RSS
Trainwreck is a Judd Apatow-directed romantic comedy in which Amy Schumer plays an alcoholic who reluctantly comes around to deciding to give up a life of one-night stands with professional wrestlers and other random muscleheads and instead settle for the love of a nice guy who happens to be one of the world’s highest paid surgeons. In the NYT, Manohla Dargis praises Schumer’s character as a feminist role model, but is so worried that the film’s ultimate message — that after a decade and a half of having blackout drunk sex with lowbrow steroid-abusing strangers, a 34-year old woman should consider resigning herself to monogamy with a devoted celebrity surgeon — is sexist that she just ignores it.
Review: ‘Trainwreck’ Delivers the Full Amy Schumer Experience
NYT Critics’ Pick
By MANOHLA DARGIS JULY 16, 2015Amy Schumer is my kind of superhero — she stops haters dead. As fans of her Comedy Central show, “Inside Amy Schumer,” know, there’s almost nothing that anyone can say about women, her included, that she hasn’t already said herself. Her powers of deflection are the perfect approach in a neofeminist moment in which women are calling out sexists, sometimes against vicious pushback. Think that she’s not thin enough or pretty enough? She intercepts hateful slurs like those and turns them into ferocious comedy gold that exposes chauvinism as the absurdity it is. She can’t be stereotyped away as a sourpuss who just needs to chill out, lie back and smile. She’s already smiling, and she’s killing it, joke after joke.
In “Trainwreck,” Ms. Schumer plays, well, Amy, a more vanilla version of one of her comically flawed women, who aren’t as remotely together as they think or may appear to be. The movie, which was directed by Judd Apatow from her script, is often extremely funny, even if it never approaches the radicalness of her greatest, most dangerous work. …
Ms. Schumer drew on her own life for the story, which she turned into something of a sexual bildungsroman cum romantic comedy jumping with pop-cultural references and edged with razored social cultural critique. …
“Trainwreck” is pretty straight stuff: Amy likes to have sex with men and isn’t interested in monogamy. That makes her like a lot of women (studies show!), if not like those who generally flounder through the average dippy romantic comedy, where gender norms are rigorously enforced and the only things contemporary about the characters are their designer threads and gadgets. What’s energizing and exciting about Amy, especially when compared with the sexless cuties populating rom-coms, in which female pleasure is often expressed through shopping, is that her erotic appetites aren’t problems that she needs to narratively solve and vanquish. She likes sex, thanks, as an early montage of her shuffling through various men nicely illustrates. …
… its jokes about race don’t have the penetrating wit that her material on sex and gender does. Like a lot of white people, Ms. Schumer can fumble when latching onto race …
In “Trainwreck,” as in her best work elsewhere, Ms. Schumer is at her strongest when she insists that women aren’t distressed damsels but — as they toddle, walk and race in the highest of heels, the tightest of skirts, the sexiest, mightiest of poses — the absolute agents of their lives and desires.
In her rush to write the definitive You Go, Girl review of Trainwreck, Ms. Dargis seems to have overlooked the film’s title.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
One difference from real life: Real Amy Schumer not married to nice-guy world-renowned surgeon.
“Review: ‘Trainwreck’ Delivers the Full Amy Schumer Experience”
The full experience? Such as an STD? Do the theater-seats give you herpes?
“Trainwreck” – in Skankaround!
Apatow’s movies seem to be devoted to promoting the Big Lie that is this message to impressionable young people, as if ordinary young women can burn up their youth and fertility and snag surgeon husbands at the tail end of their fertile years, when even women like Charlize Theron and Sharon Stone end up being childless middle aged women these days.
Both have adopted children--Stone has three white ones and Theron one African one.Replies: @Anonymous, @Chris, @becausenonsc, @Romanian
…. the average dippy romantic comedy, where gender norms are rigorously enforced and the only things contemporary about the characters are their designer threads and gadgets.
Yes, the only difference between the romantic comedies of today and those of the Cary Grant, Grace Kelly era is the clothes and accessories. Sure.
…. women aren’t distressed damsels but — as they toddle, walk and race in the highest of heels, the tightest of skirts, the sexiest, mightiest of poses — the absolute agents of their lives and desires.
I wonder if the NYT writer really sees things this way when she turns away from her keyboard and deals with her close friends and relatives? Again, I doubt it. That’s one reason the era of mass media just has to end if we’re going to survive as a species: it’s just too easy, profitable and fun to give terrible advice to people you’ll never meet.
http://youtu.be/gpaOy8b8X6A
Steve, serious question: I know you like movies, but I find it hard to believe that you actually pay to go see minor movies like this at the theater. It’d be one thing if it was on TV or something so you just watched it, but it’s hard to understand paying to go see it. Hardly anyone goes to the theater to see stuff like this these days except for kids. Most people these days, especially bright people like yourself, go to the movies for tentpoles or “serious” Oscar contender type movies.
Is it for blogging material? Or is it an LA thing?
Steve, did you watch and review Chappie? If so, thoughts?
The left seems to embrace an idea I have come to call “heroic promiscuity.”
Dargis is so caught up in rhapsodizing about it that she doesn’t see much else.
It’s consequences of disease, illegitimacy, divorce, psychological damage to women – these don’t register to liberals. Or they get blamed on conservatives, the way they blame the AIDS crisis on Reagan.
There’s a contradiction where the left hates laissez faire, except for when it comes to the sexual marketplace, where they celebrate it. (A more extreme form even, since we are talking about just social stigma rather than government regulation.)
But laissez faire has the same problems in sex as it does in economics: radical inequality. That some people will make bad decisions and lose everything, while others will win completely.
Free markets in economics lead to inequality, but at least it serves a social purpose. Competition means the people who get rich will do so, usually, because they are offering the best goods and services. There are all sorts of abuses and excesses, but the core idea is sound.
Letting Bill Gates get rich serves some social purpose. But how does society benefit by someone like Hugh Hefner get rich in the sexual marketplace?
Then on the other side there are the losers; some black girl in the inner city gets pregnant at 15, and others die of AIDS. Children grow up in broken families. Average men hard a time finding wives, and if they do they stand a good chance at getting divorced.
The left claims to believe in equality, but sexual lassaiz faire can never lead to equality.
I have some sympathy for the old-line workers left. Basically an argument about divying up the surplus from production.
But the entire model of the modern left is utter idiocy. Social libertinism and then a high tax welfare state throwing money--fairly uselessly--at the debris generated by the libertinism? That makes sense! It's like saying "we're all in the same boat!" ... but then there's no captain, no rules, everyone doing whatever they feel like. A recipe for sinking not sailing.
even women like Charlize Theron and Sharon Stone end up being childless middle aged women these days.
Both have adopted children–Stone has three white ones and Theron one African one.
That kind of drinking is really hard on your looks. If she really spent a decade living that hard she wouldn’t have a chance with a wealthy surgeon. Leaving aside, for the moment, the fact that she’s pretty much aged out of the dating high end by that point anyway.
Movies — very much in the business of Not Noticing.
Any book, article, essay, review, song lyric, monograph or bubblegum card in which the word “hater” appears, unironically, is not worth reading. Even when it’s used ironically, you’re probably better off curled up with a good supermarket flyer or ingredient panel.
I agree. "Hater" is a stupid word. It makes anyone who uses it sound stupid.
Dargis is so caught up in rhapsodizing about it that she doesn't see much else.
It's consequences of disease, illegitimacy, divorce, psychological damage to women - these don't register to liberals. Or they get blamed on conservatives, the way they blame the AIDS crisis on Reagan.
There's a contradiction where the left hates laissez faire, except for when it comes to the sexual marketplace, where they celebrate it. (A more extreme form even, since we are talking about just social stigma rather than government regulation.)
But laissez faire has the same problems in sex as it does in economics: radical inequality. That some people will make bad decisions and lose everything, while others will win completely.
Free markets in economics lead to inequality, but at least it serves a social purpose. Competition means the people who get rich will do so, usually, because they are offering the best goods and services. There are all sorts of abuses and excesses, but the core idea is sound.
Letting Bill Gates get rich serves some social purpose. But how does society benefit by someone like Hugh Hefner get rich in the sexual marketplace?
Then on the other side there are the losers; some black girl in the inner city gets pregnant at 15, and others die of AIDS. Children grow up in broken families. Average men hard a time finding wives, and if they do they stand a good chance at getting divorced.
The left claims to believe in equality, but sexual lassaiz faire can never lead to equality.Replies: @benjaminl, @AnotherDad
that’s a major theme of Houellebecq’s in The Elementary Particles.
Like a lot of art made by Jews, Schumer’s work is less about what it pretends to be about and almost totally about spitting in the face of the Christian majority. Her focus on flouting sexual convention is almost entirely anti-Christian. If Christianity changed tomorrow to be about abstaining from bubblegum instead of pre-maritial sex, Schumer would change her focus to being about popping bubbles all day.
This is why a lot of Jewish art is frozen in a permanent state of immaturity, from the juvenile raps of the Beastie Boys to the eternally sophomoric Howard Stern to the countless comedians who rely on shock more than humor. It’s more about sticking it to Christians than it is about creating something original or multi-dimensional.
What surprises me is that people take this at face value and don’t see it for what it is. There is a massive amount of bigotry, paranoia, and resentment in the Jewish community when it comes to anything Christian. Call it Christianophobia. So much of what Jews produce comes from this worldview. I’m guessing that only reason this isn’t spoken about more is that any writer who attempted to bring it into the mainstream would be branded and anti-Semite and blacklisted.
OH, there's that bit in a Woody Allen film, Annie Hall, I think, where he goes on about his Jewish childhood filled with socialism/communism indoctrination youth camps. Is that stuff really true?Replies: @SFG, @Jack D, @HA
Original (Industrial) Global Warming Sin; Original White (Racism) Sin; Original (Beta Male White desire) sexual sin; these are all profoundly Christian ideas purged of that troublesome figure, Jesus Christ. And the vast majority of Post Christians are indeed, not Jewish in origin but mostly Puritan stock who converted from the Old Religion to the new, improved, find-the-witch Post Christian one.
Fun Fact: those who pioneered "breaking monogamy" were in fact, Christians from the Burnt Over District in Upstate New York: the Oneida Community believed in free love and "complex marriage" and it doesn't get more Christian than the Oneida Community. Joseph Smith came out of Upstate New York too.
All this anti-Jewish stuff is just a way for people of Puritan background to avoid dealing with their culture's flaws and power, combined. Puritans are a mighty force, as organized as the Japanese, as intellectual as the Germans, and as collectively minded as the Scandinavians provoking a Munchian Scream. That gives them great power, and often great morality: good treatment of women, animals, free education, but makes them tend to hang elderly Quaker women for preaching the wrong gospel, or pursue "racism" or "smash monogamy" to create the perfect heaven on Earth in a sea of wickedness.
Trainwreck is perfectly in line with Utopian Puritan ideals to create a new "better" morality based on sleeping around. See that most Christian of Poets, William Blake, and his view that marriage was a prison, and his patron Mary Wollstonecroft, Feminist Zero.
It's un-Christian, but it's also un-Jewish and un-every other religion in history.
Promiscuous sex is no more permissible in Judaism than it is in Christianity (even today Jewish rates of illegitimacy are very low, though this probably has more to do with Jews being more organized about things like birth control and getting early abortions than any difference in the rate of sexual activity outside of marriage).
People like Schumer, Dunham, Handler, etc. can't really be though of as Jews or Christians or 1/2 and 1/2 - what they really are are products of a post-religious society, where there is no longer any God who is watching what you do, so you do whatever you feel like. Or you could view them as worshipers of the new religion of Secular Modernism or Cultural Marxism or whatever you would like to call it. Since this is an iconoclastic religion, you do whatever the opposite of the conventional morality says, but they don't think of the conventional morality (which is also known as JUDEO-Christian ethics) as being particularly Christian (as I said before, they don't even know many Christians) - their Jewish grandmothers would no more approve of their whoring around than any evangelical minister would. The Ten Commandments are found in the Hebrew Bible, not the New Testament. Many of those who laid out the tenets of, and ascribe to, the new religion were people who were born as Jews but, like early Christians, they (or even their parents or grandparents) converted to the new religion and their acts and beliefs must be assigned to that new religion and not to "the Jews". Even if these people say they are Jews, they ain't really, not in any meaningful sense. There are plenty of believers in the New Religion who are not the slightest bit Jewish but who have exactly the same beliefs and act in the same way as Schumer. Look at her cheerleader Dargis - is she Jewish too?Replies: @Days of Broken Arrows, @Cagey Beast, @Mr. Anon, @Busby
One reason why feminists promote a narrative of Heroic Promiscuity is because of the so called double standard: men are considered more attractive if they are promiscuous, while women are seen as less attractive if promiscuous.
Feminists are faced with two way of trying to equalize this. To stigmatize promiscuity among both sexes, or to promote it among both by a narrative of Heroic Promiscuity.
Stigmatizing promiscuity actually promotes equal distribution of sexual affection. It means those who have gotten less sex are more attractive, putting them in position to get more.
Men who are sexually successful appeal to women’s base instincts. Society can try to compensate for that by stigmatizing such men. This is what traditional morality does, it’s what society is supposed to do: control our instincts. It’s not much, but it helps give chaste men (or beta males) a fighting chance in the sexual marketplace. Such stigma promotes equality.
On the other hand, promoting a narrative of Heroic Promiscuity means the sexual rich get richer, and the sexual poor get poorer.
Feminists claim to believe in equality, but choose to promote Heroic Promiscuity. Why? Because destroying traditional morality is more important to them than equality is. Because the main beneficiaries of stigma on promiscuity are unattractive men. And because Heroic Promiscuity is a key part of their secular substitute for religion. Sex without limits, sex without guilt: what could possibly go wrong?
Wow, what a cool, sex-positive mom, you might think. The children who grew up in her household must have had a blast.
But then look at what happened to her younger son, the atheist Jon Garth Murray. He never moved away from home, and he apparently never had a girlfriend. I talked to two people who knew Madalyn and her family circa 1990, and they independently told me their suspicions about Jon's adult virginity.
The fact that Madalyn, Jon and his niece Robin (the daughter of Madalyn's older son William) all lived together, and that Jon and Robin didn't have relationships outside the home, probably contributed to the decision by David Waters and his accomplices to abduct, extort and then murder all three of them. Waters, who had worked for Madalyn briefly in her American Atheists organization, knew that no girlfriend or boyfriend would become alarmed by their disappearance and pressure the police to investigate.
What a letdown. Madalyn's sexual utopia didn't exist under her own roof, and her son and granddaughter had to live like sexually abstinent Christians through the end of their lives.Replies: @Mr. Anon
Men are slowly coming to realize the reality of the current sexual marketplace. To whit, see this cartoon (NSFW):
https://rationalmale.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/open_hypergamy_cartoon.jpgReplies: @advancedatheist
Hmm... maybe TMI.
