Yes, Roissy is correct

A lot of people who claim to teach how to pick up girls are just scammers.  For example, “Neuro Linguistic Programming” is just a variation on the old “Get Girls by Hypnosis” scam. But Roissy is the real deal. I know well his stuff works.

Most beautiful high IQ high socioeconomic status women are blowing their youth, their beauty, and their most fertile years on low income semi employed assholes with room temperature IQs, the kind of guy who sometimes gets a job folding sweaters, sometimes deals a little dope, sometimes a bit of burglary, but mostly sponges off his exceedingly numerous girlfriends, particularly the flock of them that are high socioeconomic status.

And here is a post from a young lady who is industriously blowing her youth, beauty, and most fertile years confirming many of Roissy’s maxims.

Which raises the interesting question.  Why are most naturals kind of stupid?  If female hypergamy works, should not naturals be above average intelligence?

I conjecture that much of the problem is that stupid people act brave, not because they are brave, but because they don’t think about the consequences of their actions.  The man who is a part time sweater folder, part time burglar, and full time sponger off girlfriends is unlikely to be intimidated by political correctness.

A smart nerd and a dumb asshole are forced to attend a lecture on rape and respecting women and consent and all that boring stuff.  The smart nerd is terrified and believes everything he hears, and thinks that if he says “hi” to a pretty girl he will arrested.  The dumb asshole does not understand a word.  All he sees is a fat diesel dyke making menacing gestures like an overweight angry gorilla and braying “waah waah waah”

So the dumb asshole goes forth and grabs some girl’s ass, while the smart nerd cowers in the corner trembling in fear.

A long time ago I was walking along, and ran into a girl I knew vaguely.  She was a friend of a friend of friend or something like that.  So I grabbed her and kissed on the lips.  After several seconds she pulled away and protested vehemently:

What the hell do you think you are doing

She said with much indignation.

To which I impudently replied with a big grin:

Kissing you on the lips.

After a couple of seconds she grinned also, and we kissed a little more.

Then she gave me the “I have boyfriend” shit test, which shit test, being ignorant and innocent back in those days, I failed.

I was never a pick up artist, but however embarrassingly incompetent my efforts to meet girls were, I did better than anyone too frightened to try.

Before 1972, there was no stereotype of the sexually unsuccessful awkward high IQ nerd. I don’t believe the awkward high IQ nerd existed until recent times.  Something has changed.  The stereotypical smart person used to resemble Feynman and Wernher von Braun, who were notorious hits with chicks.

What has changed that leads to stupid people cleaning up?

1.  Elite culture has become more hostile to intelligence.  Catcher in the Rye replaces Anabasis.  Smart people tend to exclude women and blacks.   Shirtgate guy.

2.  Smart people have a tendency to deal with girls on the basis of what they are taught, rather than instinct, hence, the blue pill generates men who are very bad at women.  The smarter you are, the better you are at absorbing and accepting misinformation.

When I was kid, quite a long time ago, a lot of what is now PUA lore, that nice guys finish last, that a man should take rejection imperturbably, that faint heart never won fair lady, was common knowledge, stuff that everyone knew.  This widespread knowledge of women was suppressed, and replaced by misinformation, and the intellectuals were the primary targets of that misinformation.  The smarter you are, the more exposed to the blue pill.

106 Responses to “Yes, Roissy is correct”

  1. Since the word “rape” mean sex-theft from men in the village instead of involuntary sex it only makes sense girls would adapt to like men strong enough to treat women like property who are beneath them. The difference is nitrates and high fructose corn syrup providing ample leg room for civil rights, as civil rights is a prosperity construct etc etc.

  2. B says:

    Feynman was absolutely terrible with women in all the standard nerd ways until some pimp took him under his wing. His story was actually pretty tragic; his first wife, the love of his life, died from TB a couple of years before antibiotics went mainstream. He never found a suitable replacement.

