Randomness thread, part two.

[OngBonga]

[a500lbgorilla]

[spoonitnow]

[OngBonga]

spoon enjoying a smoke...

[wufwugy]

I think the DC universe may be heading in a better direction than people are saying. Sure Superman is supposed to be bright and moral, but if his darkness is a setup to make him a villain for a while, it's pretty great.

[JKDS]

I think the DC universe may be heading in a better direction than people are saying. Sure Superman is supposed to be bright and moral, but if his darkness is a setup to make him a villain for a while, it's pretty great.

Badguy Superman has always been fun to watch. The Injustice video game has a pretty good storyline in it regarding that, and theres lots of "What if..." comics (Red Son) and cool mainstory events (Superman Doomed, for ex) that occur to make him a badguy. But this Batman v. Superman movie is weird. I dont see the setup yet for why Superman is 'evil', and they've flipped expectations a bit because one of DC's best comics was about Superman stopping a rogue Batman. Then you throw in that the latest superman movie was only meh, Ben Afflack as Batman, and you get an anticipated mess.

[wufwugy]

Could be. I think they have thought this through more than initially expected though. Like, it seems the writers are cognizant of the fact that it's bad news for Superman to have been so reckless in Man of Steel.

[spoonitnow]

Typical entitled upper middle class female gets her ass handed to her.

[a500lbgorilla]

They lit her up twice on her valuation and lack of return customers and she tried to re-assert both times that she was on top of it.

I love how he tries to bring it down to 1.5 mil and get 50/50 for 500k. Such a tight show.

Gotta throw this top dog out there.



Whole thing's in here somewhere. It gets better. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Mo6uHzmk_I

[spoonitnow]

Here are a few not-so-fun facts:

1. More men are raped in the United States each year than women.
2. More men are sexually assaulted in the US military each year than women.
3. Women attempt suicide 3x as often as men, but men commit suicide about 4x often as women.
4. Women police officers are more likely to use lethal force.
5. A woman is more likely to be the victim of domestic violence if she's in a relationship with another woman than if she's in a relationship with a man.
6. Women commit more domestic violence to men than men do to women.

[MadMojoMonkey]

1 & 2) I'm guessing they were raped/assaulted by men

3) Suicide is a sad part of life, and I don't see what your point is by showing a disparity in suicide rates. Not that you're comparing apples to apples, there.

4 & 5) OK. I'm sure you have some broad studies that show this is not a single case, but a pathological trend, right?

6) There's no social stigma against a woman hitting a man.

***
You couldn't be more boring or fanatical could you? I mean, that combo deserves mention, but ... yawn.

[OngBonga]

7. Your Mom is a woman.

[wufwugy]

I think pedophilia is 100% nurture. There may be some genetic tendencies towards it (or may not), but I don't think they matter and instead I think every instance of pedophilia emerges from how the environment affects the person.

[JKDS]

I think pedophilia is 100% nurture. There may be some genetic tendencies towards it (or may not), but I don't think they matter and instead I think every instance of pedophilia emerges from how the environment affects the person.

Psychologists would disagree. IIRC, they found that people with pedophilia legit can't help themselves, and equate it to a disease. Many seek to be imprisoned for fear of not being able to control themselves, and curing them has been largely unsuccessful.

It could still be environmental I guess though, because habits are incredibly powerful, and a bad start could lead to uncontrollable actions. Still, should be curable.

[daven]

1. More men are raped in the United States each year than women.
2. More men are sexually assaulted in the US military each year than women.
3. Women attempt suicide 3x as often as men, but men commit suicide about 4x often as women.
4. Women police officers are more likely to use lethal force.
5. A woman is more likely to be the victim of domestic violence if she's in a relationship with another woman than if she's in a relationship with a man.
6. Women commit more domestic violence to men than men do to women.

1 - yep, jail and the whole incarceration industry is pretty gross. And how is a joke about jail-rape allowed to ever be funny?
2 - wonder what the rates (i.e. assaults by numbers) by gender look like?
3 - ja, this one is an interesting one eh
4 - interesting
5 - also interesting
6 - is this including domestic violence against children in the stat? i suspect that it does.

[wufwugy]

Psychologists would disagree. IIRC, they found that people with pedophilia legit can't help themselves, and equate it to a disease. Many seek to be imprisoned for fear of not being able to control themselves, and curing them has been largely unsuccessful.

It could still be environmental I guess though, because habits are incredibly powerful, and a bad start could lead to uncontrollable actions. Still, should be curable.

Something being compelling and appearing in somebody's nature doesn't mean it's genetic in the predetermined vs learned debate. Everything learned changes physical structure and becomes the new normal. This is one reason why differences in brain structure don't tell us anything about the initial cause of a behavior.

I remember seeing some research a long time ago that child molesters had dramatic recidivism reductions when they moved into therapeutic environments. I don't know if it's true though. I also remember some research suggesting that pedophilia is often a correlation with unusually low testosterone in men. Again, I don't know if it's true.

It's just a hunch.

[wufwugy]

I also think the same thing of psychopaths.