Both have adopted children--Stone has three white ones and Theron one African one.Replies: @Anonymous, @Chris, @becausenonsc, @Romanian
Yes I know they have adopted children.
Both have adopted children--Stone has three white ones and Theron one African one.Replies: @Anonymous, @Chris, @becausenonsc, @Romanian
They don’t have children.
I had heard of Schumer but never saw her work before today, when I went to the movie on Steve’s recommendation.
It was pretty good. And though Schumer isn’t in Gal Gadot’s league, she’s attractive enough.
Madalyn Murray O’Hair in her Playboy interview back in the 1960’s (findable online) says that girls should have the freedom to become sexually active as early as 13, and boys at 15.
Wow, what a cool, sex-positive mom, you might think. The children who grew up in her household must have had a blast.
But then look at what happened to her younger son, the atheist Jon Garth Murray. He never moved away from home, and he apparently never had a girlfriend. I talked to two people who knew Madalyn and her family circa 1990, and they independently told me their suspicions about Jon’s adult virginity.
The fact that Madalyn, Jon and his niece Robin (the daughter of Madalyn’s older son William) all lived together, and that Jon and Robin didn’t have relationships outside the home, probably contributed to the decision by David Waters and his accomplices to abduct, extort and then murder all three of them. Waters, who had worked for Madalyn briefly in her American Atheists organization, knew that no girlfriend or boyfriend would become alarmed by their disappearance and pressure the police to investigate.
What a letdown. Madalyn’s sexual utopia didn’t exist under her own roof, and her son and granddaughter had to live like sexually abstinent Christians through the end of their lives.
Manohla Dargis sounds like a real twerp. I had never read much of her reviews but I assumed that, being the reviewer for the NY Times, she was liberal in a somewhat serious, old-fashioned way. But Steve’s latest takedowns seem to indicate she is as frivolous and absurd as the average Slate/Salon writer.
Like Dargis, ironically, many of the commenters here also seem to be ignoring the implications of the film’s title. I haven’t seen the movie or much of Schumer’s comedy, but it seems clear that she is not celebrating her promiscuity uncritically but rather showing it in a comically self-deprecating manner.
… its jokes about race don’t have the penetrating wit that her material on sex and gender does. Like a lot of white people, Ms. Schumer can fumble when latching onto race …
Whereas non-white people invariably hit the bullseye when “latching onto race”… Those non-racial whites, trying to talk about something they don’t know and have never never observed. What is Dargis’ ethnicity by the way, Brazilian mixed-race?
Any book, article, essay, review, song lyric, monograph or bubblegum card in which the word “hater” appears, unironically, is not worth reading.
I practically did a double-take when I saw that in Dargis’ first line. It’s roughly the rhetorical equivalent of “poopy head”.
“Any book, article, essay, review, song lyric, monograph or bubblegum card in which the word “hater” appears, unironically, is not worth reading.”
I agree. “Hater” is a stupid word. It makes anyone who uses it sound stupid.
This is why a lot of Jewish art is frozen in a permanent state of immaturity, from the juvenile raps of the Beastie Boys to the eternally sophomoric Howard Stern to the countless comedians who rely on shock more than humor. It's more about sticking it to Christians than it is about creating something original or multi-dimensional.
What surprises me is that people take this at face value and don't see it for what it is. There is a massive amount of bigotry, paranoia, and resentment in the Jewish community when it comes to anything Christian. Call it Christianophobia. So much of what Jews produce comes from this worldview. I'm guessing that only reason this isn't spoken about more is that any writer who attempted to bring it into the mainstream would be branded and anti-Semite and blacklisted.Replies: @stillCARealist, @Whiskey, @SFG, @Jack D
Are Jewish children taught this specifically? I’ve heard what you’re talking about from other people and I just have to wonder. You’d think Jews and Christians would be allies, sharing the Old Testament in common and all. But they seem to despise Christianity more than anything else. Is it just the really secular ones?
OH, there’s that bit in a Woody Allen film, Annie Hall, I think, where he goes on about his Jewish childhood filled with socialism/communism indoctrination youth camps. Is that stuff really true?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmpH5GNcLvA
Well put. It’s pretty under-discussed how the so called “Sexual Revolution” did not live up to its promise of plenty of sex for most men — it has instead resulted in plenty of sexual relations for the most attractive men, and the rest having to do with used goods, and many others without nothing.
Men are slowly coming to realize the reality of the current sexual marketplace. To whit, see this cartoon (NSFW):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19493289and,Prevalence and predictors of sexual inexperience in adulthood.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23900992Why don't sexologists really want to know about this phenomenon, especially if it becomes a significant social trend, like the ridiculous numbers of adult male virgins in Japan? Because it might involve Noticing the roles played by feminism and the ideology of women's sexual freedom in the process of male exclusion from sexual relationships?
I think it’s interesting that middle aged men don’t like the movie and hate Schmidt . That tells you something right there
yeah, that comment about how women want to have sex with men and aren’t interested in monogamy. How wronger could she be? Sure, women want “sex” with Mr. Perfect, but they also crave monogamy. And I mean right now. It starts about age 18 and doesn’t let up until monogamy has been achieved. And “sex”? No, they want intimacy and stimulation, not necessarily penetration, which can be painful before having children (and wonderful after).
Hmm… maybe TMI.
The manosphere will have a field day with this movie.
This reads like the recurring theme of Rational Male, the Cock Carousel Rider who comes to an epiphany in her 30s after discovering the train of bad boy losers has begin to overlook her and go with younger, tighter versions of her. She then shifts her hypergamic urge from “Alpha Fux” to “Beta Bux” and settles for the boring provider type.
And now this becomes the modern Cinderella tale, a brain surgeon in shining armor, Captain Sav A Ho, comes along loves her for her, and carries her off to luxury and security.
Trouble is, there is massive backlash because often this tale ends up with a second epiphany, usually after the hook has been set in the sucker with a child, and our Heroine goes out on an Eat, Pray, Love binge after divorce raping the sucker in the court. And really, doctors fall prey to this because they are usually quite beta, bookworms.
Back in the day, there was this web site floating around called the Sunday Morning Nightclub. This guy was a classic target for the type of woman that was considered a “Born Again Virgin”, a carousel rider who found Jesus in her early thirties, shut off the easy sex, and attempted to lure a sucker into marriage. So he would go to a new church, join the singles classes, scope out the women that always came to church showing cleavage, then drop his bonafides as a beta provider. He would basically steer them along, have relationships, usually sexual ones (“I don’t normally do this” would be a common thing the woman would say). Then he would dump them. All he would really have to do was at some point just say something like, “I don’t see myself as the marrying type.” The site disappeared after what he was doing became more public. His rationale was he using up this predator woman’s last harrah and preventing her from reeking havoc on some poor defenseless church boy who mistook this new found attention as validation for the life success he had attained.
But now we know-the woman that pursues this path that the Trainwreck follows is damaged, low impulse control, bad future sense, a trunk full of various mental issues, solipsistic, probably an alpha widow, totally void of the ability to bond in the way a less traveled, less damaged woman should. Graphs associate N count with divorce probability and it doesn’t take many to make a woman a high risk. (Feminists graph out at the highest risk. Some put it at 80%.) So the manosphere teaches all sorts of ways to derive the possible N count, all without direct questions, evaluation of her tales, her life experiences, etc. I can go on about STDs, reduced fecundity as a function of that lifestyle, but to make a long story short, any man that would marry a single 30 something woman is statistically making a mistake.
Men should join this new movement of insisting on women with demonstrably low numbers of premarital sexual experience. I call it:
The Few Fux Fan
Men should join this new movement of insisting on women with demonstrably low numbers of premarital sexual experience. I call it:
The Few Fux Fan"
haha cute but how exactly will these women be demonstrating those low numbers??
More importantly, what exactly is your advice to young women? It sounds like you are saying something like "get married and have babies in your twenties and since you all can't get or even deserve the alpha male, and the betas have yet to prove their worth as providers, well you'll just have to guess wildly, just don't delay!"
Or maybe what you are saying is "get married in your early 20s and as far as the fact that males are not ready or interested in marriage at that age the solution is you should marry a guy in his 30s ready to provide you with a home for your family which you should start working on immediately"
Is that it?Replies: @Mark Minter
The divorce data i've seen are pretty clear. Your her first, she'll likely bond with you very well, and your chance of divorce is only about 2o%--basically "picked the wrong person" territory. After just one previous partner, the divorce rate is 40%+, though it stays in that 40-50% range for 1-4 partners--your "few fux". After that it goes off another cliff, and is well above 50%. Given what divorce rape does to a guy ... why bother? At some number approaching 10, it's just a complete joke. The gal has demonstrated her fundamental sexuality is chasing the thrill of the alpha and she's long ago burned out any real bonding capability. Getting married is just signing up to get divorced. Shoot a few loads into her and move on--that's all she's good for.
The fact is there are still plenty of young women who are interested in getting married, having kids and would be more than happy to just have sex just with their special guy, who becomes their husband. You read these little stories--like the phony "rapes"--and it's clear that many young women are unhappy and just confused. They have sex and want it to mean something. When it doesn't they are upset.
What's needed is really twofold:
1) Pretty obviously, end divorce rape with default joint custody--mom and dad split the kids time and providing (hey, that's equality!)--no special deal for the wife, no child support, none of dad's money going to a wife who is no longer doing her wifely duty.
2) But at the front end, young men, being judgmental and just not marrying non-virgins. Hey, you've been outing hooking up ... great we can hook up. When it comes time for marriage just tell her ... uh, no, not interested in a gal who hooks up with guys. Get even 2o% of the good guys delivering that message and the girl's behavior will radically improve. And with it the prospects for high quality provider "dad" types to have happy lives--and with that provide their wives and kids with happier lives.
Men are slowly coming to realize the reality of the current sexual marketplace. To whit, see this cartoon (NSFW):
https://rationalmale.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/open_hypergamy_cartoon.jpgReplies: @advancedatheist
The PUA bloggers discuss this a lot. Psychologist Roy Baumeister has addressed this as well, though not in his Human Sexuality 101 college textbook. Western sexologists show a real lack of curiosity about the incel and adult male virginity phenomenon, probably because the field has become politicized to promote feminism and normalize deviancy. The handful of studies I’ve seen acknowledge this apparently willful neglect. For example:
Who is the 40-year-old virgin and where did he/she come from? Data from the National Survey of Family Growth.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19493289
and,
Prevalence and predictors of sexual inexperience in adulthood.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23900992
Why don’t sexologists really want to know about this phenomenon, especially if it becomes a significant social trend, like the ridiculous numbers of adult male virgins in Japan? Because it might involve Noticing the roles played by feminism and the ideology of women’s sexual freedom in the process of male exclusion from sexual relationships?
Joe Morgenstern (sp?) of the Wall Street Journal loved it.
This is why a lot of Jewish art is frozen in a permanent state of immaturity, from the juvenile raps of the Beastie Boys to the eternally sophomoric Howard Stern to the countless comedians who rely on shock more than humor. It's more about sticking it to Christians than it is about creating something original or multi-dimensional.
What surprises me is that people take this at face value and don't see it for what it is. There is a massive amount of bigotry, paranoia, and resentment in the Jewish community when it comes to anything Christian. Call it Christianophobia. So much of what Jews produce comes from this worldview. I'm guessing that only reason this isn't spoken about more is that any writer who attempted to bring it into the mainstream would be branded and anti-Semite and blacklisted.Replies: @stillCARealist, @Whiskey, @SFG, @Jack D
Nonsense. Because the Jews are not Jews — they are post-Christians. The same anti-Christian attitude is present even more so among Post-Christians. The whole thing — holy single mother (a Christian not Jewish concept), worship of the Mother Figure (very Pagan/Christian, again not Jewish) and other Female Archetypes: Diana, Athena, Hera as interpreted to be Mary, mother of Jesus, and later various holy single (virgin-ish) single mothers? That’s the zeal of a convert to the new Post-Christianity like, oh I dunno, Laurie David. Or Cheryl Crowe. Or Hillary Clinton.
Original (Industrial) Global Warming Sin; Original White (Racism) Sin; Original (Beta Male White desire) sexual sin; these are all profoundly Christian ideas purged of that troublesome figure, Jesus Christ. And the vast majority of Post Christians are indeed, not Jewish in origin but mostly Puritan stock who converted from the Old Religion to the new, improved, find-the-witch Post Christian one.
Fun Fact: those who pioneered “breaking monogamy” were in fact, Christians from the Burnt Over District in Upstate New York: the Oneida Community believed in free love and “complex marriage” and it doesn’t get more Christian than the Oneida Community. Joseph Smith came out of Upstate New York too.
All this anti-Jewish stuff is just a way for people of Puritan background to avoid dealing with their culture’s flaws and power, combined. Puritans are a mighty force, as organized as the Japanese, as intellectual as the Germans, and as collectively minded as the Scandinavians provoking a Munchian Scream. That gives them great power, and often great morality: good treatment of women, animals, free education, but makes them tend to hang elderly Quaker women for preaching the wrong gospel, or pursue “racism” or “smash monogamy” to create the perfect heaven on Earth in a sea of wickedness.
Trainwreck is perfectly in line with Utopian Puritan ideals to create a new “better” morality based on sleeping around. See that most Christian of Poets, William Blake, and his view that marriage was a prison, and his patron Mary Wollstonecroft, Feminist Zero.
Apatow’s movies are quite interesting. In that they tend to propagandize things that both sexes have rejected, utterly.
Women are NOT flocking to marry up nerdy man-boys. Indeed Katherine Heigl found it quite offensive that her character WOULD marry someone played by Seth Rogen. Even though Rogen was and is ten times the star she is; the sexual marketplace disparity was too great for her to handle. Movie after movie, from Superbad to Knocked Up to This Is Forty extols the Beta Male to attractive women.
And universally attractive women reject the message of the virtue of settling for Beta Males. Indeed Feminism has been wildly successful in gaining female adherents, because it allows average women the ability to have sex with Alphas (but not commitment — Bill Clinton did not marry Monica Lewinsky). Most women are fine with that.
Will most beta male White men see the movie and decide to “marry up that ho!” Uh … no.
Schumer herself is overweight for Hollywood. Suggesting she no longer cares, unlike Gwyneth Paltrow, Jennifer Aniston, Sandra Bullock, etc. who carefully diet, work out like crazy, and have great plastic surgeons quite probably. Schumer seems more a conduit to do favors to her Uncle Senator Charles Schumer, D-NY than anything else. Want a tax break, intervention with Obama’s Executive Branch? Cast Schumer’s Niece in a Big Role and Push Her VERY VERY HARD. Like fellow fattie Lena Dunham, Schumer seems to rely on relationships more than feminine attractiveness to get her next role. Again problematic. And symptomatic of a Hollywood concerned with insider maneuvering not profits for shareholders.
