselves at work, and set aside emotions to make objective observations or remain effective in crises – JSTOR, ResearchGate, PubMed, and any number of similar services will bury you with the relevant studies, but, here, I’ll give you a boost to get started, account of you are a woman and everything:

    Sex Differences in Cooperation

    Estrogen and Women’s Emotions

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Liza
    , @Neil Templeton
  245. Rosie says:
    @Autochthon

    Well, if – by your own admission! – he hasn’t defined any restrictions, how do you know he wants women to be confined to the home, made chattel, and all the other zany stuff you keep suggesting? Have you considered that perhaps he wants women restricted from the freedom they currently have to enslave cuckolded men by having the state force those men, on pain of imprisonment, to support the women’s bastard children? I ask, because that sure seems to me to be what he is proposing, and it is the most reasonable way to interpret his remarks. Assuming any ambiguity in the other fellow’s remarks is best interpreted in that way which would make the remarks most reasonable – rather than in the most unlikely, unreasonable way they might possibly be interpreted – is a hallmark of effective communication.

    I disagree emphatically with your take here. When you speak of “freedom and equality” for women being a problem, the burden is on you to state exactly what you mean so your proposals can be properly debated and evaluated.

    Now, stop telling lies, Autochthon. Women most certainly do not have the power to force cuckolded husbands to support children who are not theirs. What can happen is that a court make a finding of paternity by estoppel and declare the the husband the egalitarian father of the child. This is done because of a court finding that it is in the best interests of the child. If a child holds himself out as the father, he will be deemed legally to be the father.

    But really, all of this is beside the point. If this is his only complaint, then he should say so.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
  246. Rosie says:
    @Autochthon

    From your own cited article:

    The overall average effect size is not statistically different from zero (d = –0.05), suggesting that men and women do not differ in their overall amounts of cooperation.

    Is this the best you can do?

    I don’t think self-sufficiency means what you think it means. If you take a comparable male and female and abandon them both in any environment from, say, the wilderness of Alaska to slums of Kinshasa, the odds of the male surviving are vastly greater than the odds of the female surviving. In fact, if you stand a male para-rescue trooper or a SEAL in a hostile environment, he is very likely to survive or even escape, whereas a female – oh, wait, females aren’t even capable of completing the training to qualify in those rôles….

    So what?

    The fundamental problem with Anon’s failure to specify exactly what sorts of restrictions and would place on women is that you can’t determine whether they are warranted by real sex differences. For example, you say women are less able to remain calm under extreme pressure, and I believe that is true, so I’m not going to argue with you that women should be excluded from combat roles. Restrictions ought to be based not only on the bare fact of sex differences, but rather on specifically relevant ones.

    FYI: Men are more likely to kill another person on a motor vehicle accident, because they are more reckless. Should they have to wait until 18 or 21 to get a driver’s license?

    My impression is that on the dissident Right, statistical differences that favor men have policy implications that justify disparate treatment. OTOH, statistical disparities that favor women never have any policy implications to speak of. It’s very transparent.

    And about war brides, I know I posted this in another thread, but for readers following this discussion:

    https://www.amren.com/news/2018/12/study-majority-of-parisians-reluctant-to-marry-africans/

    Women are more sensitive to the social and cultural baggage of their prospective partner, the study found. Among white Parisian women, 57 percent of those surveyed were reluctant to form a relationship with a person from the Maghreb or the broader Orient.

    The figure is 44 percent for men.

  247. @Rosie

    You are being tendentious and selective about what you heed in classically feminine mode. Do you think judges with nothing better to do are running around forcing men to pay money to support another man’s bastard children? Do you think such put-upon men are “holding themselves out as the fathers” of the bastards?