[JKDS]

When Megan's Laws (sex offender registries) were being introduced, politicians asserted that there was a link between gays and pedophilia. They had studies to back up their claim, and gathered significant support.

The studies were, obviously, bogus.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Why is this thread, "part two"?

First thread not random enough?

[JKDS]

We may need a third. This one isnt really random anymore, theres 2-3 topics that are constantly here.

[daven]

We may need a third. This one isnt really random anymore, theres 2-3 topics that are constantly here.

i moved to the capital
i'm back in the south checking in on my house this weekend
and checking in on a goddess
it's snowing outside
the fire is warm

0.3976

[OngBonga]

When Megan's Laws (sex offender registries) were being introduced, politicians asserted that there was a link between gays and pedophilia. They had studies to back up their claim, and gathered significant support.

The studies were, obviously, bogus.

When we take morality out of the picture, I can go as far as saying homosexuality and pedophilia are related. Both are sexual abnormalities, neither serve a reproductive purpose. That said, there is a very clear moral difference between two consenting adults, and one consenting adult and a child. To equate the two on a moral level is outrageous. Any study that claims a link between the two really needs to emphasise the stark moral difference.

[OngBonga]

I think pedophilia is 100% nurture.

I also remember some research suggesting that pedophilia is often a correlation with unusually low testosterone in men. Again, I don't know if it's true.

Do these positions not contradict one another? How is low testosterone the result of nurture?

[spoonitnow]

6 - is this including domestic violence against children in the stat? i suspect that it does.

No, this is purely adult in relationship on adult in relationship.

When we take morality out of the picture, I can go as far as saying homosexuality and pedophilia are related. Both are sexual abnormalities, neither serve a reproductive purpose. That said, there is a very clear moral difference between two consenting adults, and one consenting adult and a child. To equate the two on a moral level is outrageous. Any study that claims a link between the two really needs to emphasise the stark moral difference.

Masturbation doesn't serve a reproductive purpose either. It's worth noting for the sake of the discussion that bisexual men have sex with more women than straight men.

I'm of the belief that pedophilia is natural. I'm also of the belief that beating peoples heads in with rocks for minor provocations is natural. My point is that something being natural doesn't mean we should let it go on.

I had a thread or a post in the randomness thread a while back about pedophiles who wanted help because they didn't want to hurt anyone.

Do these positions not contradict one another? How is low testosterone the result of nurture?

If we're talking about the behavioral aspect only, being taught to behave in certain ways decreases testosterone.

If we're including environmental factors in the nuture part of the equation, then the list gets so long that I can't really give it justice here. Having a cell phone near your nuts and high consumption of soy (relative to previous generations) are both good examples that stand out.

[OngBonga]

Masturbation doesn't serve a reproductive purpose either.

Not directly, but the intention is to simulate sex. What is a man thinking about or watching when he masturbates? At least if a man is thinking about pussy when he wanks, then it does serve a reproductive purpose in the sense that it demonstrates a sexual interest in women.

If we're talking about the behavioral aspect only, being taught to behave in certain ways decreases testosterone.

This surprises me, I kinda assumed that people's levels of testosterone was largely genetic. I mean I would expect that levels would fluctuate depending on environmental influences, allowing nurture to play a role, but I would expect nature to be the dominant factor. When it comes to mate selection in the animal world, the females nearly always pick alpha males, because their genes will be stronger and give the offspring a better chance of survival. Testosterone levels will be playing a key role here, meaning aplha status is surely mostly genetic.

[wufwugy]

Do these positions not contradict one another? How is low testosterone the result of nurture?

In the nature vs nurture debate, the dichotomy is the unchangeable vs the changeable. Or the unaffected vs the affected. Or the you-had-no-choice-but-to-be-this-way vs something-happened-to-make-you-this-way.

That said, what exactly is nature and what exactly is nurture is not fully defined. What do we do with the womb? Or with nutrition for the first few weeks after birth? Or with enforced behaviors during infant and toddler years? I'm not sure.

As for unusually low T, I think it's mostly explained by lifestyle things. Even if it's not, at this point HRT can defeat it, so I think that puts it on the nurture side for us, at least in a hypothetical.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Testosterone levels are dynamic over time in both men and women.

Testosterone is a hormone, and its production rate varies due to emotional state and perceived dangers, whatnot.

When someone takes a risk and it pays off, their body gives them a burst of testosterone, among other things.
When someone hears statements of their own awesomeness, that triggers a burst, too.

There are probably other things.

[spoonitnow]

Not directly, but the intention is to simulate sex. What is a man thinking about or watching when he masturbates? At least if a man is thinking about pussy when he wanks, then it does serve a reproductive purpose in the sense that it demonstrates a sexual interest in women.



This surprises me, I kinda assumed that people's levels of testosterone was largely genetic. I mean I would expect that levels would fluctuate depending on environmental influences, allowing nurture to play a role, but I would expect nature to be the dominant factor. When it comes to mate selection in the animal world, the females nearly always pick alpha males, because their genes will be stronger and give the offspring a better chance of survival. Testosterone levels will be playing a key role here, meaning aplha status is surely mostly genetic.