    Roissy’s insights (“be charming! Be confident!”) would be banal, but the age we live in ensures that many intelligent men lack both a matchmaking system and role models to teach them to navigate the market. The brutal school system, where the intelligent and introverted are preyed upon for 12 years, only contributes.

    Otherwise, Roissy is the way to go if you want to emulate the homosexual lifestyle heterosexually. I think of that entire scene only Roosh has any depth, but lacking any kind of framework, he just retreats to a sort of ennui. The ability to sleep with pretty women is great, but after a while turns you into a monkey dancing endlessly for a meaningless physical act.

    • jim says:

      Feynman was absolutely terrible with women in all the standard nerd ways until some pimp took him under his wing.\\

      How do you know this?

      • B says:

        How do I know anything? I read the source material.

        • jim says:

          I also read the source material. I am big fan of Feynman, and have read them all, and I do not recall anything that supports your interpretation that he had difficulty with women.

          I also lived through the times. I was there damn it. The Nerd stereotype did not exist until 1978-1979.

          Around the early seventies, everyone assumed that dumb boys had trouble with chicks, and smart boys were smooth and could manipulate girls into doing what we wanted. And by and large, in the early seventies, smart boys were smooth and could manipulate girls into doing what we wanted. The stereotype of seduction was the dumb blond in the hands of a smart male.

          • B says:

            You continually amaze me. How can you be so intelligent yet be unable to read what’s there in black and white?

            Open “Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman” and read the chapter titled “You Just Ask Them?”.

            • jim says:

              If you can get a date for the dance, not “absolutely terrible with women”.

              So, the episode about what a terrible nerd Feynman was at college, and how bad he was with women, ends with him successfully hitting on a stranger and getting a date, with no wingman assistance, soon after arriving at an overwhelmingly male college.

              Sounds like Feynman.

              He tells us how he had to struggle to find the courage, but presumably his frats told him, “don’t let the struggle show”. And since he succeeded, we may conclude he did not let the struggle show. It is mighty tough to make cold approach without a wingman.

              Which is par for the course for smart people of his time and my time. Our pals told us what to do, and we did it.

              He describes himself as paralyzed by shyness, and I described myself as embarrassingly incompetent with women, but neither of us fitted the nerd stereotype, he even less than me. Feynman got dates, I got dates and sex and a very small number of cherries, and I would assume that Feynman got sex and probably some cherries also, but is too polite to mention it.

              It is always tough to hit on a stranger, and tough to do so smoothly. So, not such a hopeless nerd to find it tough. He would be a hopeless nerd “absolutely terrible with women” if he found it too tough.

              Being terrified to hit on a stranger does not make you “absolutely terrible with women”. Being too terrified to hit on a stranger makes you “absolutely terrible with women”.

          • B says:

            And that story (about how Feynman learned “game” and didn’t make a big deal about it) took place about 10 years after this episode:

            “Just before I came to the fraternity they had had a big meeting and had made an important
            compromise. They were going to get together and help each other out. Everyone had to have a
            grade level of at least such-and-such. If they were sliding behind, the guys who studied all the time
            would teach them and help them do their work. On the other side, everybody had to go to every
            dance. If a guy didn’t know how to get a date, the other guys would get him a date. If the guy didn’t
            know how to dance, they’d teach him to dance. One group was teaching the other how to think,
            while the other guys were teaching them how to be social.
            That was just right for me, because I was not very good socially. I was so timid that when I had
            to take the mail out and walk past some seniors sitting on the steps with some girls, I was petrified:
            I didn’t know how to walk past them! And it didn’t help any when a girl would say, “Oh, he’s cute!”
            It was only a little while after that the sophomores brought their girlfriends and their girlfriends’
            friends over to teach us to dance. Much later, one of the guys taught me how to drive his car. They
            worked very hard to get us intellectual characters to socialize and be more relaxed, and vice versa.
            It was a good balancing out.
            I had some difficulty understanding what exactly it meant to be “social.” Soon after these social
            guys had taught me how to meet girls, I saw a nice waitress in a restaurant where I was eating by
            myself one day. With great effort I finally got up enough nerve to ask her to be my date at the next
            fraternity dance, and she said yes. “

          • peppermint says:

            yes, this seems to be the most popular Feynman quote ever. Why? Because it implies, to today’s audience, that everyone is equal.