Amy Schumer in shape MIGHT be considered an acceptable prize for male audiences, maybe, if the male character had significant handicaps. As it is, her character seems a McDonald’s hamburger at Wolfgang Puck prices. I doubt Apatow will get many takers from Beta Males. Marry up a … FAT … woman with a large N count?. Nor is the beta male in the movie much of a prize for the female movie goers. He’s a 100th best choice, if that. Women want the Alpha male, the dominant man who can have any woman he wants. Mr. Big, from Sex and the City. Moody/broody semi-gay vampires, or bondage minded billionaires. Not a wimp settling for a ho.
Long term I think we are going to be resigned to most Whites outside the Upper Class Charles Murray “SuperZips” to be r-selected. That is, men compete to be the most sexy singers, dancers, fighters, etc. and invest nothing in children whose paternity is uncertain, and women are single mothers. Marriage will be for … Rich People. Who will pursue it with dynastic intent.
The old, monogamous, nuclear family, with the wife having N < 4, and the man N < 6, is dead. The condom, pill, anonymous urban living, and crucially female-driven consumer spending and advertising killed it.
What's the term for an α on the outside but a β on the inside?
Wesley Morris at Grantland hated this movie.
The actual life of women more than ever justifies the crack by Jack Nicholson’s character in “As Good As It Gets”:
“How do you write women characters so well?”
“I think of a man. Then I take away reason and responsibility.”
Both sexes are irresponsible. The difference now is that feminism wants women to get away with it...and has made marriage so dangerous lots of men don't want to get married.Replies: @Jack D
ok, I'm outta here.
I’ve only seen the trailer to Trainwreck so I can’t comment on that particular movie, but the fact that Manohla (Good God, what a name for a woman) Dargis totally ignores the implications of the title doesn’t surprise me at all. The Sex and the City series had many episodes where the feckless female characters suffered the consequences of their imprudent behavior. However, the characters themselves and female fans following the show generally learned no lessons whatever as a result. The characters went on their unmerry way, and the fans used the travails of the characters as an opportunity to bond cathartically. Dargis is running in the same groove; any heartbreak, anomie, or depression suffered by the film’s titular character can all be blamed on men, culture, society, whatever — it’s no reason to change any of their own attitudes.
On Schumer’s entertainment value I feel I can take/leave her– can’t remember a single funny line associated w/ her but I do think she’s a gifted sketch actress. She’s clearly more talented than the class of mediocre females who came up through recent SNL/Daily Show or “The Office” remake (e.g. Mindy Project, that Kimmy Schmitts person) or the one-note alcoholislut comics e.g. Whitney Cummings. However I tend to doubt she symbolizes any social trends/truths weightier than herself, heh.
This elderly-cheerleader review by Helen Gurley Dargis, on the other hand, is very funny. There are bits in it that will be quoted long after “Trainwreck” gets licensed to Showtime for like a month in 2016
Women are NOT flocking to marry up nerdy man-boys. Indeed Katherine Heigl found it quite offensive that her character WOULD marry someone played by Seth Rogen. Even though Rogen was and is ten times the star she is; the sexual marketplace disparity was too great for her to handle. Movie after movie, from Superbad to Knocked Up to This Is Forty extols the Beta Male to attractive women.
And universally attractive women reject the message of the virtue of settling for Beta Males. Indeed Feminism has been wildly successful in gaining female adherents, because it allows average women the ability to have sex with Alphas (but not commitment -- Bill Clinton did not marry Monica Lewinsky). Most women are fine with that.
Will most beta male White men see the movie and decide to "marry up that ho!" Uh ... no.
Schumer herself is overweight for Hollywood. Suggesting she no longer cares, unlike Gwyneth Paltrow, Jennifer Aniston, Sandra Bullock, etc. who carefully diet, work out like crazy, and have great plastic surgeons quite probably. Schumer seems more a conduit to do favors to her Uncle Senator Charles Schumer, D-NY than anything else. Want a tax break, intervention with Obama's Executive Branch? Cast Schumer's Niece in a Big Role and Push Her VERY VERY HARD. Like fellow fattie Lena Dunham, Schumer seems to rely on relationships more than feminine attractiveness to get her next role. Again problematic. And symptomatic of a Hollywood concerned with insider maneuvering not profits for shareholders.
Amy Schumer in shape MIGHT be considered an acceptable prize for male audiences, maybe, if the male character had significant handicaps. As it is, her character seems a McDonald's hamburger at Wolfgang Puck prices. I doubt Apatow will get many takers from Beta Males. Marry up a ... FAT ... woman with a large N count?. Nor is the beta male in the movie much of a prize for the female movie goers. He's a 100th best choice, if that. Women want the Alpha male, the dominant man who can have any woman he wants. Mr. Big, from Sex and the City. Moody/broody semi-gay vampires, or bondage minded billionaires. Not a wimp settling for a ho.
Long term I think we are going to be resigned to most Whites outside the Upper Class Charles Murray "SuperZips" to be r-selected. That is, men compete to be the most sexy singers, dancers, fighters, etc. and invest nothing in children whose paternity is uncertain, and women are single mothers. Marriage will be for ... Rich People. Who will pursue it with dynastic intent.
The old, monogamous, nuclear family, with the wife having N < 4, and the man N < 6, is dead. The condom, pill, anonymous urban living, and crucially female-driven consumer spending and advertising killed it.Replies: @Kate Minter, @gruff, @Jack D, @Reg Cæsar, @Lurker
I will not characterize myself as a “rich person,” but I have enough that you better believe I am not leaving my daughter’s marriage to whim. She is our only child and will probably remain so. Both our wills leave everything to her. She is one of three total grandchildren on one side and one of two total grandchildren on the other. In both cases, she is the only girl. Girl is set up by four generations of hard workers now to be the dream girl the last three have been hoping for. As a result of my age, learning, and experience, I can now understand exactly what value she offers in a variety of ways, (something I was completely ignorant of in my own regard) and I will not make the mistake of allowing her to be undersold. Building a dynasty? You bet. In our culture, it’s the only action a responsible parent can take.
I can't recall hearing of a girl, with neither a title of nobility nor a spot on a reality show, having so many people caring who she marries.Replies: @Kate Minter
Both have adopted children--Stone has three white ones and Theron one African one.Replies: @Anonymous, @Chris, @becausenonsc, @Romanian
That’s what he said.. childless.
OH, there's that bit in a Woody Allen film, Annie Hall, I think, where he goes on about his Jewish childhood filled with socialism/communism indoctrination youth camps. Is that stuff really true?Replies: @SFG, @Jack D, @HA
The communist camps were more common back in the 70s. I went to the a Jewish-affiliated summer camp for a few years and got no politics (though you could put out a newspaper or be in a play instead of playing…I forget which two sports.)
It’s more of the cultural left, I think–Christianity’s what fuels the cultural right, so they’re natural enemies. But I wouldn’t say the movie’s specifically against the Christian religion per se–is there a priest antagonist or anything like that? Amy Schumer just wants to be able to screw around. It’s un-Christian, of course, but the movie isn’t really about religion being bad.
Oh, I don’t know. Back in the old days, the temperance movement was led by women angry their husbands were drinking the family money away.
Both sexes are irresponsible. The difference now is that feminism wants women to get away with it…and has made marriage so dangerous lots of men don’t want to get married.
New feminism - women have just as much right to get drunk and have sex as men.
New new feminism - if women get blackout drunk and have sex , it's men's fault.Replies: @SFG
Liberal media is using her movie as a teaching moment to inform men that a woman’s partner count is irrelevant.
The various branches of feminism are all dominated by women who are less interested in motherhood than the average so what they preach is weighted for them and might be fine for them but is poisonous to the sort of woman who is kids-first by nature but gets pulled off course by the propaganda.
Within-sex competition is always more cutthroat than between-sex competition. So documents like this are about extolling the virtues of Ms.Dargis’s style of femininity and denigrating a more traditional style of femininity. Not that Ms. Dargis is most likely leaving work to six shots of Cuervo and a professional wrestler every night. No, it’s more like Ms. Dargis goes home to compete with the other Westchester or Park Slope moms, many of whom are younger than her and have less-demanding jobs (or no jobs at all.) Promiscuity per se is probably not what is driving these encomia to Drunken Bachanallia as Liberation; instead, for a media written for and largely by women, the desire to elevate the writer’s own station (as someone who almost definitionally is sacrificing personal and family fulfillment in order to climb the greasy pole) and tear down the competing approaches to social standing, must be ineluctable.
This is why a lot of Jewish art is frozen in a permanent state of immaturity, from the juvenile raps of the Beastie Boys to the eternally sophomoric Howard Stern to the countless comedians who rely on shock more than humor. It's more about sticking it to Christians than it is about creating something original or multi-dimensional.
What surprises me is that people take this at face value and don't see it for what it is. There is a massive amount of bigotry, paranoia, and resentment in the Jewish community when it comes to anything Christian. Call it Christianophobia. So much of what Jews produce comes from this worldview. I'm guessing that only reason this isn't spoken about more is that any writer who attempted to bring it into the mainstream would be branded and anti-Semite and blacklisted.Replies: @stillCARealist, @Whiskey, @SFG, @Jack D
What do the Beastie Boys or Howard Stern have to do with destroying Christianity? They’re people who want to screw around and do what they want–the Rolling Stones, most heavy metal singers, and plenty of outlaw country singers all advocated drinking and screwing without being Jewish.
It’s un-Christian, but it’s also un-Jewish and un-every other religion in history.
Women are NOT flocking to marry up nerdy man-boys. Indeed Katherine Heigl found it quite offensive that her character WOULD marry someone played by Seth Rogen. Even though Rogen was and is ten times the star she is; the sexual marketplace disparity was too great for her to handle. Movie after movie, from Superbad to Knocked Up to This Is Forty extols the Beta Male to attractive women.
And universally attractive women reject the message of the virtue of settling for Beta Males. Indeed Feminism has been wildly successful in gaining female adherents, because it allows average women the ability to have sex with Alphas (but not commitment -- Bill Clinton did not marry Monica Lewinsky). Most women are fine with that.
Will most beta male White men see the movie and decide to "marry up that ho!" Uh ... no.
Schumer herself is overweight for Hollywood. Suggesting she no longer cares, unlike Gwyneth Paltrow, Jennifer Aniston, Sandra Bullock, etc. who carefully diet, work out like crazy, and have great plastic surgeons quite probably. Schumer seems more a conduit to do favors to her Uncle Senator Charles Schumer, D-NY than anything else. Want a tax break, intervention with Obama's Executive Branch? Cast Schumer's Niece in a Big Role and Push Her VERY VERY HARD. Like fellow fattie Lena Dunham, Schumer seems to rely on relationships more than feminine attractiveness to get her next role. Again problematic. And symptomatic of a Hollywood concerned with insider maneuvering not profits for shareholders.
Amy Schumer in shape MIGHT be considered an acceptable prize for male audiences, maybe, if the male character had significant handicaps. As it is, her character seems a McDonald's hamburger at Wolfgang Puck prices. I doubt Apatow will get many takers from Beta Males. Marry up a ... FAT ... woman with a large N count?. Nor is the beta male in the movie much of a prize for the female movie goers. He's a 100th best choice, if that. Women want the Alpha male, the dominant man who can have any woman he wants. Mr. Big, from Sex and the City. Moody/broody semi-gay vampires, or bondage minded billionaires. Not a wimp settling for a ho.
Long term I think we are going to be resigned to most Whites outside the Upper Class Charles Murray "SuperZips" to be r-selected. That is, men compete to be the most sexy singers, dancers, fighters, etc. and invest nothing in children whose paternity is uncertain, and women are single mothers. Marriage will be for ... Rich People. Who will pursue it with dynastic intent.
The old, monogamous, nuclear family, with the wife having N < 4, and the man N < 6, is dead. The condom, pill, anonymous urban living, and crucially female-driven consumer spending and advertising killed it.Replies: @Kate Minter, @gruff, @Jack D, @Reg Cæsar, @Lurker
This is the reason that most people accept gay marriage now. Not because gays are suddenly equal, but because marriage is meaningless.
This is why a lot of Jewish art is frozen in a permanent state of immaturity, from the juvenile raps of the Beastie Boys to the eternally sophomoric Howard Stern to the countless comedians who rely on shock more than humor. It's more about sticking it to Christians than it is about creating something original or multi-dimensional.
What surprises me is that people take this at face value and don't see it for what it is. There is a massive amount of bigotry, paranoia, and resentment in the Jewish community when it comes to anything Christian. Call it Christianophobia. So much of what Jews produce comes from this worldview. I'm guessing that only reason this isn't spoken about more is that any writer who attempted to bring it into the mainstream would be branded and anti-Semite and blacklisted.Replies: @stillCARealist, @Whiskey, @SFG, @Jack D
You couldn’t be more wrong. For someone like Schumer who grew up in Manhattan, Christians just don’t register on their radar. They may grow up without knowing any serious Christian believers (Episcopalian lesbians don’t count). Christians are more cartoon objects of laughter and derision than serious ideological opponents – snake handlers and people who speak in tongues, people who believe that the world was created in 6 days 5,000 years ago. You are not going to define your life in opposition to such hicks and clowns.
Promiscuous sex is no more permissible in Judaism than it is in Christianity (even today Jewish rates of illegitimacy are very low, though this probably has more to do with Jews being more organized about things like birth control and getting early abortions than any difference in the rate of sexual activity outside of marriage).
People like Schumer, Dunham, Handler, etc. can’t really be though of as Jews or Christians or 1/2 and 1/2 – what they really are are products of a post-religious society, where there is no longer any God who is watching what you do, so you do whatever you feel like. Or you could view them as worshipers of the new religion of Secular Modernism or Cultural Marxism or whatever you would like to call it. Since this is an iconoclastic religion, you do whatever the opposite of the conventional morality says, but they don’t think of the conventional morality (which is also known as JUDEO-Christian ethics) as being particularly Christian (as I said before, they don’t even know many Christians) – their Jewish grandmothers would no more approve of their whoring around than any evangelical minister would. The Ten Commandments are found in the Hebrew Bible, not the New Testament. Many of those who laid out the tenets of, and ascribe to, the new religion were people who were born as Jews but, like early Christians, they (or even their parents or grandparents) converted to the new religion and their acts and beliefs must be assigned to that new religion and not to “the Jews”. Even if these people say they are Jews, they ain’t really, not in any meaningful sense. There are plenty of believers in the New Religion who are not the slightest bit Jewish but who have exactly the same beliefs and act in the same way as Schumer. Look at her cheerleader Dargis – is she Jewish too?