Females primarily distinguish the alpha (ie: desirable genetics) from behavior cues and testing. Game is all about displaying those alpha behaviors and learning to internalize them so that they appear natural. A lot of it is reversing the conditioning that made them dormant in the first place. I might start a thread on it sometime.

[rong]

I know, I know, it's the huff. But that aside, good article on drug addiction.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6506936

[JKDS]

Indian Guy just called me up, telling me I've won a free stay at some hotel with airfare and everything else at no cost!

I probably should have at least waited for him to ask for my credit card number before I hung up though.

[wufwugy]

Females primarily distinguish the alpha (ie: desirable genetics) from behavior cues and testing. Game is all about displaying those alpha behaviors and learning to internalize them so that they appear natural. A lot of it is reversing the conditioning that made them dormant in the first place. I might start a thread on it sometime.

id read it. i kinda figured the stuff out on my own a while ago, but i really like the insight that some of the categorization brings. like the alpha beta dynamic. it's intuitive to me, but ive never thought about it quantitatively.

[wufwugy]

We may need a third. This one isnt really random anymore, theres 2-3 topics that are constantly here.

rando thread has become ftr chat thread. ftr chat mostly involves pet issues but sometimes people say things personal or unpredicted.

[spoonitnow]

id read it. i kinda figured the stuff out on my own a while ago, but i really like the insight that some of the categorization brings. like the alpha beta dynamic. it's intuitive to me, but ive never thought about it quantitatively.

Relating this to what's been talked about recently in this thread:

The basic premise is that men have been feminized in specific ways while women have been made more masculine.* Women who are more masculine require a higher level of skill and masculinity from a man to handle and have a solid relationship with. Men who are more feminine lack the skills to effectively cultivate and maintain relationships with women. Game (for both men and women) seeks to correct this dynamic to make both men and women happier.

The point is that both men and women have been conditioned to act significantly different than how they were born to act (nature vs nurture/environment), and it's making everyone less happy.


* The major culprit of this is the egalitarian movement and this idea that men and women are equal.

[JKDS]

How do gays, and their history of longer lasting relationships, impact that theory?

[MadMojoMonkey]

The point is that both men and women have been conditioned to act significantly different than how they were born to act (nature vs nurture/environment), and it's making everyone less happy.

So you're saying that you're not actually frothing at the mouth by your own choice? You've just been conditioned by society to hold this opinion and are powerless against the compulsion to keep droning on about it?


***
Everyone is less happy?

It sure feels like happiness, though, so we don't care.

***
Do you think masculinity and femininity are well-defined concepts?

It strikes me that they are both a spectrum of traits with a good deal of overlap.

[eugmac]

Yeah, we need proof that women were happier when they were housewives that didn't get to vote.

[wufwugy]

Spoon, could you give 5-10 specific examples of roles that would make women happier that are being subverted? Or if you can't think of specifics, what general roles do you think women should have (and men for that matter)? Here's an example of what I'm getting at: most nurses are women. It may be believed that women are better at nursing because it's a feminine thing, but it may also be believed that men are better at quantitative work that requires repetitive problem-solving. The former suggests it's better if women work as nurses, and the latter suggests it's better if women do not.

Also, do you believe that the problem of the push for gender equality exists because of mandates constructed around it or because of the creation of choice? What I'm getting at is that if an institution lowers standards to include women, it's obviously bad, but if it's only that women have the choice to compete on the same level as men, and if they do so successfully then they reap the rewards, I'm not sure how bad that can be. However, there is some middle ground where the cultural narrative can give the impression that women should be doing things that maybe they "shouldn't".

Anyways, I want some answers. I'm sorta in the middle on the whole issue. I don't know what I think.

[a500lbgorilla]

NPR with a fun look at nature versus nurture. http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2015/...reading-future

I liked this line "Sometimes, it's nature doing the nurturing."

[a500lbgorilla]

How do gays, and their history of longer lasting relationships, impact that theory?

When you find a loophole in the system, you don't quit it til it's closed.

[spoonitnow]

How do gays, and their history of longer lasting relationships, impact that theory?

The dynamic between men and women is about heterosexual relations. With that having been said, studies showing "their history of longer lasting relationships" illustrate the fact that heterosexual relationships have suffered due to the factors that I mentioned earlier.

A whole lot of game is applicable for everyone regardless of sexual orientation. The hetero-centric, male perspective aspects of it have been developed more than the rest because fewer people have championed those causes. Hetero-centric female game is also well-developed.

Yeah, we need proof that women were happier when they were housewives that didn't get to vote.

You thinking this has anything to do with "housewives that didn't get to vote" is misguided. With that having been said, there is no disputing that women are less happy now than they were before they were masculinized: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...ears-ago-.html and the study it references http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1405977 That's just one example, and it's something that's been seen so many times at this point that it's basically beyond question.

