Theme: Sex Differences

  • Beer question. Assuming that monogamy continues on its present course toward ext

    Beer question.

    Assuming that monogamy continues on its present course toward extinction.

    How many women can you maintain polyamorous relationships with?

    (Really)


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-16 17:29:00 UTC

  • “Women are not damsels in distress that need to be rescued, they are oppressed v

    —“Women are not damsels in distress that need to be rescued, they are oppressed victims that need to be saved.”—

    Josh Strodtbeck.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-15 11:38:00 UTC

  • dysfunction is what happens when you combine high testosterone with extremely *l

    —-dysfunction is what happens when you combine high testosterone with extremely *low* average IQ. When you combine the former with high IQ, you get fighter pilots, S.E.A.L.s, and athletes WITHOUT long felony rapsheets.—-

    ouch sailer at it again


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-09 15:33:00 UTC

  • Q: “Curt, why are you trying to rile me up” (Female) A: “Well you know, it’s jus

    Q: “Curt, why are you trying to rile me up” (Female)

    A: “Well you know, it’s just a ruse to get you to think, right?” (Me)

    The point is that marriage is destructive to men as it is currently constructed and enforced by the state – resulting in suicide and poverty for older males at increasing rates.

    So the reason I say something inflammatory is to draw attention to this fact, and demonstrate that the contract is unequal, and as such should be eliminated. In other words, I think we must end common property for all property worth fighting over.

    And I operate under the assumption, demonstrated by evidence, that marriages are temporary exchanges of powers of attorney, but never of property. That children belong to their mothers and never to their fathers, unless the court deems mothers dangerous to the child (in which case it’s rare the father is any better.(

    So if we are no longer to be married for life then we are not longer able to rationally possess common property – and upon failure or bankruptcy of the partnership (not corporation) that we call “the family”, all partners depart with their proportional contributions.

    In practice this means that title to any item must be provided, and no unstated title may remain unprovided for.

    Now, I should note that I can see a post-familial society but I must work on that a bit before I’m confident that it isn’t comparatively uncompetitive. Because as far as I can tell, high time parenting isn’t replaceable.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-08 15:36:00 UTC

  • NONSENSE – CREATIVE DIRECTORS If we look at the middle of any business women com

    http://adage.com/article/agency-news/women-aim-increase-creative-ranks-3-conference/295744/?utm_source=agency_email&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=adage&ttl=1415988872FEMINIST NONSENSE – CREATIVE DIRECTORS

    If we look at the middle of any business women compete exceptionally and often displace men, if for no other reason than women integrate into organizations more easily. If we look at the margins, both at the most troublesome and most exceptional, the ratio of men to women rapidly increases. We have known why that is the case for many, many years, and there is zero chance of altering it. As far as we know, saturation in the workplace has been achieved. There are not enough women at the upper or lower ends, to compete with men at those ends..Women are not held back. It’s just how evolution made us: men in the top percentiles in every field, and in the bottom percentiles in every field, rapidly exceed ten to one, and at some points achieve 40 or 50 to one. That’s pretty hard science and there isn’t any material chance of changing it.

    There are great women creative directors, but the ratio will always remain fairly constant. Its’ a function of distributions not of ability or bias. The best we can do is make the best of each other as individuals – we have spent too much time making gender irrelevant to make female gender any particular consequence.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-07 16:54:00 UTC

  • I love my female friends. They are amazing human beings. And they understand the

    I love my female friends. They are amazing human beings. And they understand the point of my arguments – and taunts- is to teach us to understand one another’s motives, so that we can be happier and happier together.

    My message is a simple one: men are contained by the family from perusing their best interests. The marriage is a compromise. And in a government over families, we all have the same interests due to that compromise.

    So under one family one vote, the competition between the genders was conducted outside of the state, and the state served the majority interest: the family.

    But upon achieving enfranchisement women sought increasingly to implement socialism, then to destroy the family, then arguably to dominate men through the female dominance of the electorate.

    But this assumes men will continue demonstrating the behaviour outside the marriage that they demonstrated inside the marriage.

    And this cannot and will not happen.

    Instead the self interest of makes that we se expressed in the rest of the world will be the only logical approach for men to take.

    All revolutions are created by a minority of angry men.

    The western Man will only act to ham in his interest with moral authority.

    And western man is beginning to understand that he has moral authority.

    The pendulum has swung as far as it can.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-06 14:00:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pHIB5osmZGA(women)


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-06 06:09:00 UTC

  • MOST HELPFUL EXPLANATION I’VE EVER PROVIDED FOR STRONG WOMEN? —“This is quite

    MOST HELPFUL EXPLANATION I’VE EVER PROVIDED FOR STRONG WOMEN?

    —“This is quite possibly the most helpful thing you have ever posted (at least for me).”—

    Women fear and reject us (men) all the time, for a zillion reasons every day. And we don’t like it really. Especially crazy chicks (the vast majority of women) when we are just trying to be friendly or get along, or learn, or whatever.

    One of the things that makes us feel emotionally and intellectually and socially safe is to be around women who aren’t ‘fragile’. Strong men like women who are strong.