    In such cases, the men have been deceived by the women, quite reasonably presumed they were the fathers of the children born to their wives, and, upon discovering the deception, are being sued by the women to force them to pay for the the children’s rearing simply because of the marriage, even in the face of incontrovertible genetic evidence disproving paternity and, often, the identification of the actual father. Don’t invoke “estoppel” and the “best interests of the child” as if they are magic and omnipotent terms just because evil judges in family [sic] courts misuse them. They are legal fictions improperly applied by unjust courts to enslave innocent men. The best interests of the child lie in its mother not bedding other men than her husband, and any estoppel properly lies against her claims on an innocent and deceived man following her disloyalty. Such mothers are in a unique position to know good and well whom they have been schtupping, and their recourse under the law is to sue their bastards’ actual fathers to support those bastards, not to invoke a patently corrupt and unjust system to enslave the innocent husband they betrayed.

    It would be in the best (financial) interests of my child if his mother had been previously married to Jeff Bezos, I had impregnated her during an adulterous liaison and he (the child) were entitled to twenty thousand dollars a month from Bezos for the remainder of his (the child’s) minority. It would also be a travesty of justice.

    No intelligent man has any respect for an unjust law. – Robert Heinlein

    Plenty of slutty and irresponsible women, however, cannot get enough of such laws.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  248. Rosie says:
    @Autochthon

    Cool your jets. I have no dog in this fight, because my kids are all my husband’s. In fact, I would say this: Courts shouldn’t bother with paternity by estoppel. If the husband doesn’t love the kid as his own, the child will find out sooner or later anyway. No sense kicking the can down the road.

  249. Liza says:
    @Autochthon

    I don’t think self-sufficiency means what you think it means. If you take a comparable male and female and abandon them both in any environment from, say, the wilderness of Alaska to slums of Kinshasa, the odds of the male surviving are vastly greater than the odds of the female surviving. In fact, if you stand a male para-rescue trooper or a SEAL in a hostile environment, he is very likely to survive or even escape, whereas a female – oh, wait, females aren’t even capable of completing the training to qualify in those rôles….

    It is true, I can’t deny it, that if all the women in the world were to suddenly disappear, men would be able to live (even maybe comfortably) quite a bit longer than women could survive if all the men in the world died on the spot. Men have always done the hard lifting as regards shelter, etc., but that doesn’t make our contributions irrelevant, does it?

    If men and women truly appreciated each other’s contributions to our continued life as a race or ethnic group, and showed that gratitude sincerely, none of this hatred or resentment would occur. I do think that feminism gained a following at least in the early days, though, because men were not grateful. I heard so many awful stories from grandparents, etc. about men’s treatment of women.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    , @res
  250. @Liza

    Your more reasonable and reasoned words are appreciated. The trouble is the (evil) women drew first blood, and they have been pressing the charge ever since. The good women, and even the evil (and the naïve – the two groups are not the same) men who benefit (and wrongly think they will benefit) from the results stand by doing little to staunch the flow. As Jordan Peterson has observed (I am paraphrasing): When you make drastic and fundamental changes to an existing system without any examination or even knowledge of the reasons undergirding that system, you invariably reap profound chaos and negative results. It’s well and good to protect women from being beaten by loutish husbands. It’s another to enable cunning women to destroy and enslave good husbands with no effective due process and to alienate those husbands from their children.

    I’ll give you a concrete example. Often children of divorce are places in the primary physical custody of their mother, despite the mother’s being patently unable to care for those children absent a crushing appropriation of the father’s resources, even as that father is entirely willing and able to care for those children himself. The obvious solution to the conundrum is to place the children under the primary physical custody of the father and allow them equitable access to their mother. Instead, the most common outcome is for the otherwise solvent man to pay most of his income to the (often unemployed though entirely capable of working) mother, and be reduced to impecunious homelessness. I could provide endless such examples of the horrors of the current state of affairs – family [sic] law is but one aspect of it, yet volumes and volumes could be written about the horror-show of modern family [sic] law all by itself.

    The natural state of affairs is for women to be dependent upon and loyal to men, and to abandon those men at their peril and the peril of their children – hence the guardianship of women which caused Rosie to have a litter of kittens at the outset of this discussion. (Indeed, after weaning, children are much better off, if they must be in the care of only one parent, in the care of their fathers, who are stronger protectors and better providers – statistics even show that fathers are less likely to abuse or neglect children than mothers are.) A corollary to that natural state of affairs is the imperative for women to be extremely cautious about choosing a mate and to maintain chastity as paramount. This natural state of affairs has been legislated away with disastrous consequences for all concerned, and rather than acknowledge the fundamental error and reverse course, society has been doubling down ever since, slapping endless Band-Aids on a bursting dyke, as each new ostensible solution only spawns two more problems.