Spoon, could you give 5-10 specific examples of roles that would make women happier that are being subverted? Or if you can't think of specifics, what general roles do you think women should have (and men for that matter)? Here's an example of what I'm getting at: most nurses are women. It may be believed that women are better at nursing because it's a feminine thing, but it may also be believed that men are better at quantitative work that requires repetitive problem-solving. The former suggests it's better if women work as nurses, and the latter suggests it's better if women do not.

Women who are in charge and who have a lot of responsibility are not happy. This isn't conjecture, and there is substantial data to back it up. What's important to figure out why that is, and in general terms so I don't have to type out a novel here, it comes from the natural disposition of most women to work better most of the time in a support role.

I won't go 5-10 on you here because this is long enough as it is, but here's a great example of a basic role that women don't want to be in: A man and a woman are going out to eat. The woman would much more prefer that the man decides where to go than ask her where she wants to go.

Also, do you believe that the problem of the push for gender equality exists because of mandates constructed around it or because of the creation of choice? What I'm getting at is that if an institution lowers standards to include women, it's obviously bad, but if it's only that women have the choice to compete on the same level as men, and if they do so successfully then they reap the rewards, I'm not sure how bad that can be. However, there is some middle ground where the cultural narrative can give the impression that women should be doing things that maybe they "shouldn't".

Anyways, I want some answers. I'm sorta in the middle on the whole issue. I don't know what I think.

No one is saying that men and women shouldn't have the same opportunities to prove themselves. However, there are things that men are going to be a lot better at than women, and there are things that women are going to be a lot better at than men. This is because men and women are not equal.

When you start trying to create policy to force men and women to be equal (and fly totally in the face of the reality that they're not), then the only possible conclusion is that you create different levels of standards. For example, you see this with entry into the armed forces where men have to do more than women do to get in. Another example is women bitching wanting to get paid the same thing as men in sports, but yet they don't want to compete against men or have to bring in the same level of interest. For a recent case, tennis has a major problem with this right now where women play fewer sets in much better conditions and have bitched to the point that they get paid the same in a lot of tournaments.

One issue with this whole big movement of trying to force the sexes to be equal is that it only focuses on making things better for women. This is why I have asserted that feminism is strictly pro-female at all costs and that it only uses the equality argument for PR purposes.

Earlier I mentioned that men have become feminized, and some people would argue against that (seemingly because they do not own a fire-breathing Google machine). Consider the following:

Data showing the feminization of men: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2006/1...16976320061101 , http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/newsc...visonetal.html , http://www.globalresearch.ca/health-...orldwide/30129

Our testosterone as a whole is dropping at ridiculous levels from a combination of environmental factors and behavior cues.

Anyway that's a pretty sizable wall of text compared to my typical posts. If anyone wants to question any of my premises, make sure it's actually one of my premises first, and then feel free to just Google it. I'm not really looking to convince anybody of anything.

[wufwugy]

You thinking this has anything to do with "housewives that didn't get to vote" is misguided. With that having been said, there is no disputing that women are less happy now than they were before they were masculinized: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...ears-ago-.html and the study it references http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1405977 That's just one example, and it's something that's been seen so many times at this point that it's basically beyond question.

Wow. I did not know this research exists. I wonder how robust it is.

If true, this quite compelling evidence for the nature side of behavioral and psychological differences between the sexes because it shows results that oppose the prediction. What I mean is that if we are to say that a certain type of empowering of a group would be better for the group, one significant prediction needed to evaluate the effectiveness is that the results may show some metric of psychological improvement within the group. Granted, it wouldn't have to since perceptions do not perfectly correlate with living standards. But still, if women are more unhappy now while men are not, it means something is the cause.

[wufwugy]

I forgot to add that the reason why it's evidence for the nature side instead of a nurture explanation is because the changes over the years reflect a change in nurture. So you can't say that womens unhappiness emerge from oppression since the nurture is that newer generations are less oppressed. I typically argue that we don't know what the nurture affects, but this research appears to suggest that the current nurture is making things worse.

[spoonitnow]

One problem right now is that a lot of guys with good intentions have bought into the PR (previously known as propaganda) that has been shoved down their throats since they were born, and they're simply not aware of the data that exists that shows a lot of it is a crock of shit.

Recognizing that men and women are not equal is not sexist. Trichotomy is not forced here. Just because we aren't equal doesn't mean that one is greater than the other.

Example: Nobody is really saying that women shouldn't be able to vote in principle. What we are saying is that we shouldn't ignore the fact that they do vote in much more liberal ways than men do, and they vote significantly more often than men do.

[eugmac]

You just quoted the Daily Mail, which should discount the evidence by a lot. With that being said, the paper says men are happier and women are less happy. Doesn't that just mean women sharing the load in the workplace means harder life for women, and better for men who now have a smaller slice of the pie to be responsible for? More work, more complaining, seems par for the course...

[wufwugy]

You just quoted the Daily Mail, which should discount the evidence by a lot. With that being said, the paper says men are happier and women are less happy. Doesn't that just mean women sharing the load in the workplace means harder life for women, and better for men who now have a smaller slice of the pie to be responsible for? More work, more complaining, seems par for the course...