            This entire argument is ridiculous. Look at Feynman. Then look at Scott Alexander and Scott Aaronson. Compare. Look at your younger professors. Then look at your older professors. Compare.

            ୧༼ಠ益ಠ༽୨ how can you not see it?

            but you’re all 乁( ◔ ౪◔)ㄏ

          • B says:

            Feynman was in college before he got his first date, which took a lot of courage. He was terrified of women until then, and apparently didn’t figure out how to proposition them for sex until he was in his mid/late 20s, based on the quoted/linked. He was hardly “smooth and could manipulate girls into doing what he wanted.” At least until much later in life.

            • jim says:

              Only losers proposition a women for sex. Sex is non verbal and pre rational.

              You lure a girl to a place that is suitable for sex (private, will not be interrupted, horizontal surface) you kiss her and nature takes over.

              I recommend not kissing her until you get her to that place, since premature kissing is apt to result in the native hue of resolution being sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought, And enterprises of great pitch and moment With this regard their currents turn awry, And lose the name of action.

              If one does the first kiss in a suitable place, Casanova the Great Seducer banishes your reason to a distant place, and proceeds to operate your body on autopilot. If you do the first kiss in some place where you cannot carry the first kiss to its logical conclusion, your instinctive courtship behavior is apt to be interrupted allowing you to start thinking again – a bad idea. If you first kiss a girl in a sex place, your mind is less likely get in the way. It is likely to take several hours between kissing a girl in the sex place, and actually having sex with her, so get her there reasonably early.

              It is hitting on women that is the hard part. Since Feynman managed the hard part …

              You will notice that Roissy and others usually cover only getting the girl to the sex place. They assume that once you get her there, you will instinctively know what to do next.

              As I said earlier, everyone who manages to hit on girls, no matter how embarrassingly incompetently, does way better than anyone who does not hit on girls. So, Feynman did not hit on girls successfully until college. Still, once in college, successfully hitting on girls. Its all easy after the hard part. She went with him to the dance, so he did not bungle the hit too badly. If she went with him to the dance, and he did not bungle the dance too badly, pretty soon the sex place, and then it is easy. Nature takes over and operates us like puppets.

          • B says:

            >Only losers proposition a women for sex. Sex is non verbal and pre rational.

            Guess Feynman (whose books you claim to have read) was a loser:

            “That night after the bar closed I went again over to the
            master and Gloria’s motel. They were laughing and smiling, happy with how it worked out.

            “All right,” I said, “I’m absolutely convinced that you two know exactly what you’re talking about. Now,
            what about the lessons?”

            “OK,” he says. “The whole principle is this: The guy wants to be a gentleman. He doesn’t want
            to be thought of as impolite, crude, or especially a cheapskate. As long as the girl knows the guy’s
            motives so well, it’s easy to steer him in the direction she wants him to go.

            “Therefore,” he continued, “under no circumstances be a gentleman! You must disrespect the
            girls. Furthermore, the very first rule is, don’t buy a girl anything–not even a package of cigarettes–until you’ve asked her if she’ll sleep with you, and you’re convinced that she will, and that she’s not
            lying.”

            “Uh . . . you mean . . . you don’t . . . uh . . . you just ask them?”

            “OK,” he says, “I know this is your first lesson, and it may be hard for you to be so blunt. So you
            might buy her one thing–just one little something–before you ask. But on the other hand, it will
            only make it more difficult.”

            When I was back at Cornell in the fall, I was dancing with the sister of a grad student, who was
            visiting from Virginia. She was very nice, and suddenly I got this idea: “Let’s go to a bar and have a
            drink,” I said.

            On the way to the bar I was working up nerve to try the master’s lesson on an ordinary girl.
            After all, you don’t feel so bad disrespecting a bar girl who’s trying to get you to buy her drinks–but
            a nice, ordinary, Southern girl?