And as negative as my above comment sounded, it's not so bad. I wouldn't want a world where everyone fell into lockstep with mainstream Christians -- a culture I also found stifling and close-minded at times while growing up in it. The problem I have is when writers like this New York Times scribe tout someone like Schumer as being more enlightened or liberated. My point is that "enlightenment" is often just masked resentment.
So in a nation that was founded by Christians, has been overwhelmingly christian for its entire history, and in which most of the population is christian, they view Christians as just "cartoons". And that is not hostile? That is not anti-Christian? It is ludicrous to maintain, as you have, that Jews are simply unaware of gentiles. They seem quite aware, and some of them, many of them even, quite often seem to demonstrate a seething hostility towards .
Take another offering of Jud Apatow, for example; "Don't Mess with the Zohan", which he wrote. All of the gentile, christian americans (i.e. just about the entire population of America) are portrayed as nothing but grasping capitalist pricks or stump-toothed red-neck klan members.
You can protest all you want that the entertainment business, which is heavily jewish (or would you also deny that?) is not often openly hostile to gentiles, and christian gentiles specifically, but a lot of us are not buying it. The evidence of that hostility is quite apparent.
"People like Schumer, Dunham, Handler, etc. can’t really be though of as Jews or Christians or 1/2 and 1/2 – what they really are are products of a post-religious society, where there is no longer any God who is watching what you do, so you do whatever you feel like."
That is simply disingenuous. Being jewish is an ethnic affiliatation, not a religion. Surely you are a aware of Jews who openly profess that they do not believe in God, yet keep kosher, the Sabbath, and the Holidays. Schumer pretty clearly self-identifies as jewish. Benjamin Netanyahu has publicly said that he is not a believer; would you dispute that Netanyahu is jewish? The conflation of jewishness with Judaism fools the kind of naive gentiles who watch FOX News or read the National Review, but it doesn't fool people who are HBD aware. I'm surprised you trotted out that nonsense here.
You are getting Apatow totally wrong. People like you are truly ridiculous. What do you think Apatow should do, make stodgy morality tales in which nice people live great lives? Who would learn anything from that? Who would pay to see such a movie?
He’s a popular filmmaker working in the vernacular. He’s a conservative and knows that being a slut is harmful, dangerous and degrading. He makes movies that point these things out directly. Morality tales are always about the redemption of the sinner.
Grow up.
Is the degeneracy on display in the series "Girls" supposed to be morally uplifting?
Apatow's movies aren't morality tales because there is no moral redemption for the sinner by the end of the movie. There is material redemption - the sinner manages to snag a surgeon husband. That's not a morality tale. That's the Big Lie to impressionable young people - that you can have your cake and eat it too.
OH, there's that bit in a Woody Allen film, Annie Hall, I think, where he goes on about his Jewish childhood filled with socialism/communism indoctrination youth camps. Is that stuff really true?Replies: @SFG, @Jack D, @HA
Until the mid 50’s, when the crimes of Stalin became widely known, it was extremely common for New York Jews to be either Socialist, Communist, Trotskyite, etc. (they are not the same thing). Sanders is sort of a last vestige of that era. But by the early ’60s, the Jewish political spectrum shifted to the right (and/or the Democrat Party shifted to the left) and except for a tiny hardcore fringe, most American Jews found a home in that Party and gave up Communism/Socialism (in the sense of actual party membership) and sending their kids to Communist summer camps. In any case, these camps in America were more about singing songs about oppression than making bombs. They were Peter Seeger Communists.
Remember Woody Allen was born in 1935, so he is describing his childhood experiences in the ’40s – 70 years ago. Things have changed a lot since then. So when you say “are” in present tense, the answer is no, not for a long time.
Both sexes are irresponsible. The difference now is that feminism wants women to get away with it...and has made marriage so dangerous lots of men don't want to get married.Replies: @Jack D
Old feminism – no one should get drunk and lose control of their morals.
New feminism – women have just as much right to get drunk and have sex as men.
New new feminism – if women get blackout drunk and have sex , it’s men’s fault.
Promiscuous sex is no more permissible in Judaism than it is in Christianity (even today Jewish rates of illegitimacy are very low, though this probably has more to do with Jews being more organized about things like birth control and getting early abortions than any difference in the rate of sexual activity outside of marriage).
People like Schumer, Dunham, Handler, etc. can't really be though of as Jews or Christians or 1/2 and 1/2 - what they really are are products of a post-religious society, where there is no longer any God who is watching what you do, so you do whatever you feel like. Or you could view them as worshipers of the new religion of Secular Modernism or Cultural Marxism or whatever you would like to call it. Since this is an iconoclastic religion, you do whatever the opposite of the conventional morality says, but they don't think of the conventional morality (which is also known as JUDEO-Christian ethics) as being particularly Christian (as I said before, they don't even know many Christians) - their Jewish grandmothers would no more approve of their whoring around than any evangelical minister would. The Ten Commandments are found in the Hebrew Bible, not the New Testament. Many of those who laid out the tenets of, and ascribe to, the new religion were people who were born as Jews but, like early Christians, they (or even their parents or grandparents) converted to the new religion and their acts and beliefs must be assigned to that new religion and not to "the Jews". Even if these people say they are Jews, they ain't really, not in any meaningful sense. There are plenty of believers in the New Religion who are not the slightest bit Jewish but who have exactly the same beliefs and act in the same way as Schumer. Look at her cheerleader Dargis - is she Jewish too?Replies: @Days of Broken Arrows, @Cagey Beast, @Mr. Anon, @Busby
I was married to a Jewish woman for almost two decades. I was part of the culture, so to speak. I can only report what I saw. And I saw markedly different attitudes towards sex and the way Christians are viewed. Doesn’t matter what the religion says per se; it matters the what the culture surrounding that religion says and does.
And as negative as my above comment sounded, it’s not so bad. I wouldn’t want a world where everyone fell into lockstep with mainstream Christians — a culture I also found stifling and close-minded at times while growing up in it. The problem I have is when writers like this New York Times scribe tout someone like Schumer as being more enlightened or liberated. My point is that “enlightenment” is often just masked resentment.
Women are NOT flocking to marry up nerdy man-boys. Indeed Katherine Heigl found it quite offensive that her character WOULD marry someone played by Seth Rogen. Even though Rogen was and is ten times the star she is; the sexual marketplace disparity was too great for her to handle. Movie after movie, from Superbad to Knocked Up to This Is Forty extols the Beta Male to attractive women.
And universally attractive women reject the message of the virtue of settling for Beta Males. Indeed Feminism has been wildly successful in gaining female adherents, because it allows average women the ability to have sex with Alphas (but not commitment -- Bill Clinton did not marry Monica Lewinsky). Most women are fine with that.
Will most beta male White men see the movie and decide to "marry up that ho!" Uh ... no.
Schumer herself is overweight for Hollywood. Suggesting she no longer cares, unlike Gwyneth Paltrow, Jennifer Aniston, Sandra Bullock, etc. who carefully diet, work out like crazy, and have great plastic surgeons quite probably. Schumer seems more a conduit to do favors to her Uncle Senator Charles Schumer, D-NY than anything else. Want a tax break, intervention with Obama's Executive Branch? Cast Schumer's Niece in a Big Role and Push Her VERY VERY HARD. Like fellow fattie Lena Dunham, Schumer seems to rely on relationships more than feminine attractiveness to get her next role. Again problematic. And symptomatic of a Hollywood concerned with insider maneuvering not profits for shareholders.
Amy Schumer in shape MIGHT be considered an acceptable prize for male audiences, maybe, if the male character had significant handicaps. As it is, her character seems a McDonald's hamburger at Wolfgang Puck prices. I doubt Apatow will get many takers from Beta Males. Marry up a ... FAT ... woman with a large N count?. Nor is the beta male in the movie much of a prize for the female movie goers. He's a 100th best choice, if that. Women want the Alpha male, the dominant man who can have any woman he wants. Mr. Big, from Sex and the City. Moody/broody semi-gay vampires, or bondage minded billionaires. Not a wimp settling for a ho.
Long term I think we are going to be resigned to most Whites outside the Upper Class Charles Murray "SuperZips" to be r-selected. That is, men compete to be the most sexy singers, dancers, fighters, etc. and invest nothing in children whose paternity is uncertain, and women are single mothers. Marriage will be for ... Rich People. Who will pursue it with dynastic intent.
The old, monogamous, nuclear family, with the wife having N < 4, and the man N < 6, is dead. The condom, pill, anonymous urban living, and crucially female-driven consumer spending and advertising killed it.Replies: @Kate Minter, @gruff, @Jack D, @Reg Cæsar, @Lurker
It seems to me that today, with DNA testing, paternity is more certain than any time in history. In the past, many men raised other men’s cuckoo eggs without the slightest clue that they were doing so. On the flip side, even as late as the late 1970s, Steven Jobs was able to (falsely but somewhat plausibly given the technology of the day) claim that 28% of the men in the United States could have been the father of his daughter Lisa. That’s all over with – all you need to do is watch those trashy shows on TV to know that even among the lowest of the low classes in America and the most promiscuous women, it’s now possible for men to know exactly which babies they are the daddy of. It’s also possible to know that, even when paternity is 100% certain, many men would prefer to “invest” in a new set of rims than in their own children.
“after a decade and a half of having blackout drunk sex with lowbrow steroid-abusing strangers”
good thing she wasn't in college. she'd fail the consent test and he'd be thrown out.
I hear all this talk about liberated young women enjoying the pleasures of sexual freedom. My observation has been that most of these pathetic creatures actually appear to be repelled by the sex in which they engage. Otherwise how can one explain the standard pattern of behavior one so frequently observes: A bunch of these sad creatures go out together; get liquored and/or drugged up to the extent that they don’t know what they’re doing; and then are bedded by some man they hardly know. Many wake up the next day with little recollection of what happened or why. These are not the activities of someone who enjoys sex. I personally prefer that my partner and I be sober so we can enjoy the experience and remember it with fondness later.
Promiscuous sex is no more permissible in Judaism than it is in Christianity (even today Jewish rates of illegitimacy are very low, though this probably has more to do with Jews being more organized about things like birth control and getting early abortions than any difference in the rate of sexual activity outside of marriage).
People like Schumer, Dunham, Handler, etc. can't really be though of as Jews or Christians or 1/2 and 1/2 - what they really are are products of a post-religious society, where there is no longer any God who is watching what you do, so you do whatever you feel like. Or you could view them as worshipers of the new religion of Secular Modernism or Cultural Marxism or whatever you would like to call it. Since this is an iconoclastic religion, you do whatever the opposite of the conventional morality says, but they don't think of the conventional morality (which is also known as JUDEO-Christian ethics) as being particularly Christian (as I said before, they don't even know many Christians) - their Jewish grandmothers would no more approve of their whoring around than any evangelical minister would. The Ten Commandments are found in the Hebrew Bible, not the New Testament. Many of those who laid out the tenets of, and ascribe to, the new religion were people who were born as Jews but, like early Christians, they (or even their parents or grandparents) converted to the new religion and their acts and beliefs must be assigned to that new religion and not to "the Jews". Even if these people say they are Jews, they ain't really, not in any meaningful sense. There are plenty of believers in the New Religion who are not the slightest bit Jewish but who have exactly the same beliefs and act in the same way as Schumer. Look at her cheerleader Dargis - is she Jewish too?Replies: @Days of Broken Arrows, @Cagey Beast, @Mr. Anon, @Busby
What you say is all true but lapsed and lost cultural Christians are still different from lapsed and lost Jews. The alienu* prayer obliges, directs and commands good Jews to see the rest of us as profoundly wrong and in need of their righteous iconoclasm, sabotage and critique. In a way we’re lucky to be living in a time when we’re only subjected to potty-mouthed comedies, slanderous Rolling Stone articles and homely rich girls getting their own TV shows. Tikkun olam was a lot nastier during the Russian Civil War.
* As Leo Strauss said:
“Why We Remain Jews”, pg 327, Jewish philosophy and the crisis of modernity : essays and lectures in modem Jewish thought by Leo Strauss ; edited with an introduction by Kenneth Hart Green. 1997, State University of New York Press, Albany
The controversial words " For they worship vanity and emptiness and pray to a god who cannot save" are omitted in most modern liturgies. Since the prayer itself seems to pre-date Christianity , I think that even a Christian could agree with the sentiment as applied to pagans if not to themselves. Actually the sentiment I think is (for something 2,000 years old) remarkably fresh when you apply it to someone like Schumer herself- wouldn't you say that they describe her exactly, with uncanny accuracy? I think that the authors of the prayer have got her number.
Tikkun olam (repairing the world) had absolutely nothing to do with Soviet Commissars of Jewish background. They themselves rejected all of the doctrines of Judaism ("religion is the opiate of the masses") and suppressed Jewish religious institutions as much or more than Christian ones. In order to be a Soviet in good standing you had to be an avowed atheist regardless of the religious background of your ancestors. If a Christian convert to Islam blows up a subway car in London (Germaine Lindsay) , is he acting as a Christian or as a radical Muslim? Do his crimes reflect upon Christians in general?
Strauss died over 40 years ago and he was a secular academic, not a religious figure, so his is hardly the last word on the meaning of aleinu in any case. Personally he strikes me as a blowhard, but that may just be because rhetorical styles have changed since 1962 when Strauss delivered this as a speech.Replies: @Mr. Anon
At the "blood libel" trial of Mendel Beilis in Russia in 1912, one of the chief witness for the prosecution was supposed to be the alleged "Jewish expert", Father Pranaitis, who testified that ritual murder of Christian children in order to make matzah was a requirement of Jewish law (strange because otherwise Jewish law regards the consumption of even animal blood as taboo) . However, once he was put up on the stand, the (Jewish) defense counsel questioned him on elementary points of Jewish law and demonstrated his ignorance to the point that the (all Russian) jury and courtroom spectators were laughing at him. For example he was asked, "when did Baba (Grandmother in Russian) Batra live and what did she do?", and Pranaitis replied that he didn't know. The problem was that "Baba Batra" is the title of a tractate of the Talmud (it means the "Last Gate" in Aramaic) and not the name of a person.Replies: @Cagey Beast
OH, there's that bit in a Woody Allen film, Annie Hall, I think, where he goes on about his Jewish childhood filled with socialism/communism indoctrination youth camps. Is that stuff really true?Replies: @SFG, @Jack D, @HA
“…there’s that bit in a Woody Allen film, Annie Hall, I think, where he goes on about his Jewish childhood filled with socialism/communism indoctrination youth camps…”
Right – his works are intended to be morally uplifting.
Is the degeneracy on display in the series “Girls” supposed to be morally uplifting?
Yeah, you’re right. The only alternatives to Apatow sex comedies are Leave it to Beaver style stodgy morality tales.