I posted that before I even read the dailymail link. What matters is the research paper link.

IIRC the "sharing the load" hypothesis doesn't hold up since IIRC the data doesn't show any reduction in obligations or workload taken on by men. IIRC the total obligation has increased. IIRC this post includes five IIRC's.

[wufwugy]

Also I don't think it can be said that women have had increased workload either, just that the type has changed. Housewives work a ton. The amount of actual work they do is probably higher than a 9-5 and arguably more stressful.

[MadMojoMonkey]

If there's no load sharing and fewer housewives, then who's doing the housework that housewives once did?

***
"Arguably more stressful," could be said about anything.

Besides, all sorts of people have all sorts of levels of activity. Too much or too little would stress most people out.

I propose that people (American's I've met, at least) are predisposed to a certain amount of stress and that they set up their lives to generally offer themselves that stress level. Unexpected BS can happen in the short term to anyone. I find that people who have ongoing stress-related melodrama are usually making a series of choices which perpetuate that norm. The opposite is also true. People who are generally stress-free seem to make choices which perpetuate that norm, as well.

[wufwugy]

If there's no load sharing and fewer housewives, then who's doing the housework that housewives once did?

His hypothesis was that women are sharing some of the employment load which could effect into less stress for men. IIRC women have increased employment workload but men haven't had a reduction. Even if that was the case, it is also true that men have taken on more housework, so it's possible their total work has increased. IIRC the total work of both sexes has increased. I wouldn't be surprised if the stress for men in the workforce has substantially increased over the decades. The Mad Men business world looks almost, uh, fun compared to the current environment. I'm not saying this reflection is accurate though. More like the logic behind if it was once better for men and today it is not, then we should predict to see the result of this.

"Arguably more stressful," could be said about anything.

I gotta be honest, I think working 40 hours a week is less stressful than taking care of a family. Housewives almost never have time off. Of course it could be that to women it isn't viewed like that since it could be said they prefer the type of work more; whereas men probably prefer the more directional, endeavor focused work that tends to come with employment.

I propose that people (American's I've met, at least) are predisposed to a certain amount of stress and that they set up their lives to generally offer themselves that stress level. Unexpected BS can happen in the short term to anyone. I find that people who have ongoing stress-related melodrama are usually making a series of choices which perpetuate that norm. The opposite is also true. People who are generally stress-free seem to make choices which perpetuate that norm, as well.

Too true.

[JKDS]

It's a lot of work to take care of a home, kids, and foods for the breadwinner.

But let's not kid ourselves. Its still infinitely better than actually working.

[spoonitnow]

On the topic of housework, the amount of traditionally-feminine housework a man does in a marriage is directly proportionate to one thing and indirectly proportionate to another:

1. The man doing more of the feminine housework = less sex in the marriage.
2. The man doing more of the feminine housework = a higher chance of divorce.

Analyzing data of thousands of Norwegian couples, they found the divorce rate was higher for those doing equal amounts of housework than couples in which the women did more. - Forbes

A February paper in the American Sociological Review reported that married couples in which men take on a greater share of the dishes, laundry and other traditionally female chores had sex less often than average, which in this study was about five times a month. Yet couples in which men confined themselves largely to traditionally male chores such as yard work enjoyed sex more frequently than average. - Scientific American

Note: The Norwegian study also reflected traditionally-feminine housework. See below.

What's important to note here is that it's not all work around the house that's having this effect: It's only things that make the man seem more feminine. Other studies have found what would seem to be a contradiction to this one with the idea that men who do more housework have more sex. The reason that this isn't actually a contradiction is that these studies choose different tasks to measure for.

In the Forbes article, it links to a study that they suggest contradicts the Norwegian one. But check out the definition of housework in the "contradicting" study: "The study defined housework as nine chores: cleaning, preparing meals, washing dishes, washing and ironing clothes, driving family members around, shopping, yard work, maintaining cars and paying bills." A lot of this is masculine-driven, and the average couple in that study still had the man doing about 33% of the total "housework" by this definition. In other words, he's still doing the masculine shit while she's doing the feminine shit, and that's exactly what leads to more sex and a better relationship.

As a general rule with a handful of exceptions: You get points for doing masculine shit, and you lose points for doing feminine shit (and vice versa for women).

[spoonitnow]

You just quoted the Daily Mail, which should discount the evidence by a lot. With that being said, the paper says men are happier and women are less happy. Doesn't that just mean women sharing the load in the workplace means harder life for women, and better for men who now have a smaller slice of the pie to be responsible for? More work, more complaining, seems par for the course...

You're smarter than that. Just because they ran a story on the study (that I also linked to) doesn't discredit the study.

[eugmac]

You ignored the rest of the post where I pointed out that the study you quoted is not consistent with your claims.

[eugmac]

If we just hired somebody to do the housework, we'd surely have a lot more time for sex.

[Renton]

It really seems that a woman's subconscious is in a constant state of sabotaging everything she consciously desires. I don't doubt that they legitimately want equality, but there's certainly a big part of them that yearns to be treated like a sex / dish-washing / laundry object, and it's hard to go against a couple million years of genetics with only a few decades of modern capitalism.

