So much triggering this week . . . much, much triggering.
If you’re a man over 30, you have something to look forward to as you prepare to navigate the post-nightclub scene sexual market: the gradual accretion of two powerful male attractiveness traits.
ZFG (zero fucks given, aka outcome independence)
So a hearty congratulations to America’s ruling class for diligently overseeing the importation of tens of millions of these apathetic cheap labor cogs and public teat sucklers! You’ve got your obedient indentured brown servants who will consume your cheap Chinese-made throwaway trinkets and nail-by-number plasticine death-trap houses while dutifully voting your oligarch lefty buddies into office for lifetime, and generational, terms of nation-destroying service. And you also enjoy the self-aggrandizing benefit of fewer and fewer salt of the earth Whites remaining who are the only group capable of successfully rebelling against your depredations and ousting you from power.
But that was the point all along. And that’s why a revolution looms, despite your best efforts to quash it under a mountain of hivemind equalist agit-prop with the help of your SJW useful toolbags.
Where have environmental groups been in this whole process? Environmental groups are staffed by trust fund kids from the dying white establishment and the diversity/affirmative action hires who accept the lower pay for shorter hours. This pairs people with no sense of reality with people who could care less about being effective. The trust fund kids go to high schools where they attend accelerated classes and meet few minorities, then go off to college, and then straight into the non-profit world without ever having worked a “real” job or lived among the normal parts of the city. Instead, with some parental help, they get apartments or condominiums in midtown and live among the mostly-white group there.
Environmental groups have followed a strategy of trying to save species rather than trying to save land. They have set up a number of wildlife refuges across the city and tend to swoop in on new construction, delay it if they can (these losses are deductible to the developers), and then capture whatever rare species they can find and take them back to these refuges. As a result, the species there are overpopulated and dying off, and very little land is set aside for nature.
The city will point to its park system, which is extensive but cut through with bike trails and used as drainage overflow (“flood plain”) and so is hostile to natural species. These parks are filled with people all day who are riding bikes, jogging, and having picnics. Small clumps of forest are trimmed by mostly-Hispanic gardeners. The result is a paradise for a few generalized species but drives away anything more complex. In addition, the carnage on the roads is massive as animals try to escape one overpopulated forest refuge for another.
To fix the problems of Houston and its flooding would require interventions that are politically unsustainable. Some developments would have to be removed to make way for more open land, which would not be park land and so would anger local residents. These communities would likely be either traditional minority communities in the process of gentrification, at which point the remaining minority residents would be rallied to protest “racism,” or new communities which minority groups hope to move into to live the American Dream™. Any action to cut down on concrete and over-development would also anger the oil and development industries.
Side Note: Amerika.org is an example of a blog I might read. If they had a fucking RSS feed that pushes the full content of the post. On top of that they don’t even have a contact page where I can send them an email telling ’em to fucking fix their fucking RSS fucking feed. Fucking Jesus Fucking Christ on a Fucking Stick people. Remove your heads from your asses and fix your fucking RSS feeds.
The Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI) is one of Sandra Bem’s most notable contributions to feminist psychology, measuring an individual’s identification with traditionally masculine and feminine qualities. In a cross-temporal meta-analysis of U.S. college students’ scores on the BSRI (34 samples, N = 8,027), we examined changes in ratings on the Bem masculinity (M) and femininity (F) scales since the early 1990s. Additional analyses used data collected in a previous meta-analysis (Twenge 1997) to document changes since the BSRI’s inception in 1974. Our results reveal that women’s femininity scores have decreased significantly (d = −.26) between 1993 and 2012, whereas their masculinity remained stable. No significant changes were observed for men. Expanded analyses of data from 1974 to 2012 (94 samples, N = 24,801) found that women’s M rose significantly (d = .23), with no changes in women’s F, men’s M, and men’s F. Women’s androgyny scores showed a significant increase since 1974, but not since 1993. Men’s androgyny remained the same in both time periods. Our findings suggest that since the 1990s, U.S. college women have become less likely to endorse feminine traits as self-representative, potentially revealing a devaluation of traditional femininity. However, it is also possible that the scale items do not match modern gender stereotypes. Future research may need to update the BSRI to reflect current conceptions of gender.
When men’s sexuality is maximally restricted, and women’s sexuality is released of all constraints, the inevitable result is a dispiritingly corporate romantic market of supplicating male lackeys and aggro “slut positive” careergrrl chubsters whose very financial independence (government gibsmedats by any name) obviates the need to be more pleasing and feminine to attract beta male providers with tight resource sharing Game.
An unfeminine androgyne is the New World Woman, and she is letting men know they aren’t worth her effort to please, (and her unkempt vagina has seen lots of action DEAL WITH IT).
Lesbian dishevelment and apparent apathy toward improving their appearance to please other lesbians is indirect proof that straight women place less emphasis on men’s looks than men place on women’s looks (and less than gay men place on other gay men’s looks). The difference between straight women and lesbians is that the former aren’t trying to find love with other women who will care as little about looks as they do.
Man with options + woman with fewer options = man with peace of mind and wandering eye + happy but anxious woman + lovingly prepared home-cooked meals.
Woman with options + man with fewer options = unhappy woman with wandering eye + happy but anxious man + microwaved dinners.
Man with options + woman with options = stable relationship. Both are happy and infidelity or rupture risks are minimized.
Man with few options + woman with few options = stable relationship. Both are unhappy yet infidelity or rupture risks are still minimized.
. . . . .