Apatow’s movies aren’t morality tales because there is no moral redemption for the sinner by the end of the movie. There is material redemption – the sinner manages to snag a surgeon husband. That’s not a morality tale. That’s the Big Lie to impressionable young people – that you can have your cake and eat it too.
Is it for blogging material? Or is it an LA thing?Replies: @Sean the Neon Caucasian
I can’t speak for Sailer, obviously, but look at what he writes about usually; it’s not really out of his sphere.
To 99% of all American Jews, even religious ones, Aleinu has no such meaning – it’s just a bunch of words that you mumble at the end of every service. No one gives any thought to their philosophical implications any more than people give thought to the meaning of the Lord’s Prayer or take the words of the Star Spangled Banner as a manifesto for daily life in America. It’s just an incantation.
The controversial words ” For they worship vanity and emptiness and pray to a god who cannot save” are omitted in most modern liturgies. Since the prayer itself seems to pre-date Christianity , I think that even a Christian could agree with the sentiment as applied to pagans if not to themselves. Actually the sentiment I think is (for something 2,000 years old) remarkably fresh when you apply it to someone like Schumer herself- wouldn’t you say that they describe her exactly, with uncanny accuracy? I think that the authors of the prayer have got her number.
Tikkun olam (repairing the world) had absolutely nothing to do with Soviet Commissars of Jewish background. They themselves rejected all of the doctrines of Judaism (“religion is the opiate of the masses”) and suppressed Jewish religious institutions as much or more than Christian ones. In order to be a Soviet in good standing you had to be an avowed atheist regardless of the religious background of your ancestors. If a Christian convert to Islam blows up a subway car in London (Germaine Lindsay) , is he acting as a Christian or as a radical Muslim? Do his crimes reflect upon Christians in general?
Strauss died over 40 years ago and he was a secular academic, not a religious figure, so his is hardly the last word on the meaning of aleinu in any case. Personally he strikes me as a blowhard, but that may just be because rhetorical styles have changed since 1962 when Strauss delivered this as a speech.
@Cagey Beast
To 99% of all American Jews, even religious ones, Aleinu has no such meaning – it’s just a bunch of words that you mumble at the end of every service."
Then why say them?
"No one gives any thought to their philosophical implications any more than people give thought to the meaning of the Lord’s Prayer or take the words of the Star Spangled Banner as a manifesto for daily life in America. It’s just an incantation."
Those silly goys - mumbling their funny incantations like the Lord's prayer. Of course they don't give the words any thought or appreciate what they actually mean. They're kind of like cattle in that regard, unreflectively chewing their cud.
"Tikkun olam (repairing the world) had absolutely nothing to do with Soviet Commissars of Jewish background. They themselves rejected all of the doctrines of Judaism (“religion is the opiate of the masses”) and suppressed Jewish religious institutions as much or more than Christian ones."
Nobody is claiming they were believing adherents of Judaism. But they were Jews, were they not? They were members of that tribe. And perhaps the hostility that some members of that tribe often evinced for Christians motivated their actions when they became commissars.
"If a Christian convert to Islam blows up a subway car in London (Germaine Lindsay) , is he acting as a Christian or as a radical Muslim? Do his crimes reflect upon Christians in general?"
What if a significant, and disproportionate, number of radical muslim terrorists were Christian converts? Would that indicate anything?
Trainwreck follows the script of Manhattan-centric media. There is a type of sorority clique of writers, pundits and assorted fellow travelers that pushes the themes that Schumer presents. View them poisoning yet another generation of girls via their writing at Cosmopolitan, Glamour, Jezebel, Salon, etc. Helen Gurley Brown got the balls rolling and her minions picked up her ignominious mantle. Their ilk are also behind Sex and The City and other shows that try to manipulate young minds, I mean recruit new soldiers in the great war.
At one time, nice girls from Smith College used to get magazine jobs. Now the jobs go to radicalized Seven Sisters alumnae with agendas. They won’t tell you that those agendas include getting invited to the right parties to latch onto wealthy Wall Streeters, but, girls just want to have fun.
Promiscuous sex is no more permissible in Judaism than it is in Christianity (even today Jewish rates of illegitimacy are very low, though this probably has more to do with Jews being more organized about things like birth control and getting early abortions than any difference in the rate of sexual activity outside of marriage).
People like Schumer, Dunham, Handler, etc. can't really be though of as Jews or Christians or 1/2 and 1/2 - what they really are are products of a post-religious society, where there is no longer any God who is watching what you do, so you do whatever you feel like. Or you could view them as worshipers of the new religion of Secular Modernism or Cultural Marxism or whatever you would like to call it. Since this is an iconoclastic religion, you do whatever the opposite of the conventional morality says, but they don't think of the conventional morality (which is also known as JUDEO-Christian ethics) as being particularly Christian (as I said before, they don't even know many Christians) - their Jewish grandmothers would no more approve of their whoring around than any evangelical minister would. The Ten Commandments are found in the Hebrew Bible, not the New Testament. Many of those who laid out the tenets of, and ascribe to, the new religion were people who were born as Jews but, like early Christians, they (or even their parents or grandparents) converted to the new religion and their acts and beliefs must be assigned to that new religion and not to "the Jews". Even if these people say they are Jews, they ain't really, not in any meaningful sense. There are plenty of believers in the New Religion who are not the slightest bit Jewish but who have exactly the same beliefs and act in the same way as Schumer. Look at her cheerleader Dargis - is she Jewish too?Replies: @Days of Broken Arrows, @Cagey Beast, @Mr. Anon, @Busby
“You couldn’t be more wrong. For someone like Schumer who grew up in Manhattan, Christians just don’t register on their radar. They may grow up without knowing any serious Christian believers (Episcopalian lesbians don’t count). Christians are more cartoon objects of laughter and derision than serious ideological opponents – snake handlers and people who speak in tongues, people who believe that the world was created in 6 days 5,000 years ago. You are not going to define your life in opposition to such hicks and clowns.”
So in a nation that was founded by Christians, has been overwhelmingly christian for its entire history, and in which most of the population is christian, they view Christians as just “cartoons”. And that is not hostile? That is not anti-Christian? It is ludicrous to maintain, as you have, that Jews are simply unaware of gentiles. They seem quite aware, and some of them, many of them even, quite often seem to demonstrate a seething hostility towards .
Take another offering of Jud Apatow, for example; “Don’t Mess with the Zohan”, which he wrote. All of the gentile, christian americans (i.e. just about the entire population of America) are portrayed as nothing but grasping capitalist pricks or stump-toothed red-neck klan members.
You can protest all you want that the entertainment business, which is heavily jewish (or would you also deny that?) is not often openly hostile to gentiles, and christian gentiles specifically, but a lot of us are not buying it. The evidence of that hostility is quite apparent.
“People like Schumer, Dunham, Handler, etc. can’t really be though of as Jews or Christians or 1/2 and 1/2 – what they really are are products of a post-religious society, where there is no longer any God who is watching what you do, so you do whatever you feel like.”
That is simply disingenuous. Being jewish is an ethnic affiliatation, not a religion. Surely you are a aware of Jews who openly profess that they do not believe in God, yet keep kosher, the Sabbath, and the Holidays. Schumer pretty clearly self-identifies as jewish. Benjamin Netanyahu has publicly said that he is not a believer; would you dispute that Netanyahu is jewish? The conflation of jewishness with Judaism fools the kind of naive gentiles who watch FOX News or read the National Review, but it doesn’t fool people who are HBD aware. I’m surprised you trotted out that nonsense here.
The controversial words " For they worship vanity and emptiness and pray to a god who cannot save" are omitted in most modern liturgies. Since the prayer itself seems to pre-date Christianity , I think that even a Christian could agree with the sentiment as applied to pagans if not to themselves. Actually the sentiment I think is (for something 2,000 years old) remarkably fresh when you apply it to someone like Schumer herself- wouldn't you say that they describe her exactly, with uncanny accuracy? I think that the authors of the prayer have got her number.
Tikkun olam (repairing the world) had absolutely nothing to do with Soviet Commissars of Jewish background. They themselves rejected all of the doctrines of Judaism ("religion is the opiate of the masses") and suppressed Jewish religious institutions as much or more than Christian ones. In order to be a Soviet in good standing you had to be an avowed atheist regardless of the religious background of your ancestors. If a Christian convert to Islam blows up a subway car in London (Germaine Lindsay) , is he acting as a Christian or as a radical Muslim? Do his crimes reflect upon Christians in general?
Strauss died over 40 years ago and he was a secular academic, not a religious figure, so his is hardly the last word on the meaning of aleinu in any case. Personally he strikes me as a blowhard, but that may just be because rhetorical styles have changed since 1962 when Strauss delivered this as a speech.Replies: @Mr. Anon
“Jack D says:
To 99% of all American Jews, even religious ones, Aleinu has no such meaning – it’s just a bunch of words that you mumble at the end of every service.”
Then why say them?
“No one gives any thought to their philosophical implications any more than people give thought to the meaning of the Lord’s Prayer or take the words of the Star Spangled Banner as a manifesto for daily life in America. It’s just an incantation.”
Those silly goys – mumbling their funny incantations like the Lord’s prayer. Of course they don’t give the words any thought or appreciate what they actually mean. They’re kind of like cattle in that regard, unreflectively chewing their cud.
“Tikkun olam (repairing the world) had absolutely nothing to do with Soviet Commissars of Jewish background. They themselves rejected all of the doctrines of Judaism (“religion is the opiate of the masses”) and suppressed Jewish religious institutions as much or more than Christian ones.”
Nobody is claiming they were believing adherents of Judaism. But they were Jews, were they not? They were members of that tribe. And perhaps the hostility that some members of that tribe often evinced for Christians motivated their actions when they became commissars.
“If a Christian convert to Islam blows up a subway car in London (Germaine Lindsay) , is he acting as a Christian or as a radical Muslim? Do his crimes reflect upon Christians in general?”
What if a significant, and disproportionate, number of radical muslim terrorists were Christian converts? Would that indicate anything?
BTW, if you are going to write about stuff of which you have no comprehension, at least do a better job with your cut and paste. ” leshnbeia” is not a word in Hebrew or any other known language.
At the “blood libel” trial of Mendel Beilis in Russia in 1912, one of the chief witness for the prosecution was supposed to be the alleged “Jewish expert”, Father Pranaitis, who testified that ritual murder of Christian children in order to make matzah was a requirement of Jewish law (strange because otherwise Jewish law regards the consumption of even animal blood as taboo) . However, once he was put up on the stand, the (Jewish) defense counsel questioned him on elementary points of Jewish law and demonstrated his ignorance to the point that the (all Russian) jury and courtroom spectators were laughing at him. For example he was asked, “when did Baba (Grandmother in Russian) Batra live and what did she do?”, and Pranaitis replied that he didn’t know. The problem was that “Baba Batra” is the title of a tractate of the Talmud (it means the “Last Gate” in Aramaic) and not the name of a person.
Wow, what a cool, sex-positive mom, you might think. The children who grew up in her household must have had a blast.
But then look at what happened to her younger son, the atheist Jon Garth Murray. He never moved away from home, and he apparently never had a girlfriend. I talked to two people who knew Madalyn and her family circa 1990, and they independently told me their suspicions about Jon's adult virginity.
The fact that Madalyn, Jon and his niece Robin (the daughter of Madalyn's older son William) all lived together, and that Jon and Robin didn't have relationships outside the home, probably contributed to the decision by David Waters and his accomplices to abduct, extort and then murder all three of them. Waters, who had worked for Madalyn briefly in her American Atheists organization, knew that no girlfriend or boyfriend would become alarmed by their disappearance and pressure the police to investigate.
What a letdown. Madalyn's sexual utopia didn't exist under her own roof, and her son and granddaughter had to live like sexually abstinent Christians through the end of their lives.Replies: @Mr. Anon
Madalyn Murray O’Hair really was an awful woman. Her hatred of Christianity ultimately caused her and her family their lives. Apparently she liked to hire ex-cons as she thought them unlikely to be good Christians. Well she got her wish. The men who kidnapped and murdered her and her family were certainly untainted by any hint of Christian morality.
At the "blood libel" trial of Mendel Beilis in Russia in 1912, one of the chief witness for the prosecution was supposed to be the alleged "Jewish expert", Father Pranaitis, who testified that ritual murder of Christian children in order to make matzah was a requirement of Jewish law (strange because otherwise Jewish law regards the consumption of even animal blood as taboo) . However, once he was put up on the stand, the (Jewish) defense counsel questioned him on elementary points of Jewish law and demonstrated his ignorance to the point that the (all Russian) jury and courtroom spectators were laughing at him. For example he was asked, "when did Baba (Grandmother in Russian) Batra live and what did she do?", and Pranaitis replied that he didn't know. The problem was that "Baba Batra" is the title of a tractate of the Talmud (it means the "Last Gate" in Aramaic) and not the name of a person.Replies: @Cagey Beast
BTW, if you are going to write about stuff of which you have no comprehension, at least do a better job with your cut and paste. ” leshnbeia” is not a word in Hebrew or any other known language.
Why on earth would I know a ”leshnbeia” from a loofah? It’s not my lingo. All I do is copy & paste the text. Here’s a link to the full prayer with the Hebrew original right alongside. Knock yourself out:
http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/resources/sourcebook/Aleynu.htm
I’d note though that the prayer apparently “has, since the thirteenth century, functioned as a closing prayer for every Jewish service. Before this, it was recited only three times per year”. That’s almost thirteen centuries into the Christian era so, yeah, I think this is about the rest of us.
New feminism - women have just as much right to get drunk and have sex as men.
New new feminism - if women get blackout drunk and have sex , it's men's fault.Replies: @SFG
Basically, yes.
“Ms. Schumer drew on her own life for the story, which she turned into something of a sexual bildungsroman cum romantic comedy jumping with pop-cultural references and edged with razored social cultural critique.”
I think that’s supposed to be praise.
Now the jobs go to radicalized Seven Sisters alumnae with agendas.
Somebody really should study this. There’s probably more than one PhD disseration here.
Some of the most radical leftist women I’ve known went to these old-line Southern women’s colleges. What happened to them? Were they explicitly targeted by leftists for takeover? Were they lesbian bastions all along and then proved only too eager to jump on the gravy train of the aggrieved? Did the students self-select for being able to zoom to the left of all the people who had to work for a living? Did they figure that rich Wall Street plutocrat plunderers needed wives who were seen as leftist princesses dispensing goodies to the masses? Were they all trying to outdo each other as to who was the least needy? Or what?
The larger problem in creating a “dynasty” being the sole intent for marriage in the modern era – you need good quality genes to set up a dynasty.
The best quality genes are in highly educated, intelligent, beautiful urban college girls.
Highly educated, intelligent, beautiful urban college girls read Salon and Jezebel. They are the most likely to have slutted around. Much more than the chubby dummy from flyover country.