[spoonitnow]

You ignored the rest of the post where I pointed out that the study you quoted is not consistent with your claims.

Okay let me spell it out for you so that you get my point: Women have claimed for decades that this is what they wanted and that this is what would make them the most happy, and they were horribly wrong.

This is in a sharp contrast to men who typically report higher levels of happiness with the more responsibility that they have.

This is in no way inconsistent with my claims. Happiness is not a zero-sum game.

[spoonitnow]

It really seems that a woman's subconscious is in a constant state of sabotaging everything she consciously desires. I don't doubt that they legitimately want equality, but there's certainly a big part of them that yearns to be treated like a sex / dish-washing / laundry object, and it's hard to go against a couple million years of genetics with only a few decades of modern capitalism.

One of the first things that someone has to internalize when they start to learn game is the idea that women generally cannot be trusted to know what women really want (both for themselves and other women), that it's not the fault of women for it being this way, and that there is nothing inherently wrong with this being the case.

However, this is something that has to be communicated in a way that doesn't make some frustrated guy think that it means he should go out raping women or always ignoring when a woman tells him no.

A good example is the typical friend-zoned scenario where a guy is doing everything he's been told by women that women want, but the girl he likes isn't attracted to him in the sense of wanting to have a relationship and bone. While this is going on, he probably has to hear about some "asshole" she's fucking who treats her "poorly," and he can't figure out why the "asshole" is doing what seems to be the exact opposite of what he's always been told to do while still getting much better results.

Unfortunately, a lot of guys in the friend-zoned situation end up thinking that they have to be total and complete assholes to "get the girl," and this leads to them going from one extreme (being too nice) to the other extreme (not being nice enough). This has led to something happening to the "red pill" community that's similar to what happened with feminism in the sense that it's been overran by people who want to cherry-pick the premise or two that helps them to vent their frustrations while completely ignoring the rest of it and making themselves look like jackasses.

A lot of people who are "red pill" writers and practitioners on the game front have started abandoned the term and the label because of this. The use of the term "neomasculinity" has started to be used to create a differentiation by some people.

The best place to learn these dynamics without getting an overwhelming crock of shit is probably in the specific study of relationship game.

[wufwugy]

it truly has always baffled me that what women say theyre attracted to is precisely what they are not attracted to.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Out of curiosity, what's you're end-game, here, spoon?

Maybe I'm getting caught up in your language and not bothering to notice that what you propose is workable. My major qualm is with disparity in treatment under the law. I'm generally fine with people treating each other as individuals.


So what's the end-game?
If we all agree with you 100%, spoon, then what's the result?

What's your solution to this problem you propose?

[spoonitnow]

Out of curiosity, what's you're end-game, here, spoon?

Maybe I'm getting caught up in your language and not bothering to notice that what you propose is workable. My major qualm is with disparity in treatment under the law. I'm generally fine with people treating each other as individuals.


So what's the end-game?
If we all agree with you 100%, spoon, then what's the result?

What's your solution to this problem you propose?

@bold, men are treated much, much worse than women under the law, and it's not even close. Example:

If you're a criminal defendant, it may help—a lot—to be a woman. At least, that's what Prof. Sonja Starr's research on federal criminal cases suggests. Prof. Starr's recent paper, "Estimating Gender Disparities in Federal Criminal Cases," looks closely at a large dataset of federal cases, and reveals some significant findings. After controlling for the arrest offense, criminal history, and other prior characteristics, "men receive 63% longer sentences on average than women do," and "[w]omen are…twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted." This gender gap is about six times as large as the racial disparity that Prof. Starr found in another recent paper. - Michigan Law at the University of Michigan

I don't care if you agree with me, and there is no end-game. I'm talking about this because there's interest and because I like helping people, even if they would rather be a sorry piece of shit instead of taking advantage of the time and effort that someone with a proven track record would give them.

[spoonitnow]

it truly has always baffled me that what women say theyre attracted to is precisely what they are not attracted to.

One of the tenets of game is to recognize that women have two simultaneous mating strategies that often create what would seem to be conflicts of interest, but it's actually a set of cooperating strategies with the same goal in mind of maximizing the chances of reproduction and of offspring reproducing.

In a nutshell, the first strategy is to seek out a male with good genes (ie: asshole tendencies, the alpha behaviors) to reproduce with, and the second strategy is to seek out a male who can raise the kids well (ie: nice guy tendencies, the beta behaviors) for other types of support. This dynamic is actually the basis of the two main types of game for heterosexual males:

1. PUA-style game that focuses on displaying alpha for the sake of purely fucking women. This works extremely well when it's correctly adjusted for the demographic of women you're working with, and that's one of the reasons there's such a public backlash against it.

2. Relationship game that focuses on a solid balance of alpha and beta. When both of these are met in the same man, that's probably when women are the happiest in a relationship.