            We went into the bar, and before I sat down, I said, “Listen, before I buy you a drink, I want to
            know one thing: Will you sleep with me tonight?”

            “Yes.”

            So it worked even with an ordinary girl! But no matter how effective the lesson was, I never
            really used it after that. I didn’t enjoy doing it that way. But it was interesting to know that things
            worked much differently from how I was brought up.

            • jim says:

              >Only losers proposition a women for sex. Sex is non verbal and pre rational.

              Guess Feynman (whose books you claim to have read) was a loser:

              Feynman, after testing that strategy successfully, decided not to use that strategy. I don’t use that strategy, and Roissy does not use that strategy.

              Roissy has discussed other people’s reports of success using that strategy, tried it, decided not to use it. Roissy says “don’t give women free stuff”, but he does not say “ask them in words if they are going to have sex with you and then give them free stuff if they say yes”.

              The rule about not giving women free stuff works. Verbally propositioning girls – well it is just so uncomfortable and unnatural that I would not know whether it works or not, but Roissy seems unimpressed by it.

              My feeling is that the part of the woman that speaks is not the part that makes that decision.

          • B says:

            I’d like to point out that I’m only discussing here whether the stereotypical nerd who is incompetent with women existed before 1970, not whether Feynman’s impresario’s method is ideal, whether today’s younger professors are worse at dealing with women than their predecessors were, etc. I suspect that if Aaronson and Alexander had had role models growing up, as Feynman did, they would have been ok.

            What’s changed is, first, societal fabric has fallen apart and boys and teenagers are without immediate adult male role models and any normal societal framework for interaction with girls, and second, everything is hypersexualized, so a high-IQ male (who is predisposed to later puberty, difficulty with basic chimp interaction, and over-cerebralization) often gets the worst of all worlds and grows up wondering what is wrong with him. Feynman differed from Aaronson, among other things, in that he grew up focusing on nerd interests without having human sexuality shoved in his face from age 7. Once he got interested, there was some kind of social framework for it (fraternity dances, etc.) and his period of painful embarrassment and timidity seems to have lasted only a short while.

            • jim says:

              We are in agreement then that the image and reality of smart men being losers with women is new.

              Though we disagree as to the reasons.

              Scott Aaronson says he was terrorized by blue pillers. Why not believe him?

          • B says:

            I am, again, not discussing whether Feynman’s proposition strategy was good or bad (it’s obvious that it’s bad form in general, but Feynman was using it on the 1950s equivalent of strippers). Just the fact that he needed to, at a grown up age, have a full blown framework for “this is how you talk to women to get them to sleep with you” means that he suffered from typical nerd cluelessness.

            I doubt Aaronson’s issues were caused by feminist lectures. I’m sure they were exacerbated. Males in America, at least until today, are not exposed to sexual harassment propaganda in any volume until they are in college. By the time he got there, Aaronson was already terrified of women.

            • jim says:

              Just the fact that he needed to, at a grown up age, have a full blown framework for “this is how you talk to women to get them to sleep with you” means that he suffered from typical nerd cluelessness.

              You misread and misunderstand Feynman because you are unfamiliar with the art of the pickup.

              The relevant information that Feynman learned at a quite late age is not how to talk to women. If he could make pickup and get a date from a stranger without assistance from a wingman, he already knew everything you need to know about how to talk to women. The relevant information that he learned at a quite late age was that women are ungrateful for anything you give them, because they (correctly) think you expect sex in return, and that women loath nice guys and prefer assholes.

              Feynman did not learn to explicitly proposition women, because, in fact, you don’t explicitly proposition women. The part of the woman that is capable of speech is not in charge of her pussy.

              Because the part of the woman that is capable of speech is not in charge of her pussy, there is no way to speak to women to get them to sleep with you.

              You get them to sleep with you in another way.