    Mankind may not be able to endure very much reality, but reality does not give a shit….

    • Replies: @Rosie
  251. Talha says:
    @Liza

    White Sharia

    “White Sharia” is a meme. There is no way it would be countenanced by Islamic authorities. I’m reading through medieval books of jurisprudence with qualified scholars (as has my wife) – most of the stuff under “White Shariah” is an exaggerated caricature of what certain ignorant people imagine Shariah to be.

    Trust me, those books also contain actual rulings on slavery (where someone owns another human being as property) – they are no way analogous. Women do not have the same exact legal rights as men (in some cases they are less favored, in some they are more – depends on context) – that is for sure. But that is a different conversation.

    The White Shariah meme is a pendulum-swing reaction to what is perceived as persecution of men by the legal system that has been introduced by Left-liberal activism.

    Peace.

  252. Rosie says: • Website
    @Autochthon

    I’ll give you a concrete example. Often children of divorce are places in the primary physical custody of their mother, despite the mother’s being patently unable to care for those children absent a crushing appropriation of the father’s resources, even as that father is entirely willing and able to care for those children himself.

    That depends entirely on whose fault he divorce is. If it is the father’s fault, he should be required to pay up rather than place his children in the care of another woman not their mother. A father who separates himself children from their mother without cause is ipso facto unfit. Same goes for mothers.

    statistics even show that fathers are less likely to abuse or neglect children than mothers are.)

    Proof or you’re a liar.

    Since women spend more time with children, it stands to reason they will be involved in more incidents of abuse or neglect. That doesn’t mean they are “more likely” to abuse or neglect their children.

    A corollary to that natural state of affairs is the imperative for women to be extremely cautious about choosing a mate and to maintain chastity as paramount.

    And if you make a mistake, both you hand your “spawn” can go perish in the streets. I’d not have made it to my fifth birthday under King Autochthon’s rule.

    When you make drastic and fundamental changes to an existing system without any examination or even knowledge of the reasons undergirding that system, you invariably reap profound chaos and negative results.

    You should take your own advice. Our ancestors had very good reasons for abandoning the policies you advocate here. But you know better, right?

    This natural state of affairs has been legislated away with disastrous consequences for all concerned, and rather than acknowledge the fundamental error and reverse course, society has been doubling down ever since, slapping endless Band-Aids on a bursting dyke, as each new ostensible solution only spawns two more problems.

    What you call “slapping endless band-aids” on things is actually a very natural process of trial and error without which there can be no progress (or improvement, if you prefer) on anything.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  253. Rosie says:
    @Rosie

    Proof or you’re a liar.

    Since women spend more time with children, it stands to reason they will be involved in more incidents of abuse or neglect. That doesn’t mean they are “more likely” to abuse or neglect their children.

    Paternal filicide: 57.4%
    Maternal filicide: 42.6%

    https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/07/health/filicide-parents-killing-kids-stats-trnd/index.html

    Let me guess, Autochthon. This is another one of those cases where a statistical disparity favors women, and therefore, in your view, is apropos of nothing.

  254. Probably yet another psychology study that can’t be replicated. If it’s true, it’s another bit of evidence I am incapable of magic that others can achieve. [email protected]

  255. Anonymous[295] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Tucker Carlson did a segment recently that is stirring up quite a bit of controversy. In it, he alludes to a major condition, that men need to earn more than women, and describes how this condition is being eroded.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  256. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    Tucker Carlson did a segment recently that is stirring up quite a bit of controversy. In it, he alludes to a major condition, that men need to earn more than women, and describes how this condition is being eroded.