In terms of simultaneous mating strategies, you can see a lot of this with the difference in how women act when they are ovulating and when they are not. Generally speaking, women change their behavior to try to get fucked by men who exhibit alpha tendencies (ie: show signals of having good genes) when they are ovulating. Women dress better (1), flirt more (but only with attractive men) (2), and are more likely to cheat (but only if they don't find their partner attractive) (3) when ovulating.

Regarding the last point and the need for masculinity:

Women who are in relationships exhibit the most extreme spike in interest for masculine men around ovulation. The shift is even more exaggerated when they’re not happy with their current partners, said Kristina Durante, a social psychologist at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities.

A related study, which will be published in Evolution and Human Behavior, finds that women are more likely to fantasize about men other than their mates, but only when they don’t consider their mates to be particularly sexy.

The pitch of a woman's voice also changes to be higher when she's ovulating (4), and it's worth nothing that men virtually always think the higher pitch version of her voice is more attractive (5). And just to wrap this up, they also walk sexier:

In other work, scientists have found that ovulating women sway their hips more while walking, though they hold their upper bodies in a more defensive position. Fertile women also show more skin, and they are more interested in going to social gatherings. - Discovery News

Something I want to point out here is that the dynamic of being "best friends" with the friend-zoned guy (beta) for emotional support while fucking the alleged asshole (alpha) is completely natural and completely in line with the two competing sexual strategies. The ideal situation for improving the species is for the women to never have sex with the beta male, at least while ovulating, but to get as much emotional and financial support as possible from him.

Bottom line: The lack of alpha behavior in the husband is the number one reason why marriages become sexless.

This pairing of strategies for women is often referred to as the "alpha fuks, beta bux" scenario.

Relationship Game Tangent

It's worth noting that learning a woman's cycle can go a long way towards improving relations with her, especially if you throw in a little game theory. In general, you'll want to ramp up the alpha and cut back the beta during the period she's ovulating. Along similar lines, you'll want to cut back the alpha and ramp up the beta when she's PMSing. Ovulation typically happens 12-16 days after the beginning of her cycle (the first day she starts her period), and PMS typically happens 21-25 days after the beginning of her cycle.

If you're planning a trip with a woman, you'll always be better off planning it based around her cycle if at all possible. A trip with a woman who is PMSing is your worst option, and a trip with a woman who is ovulating (or just before ovulation) is your best option.

[JKDS]

Being a woman helps a lot more than that. They tend to avoid the death penalty, and are even arrested less often than men. (controlling for the same crime, of course)

[spoonitnow]

I want to make a quick point of something because of the way some of the data lines up on this with the behavior of women changing when they ovulate. Some people may find this interesting.

If a woman is raped when she has gone out with friends, she's more likely to get pregnant than if she was having consensual sex. There's plenty of data that has proven this over and over, so I don't feel like Googling an appropriate source.

The reason for this is that women are most likely to go out with friends when they are ovulating. It's a simple selection bias.

[eugmac]

It really feels like rantings of angry, single men in here.

[spoonitnow]

It really feels like rantings of angry, single men in here.

That's some real vaginal shit right there.

Edit: Specifically referring to throwing around vague insults instead of discussing the issues and the data with logic.

[MadMojoMonkey]

@bold, men are treated much, much worse than women under the law, and it's not even close. Example:

Interesting. I love me some data.

I don't care if you agree with me, and there is no end-game.

Both points seem unlikely. You shouldn't care if I agree with you, sure. You probably care that you're making clear, consistent points as your prose is designed to persuade. Why would you even waste your time if you didn't care to persuade some people?

To say there is no end game means you don't even care if you're disseminating good information.
I don't believe you're so careless a person, not for a minute.
Your writing style conveys great passion, not just here, but in your poker articles as well.

I'm talking about this because there's interest and because I like helping people, even if they would rather be a sorry piece of shit instead of taking advantage of the time and effort that someone with a proven track record would give them.

My primary interest is in combating the single-sided, abusive tone you sometimes assume. Whatever your stance on this issue, you are often insulting in your delivery. Using phrases like, "would rather be a sorry piece of shit," dilutes your point. I've never heard anyone describes themselves like that... well maybe in a moment of despair they might say they are or were a "piece of shit," but that's not their true self-image.

The notion that you are superior to anyone who doesn't agree with you ...
SMH

It belies your actual intelligence.
As you like to say: You're smarter than that.

[spoonitnow]

Interesting. I love me some data.


Both points seem unlikely. You shouldn't care if I agree with you, sure. You probably care that you're making clear, consistent points as your prose is designed to persuade. Why would you even waste your time if you didn't care to persuade some people?

To say there is no end game means you don't even care if you're disseminating good information.
I don't believe you're so careless a person, not for a minute.
Your writing style conveys great passion, not just here, but in your poker articles as well.


My primary interest is in combating the single-sided, abusive tone you sometimes assume. Whatever your stance on this issue, you are often insulting in your delivery. Using phrases like, "would rather be a sorry piece of shit," dilutes your point. I've never heard anyone describes themselves like that... well maybe in a moment of despair they might say they are or were a "piece of shit," but that's not their true self-image.