          • peppermint says:

            » Males in America, at least until today, are not exposed to sexual harassment propaganda in any volume until they are in college

            this is false, at least, by now. Sexual harassment propaganda, Black rights propaganda, and Holocaust propaganda are everywhere from the earliest days of elementary school. My elementary school was run by one of these: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bb6SKR7BUdM

          • B says:

            It’s touching that you presume to lecture me on “the art of pickup” (the very terminology is gay.) I’m not going to brag about various conquests (that would be even gayer). Let’s just say that I doubt you have a lot to teach me in this area.

            Feynman’s problem was not that he couldn’t talk to women to get a date to a dance or to check out groceries or whatever. His problem was that in a nightclub environment, he couldn’t get these barflies (whose basic outlook is now shared by 85% of American women) to sleep with him. They would put him in the friend zone. Likewise, the typical modern nerd has some female friends who would never dream of ruining their wonderful friendship with sex.

          • Dave says:

            I have to agree with B here. My dad, born c. 1930, is a high-IQ nerd who was as hopeless with women as I was. It’s not that high-IQ nerds didn’t exist in the 19th century, but that fathers *taught* their sons how to court women instead of assuming such knowledge was instinctive. Just as mothers taught their daughters to seek out and latch onto a good-provider husband instead of letting them follow their natural female virtue.

          • Contaminated NEET says:

            Ah, but Dave, you’re here aren’t you? Some woman somewhere let your dad have sex with her and then bore his child. That’s not nothing. I don’t doubt he was awkward around women, but he did it. If he’d been born in 1990, there’s no way he would have. You have no idea how bad it’s gotten today. No idea.

          • Dave says:

            My dad has had sex with two women in his 85 years. The first was after his best friend offed himself, he married the widow, adopted her two children, and had a son with her. That son is a faggot, a druggie, and a lifelong fuckup. This woman then divorced him, so he joined a computer dating service (in 1968!), met my mom, and had two kids. My sister followed her paternal aunt and great aunt into feminist spinsterdom.

            So it’s down to me, my non-feminist foreign wife, and our four kids raised with no tribe, no community, no nation, no culture, and no religion. Not sure how that’ll work out long-term — fasting is a great way to detox your body but you can’t do it forever.

          • Alexander Hutchison says:

            Sorry, pal. The Nerd stereotype DID exist. Except, it wasn’t called “Nerd”. It was called something, at least locally, like “Poindexter”. Watch Wally Cox on The Beverly Hillbillies, and you’ll see that it was quite a prevalent stereotype, at least as early as the 60s. Dash Riprock got Ellie Mae, Cox got Jane Hathaway.

            • jim says:

              Poindexter was a supervillain. He gave orders, people obeyed him. People were scared of him.

              Not the nerd stereotype.

              Ellie May wanted to date professor Biddle rather than Dash Riprock. So the professor, a very Poindexter type, was doing OK.

  3. Laguna Beach Fogey says:

    “The smart nerd is terrified and believes everything he hears”

    Yeah, sounds like a real genius.

    Bitter gammas and deltas, hating on all the so-called “dumb assholes”.

    • jim says:

      The lie is communicated in words. The young man lacks experience with women. Words work better on the smart. And the smart are more exposed to those words, spending more time in academic environments, and paying more attention to academic environments.

      The smart boy tends to hang out with other smart boys. And the common wisdom among his friends is the blue pill. The stupid kid gets his knowledge of women the old fashioned way – which is far more reliable.

  4. reakcionar says:

    Several years ago I met a physicist who was by all conceivable measurements a man of far superior intelligence. He was also a comic book example of a nerd.

    The guy married a foreign chick pregnant with a child of some foreign cad, so she could get nationality of his country. He accepted another man’s child, raised it as if it were his own, and after a few years chick dumps him for some retired alpha police officer 20 years her senior. She took his apartment, got an incredible alimony, and used him as a babysitter while partying with her new boyfriend. He didn’t mind all that, and he never got any resistance from his friends of family – there was no one around him to just tell him: “Don’t be so fucking stupid!”.