How do we, as men, balance the twin imperatives of seeking out the best genes for our progeny, and not having to settle for a cunt who will probably push for an open marriage and then divorce us when we’re 40?
Now this, readers, is what high-investment parenting looks like.
I can’t recall hearing of a girl, with neither a title of nobility nor a spot on a reality show, having so many people caring who she marries.
I’ve used this quote by the great Chris Rock on other comment boards, but I’ll do it again, because it’s so true:
“Women HATE women. You get any two girlfriends in this room, been girlfriends for 25 years, you put a man in between them, “F*ck that b*tch, ” “Fuck that b*tch.” Guys are not like that. Guys actually think that there are other fish in the sea, and if a guy introduces his boy to his new girlfriend, and when they walk away, his boy goes, “Aww man, shes nice, I gotta get me a girl LIKE that.” If a woman introduces her new man to here girlfriend, and they walk away, her girlfriend goes “I gotta get HIM, and I will slit that b*tches throat to do it.” Every girl in here got a girlfriend they don’t trust around their man.”
http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2015/07/springfield_womans_murder_trial_delayed
There is so much in here:
The thing that made me an “innocent anti-Semite” as a child watching too much TV wasn’t incomprehensible 18th century hate tracts or conditioning by my normal liberal parents. It was watching talentless and unfunny entertainer after talentless and unfunny entertainer drive unworkable ideas straight core-way to Australia, all them just happening to be Jewish, and then once in a while seeing an actually talented Korean or Goy I liked and wondering why the talented ones didn’t get more work. Is there anything a Jew can do to not get remunerative and undeserved entertainment work? Well, there’s a big, obvious one: you can piss off your connections and fail to incarnate proper revolutionary consciousness, like Kramer’s N-word faux pas. Almost all scandals of this type have this character: the formerly privileged nobleman who is more shocked that noblesse oblige doesn’t extend to literally everything than worried about his career or any offense given.
“Trainwreck” doesn’t argue for monogamy, it merely documents the oft-observed and remarked-upon female self-exemption from morality and fairness, aphorized in the manosphere as “alpha f*x, beta bux.” In other words, enjoy sexual promiscuity in your youth with strangers who don’t respect you, then retire to parasite off a man you do not respect, divorcing him and stealing his property the first time he fails to make you haaaaapy. This is the thing, the inescapable bad deal, that destroys not only marriage but, in the near future, the physical safety of our brainless western women. There will come a day of the rope where none of them will be raped but many will be murdered, and the media will have absolutely no idea why (or like with game-hater Elliott Rodgers they will perfectly mischaracterize it as effectively its opposite). Right now in our society we hate each other, not racially but atomistically, and hate each other so much that only a highly discriminatory process pitting powerful drives against unrealistic expectations can make us tolerate one another for the time it takes to come and zip up our trousers. And not just with sex; white males are only hired (by overwhelmingly female human resources staffers) when there is no alternative.
So: this film is everything that is wrong with this era. I recently gave up watching new Hollywood movies (having for most of my life been a brainless movie buff) and this sort of thing validates my decision. But given the evil hater facts of the first paragraph, who wants to bet they’re already writing the sequel?
It’s teaching young women that it doesn’t matter (while men stay the same as before) aka cultural poison for young women.
The various branches of feminism are all dominated by women who are less interested in motherhood than the average so what they preach is weighted for them and might be fine for them but is poisonous to the sort of woman who is kids-first by nature but gets pulled off course by the propaganda.
Reading Dargis’ effusions remind me of similarly clueless celebrations of Horace Walpole’s The Castle of Otranto, the first gothic novel, which he intended as a campy send-up of virtue and manners, but which was received as a cautionary horror story about the perils of vice by the Manohlias of the day; their enthusiasm had the same breathless, full-throttle fervor only achievable by the combination of conviction and ignorance. Only now it’s vice they imagine is being celebrated. Plus ca change…
Also I think a big part of this is homosexual men in the media wanting to normalize their own promiscuity and not caring about the consequences.
The best quality genes are in highly educated, intelligent, beautiful urban college girls.
Highly educated, intelligent, beautiful urban college girls read Salon and Jezebel. They are the most likely to have slutted around. Much more than the chubby dummy from flyover country.
How do we, as men, balance the twin imperatives of seeking out the best genes for our progeny, and not having to settle for a cunt who will probably push for an open marriage and then divorce us when we're 40?Replies: @Robbie
I don’t know any of these mythical Whore creatures you guys are always talking about
All the girls from my highschool married their highschool sweetheart or college sweetheart.
I know a girl from college who had 5 partners and she married a guy who for him that was a bonus….fit his own sexual personality quite well.
I think you guys worry too much about nothing.
The Amy Schumer’s of the world make men think there are a lot of girls out there who think like that…
But other than that one girl (and the guy loves her more for it) I have never met those women.
Both have adopted children--Stone has three white ones and Theron one African one.Replies: @Anonymous, @Chris, @becausenonsc, @Romanian
At least Theron’s boy is not South African… it would have been sick to eschew her own reproduction and make due with the progeny of the peoples who are committing genocide against her people, the Afrikaner.
So many crazy ideas in these Amy Schumer threads. Even if I had time to respond it would probably soon lead to being banned. So many unexamined illogical statements like this one:
“plenty of sexual relations for the most attractive men, and the rest having to do with used goods, and many others without nothing. ”
so an experienced woman is “used goods” and sex with her does not count as “sexual relations”?
When the alpha male has sex with her it is sexual relations, when the beta male has sex with her it is something other than sexual relations, something to do with not getting there first. Funny that the alpha doesn’t care about that (obviously most women he is having all that sex with are not virgins)
Bottom line I just don’t buy the assertion that an experienced woman is undesirable, that’s not how things play out in real life.
One of my good friends went into major depression for several years after his girlfriend broke up with him and spent a year slutting around. The depression was not because they broke up, it was from the slutting around part.
You're right about that not being how things play out in real life, however.
In real life, men have to account for their own limited value on the mate market, and often have no option but to suck it up and accept a wife with a slutty past. Because it's either that, or no wife at all.
The liberated sexual market is essentially bringing a lot of beta men face to face with an eternal truth - that nature intended 50-60% of them to die in war. Whatever pussy they land up getting is a blessing from the god of biomechanics.
All the previous centuries of patriarchal civilization made beta men expect a virgin female companion to just plop into their lives, with no effort on their part. Now they are beginning to realize that the sexual market, which is sort of a metaphor for life, has winners and losers and most men are destined to lose.Replies: @casey
“fecundity as a function of that lifestyle, but to make a long story short, any man that would marry a single 30 something woman is statistically making a mistake.
Men should join this new movement of insisting on women with demonstrably low numbers of premarital sexual experience. I call it:
The Few Fux Fan”
haha cute but how exactly will these women be demonstrating those low numbers??
More importantly, what exactly is your advice to young women? It sounds like you are saying something like “get married and have babies in your twenties and since you all can’t get or even deserve the alpha male, and the betas have yet to prove their worth as providers, well you’ll just have to guess wildly, just don’t delay!”
Or maybe what you are saying is “get married in your early 20s and as far as the fact that males are not ready or interested in marriage at that age the solution is you should marry a guy in his 30s ready to provide you with a home for your family which you should start working on immediately”
Is that it?
This is the somewhat famous Rollo Tomassi SMV graph:
https://rationalmale.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/smv_curve_peaks.jpg
It says that females start out with super high SMV (Sexual Market Value), really from the point they go through puberty. It "maxes" at 23 and then diminishes. The SMV of males is almost non-existent when they are young and slowly increases through the 20s, remaining high through the 30s then falls afterwards.
My opinion of the chart, especially today, is that the chart shows the relative SMV "maxes" as equivalent between men and women. And to me that is nonsense. For almost all men, they rarely attain anything close the power that almost any above average women would have. There was a chart (that I don't feel like searching for) on OK Cupid that charted "attractiveness" (1-10) and the number of messages received. The graph for the women was almost parabolic, something like "n squared" maybe "n raised to the 1.7 power". For men it was a very small slope with anything less than 7 almost receiving zero messages, perhaps 1, with a 9 receiving maybe 3 or 4. The woman with SMV of 3 received more messages than the most attractive men. The 8 or 9 SMV woman was getting her inbox filled up.
But the Rollo graph shows an intersection of the two curves, M and F, about the ages 26-28 and this is called the Marriage Zone.
I can get quite harsh about all of this. A woman has a disposition to wish to be married and/or that men want to be married to her. Or she doesn't. Women are stayers or they are leavers, and they are women that men wish to stay with or they don't. And so to paraphrase Daryl Royal, "When you go with women, 4 things can happen. And only 1 of them is good." So that would she is a stayer that men wish to stay with. Now the other operative idea is another Daryl Royal quote, "You gotta dance with them that brought ya."
F Roger Devlin has an interesting essay "Sexual Liberation & Racial Suicide" (I am not going to link it here. It is posted in Counter Currents. If you search for it it will come right up on Google.) He makes the point about "choice". There are two sorts of choices. One is a temporary and the other lasting. Which ice cream flavor is an example of the first. But then there is the more important choice. And it can't be temporal because the effect of making the choice is important and in changing the choice is damaging. He gives the man's choice of vocation as the example. We must choose early and then dedicate ourselves to it. To change that choice is a setback. For women, the choice of a mate should be in the same class. But Feminism has pushed for Marriage to just be another lifestyle choice, one of a bouquet of options that life lays at the feet of a woman. And then men should like one of the 31 flavors. Rocky Road when young, Vanilla when 30, then some more flavorful after that.
I am 60 and it was quite normal to have selected before 25. And many of those marriages survived. The June wedding was a function of graduating in May. The Maxim that holds true is "past performance is a good indicator of future performance." Easily a woman that wished to choose on "Good Father" and "Good Husband" qualities could easily ascertain those tendencies in any man by 24.
And now go back to that SMV graph, you get him well before he is aware that he will have this high SMV, or better, well before he has experienced it and is aware of it. A man of 33 that has all the trappings that women want is a man with options. Why would he compromise those options for you, especially if you are above 30? You wanted him when you were 23 and so do other 23 year olds. Why would he want you now? Ah, but that 24 year old, he doesn't sense those options yet. And the bonding process in our heads is designed to hook him, hard. He is the true Romantic, far more than women. And that process does two things, it hooks him hard, especially if it has not happened yet. And it points a loaded gun at his head, a gun that remains loaded practically as long as he lives, that if he isn't "with you", stress agents go off and punish him. Especially for what the Bible calls "The woman of his youth".
Here are two articles on the subject
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2015/02/27/knot-now-the-benefits-of-marrying-in-your-mid-to-late-20s-including-more-sex/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/yourtango/10-awesome-perks-of-getti_b_6134400.html
The first reference a study from the University of Texas. I went to school there and they have a big deal sociology department that is extremely feminist, quite anti-men. The study was called "Later first marriage and marital success" and what they found where the happiest unions occurred in those that married in their 20s. The WaPo author suggests "The Marriage Zone", mid 20s. I think earlier than that for a woman, who marries a guy that is older (Provided the woman is properly educated on the true benefits of marriage to her and more importantly, to her children. )
Now as to your question of "how to determine this N count". Mostly it is circumstantial. An unmarried woman in her 30s is enough to find guilty until proven innocent. But she tells you in many ways. Firstly, in her stories. I married a woman in her 30s with a low N count. First off she told me almost straight out. She was divorced, married right out of college for 10 years, lived in a small town, had trouble finding any one that she wanted to date. There are no stories of vacations to exotic locales. No stories of spiffy nightclubs. She can't tell me about the best restaurants in the area. The names or characters in the stories of her past never change. There are few stories with "This guy I knew". No stories of concerts. She rarely drinks. She is naive sexually. Never does any illegal drugs. So if a woman in her 30s doesn't have a history of long relationships with short intervals between them, and she is in her 30s, then there is history.
Commenters have been focusing on Amy’s promiscuity, but Amy’s alcoholism is much scarier to me.
The notion that Mr. Nice-Guy-Sports-Surgeon would risk having a long-term, raging alcoholic as the mother of his children, is scary as hell. Anyone who has had children should be scared stiff by this.
Doesn’t Mr. Nice-Guy-Sports-Surgeon have family or married friends to sit him down and seriously discuss this with him?
Steve,
This movie seems to illustrate one of the points you often make about women pundits … women want to change the world so that they will be hotter and more desirable.
Here, Amy Schumer makes as movie where an over-the-top alcoholic and promiscuous woman gets the good husband. A more honest movie would have shown how good husbands prefer non-trainwrecks.
"plenty of sexual relations for the most attractive men, and the rest having to do with used goods, and many others without nothing. "
so an experienced woman is "used goods" and sex with her does not count as "sexual relations"?
When the alpha male has sex with her it is sexual relations, when the beta male has sex with her it is something other than sexual relations, something to do with not getting there first. Funny that the alpha doesn't care about that (obviously most women he is having all that sex with are not virgins)
Bottom line I just don't buy the assertion that an experienced woman is undesirable, that's not how things play out in real life.Replies: @Jack D, @thinkingabout it
I think you are mixing apples and oranges – who would be best suited for a 1 night stand (hell a professional might be best) and who is best suited to be your lifetime partner and mother of your children. I’m not so sure that having had 4 or 5 serious romantic relationships over the course of a decade or so before settling down “ruins” a modern woman as apparently some have claimed, but I certainly wouldn’t feel comfortable marrying (or having my son marry) a woman like Schumer who has had countless one night stands with some well muscled stranger she just met in a bar – to me someone like that has a serious moral screw loose.
I think comedy often shows us people who are losers because they are funnier. I do find the desperate female character tedious, like the Julia Louis-Dreyfus character in "new Christine show" but it does lead to many comedic situations I suppose.
Totally agree with this. I knew only one such woman in my life and she was from a very rich crazy family, with a notoriously weird and over-sexed father. She was also a heroin addict, so not your average girl, though interestingly she has been happily married since her mid 30s. But getting drunk then going home with a random physically attractive guy night after night is surely uncommon. The idea that this is needed to accumulate those high numbers is off also. If a person is not prudish and is popular, has a lot of boyfriends, plays the field etc the numbers will be over 4 pretty quickly without her needing to get drunk and go home with a single stranger ever. Even having sex with just one new person per year during prime dating years adds 12!
Kate – how old is your daughter? What makes you think that she will take your advice regarding her selection of a husband? Outside of certain immigrant and religious groups (and even there American born children are often resistant) most modern American women don’t want or accept input from their parents regarding who they are going to marry. I suppose if she picks someone wildly unsuitable you can make a big stink and threaten to disinherit, disown, etc. but if the girl thinks that she is “in love” then even that may not work and may even backfire.