The notion that you are superior to anyone who doesn't agree with you ...
SMH

It belies your actual intelligence.
As you like to say: You're smarter than that.

You forgot to call me a misogynist.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It really feels like rantings of angry, single men in here.

Pretty much this. :/
Not saying that's the intent, but it veers toward this sentiment too easily.

I'm trying to pull an actual point out of this instead of it devolving into a piss-and-moan fest.

If there is a point to be made beyond, "woe is me and my plight" then I'm all about it. If it even moves on to a response or a plan of action to alleviate the plight, then I'm interested.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You forgot to call me a misogynist.

I didn't forget.

I don't believe you are one.

[spoonitnow]

Pretty much this. :/
Not saying that's the intent, but it veers toward this sentiment too easily.

I'm trying to pull an actual point out of this instead of it devolving into a piss-and-moan fest.

If there is a point to be made beyond, "woe is me and my plight" then I'm all about it. If it even moves on to a response or a plan of action to alleviate the plight, then I'm interested.

There's been no complaining of any kind from me in any of my posts on this subject. In fact, I've stated on more than one occasion something of the form "the data indicates the X is reality, and there is nothing wrong with that." The data I'm showing and the framework I'm illustrating provides plenty of solutions. If Y causes women to cheat more often around Z time, then that information can be used to decrease the chances of a woman cheating.

If you could get beyond your little emotional pull at some of this stuff and get down to what's actually being said, then you might learn something. The single-largest obstacle to being able to learn game and improve yourself is to not let an emotional reaction to seeing the reality of the situation keep you paralyzed.

With that having been said, I'm not going to respond to any other emotional arguments on this because I've spent enough time posting as it is.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm all over the data. I learn everyday. When you show me data, I read it. I consider the depth of the study and the weight of the conclusions.

***
My little emotional pull? Cute.
Does that kind of intimidation work with people in your life?
inb4: "it works on the women"

[oskar]

[wufwugy]

If this looks like the rantings of angry men, you need to read again. I had zero frustration in my mind with my posts, and everything Spoon posted was in tune with academic discourse.

[a500lbgorilla]

Being a woman helps a lot more than that. They tend to avoid the death penalty, and are even arrested less often than men. (controlling for the same crime, of course)

I remember hearing there was talk to legalize murder committed by women because it was impossible to get an all male jury to convict them circa 1900. The talk may have amounted to an opinion piece for effect, but still.

[spoonitnow]

Girl game is a fun topic, but I'm going to largely boil it down to short handful of things since we're almost entirely male here:

1. Grow your hair out if it's short.
2. Lose weight if you're not relatively thin.
3. Learn how to cook and manage a household if you can't.
4. Don't be a raging cunt if you are.
5. Learn how to do your makeup in a reasonable way.
6. Dress in a more feminine way.

Following these six points is essentially following the Pareto principle for increasing attractiveness as a woman, and it's all about increasing femininity. Femininity in women is what attracts men, and masculinity in men is what attracts women.

Women are often giving other women really horrible advice when it comes to girl game, and a lot of the time they don't necessarily recognize it. Every time a chick is considering chopping all of her hair off, there are a ton of her friends egging her on to do it. If a chick needs to lose weight to be more attractive, her friends will get in her ear with a series of platitudes about how the right guy will love her just how she is (or some other nonsense that doesn't help her to be more attractive).

A common attack on the concept of girl game is that it's just men telling women what to do with their bodies, and this is both misguided and incorrect. Note that men did not choose the physical indicators of fertility. Despite the "everybody's special" notion that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and "everyone is beautiful" and all of that type of stuff, the attractiveness of a female to a male can be broken down into math and proportions. For just one example:

Beauty is not only in the eye of the beholder but also in the relationship of the eyes and mouth of the beholden. The distance between a woman's eyes and the distance between her eyes and her mouth are key factors in determining how attractive she is to others, according to new psychology research. - University of Toronto

In the same way that people will almost universally say that one ratio of sides of a rectangle is more attractive than others, men will almost universally say that one ratio of the features of a woman is more attractive than others. Since girl game is about trying to be more attractive as a female looking to attract men, those ratios and other features that attract men are important to be aware of.

[wufwugy]

Good posts. I think I now understand why the "she says she's attracted to one thing but then does something else" thing exists. Back when I had no clue what I was doing, my explanation was that women were lying because of the cultural stigma of sluts or when I was particularly hurt I thought they were just stupid and not analytical about themselves. But your explanation gives a different possibility: they ARE attracted to the things they say they are even though sometimes they are attracted to something else.

Men are constants. We're typically attracted to the same type of thing, so it's harder to see that women could be attracted to two opposing things at different times. Additionally, the word "attraction", to men, is sexual. We tend to think of women we are personally and intellectually attracted to as also being sexually attractive. But to women, "attraction" doesn't have to include sex. So when a chick says she's attracted to the typical "nice guy", she's telling the truth but she doesn't equate attraction with sex the way men do.

Combine this with the theory of dilemma in what females are attracted to, and I think it makes sense why so many men have experienced the situation where women say one thing about attraction but then do another.