    If Jim is correct, this sort of thing would hardly happen 50 years ago. This guy would be mocked by all his friends for being so beta and crucified by his family for wasting the family capital – yet today he feels holy for not judging his ex wife and for supporting her spoiled rotten bastard. In a world where Lady Gaga has replaced the Virgin Mary, I believe game can help a lot of young man to find the truth about female sexuality and not waste their lives on slaving away in shitty relationships and get divorce raped like this guy. Sure, game can easily make you a hedonistic nihilist, but living under a female dictatorship can make you an unhappy suicidal nihilist. I say: God bless Roissy.

    • Laguna Beach Fogey says:

      “In a world where Lady Gaga has replaced the Virgin Mary, I believe game can help a lot of young man to find the truth about female sexuality and not waste their lives on slaving away in shitty relationships and get divorce raped like this guy. Sure, game can easily make you a hedonistic nihilist, but living under a female dictatorship can make you an unhappy suicidal nihilist. I say: God bless Roissy.”

      Exactly! Well said.

    • B says:

      Cuj, ljegendo, sve to je ljepo, ali…the game thing takes people out of the frying pan and into the fire, or the hedonic treadmill. It reduces the world to a whorehouse, and whorehouses are depressing places to be.

      • reakcionar says:

        Martial arts can make a dumb person even more aggressive and impulsive, but that doesn’t automatically mean that a man with minimal self discipline will use punches to win an argument after a few boxing classes. By the same principle, just because one learns a bit of game, that doesn’t mean he will be be banging sluts till he’s too old to have a hard on.

        I know a lot of smart and decently looking guys who are truly, deeply, madly miserable with women. Why do you think that learning about shit tests, a more manly body language, learning to deal with rejection etc. will “take them into the frying pan and into the fire”? What other solution do you have for them?

        In a decent society, one should not worry too much about the physical safety for him and his close ones, but we don’t, so it’s probably wise to know how to fire a gun or throw a punch. Western civilization is already an alpha-fux-beta-bucks feminist whorehouse, so why shouldn’t one learn how to deal with it? How is unlearning liberal bullshit about women making the world into a whorehouse?

        • B says:

          What profit it a man to gain the world if he loses his soul and turns into a dancing monkey for his inferiors?

          http://www.rooshv.com/how-to-be-a-good-clown

          Unlearning liberal bullshit is great, if you have something to take its place. The people least susceptible to liberal bullshit I’ve ever met were American blacks. If the end result of game is turning socially crippled nerds into dancing, gibbering pimps, I’m not sure the game is worth the candle. You’ll notice that in order to continue doing what he does, Roissy had to build up a fairly stupid and nihilistic worldview-the god of biomechanics and all that garbage.

          • jim says:

            Roosh is not causing damage, but reporting damage.

            Who suffers more harm, and causes more harm? Roosh, or this physicist?

            As it happens, I banged my future wife at seventeen, and kept her around all my life with her mostly being reasonably respectful and obedient, by using some of the more cruel and manipulative tactics of what is now called game, though back in those days there were no PUAs or books on the art of the pickup, nor internet forums on how to handle women, merely what men knew about women, what everyone knew before everyone forgot.

          • reakcionar says:

            You seem to have a rather binary view of game, as if one is either a nihilistic clown or a normal responsible man with some real qualities.

            How is learning what a shit test is a road to being a gibbering pimp? Or learning to say “shut the fuck up!” to a hysterical woman, after a lifetime of being raised in a feminist jungle where female hysteria is considered holy? Or recognizing a crazy slut in time, and not marrying her and letting her divorce-rape you?

            Game turns some guys not only into clowns, but also into narcissistic idiots who lose their ability to communicate with other men without playing mind-fuck games and calculating on how that will get them more attention and more women. I believe you are overestimating this damage, and underestimating the benefits of smart young men learning the truth about female nature.

            • jim says:

              The great value of game is that the fact that game works reveals that women should never have been emancipated. Emancipated women will reliably make bad sexual and reproductive decisions.