That is, it’s sexy to act more like an untrustworthy man than a trustworthy man. Why? Because women LOVE LOVE LOVE men who are loved by other desirable women. And an untrustworthy man signals his desirability to many beautiful women. This principle is why it’s so common to see physically unattractive men dating hot babes “out of their league” strut like a cuntquistador who could drop his current lover on a dime if she ever gave him trouble. Platitudists may not appreciate this facet of human sexual behavior, but it’s real and it works.
We test a novel evolutionary hypothesis predicting that mate value discrepancies, but not mate preference fulfillment, will regulate relationship satisfaction. Across Study 1 (n = 259) and Study 2 (n = 300), we employed new Euclidean measures able to capture preference fulfillment and compute estimates of mate value discrepancies. Relationship satisfaction was not related to how well mates fulfilled their partner’s preferences. Mate value discrepancies, in contrast, interacted to predict relationship satisfaction: relationship satisfaction declined for participants whose mates were less desirable than their alternatives, but only for participants who were higher in mate value than their mates. Additionally, these satisfaction differences mediated a relationship between mate value discrepancies and mate retention behavior. This mediation pathway is unique to satisfaction; the same pathway was not observed through trust, a functionally distinct relationship affective state. Study 3 (n = 301) addressed a methodological limitation of Studies 1 and 2. We replicated the mate value discrepancy interaction to predict relationship satisfaction, but found an effect of ideal preference fulfillment on relationship satisfaction. These results provide evidence that mate preferences have important, functionally specific effects on within-relationship processes through contributing to two independent discrepancy variables: partner–self and partner-potential mate value discrepancies. They also largely contravene the hypothesis that mate preference fulfillment is the key to relationship satisfaction.
I’ve made similar points that working wives are 1) tempted to infidelity (physical or emotional) by close proximity to high status male bosses not their husbands in corporate environments, 2) men are less inclined to emotionally invest in, and therefore materially provide for, careerist women who are financially self-sufficient, and 3) marital egalitarianism kills sex lives dead.
There are many good reasons why the feminist idea of a successful marriage is a warped one. Humans are not (yet) an androgynous blob of asexually-reproducing drones. Women love men who come closest to the masculine ideal, and men love women who come closest to the feminine ideal. This means, in real life, women love powerful confident men who serve as the oak tree under which they can find shelter against the storms, and men love to shelter pretty, vulnerable, feminine women whose first instinct is to nurture rather than swim with the corporate sharks.
In contrast, in the Whitest huetopias, the skin-tight, labia-compressing yoga pants are everywhere. Where da sluttily-dressed White women at? In White neighborhoods. What’s going on here?
I have a thought. Striver White women soaked in a lifetime of feminist tankgrrl indoctrination dress to attract alpha males (while having to deal with the risk of sending the wrong advertising signal to beta males), and they dress to flaunt the power inherent in their number one asset (their figures, culminating to a point at the mons pubis). In White neighborhoods filled with hirsute hipster goons concealing weak jawlines, White women feel unrestricted freedom to flaunt their creases and cracks. This freedom makes them power-drunk, and they love the torment (or thought of it) that they can cause to erupt in the silent skullcases of fearful beta males ogling them from a safe distance.
Newsflash: Women don’t want to be fully and unconditionally accepted for who they are by men. They want a man who will challenge them and make them work for his acceptance.
There’s another way the behavior of children holds the key to successfully flirting with grown women. The conversation style that elicits peals of joy from children is pretty similar to the conversation style that elicits squeals of arousal from women.
Allow me. When you talk to a kid, they will react in one of two ways: escalating excitement, or boredom. Kids don’t have a “neutral listening gear” like adult men do. When a kid is excited, he’ll show it. When he’s bored, ditto. And there’s no faster way to bore a kid than indulging in long-winded, detail-oriented replies to the myriad questions with which kids love to bombard adults. It’s not that kids don’t want answers to their burning questions; it’s that they don’t want dry answers that aren’t painted with the brute force rhetoric of the primary colors.
Kids expect short answers because kids have underdeveloped attention spans and a hunger for amusement. Just like women. Therefore, kids, (just like women), will zone out on long explanations. And they will positively engage with pithy, sarcastic jibes that merely brush with a sufficient answer to the questions.
The other event occurred on Facebook. I posted the above photo on my Facebook feed along with a few other choice tidbits. One of my posts was simply, “It’s Brexit, baby.” The effect of these was quite extraordinary to behold. I received quite a number of text messages and private messages deploring my “insensitivity” at a “traumatic and delicate time”. There were also public calls demanding that I post only positive posts on what being out of the EU could mean, as if I were solely responsible for helping these poor people by the hand to overcome their hurt feelings.
The amusing thing for me is that these same people routinely post political messages on their Facebook feeds that are the exact polar opposite of my views. At times I am bombarded by them. I never object, (although in private I do marvel that these people could be so obtuse as to assume that everyone they know is in exact agreement with them, but bubbles have to bubble). However, the one time that I post something on my feed with a political bent they all go collectively batshit crazy.
The left didn’t get what they want but even worse their self-imposed world bubble has been rudely pricked. This is totally unacceptable to them. The only reason that the left agreed to a poll in the first place was because they were absolutely certain that they would win. Here in Australia the government has promised a public plebiscite on the issue of gay marriage. The left have objected to this opportunity for the public to have their say in the strongest terms possible – to whit, they have called such a poll “hurtful to gay people everywhere” and “it will cause gay people to even kill themselves”. In other words, they’re not certain that they would win.