    **Being a man around women is a little like being a gorilla in a glass-shop: everything is really easily broken if we aren’t really careful at all times.**

    Strong women make you feel ‘safe’ that you can talk and act like your natural gorilla-self without fear that the glasses will break (the crazy chicks will get over excited). And the crazy chicks will rally and shame other women and god forbid, other gorillas to punish you, for accidentally breaking a goblet, just cause, after all, you’re just a gorilla.

    I mean, that’s the reality of it. It’s that simple. That’s why strong men like strong women.

    Women often wish men thought more like them and men wish women thought more like them. We all wish others would think more like us. I mean, everything is easier the more similar that we are.

    But men are faster, stronger, and extremely dangerous super-predators. and when we get strong women around us we feel safer. Weak men want less strong women. Because if we don’t feel STRONGER then we don’t believe women will be attracted to us. (And they aren’t).

    So it’s a totally logical thing we’re talking abut here. Men want strong women that they wont break, and get in trouble for breaking (or lose opportunity for sex by breaking). And on the other hand, men don’t want women that are so strong that they won’t be attracted to us. The thing that works against mankind, is that women are so attracted to gorillas at the expense of everything else (no matter what they say, that’s the data), that women force regression toward the mean, because impulsive aggressive alphas aren’t as useful as un-impulsive, cunning alphas. So without monogamy, assortative mating, and property rights, women will cause dysgenic reproduction. And without assortative mating you get the middle east: invariant dysgenia holding at the mean.

    So that’s the truthful narrative, not the fallacy that’s cast by feminists.

    —“I also think men do have that whole scaling Everest thing. So something not easily obtained is worth working toward.”—

    Let me reframe this a bit: Men are scared. We are disposable and we know it. We are constantly threatened by permanent loneliness that can easily drive us to suicide. We mature later, and die earlier. In exchange we are stronger and faster, less sensitive and more specialized. We are, each of us, an experiment that can succeed or fail.

    About a third of us are undesirable as providers or gene suppliers, and about another third only marginally desirable as providers, not gene suppliers. Men try climb everest in order to capture the best genes that they can. It’s not complicated.

    And, worse, just as women must lie to themselves to control their paranoid impulses for acceptance in the tribe, lest not be able to seek rents when needed against fellow tribe members, men must lie to themselves so that they continue to work in the service of their genes despite the near total likelihood of failure.

    Men look in the mirror and see much better visions of themselves than others do, and women look and see worse than they do – the mirror always lies. And it must, or we would never keep the relentless pursuit of the interests our genes. Because what is rational in real time, is inconsequential to the intergenerational requirements of genes.

    This is why women can collect so many men to help them with so may different aspects of life without actually giving them sex, but merely the most remotest of chances that sex and affection are possible. Because men must play ever option available to them. And the lower on the curve they are, the more important are those options. And the more desperate the man the more aggressive he can become in pursuit of them – his genes drive him to reproduce, and his reason is a mere mouse riding an elephant of intuition, that does everything possible to lie to the mouse in order to get what it wants.

    I think of the elephant of intuition as blind, deaf and dumb and reliant on the mouse of reason. Intuition wants satisfaction for all intents and purposes must feed upon chemical satisfaction, and it only gets chemical satisfaction from rewarding the unconscious genes. The rider is a device for getting satisfaction. Everything is a compromise between the blind deaf and dumb elephant that has no problem lying to the rider, and the rider has eyes and ears and can speak and control the body, but little else.

    Curt Doolittle


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-04 06:12:00 UTC

  • THE FLIRTATIONS OF OLDER WOMEN (Cultural Observations: older Ukrainian women fli

    THE FLIRTATIONS OF OLDER WOMEN

    (Cultural Observations: older Ukrainian women flirt like humans communicate with cats – you have to sort of ignore them if you want their attention. The same for older Ukrainian women. They give you that look that is long enough to say you exist, but not long enough to give you positive encouragement. It’s hysterical. I am not sure why I didn’t cue on it before. (too subtle.) Then they wonder why foreign men just assume that they’re not interested. And my guess is that the women think the men don’t consider them attractive. But it’s not the case. It’s that they think that they’ve been rejected already. Western men are simple. Just smile and say hello. Ask directions, or the time. It works the other way ’round you know, except that the more unwanted attention a woman gets the less friendly she tends to be, while the less unwanted attention she gets the more conversant she will be. The ‘game’ system is really a young people’s art. Because you don’t have evidence that you’re worthwhile. As you get older the evidence that you have your shit together or not is more obvious. And harder to fake.)


    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-31 07:09:00 UTC

  • FEMINISM: MERITOCRACY OR ORGANIZED CRIME? I am not sure how you get to be more o

    FEMINISM: MERITOCRACY OR ORGANIZED CRIME?

    I am not sure how you get to be more of a ‘feminist’ than via aristocracy – meaning meritocracy. But then I view feminism as making a better world, by making stronger women, not subsidizing weak women and making weaker men, and making stronger women who compete meritocratically with men. If feminism means ‘the political pursuit of female reproductive interests, rather than the political pursuit of family interests, and if feminism is just a ruse for rent seeking and legal privilege so that women do not have to compete meritocratically with men in the service of mankind, then that’s something else: organized crime.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-31 03:31:00 UTC