          • B says:

            Roosh is reporting damage which he has caused to himself in the course of attempting to repair damage caused him by the society in which he grew up. I would not trade places with him or the physicist. I do suspect, though, that given a normal social framework and a woman interested in marriage and being faithful, the physicist would have a decent chance of a successful marriage and children, while Roosh would not.

            >How is learning what a shit test is a road to being a gibbering pimp? Or learning to say “shut the fuck up!” to a hysterical woman, after a lifetime of being raised in a feminist jungle where female hysteria is considered holy? Or recognizing a crazy slut in time, and not marrying her and letting her divorce-rape you?

            I have no objections to any of these. The issue is that in order to learn them, you basically have to enter a sexual gladiatorial arena, and sex is a more powerful drug than heroin, especially to a young man who grew up deprived of female affection in a hypersexualized environment. Giving a guy like that the ability to gain access to sex at the price of putting on a mask all but ensures that he will keep the mask on and keep dancing long past the point of diminishing marginal returns.

            In other words, if the ultimate goal is a lifelong marriage to an attractive (for you) wife with children, grandchildren, etc., the implied argument in favor of the PUA lifestyle is that the skillset and mentality needed for a man to become promiscuous is the same as the skillset and mentality needed for a man to secure an attractive wife and have a lifelong marriage with children, grandchildren, etc. What I’ve seen is that it is more difficult for a man who’s figured out how to dance for sex with a parade of new, attractive women to stop dancing and settle down with one of them, and that once he does, it is very difficult for him to successfully take off the mask without losing her attraction and respect. It’s the same as a man who has no friends his whole life and then goes into a sales job where he is taught various forced rapport-building techniques. What are the odds he will use those techniques to find real friendship?

            I guess what I’m saying is that I like neither the standard Western Kool-Aid nor the PUA flavor.

            • jim says:

              I do suspect, though, that given a normal social framework and a woman interested in marriage and being faithful, the physicist would have a decent chance of a successful marriage and children, while Roosh would not.

              We don’t have a normal social framework, and I snatched up someone traditionally raised using methods whose effectiveness is usually applied to destroy women traditionally raised.

              And the reason we used to have a normal social framework, is that when we used to know the nature of women, we realized the necessity of imposing that framework on women against their will.

          • Just sayin' says:

            Roosh clearly delved too deeply and burned himself out.

            Some grounding in this knowledge is still essential.

            We used to have mechanisms to transmit just enough knowledge, but not too much. Those mechanisms broke down and we reached a point where not enough knowledge was transmitted. That was very bad.

            Now things are swinging back in the other direction. Pioneers like Roosh not only help us understand what to do, they also show us what NOT to do.

          • B says:

            I have no objections to people developing a realistic perspective on what drives women and how to deal with them properly. Women are a subset of people, and I think a man must understand human nature generally and in its particulars.

            I think that learning what makes women tick through PUA, game and the rest of it is quite similar to learning about people by working as a junk bonds salesman while taking your cues from Tony Robbins, NLP and the rest of it. Your view of human nature at the end will be warped.

          • B says:

            Judaism as it has existed for at least 900 years has a woman’s right to demand a divorce if she finds her husband repulsive or if he is impotent.

            Maimonides, Mishne Torah, Hilchot Ishut, Chapter 14

            Halacha 7
            It is forbidden for a man to deprive his wife of her conjugal rights. If he transgresses and deprives her of these rights in order to cause her distress, he violates one of the Torah’s negative commandments, as [Exodus 21:10] states: “Do not deprive [her] of her sustenance, garments or conjugal rights.”12

            If he becomes sick or his virility is weakened, and he is unable to engage in sexual relations, he is given a period of six months13- for [a woman is never required to wait] longer for her conjugal rights than this – in the hope that he recovers. Afterwards, the prerogative is hers [whether to remain married] or whether he must divorce her and pay her [the money due her by virtue of her] ketubah.