    I don’t entirely agree with Tucker on this point. He is still assuming that women (rather than men) are shying away from marriage, but I haven’t actually seen any evidence of this. But let’s assume FSA that it’s true, Tucker at least places the blame where it belongs: on treacherous elites that have subjected WCWM to vicious competition from immigrants and foreign sweatshop labor. WCWM are losing hope, and women see this, but often don’t properly understand the reasons. It’s one thing to marry a poor man; it’s another to marry a poor man with no hope, no plan, and no vision for a better future.

    http://time.com/5491587/koch-brothers-network-immigration-reform/

    Under ordinary circumstances, women’s preference for men who earn more than they do (assuming that is indeed their preference) wouldn’t be a problem. Indeed, I don’t think men want to marry women who make no than them, either.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  257. Anonymous[202] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Carlson says that the decline is due to the fact that women do not want to marry men who earn less than they do. He points to the decline in manufacturing jobs for men as contributing to the decline in male earnings, but he doesn’t say this is the ultimate cause. Even if men had all the manufacturing jobs in the world, if they did not pay more than women earn, they would not resolve the issue of male marriageability. Women would either have to be excluded from professions that pay more than male manufacturing jobs, or they would have to be paid less than male manufacturing workers for white collar work. There is also a large class of male workers who earn less than manufacturing labor, doing stuff like being drivers, hanging drywall, construction, food service, cooks, waiters, clerks, mining, mechanics, maintenance, lawn care, etc. Again, to make this class marriageable, women would have to be excluded from higher paying employment, or be paid less for it.

    It is hard to imagine women being excluded from non-domestic work like this, or being paid less than low wage earning men for professional work, any time soon, so we should expect this decline to continue.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  258. @Autochthon

    Men deprived of the succor of women, wither and die.

  259. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    Even if men had all the manufacturing jobs in the world, if they did not pay more than women earn, they would not resolve the issue of male marriageability.

    You need to use a proper handle. I’m certain I’ve had this same conversation with you before, troll.

    There is no reason to assume that construction workers, cab drivers, and landscapers would earn less than hairdressers waitresses, nurses assistants, etc. in the absence of wage-depressing immigration. To speculate about it is merely borrowing trouble, and unnecessary conflict, but then that’s a feature not a bug, isn’t it? Your aim is to divide White men and women.

    Now, you know (hopefully) that it is not only manufacturing jobs, but also middle-class tech jobs that have been outsourced. These are precisely the jobs that were promised to displaced workers when all of this kicked into high gear after the end of the Cold War, and they are jobs overwhelmingly preferred by men.

    BTW, where is your proof that women are responsible for the decline of marriage? I’ve e asking for such evidence for like a year now, and have still seen none.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  260. Kemerd says:

    Another right wing idiot! What this has to do with left or marx. Did he actually read one of his works

    Besides his statistics knowledge is also lacking. One cannot increase the likelihood of desired outcome with a larger sample. Indeed, it might very well disprove your theory.

  261. res says:
    @Liza

    If men and women truly appreciated each other’s contributions to our continued life as a race or ethnic group, and showed that gratitude sincerely, none of this hatred or resentment would occur. I do think that feminism gained a following at least in the early days, though, because men were not grateful. I heard so many awful stories from grandparents, etc. about men’s treatment of women.

    Thanks for this very reasonable statement in an increasingly unreasonable thread. Two thoughts:

    1. As you noted in another comment, the pendulum has swung very far. I think it is reasonable to have issues with its current position.
    2. Awful stories are everywhere, with a variety of villains. You are probably right about the balance in those days, but always be aware of the relative prevalence of different stories and how much the media megaphone affects our perception of that.

    Vive la différence!

    • Agree: Talha, Liza
  262. Anonymous[381] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    There is no reason to assume that construction workers, cab drivers, and landscapers would earn less than hairdressers waitresses, nurses assistants, etc. in the absence of wage-depressing immigration.

    Are you suggesting that women would only be allowed to be hairdressers, waitresses, nurses, etc., and only at wages below that of the lowest paid male work in landscaping, construction, driving, etc.?