Actually I agree about the alcoholism and the going home with strangers and blacking out part, I just wrote a similar comment that crossed with yours so I am not sure it is you I am in disagreement with here. Maybe the “apples and oranges” are “sexual experience and compulsive behavior”
I think comedy often shows us people who are losers because they are funnier. I do find the desperate female character tedious, like the Julia Louis-Dreyfus character in “new Christine show” but it does lead to many comedic situations I suppose.
Promiscuous sex is no more permissible in Judaism than it is in Christianity (even today Jewish rates of illegitimacy are very low, though this probably has more to do with Jews being more organized about things like birth control and getting early abortions than any difference in the rate of sexual activity outside of marriage).
People like Schumer, Dunham, Handler, etc. can't really be though of as Jews or Christians or 1/2 and 1/2 - what they really are are products of a post-religious society, where there is no longer any God who is watching what you do, so you do whatever you feel like. Or you could view them as worshipers of the new religion of Secular Modernism or Cultural Marxism or whatever you would like to call it. Since this is an iconoclastic religion, you do whatever the opposite of the conventional morality says, but they don't think of the conventional morality (which is also known as JUDEO-Christian ethics) as being particularly Christian (as I said before, they don't even know many Christians) - their Jewish grandmothers would no more approve of their whoring around than any evangelical minister would. The Ten Commandments are found in the Hebrew Bible, not the New Testament. Many of those who laid out the tenets of, and ascribe to, the new religion were people who were born as Jews but, like early Christians, they (or even their parents or grandparents) converted to the new religion and their acts and beliefs must be assigned to that new religion and not to "the Jews". Even if these people say they are Jews, they ain't really, not in any meaningful sense. There are plenty of believers in the New Religion who are not the slightest bit Jewish but who have exactly the same beliefs and act in the same way as Schumer. Look at her cheerleader Dargis - is she Jewish too?Replies: @Days of Broken Arrows, @Cagey Beast, @Mr. Anon, @Busby
Well said.
Those are the activities of women who enjoy attention (or the sensation thereof). It’s garden-variety behavior for them in most social spheres public & private, but scarcely the same thing as enjoyment of sex, a goal for which leg-spreading to random predatory club-hoppers is not conducive; with that behavior pattern you’d only wind up a different kind of emotional resource or “life experience,” i.e. that of a hooker, except you didn’t even get paid
Dargis is so caught up in rhapsodizing about it that she doesn't see much else.
It's consequences of disease, illegitimacy, divorce, psychological damage to women - these don't register to liberals. Or they get blamed on conservatives, the way they blame the AIDS crisis on Reagan.
There's a contradiction where the left hates laissez faire, except for when it comes to the sexual marketplace, where they celebrate it. (A more extreme form even, since we are talking about just social stigma rather than government regulation.)
But laissez faire has the same problems in sex as it does in economics: radical inequality. That some people will make bad decisions and lose everything, while others will win completely.
Free markets in economics lead to inequality, but at least it serves a social purpose. Competition means the people who get rich will do so, usually, because they are offering the best goods and services. There are all sorts of abuses and excesses, but the core idea is sound.
Letting Bill Gates get rich serves some social purpose. But how does society benefit by someone like Hugh Hefner get rich in the sexual marketplace?
Then on the other side there are the losers; some black girl in the inner city gets pregnant at 15, and others die of AIDS. Children grow up in broken families. Average men hard a time finding wives, and if they do they stand a good chance at getting divorced.
The left claims to believe in equality, but sexual lassaiz faire can never lead to equality.Replies: @benjaminl, @AnotherDad
Well said Drake. Very well said. Your whole post not just this snippet.
I have some sympathy for the old-line workers left. Basically an argument about divying up the surplus from production.
But the entire model of the modern left is utter idiocy. Social libertinism and then a high tax welfare state throwing money–fairly uselessly–at the debris generated by the libertinism? That makes sense! It’s like saying “we’re all in the same boat!” … but then there’s no captain, no rules, everyone doing whatever they feel like. A recipe for sinking not sailing.
"plenty of sexual relations for the most attractive men, and the rest having to do with used goods, and many others without nothing. "
so an experienced woman is "used goods" and sex with her does not count as "sexual relations"?
When the alpha male has sex with her it is sexual relations, when the beta male has sex with her it is something other than sexual relations, something to do with not getting there first. Funny that the alpha doesn't care about that (obviously most women he is having all that sex with are not virgins)
Bottom line I just don't buy the assertion that an experienced woman is undesirable, that's not how things play out in real life.Replies: @Jack D, @thinkingabout it
Are you male? If not, you have no inkling of the visceral disgust that most men instinctively feel when they hear about their wife/girlfriend’s past sexual relationships. And if it involved threesomes and blowjobs in dimly lit bars, it’s just so much worse.
One of my good friends went into major depression for several years after his girlfriend broke up with him and spent a year slutting around. The depression was not because they broke up, it was from the slutting around part.
You’re right about that not being how things play out in real life, however.
In real life, men have to account for their own limited value on the mate market, and often have no option but to suck it up and accept a wife with a slutty past. Because it’s either that, or no wife at all.
The liberated sexual market is essentially bringing a lot of beta men face to face with an eternal truth – that nature intended 50-60% of them to die in war. Whatever pussy they land up getting is a blessing from the god of biomechanics.
All the previous centuries of patriarchal civilization made beta men expect a virgin female companion to just plop into their lives, with no effort on their part. Now they are beginning to realize that the sexual market, which is sort of a metaphor for life, has winners and losers and most men are destined to lose.
" If not, you have no inkling of the visceral disgust that most men instinctively feel when they hear"
I have a similar reaction when you say things like "she spent a year slutting around". Both the activity and your reaction to it come off as gross, disrespectful. What exactly are you calling slutting around? Anything besides being a virgin?
"And if it involved threesomes and blowjobs in dimly lit bars, it’s just so much worse."
I wouldn't want to hear that either. I don't think most people want to hear details about someone's past. And that does sound sleazy, or again it could be the way you are writing it - I agree there is a lot of that in the media but I just don't know how common it really is, and as we have been saying not the usual way most people gain previous sexual experience.Replies: @thinkingabout it, @thinkingabout it
Honestly, i don’t see *any* reason why a smart, healthy, high-quality guy with good providing prospects should settle for anything other than a girl with a *zero* number count. A virgin when you take her.
The divorce data i’ve seen are pretty clear. Your her first, she’ll likely bond with you very well, and your chance of divorce is only about 2o%–basically “picked the wrong person” territory. After just one previous partner, the divorce rate is 40%+, though it stays in that 40-50% range for 1-4 partners–your “few fux”. After that it goes off another cliff, and is well above 50%. Given what divorce rape does to a guy … why bother? At some number approaching 10, it’s just a complete joke. The gal has demonstrated her fundamental sexuality is chasing the thrill of the alpha and she’s long ago burned out any real bonding capability. Getting married is just signing up to get divorced. Shoot a few loads into her and move on–that’s all she’s good for.
The fact is there are still plenty of young women who are interested in getting married, having kids and would be more than happy to just have sex just with their special guy, who becomes their husband. You read these little stories–like the phony “rapes”–and it’s clear that many young women are unhappy and just confused. They have sex and want it to mean something. When it doesn’t they are upset.
What’s needed is really twofold:
1) Pretty obviously, end divorce rape with default joint custody–mom and dad split the kids time and providing (hey, that’s equality!)–no special deal for the wife, no child support, none of dad’s money going to a wife who is no longer doing her wifely duty.
2) But at the front end, young men, being judgmental and just not marrying non-virgins. Hey, you’ve been outing hooking up … great we can hook up. When it comes time for marriage just tell her … uh, no, not interested in a gal who hooks up with guys. Get even 2o% of the good guys delivering that message and the girl’s behavior will radically improve. And with it the prospects for high quality provider “dad” types to have happy lives–and with that provide their wives and kids with happier lives.
Proof that everyone has his saving graces.
A pedophilia conviction?
One of my good friends went into major depression for several years after his girlfriend broke up with him and spent a year slutting around. The depression was not because they broke up, it was from the slutting around part.
You're right about that not being how things play out in real life, however.
In real life, men have to account for their own limited value on the mate market, and often have no option but to suck it up and accept a wife with a slutty past. Because it's either that, or no wife at all.
The liberated sexual market is essentially bringing a lot of beta men face to face with an eternal truth - that nature intended 50-60% of them to die in war. Whatever pussy they land up getting is a blessing from the god of biomechanics.
All the previous centuries of patriarchal civilization made beta men expect a virgin female companion to just plop into their lives, with no effort on their part. Now they are beginning to realize that the sexual market, which is sort of a metaphor for life, has winners and losers and most men are destined to lose.Replies: @casey
No, I am not male. I appreciate your honesty and think your comment makes an interesting point, and one I think more HBD people could concede to feminists, that a more equal situation is likely perfectly “natural” and I’m sure it’s a tough pill to swallow. But I still think your equating of having to settle for a sexually experienced partner with “losing” and considering it only a step up from dying in war is a tad hyperbolic.
” If not, you have no inkling of the visceral disgust that most men instinctively feel when they hear”
I have a similar reaction when you say things like “she spent a year slutting around”. Both the activity and your reaction to it come off as gross, disrespectful. What exactly are you calling slutting around? Anything besides being a virgin?
“And if it involved threesomes and blowjobs in dimly lit bars, it’s just so much worse.”
I wouldn’t want to hear that either. I don’t think most people want to hear details about someone’s past. And that does sound sleazy, or again it could be the way you are writing it – I agree there is a lot of that in the media but I just don’t know how common it really is, and as we have been saying not the usual way most people gain previous sexual experience.
STD rates tell a different story from "oh I only had sex with three guys my entire life". Women say they have less sexual partners than men in surveys, but it is very likely they are underreporting, perhaps out of a sense of shame. In spite of the extraordinary promiscuity of gay men, and their contribution to the male total, men still have lower STD rates than women. Some of this may involve differences in genital anatomy, but I doubt that explains it all.
Secondly - the state of nature you so gleefully claim as the feminist utopia involves a small minority of men winning the intrasexual competition, establishing their dominance over the land, and making the women their sex slaves.
There is nothing HBD advocates need to concede to feminists here, unless the feminist goal is to be part of a harem. This isn't pure conjecture - in the society where social decay has progressed the farthest (i.e ghetto blacks), top males like Floyd Mayweather and Chris Brown treat their women the way a medieval peasant treated his cattle.Replies: @casey
This process would repeat, generation after generation. Until the social technology of monogamous marriage was invented, likely in different parts of the world independently. I don't think it is a coincidence that every major civilization from Europe to Arabia to India to China had their own version of lifelong monogamous marriage. With each of them recommending extraordinarily severe punishments be meted out for adultery, really not commensurate with the victimless nature of the crime.
This movie seems to illustrate one of the points you often make about women pundits ... women want to change the world so that they will be hotter and more desirable.
Here, Amy Schumer makes as movie where an over-the-top alcoholic and promiscuous woman gets the good husband. A more honest movie would have shown how good husbands prefer non-trainwrecks.Replies: @Dirk Dagger
Are you saying this is not hot?
Yeah.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2015/07/springfield_womans_murder_trial_delayed
While I know dozens. They screwed their way through high school and a few years at community/Tier 129 colleges, married some tradesman sucker at a fairly young age, were divorced 10-15 years later with little support, as these guys are mostly pretty good at hiding income, jumped back on the cock carousel in their late thirties/early forties and subsequently spend a lot of time in local bars commiserating with their similarly-addled girlfriends about how hard it is to find a good man.
Discovering that your middle-aged snatch doesn’t have nearly the magic it did 20 years ago is a hard lesson to learn. But when all you’ve got is a hammer, the whole world is a nail.
Women are NOT flocking to marry up nerdy man-boys. Indeed Katherine Heigl found it quite offensive that her character WOULD marry someone played by Seth Rogen. Even though Rogen was and is ten times the star she is; the sexual marketplace disparity was too great for her to handle. Movie after movie, from Superbad to Knocked Up to This Is Forty extols the Beta Male to attractive women.
And universally attractive women reject the message of the virtue of settling for Beta Males. Indeed Feminism has been wildly successful in gaining female adherents, because it allows average women the ability to have sex with Alphas (but not commitment -- Bill Clinton did not marry Monica Lewinsky). Most women are fine with that.
Will most beta male White men see the movie and decide to "marry up that ho!" Uh ... no.
Schumer herself is overweight for Hollywood. Suggesting she no longer cares, unlike Gwyneth Paltrow, Jennifer Aniston, Sandra Bullock, etc. who carefully diet, work out like crazy, and have great plastic surgeons quite probably. Schumer seems more a conduit to do favors to her Uncle Senator Charles Schumer, D-NY than anything else. Want a tax break, intervention with Obama's Executive Branch? Cast Schumer's Niece in a Big Role and Push Her VERY VERY HARD. Like fellow fattie Lena Dunham, Schumer seems to rely on relationships more than feminine attractiveness to get her next role. Again problematic. And symptomatic of a Hollywood concerned with insider maneuvering not profits for shareholders.
Amy Schumer in shape MIGHT be considered an acceptable prize for male audiences, maybe, if the male character had significant handicaps. As it is, her character seems a McDonald's hamburger at Wolfgang Puck prices. I doubt Apatow will get many takers from Beta Males. Marry up a ... FAT ... woman with a large N count?. Nor is the beta male in the movie much of a prize for the female movie goers. He's a 100th best choice, if that. Women want the Alpha male, the dominant man who can have any woman he wants. Mr. Big, from Sex and the City. Moody/broody semi-gay vampires, or bondage minded billionaires. Not a wimp settling for a ho.
Long term I think we are going to be resigned to most Whites outside the Upper Class Charles Murray "SuperZips" to be r-selected. That is, men compete to be the most sexy singers, dancers, fighters, etc. and invest nothing in children whose paternity is uncertain, and women are single mothers. Marriage will be for ... Rich People. Who will pursue it with dynastic intent.
The old, monogamous, nuclear family, with the wife having N < 4, and the man N < 6, is dead. The condom, pill, anonymous urban living, and crucially female-driven consumer spending and advertising killed it.Replies: @Kate Minter, @gruff, @Jack D, @Reg Cæsar, @Lurker
Marry? He didn’t even properly screw her. As with the pot, for “plausible deniability”. How β can you get? (Do you even have to ask who wears the pants in that family?)
What’s the term for an α on the outside but a β on the inside?
Maybe to someone named Chico. But the only way the woman in those pics is hot is that she’s overdressed for Australia. Even now, in the dead of winter.
I don’t want to spam, but you are welcome to visit my site, which would answer the questions you and others have asked either my husband or myself.
I can't recall hearing of a girl, with neither a title of nobility nor a spot on a reality show, having so many people caring who she marries.Replies: @Kate Minter
Haha 🙂 How old are you and where do you live. #kiddingnotkidding
Men should join this new movement of insisting on women with demonstrably low numbers of premarital sexual experience. I call it:
The Few Fux Fan"
haha cute but how exactly will these women be demonstrating those low numbers??