    Currently women do lots of white collar and professional work that pays more than waitressing and nursing and pays more than lots of male work. So if women only find higher earning men to be marriageable, then in order to make the lowest earning class of men marriageable, women would have to be either prevented from the higher paying jobs, or they would have to be paid less than the lowest earning class of men, regardless of their jobs. For example, women either would not be allowed to be doctors or lawyers, or women doctors and lawyers would have to be paid less than male janitors and the like.

    Or you’d have to have some sort of caste like system, where the lowest earning class of men have a sufficient pool of prospective wives who either don’t work or do menial labor that pays less than the men and basically aren’t allowed to marry up higher than this lowest class of men. Remember that, even though a construction worker might earn more than a waitress and thus be more marriageable and acceptable to the waitress than if he made less, he’s typically not an ideal catch for the waitress, and a doctor, lawyer, CEO etc. is going to be preferred by the waitress.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  263. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    Remember that, even though a construction worker might earn more than a waitress and thus be more marriageable and acceptable to the waitress than if he made less, he’s typically not an ideal catch for the waitress, and a doctor, lawyer, CEO etc. is going to be preferred by the waitress.

    That’s why the lawyer should only be allowed one wife (for life). He’s not going to pick the waitress.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  264. Anonymous[431] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Why wouldn’t a lawyer marry a waitress? Unlike women, men do not care about women’s jobs and earnings. Most men prefer attractive waitresses to plain lawyers or doctors.

    Since it seems that you don’t want all men to be able to earn more than women, but you also don’t want the lower classes of men to be completely unmarriageable, I would think you want some sort of caste society in which the lower classes of men have a pool of available women who aren’t allowed to marry up.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  265. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    Unlike women, men do not care about women’s jobs and earnings. Most men prefer attractive waitresses to plain lawyers or doctors.

    I don’t know what planet you live on, but here on planet Earth, waitresses don’t marry lawyers. I know all sorts of lawyers and I can assure you none of their spouses are waitresses or in any other blue-collar occupation. If you have some empirical evidence to the contrary, I’ll be happy to take a look.

    Now, shouldn’t you be getting ready for Shabbat or something?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  266. Anonymous[297] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    I didn’t say lawyers tend to marry waitresses. I said that men do not care about a woman’s job and earnings, whereas women do care about men’s jobs and earnings. A male lawyer who marries a female lawyer or doctor is generally not doing so because she’s a doctor or lawyer.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-who-marries-whom/

    High-earning women (doctors, lawyers) tend to pair up with their economic equals, while middle- and lower-tier women often marry up. In other words, female CEOs tend to marry other CEOs; male CEOs are OK marrying their secretaries.

    Women prefer marrying up, so as women get more educated and earn more, the class of men who are less educated and earn less becomes less marriageable. If you want this class of men to be marriageable, they would have to earn more than women, which would entail women being excluded from high paying occupations altogether or being paid less in those occupations than low earning men are paid. Or you have to have some sort of caste set up where the lower class of men have access to a pool of women who are not allowed to marry up.

    https://ifstudies.org/blog/better-educated-women-still-prefer-higher-earning-husbands

    With women now surpassing men in educational attainment, and the most educated women more likely to be married, it seems reasonable to assume that a husband’s income would be less important to the marriage contract than in the past, particularly for women with advanced degrees. But recent research indicates that is not the case: male breadwinning continues to be central to not only marriage formation but also marital stability.

    A new study published in the Journal of Marriage and Family adds to this research by examining how women’s educational advancements in recent decades have impacted marriage patterns among newlywed heterosexual couples. It found that “the tendency for women to marry men with higher incomes has persisted.”

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  267. @Anonymous

    ANONYMOUS

    This is the reason for the huge white underclass. The white women who have children young and with any white male are usually poor, uneducated, often dim and inclined to terrible choices.

    Educated women who marry up have far fewer children, but these children have far more resources.

    Ultimately the white middle class is disappearing. There are wealth and upper middle class whites and then a vast white underclass from the bottom of society who are born to women who are young, promiscuous and none to bright.

  268. Gorp says:
    @Anonymous

    If you want to hunt rabbits, don’t ask a rabbit how to do it, ask a fox

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Lance Welton Comments via RSS