More importantly, what exactly is your advice to young women? It sounds like you are saying something like "get married and have babies in your twenties and since you all can't get or even deserve the alpha male, and the betas have yet to prove their worth as providers, well you'll just have to guess wildly, just don't delay!"
Or maybe what you are saying is "get married in your early 20s and as far as the fact that males are not ready or interested in marriage at that age the solution is you should marry a guy in his 30s ready to provide you with a home for your family which you should start working on immediately"
Is that it?Replies: @Mark Minter
Who knows if you’ll read this given how many newer Sailer posts have flowed since this one.
This is the somewhat famous Rollo Tomassi SMV graph:
It says that females start out with super high SMV (Sexual Market Value), really from the point they go through puberty. It “maxes” at 23 and then diminishes. The SMV of males is almost non-existent when they are young and slowly increases through the 20s, remaining high through the 30s then falls afterwards.
My opinion of the chart, especially today, is that the chart shows the relative SMV “maxes” as equivalent between men and women. And to me that is nonsense. For almost all men, they rarely attain anything close the power that almost any above average women would have. There was a chart (that I don’t feel like searching for) on OK Cupid that charted “attractiveness” (1-10) and the number of messages received. The graph for the women was almost parabolic, something like “n squared” maybe “n raised to the 1.7 power”. For men it was a very small slope with anything less than 7 almost receiving zero messages, perhaps 1, with a 9 receiving maybe 3 or 4. The woman with SMV of 3 received more messages than the most attractive men. The 8 or 9 SMV woman was getting her inbox filled up.
But the Rollo graph shows an intersection of the two curves, M and F, about the ages 26-28 and this is called the Marriage Zone.
I can get quite harsh about all of this. A woman has a disposition to wish to be married and/or that men want to be married to her. Or she doesn’t. Women are stayers or they are leavers, and they are women that men wish to stay with or they don’t. And so to paraphrase Daryl Royal, “When you go with women, 4 things can happen. And only 1 of them is good.” So that would she is a stayer that men wish to stay with. Now the other operative idea is another Daryl Royal quote, “You gotta dance with them that brought ya.”
F Roger Devlin has an interesting essay “Sexual Liberation & Racial Suicide” (I am not going to link it here. It is posted in Counter Currents. If you search for it it will come right up on Google.) He makes the point about “choice”. There are two sorts of choices. One is a temporary and the other lasting. Which ice cream flavor is an example of the first. But then there is the more important choice. And it can’t be temporal because the effect of making the choice is important and in changing the choice is damaging. He gives the man’s choice of vocation as the example. We must choose early and then dedicate ourselves to it. To change that choice is a setback. For women, the choice of a mate should be in the same class. But Feminism has pushed for Marriage to just be another lifestyle choice, one of a bouquet of options that life lays at the feet of a woman. And then men should like one of the 31 flavors. Rocky Road when young, Vanilla when 30, then some more flavorful after that.
I am 60 and it was quite normal to have selected before 25. And many of those marriages survived. The June wedding was a function of graduating in May. The Maxim that holds true is “past performance is a good indicator of future performance.” Easily a woman that wished to choose on “Good Father” and “Good Husband” qualities could easily ascertain those tendencies in any man by 24.
And now go back to that SMV graph, you get him well before he is aware that he will have this high SMV, or better, well before he has experienced it and is aware of it. A man of 33 that has all the trappings that women want is a man with options. Why would he compromise those options for you, especially if you are above 30? You wanted him when you were 23 and so do other 23 year olds. Why would he want you now? Ah, but that 24 year old, he doesn’t sense those options yet. And the bonding process in our heads is designed to hook him, hard. He is the true Romantic, far more than women. And that process does two things, it hooks him hard, especially if it has not happened yet. And it points a loaded gun at his head, a gun that remains loaded practically as long as he lives, that if he isn’t “with you”, stress agents go off and punish him. Especially for what the Bible calls “The woman of his youth”.
Here are two articles on the subject
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2015/02/27/knot-now-the-benefits-of-marrying-in-your-mid-to-late-20s-including-more-sex/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/yourtango/10-awesome-perks-of-getti_b_6134400.html
The first reference a study from the University of Texas. I went to school there and they have a big deal sociology department that is extremely feminist, quite anti-men. The study was called “Later first marriage and marital success” and what they found where the happiest unions occurred in those that married in their 20s. The WaPo author suggests “The Marriage Zone”, mid 20s. I think earlier than that for a woman, who marries a guy that is older (Provided the woman is properly educated on the true benefits of marriage to her and more importantly, to her children. )
Now as to your question of “how to determine this N count”. Mostly it is circumstantial. An unmarried woman in her 30s is enough to find guilty until proven innocent. But she tells you in many ways. Firstly, in her stories. I married a woman in her 30s with a low N count. First off she told me almost straight out. She was divorced, married right out of college for 10 years, lived in a small town, had trouble finding any one that she wanted to date. There are no stories of vacations to exotic locales. No stories of spiffy nightclubs. She can’t tell me about the best restaurants in the area. The names or characters in the stories of her past never change. There are few stories with “This guy I knew”. No stories of concerts. She rarely drinks. She is naive sexually. Never does any illegal drugs. So if a woman in her 30s doesn’t have a history of long relationships with short intervals between them, and she is in her 30s, then there is history.
I’ve never figured out why men think they are more responsible (?!) Maybe in some job situations. I can see that. The military for instance. And maybe more reasonable in a way, on some topics. But responsible in general? Huh? That’s just somebody patting himself on the back, and nobody does that better than Jack Nicholson.
There’s a reason that in 3rd world countries they only want to lend small loans to the wives/mothers. They actually use the money for the family. The men typically drink or fritter it away. Stereotypes, I know. I know. But when it comes to money, the World Bank knows how to get its own back.
All this sex stuff is boring me. Everyone knows promiscutiy is debilitating in the long run, for men just maybe even more than women. But women can be mothers, so it has another significance.
ok, I’m outta here.
" If not, you have no inkling of the visceral disgust that most men instinctively feel when they hear"
I have a similar reaction when you say things like "she spent a year slutting around". Both the activity and your reaction to it come off as gross, disrespectful. What exactly are you calling slutting around? Anything besides being a virgin?
"And if it involved threesomes and blowjobs in dimly lit bars, it’s just so much worse."
I wouldn't want to hear that either. I don't think most people want to hear details about someone's past. And that does sound sleazy, or again it could be the way you are writing it - I agree there is a lot of that in the media but I just don't know how common it really is, and as we have been saying not the usual way most people gain previous sexual experience.Replies: @thinkingabout it, @thinkingabout it
By “slutting around”, in that specific case, I meant hooking up with random strangers in bars on a regular basis. Sleeping with two brothers, just to see what that felt like. And so on.
STD rates tell a different story from “oh I only had sex with three guys my entire life”. Women say they have less sexual partners than men in surveys, but it is very likely they are underreporting, perhaps out of a sense of shame. In spite of the extraordinary promiscuity of gay men, and their contribution to the male total, men still have lower STD rates than women. Some of this may involve differences in genital anatomy, but I doubt that explains it all.
Secondly – the state of nature you so gleefully claim as the feminist utopia involves a small minority of men winning the intrasexual competition, establishing their dominance over the land, and making the women their sex slaves.
There is nothing HBD advocates need to concede to feminists here, unless the feminist goal is to be part of a harem. This isn’t pure conjecture – in the society where social decay has progressed the farthest (i.e ghetto blacks), top males like Floyd Mayweather and Chris Brown treat their women the way a medieval peasant treated his cattle.
Again I have to wonder how common this is. Especially young people, who have lots of friends and other opportunities for sex. Even women I know who meet guys in bars sometimes generally have serially monogamous relationships, not anonymous hook ups.
"Secondly – the state of nature you so gleefully claim as the feminist utopia"
Please don't make up "claims" I never said anything of the sort and never would make a claim like that.
" involves a small minority of men winning the intrasexual competition, establishing their dominance over the land, and making the women their sex slaves."
what in gods name are you talking about?
"... I don’t think it is a coincidence that every major civilization from Europe to Arabia to India to China had their own version of lifelong monogamous marriage. With each of them recommending extraordinarily severe punishments be meted out for adultery,"
exactly women were more free before. So the desire to throw off the yoke that unfairly burdens women is natural. And the genie's not going back in the bottle you will have to accept it sooner or later.
" If not, you have no inkling of the visceral disgust that most men instinctively feel when they hear"
I have a similar reaction when you say things like "she spent a year slutting around". Both the activity and your reaction to it come off as gross, disrespectful. What exactly are you calling slutting around? Anything besides being a virgin?
"And if it involved threesomes and blowjobs in dimly lit bars, it’s just so much worse."
I wouldn't want to hear that either. I don't think most people want to hear details about someone's past. And that does sound sleazy, or again it could be the way you are writing it - I agree there is a lot of that in the media but I just don't know how common it really is, and as we have been saying not the usual way most people gain previous sexual experience.Replies: @thinkingabout it, @thinkingabout it
And let’s not forget, while we’re discussing states of nature, that masses of sexually frustrated betas in a state of nature usually gang up, start a revolution, wipe out the alphas and take over their harems.
This process would repeat, generation after generation. Until the social technology of monogamous marriage was invented, likely in different parts of the world independently. I don’t think it is a coincidence that every major civilization from Europe to Arabia to India to China had their own version of lifelong monogamous marriage. With each of them recommending extraordinarily severe punishments be meted out for adultery, really not commensurate with the victimless nature of the crime.
Women are NOT flocking to marry up nerdy man-boys. Indeed Katherine Heigl found it quite offensive that her character WOULD marry someone played by Seth Rogen. Even though Rogen was and is ten times the star she is; the sexual marketplace disparity was too great for her to handle. Movie after movie, from Superbad to Knocked Up to This Is Forty extols the Beta Male to attractive women.
And universally attractive women reject the message of the virtue of settling for Beta Males. Indeed Feminism has been wildly successful in gaining female adherents, because it allows average women the ability to have sex with Alphas (but not commitment -- Bill Clinton did not marry Monica Lewinsky). Most women are fine with that.
Will most beta male White men see the movie and decide to "marry up that ho!" Uh ... no.
Schumer herself is overweight for Hollywood. Suggesting she no longer cares, unlike Gwyneth Paltrow, Jennifer Aniston, Sandra Bullock, etc. who carefully diet, work out like crazy, and have great plastic surgeons quite probably. Schumer seems more a conduit to do favors to her Uncle Senator Charles Schumer, D-NY than anything else. Want a tax break, intervention with Obama's Executive Branch? Cast Schumer's Niece in a Big Role and Push Her VERY VERY HARD. Like fellow fattie Lena Dunham, Schumer seems to rely on relationships more than feminine attractiveness to get her next role. Again problematic. And symptomatic of a Hollywood concerned with insider maneuvering not profits for shareholders.
Amy Schumer in shape MIGHT be considered an acceptable prize for male audiences, maybe, if the male character had significant handicaps. As it is, her character seems a McDonald's hamburger at Wolfgang Puck prices. I doubt Apatow will get many takers from Beta Males. Marry up a ... FAT ... woman with a large N count?. Nor is the beta male in the movie much of a prize for the female movie goers. He's a 100th best choice, if that. Women want the Alpha male, the dominant man who can have any woman he wants. Mr. Big, from Sex and the City. Moody/broody semi-gay vampires, or bondage minded billionaires. Not a wimp settling for a ho.
Long term I think we are going to be resigned to most Whites outside the Upper Class Charles Murray "SuperZips" to be r-selected. That is, men compete to be the most sexy singers, dancers, fighters, etc. and invest nothing in children whose paternity is uncertain, and women are single mothers. Marriage will be for ... Rich People. Who will pursue it with dynastic intent.
The old, monogamous, nuclear family, with the wife having N < 4, and the man N < 6, is dead. The condom, pill, anonymous urban living, and crucially female-driven consumer spending and advertising killed it.Replies: @Kate Minter, @gruff, @Jack D, @Reg Cæsar, @Lurker
It’s like the lottery, I’ve bought a ticket, I might win. So Monica lost, I might not, it’s worth a try!
STD rates tell a different story from "oh I only had sex with three guys my entire life". Women say they have less sexual partners than men in surveys, but it is very likely they are underreporting, perhaps out of a sense of shame. In spite of the extraordinary promiscuity of gay men, and their contribution to the male total, men still have lower STD rates than women. Some of this may involve differences in genital anatomy, but I doubt that explains it all.
Secondly - the state of nature you so gleefully claim as the feminist utopia involves a small minority of men winning the intrasexual competition, establishing their dominance over the land, and making the women their sex slaves.
There is nothing HBD advocates need to concede to feminists here, unless the feminist goal is to be part of a harem. This isn't pure conjecture - in the society where social decay has progressed the farthest (i.e ghetto blacks), top males like Floyd Mayweather and Chris Brown treat their women the way a medieval peasant treated his cattle.Replies: @casey
“By “slutting around”, in that specific case, I meant hooking up with random strangers in bars on a regular basis. Sleeping with two brothers, just to see what that felt like. And so on.”
Again I have to wonder how common this is. Especially young people, who have lots of friends and other opportunities for sex. Even women I know who meet guys in bars sometimes generally have serially monogamous relationships, not anonymous hook ups.
“Secondly – the state of nature you so gleefully claim as the feminist utopia”
Please don’t make up “claims” I never said anything of the sort and never would make a claim like that.
” involves a small minority of men winning the intrasexual competition, establishing their dominance over the land, and making the women their sex slaves.”
what in gods name are you talking about?
“… I don’t think it is a coincidence that every major civilization from Europe to Arabia to India to China had their own version of lifelong monogamous marriage. With each of them recommending extraordinarily severe punishments be meted out for adultery,”
exactly women were more free before. So the desire to throw off the yoke that unfairly burdens women is natural. And the genie’s not going back in the bottle you will have to accept it sooner or later.
Casey, you seem to not be following my arguments.
Women have the option of monogamy with betas, or being disposable toys to alphas. Right now they get the best of both worlds, but that’s only until enough men take the red pill and refuse to “man up” and marry the sluts around them. The hbd sphere is doing exactly that, opening our eyes to female machinations.
The genie will go back into the bottle because a civilization with a tiny alpha minority monopolizing the women will not survive. It will go the way of Japan and Sweden, as more and more men disengage from it and drop out. A healthier culture, where the rewards are equitably distributed, will displace it. Islam is the most likely answer.
Do you think it’s a coincidence that the most patriarchal civilization, Islam, is also the world’s fastest growing? Read about the history of Lebanon, where a sexually liberated Christian majority was replaced by a conservative Islamic majority within fifty years.