            Halacha 8
            A woman who withholds marital intimacy from her husband is called a moredet (“a rebel”). She is asked why she has rebelled. If she answers: “Because I am repulsed by him and I cannot voluntarily engage in relations with him,” her husband should be compelled to divorce her immediately. For she is not like a captive, [to be forced] to engage in relations with one she loathes.14

            [In such an instance, as part of] the divorce [settlement], she does not receive any of the money promised her in her ketubah.15 She is entitled to whatever remains of the possessions she brought into the marriage arrangement, both those for which her husband assumed responsibility and those for which he did not assume responsibility – i.e., nichsei m’log.16

            She is not entitled to anything that belongs to her husband. She should remove even the shoe on her foot and her head-covering that he gave her and return them to him. [Similarly,] she should return to him any presents that he gave her. For he did not give them to her with the intent that she take them and [leave his home].

            Halacha 15
            [The following ruling applies when] a man rebels against his wife and says, “I will support her and provide her with her subsistence, but I will not be intimate with her, because she has become loathsome to me.” He must increase her ketubah by the equivalent of 36 barleycorns worth of [pure] silver30 each week. They may remain married without engaging in relations for as long as she desires.31

            Although her ketubah continues to increase, [her husband] also transgresses a negative commandment, for [Exodus 21:10] states: “Do not deprive [her of her… conjugal rights].” If the husband hates her, let him divorce her; causing her anguish, however, is forbidden.

            Why is he not punished by lashes for [violating] this negative commandment? Because its [violation] does not involve a deed.

          • reakcionar says:

            @B

            Western women today behave like junk bond salesmen. If a man wants to buy bonds, what better way there is to avoid being scammed is to learn their tricks? Without a doubt, it’s a journey to the dark side of the force, and it’s very possible to become a monster by observing monsters – but I prefer that over being eaten by monsters.

            Anyway, I agree that gladitorial sexual arena damages men as well as women. I just think that basic knowledge of how to wield the sword can be very useful in today’s worlds.

  5. You have presented no data at all for your central thesis, which is that dumb guys now do better with chicks than smart guys. Its just your prejudice, so far as I can tell. If that’s not true, I’d really be interested in evidence.

    You’ve used this woman blogger’s boyfriend on this topic before, but as I pointed out then, this guy doesn’t seem stupid. From what she’s said, he’s from a poor background, is self made, wins academic competitions, was accepted to some kind of teaching program he was proud of, and has a stack of books on his bedside table. For all the hard facts we have, this guy may develop into a super star of some sort.

    Then you segued to saying that smart guys used to be good with chicks, but they aren’t now. Well, most of my experience with smart guys is from guys who became girl savvy not far past your 1972 cutoff, and my experience was, smart guys do much better with chicks, as you’d expect. All the great naturals I’ve met are top PhD physicists and the like. I would be interested to see data indicating if things had really changed. Maybe there has just been a change in public perception.

    If there were a change, would it (1) be a change in the existence of a class of nerdy HI IQ individuals, (this might be plausible, say connected to the rise in ASD, for example possibly caused by vaccines starting just around your period)
    or
    (2) the vanishing of the class of smooth high IQ individuals
    or
    (3) a change in the predilections of women?

    • jim says:

      You have presented no data at all for your central thesis, which is that dumb guys now do better with chicks than smart guys.

      Have you been living in a cave?

      • Nah, I’ve been dating, I’m a smart guy, and I did really well, so I don’t see it.

        One of my kids is pretty smart, and women clearly follow him around.

        Yes, I get it in popular media The Big Bang Theory guys leave something on the table when it comes to game. But I haven’t seen it in reality.

    • jim says:

      Women’s predilections for male behavior are as unchangeable as male predilections for female curves. The class of smooth high IQ males has greatly diminished. At the same time females have become much more aggressive towards males, interrupting them and talking over them.

      The social norm of being self defeatingly respectful towards women has strengthened, and has changed primarily in the upper class.

  6. It wouldn’t be surprising if there were a large rise from 1972 to today in the number of 20 yo women who were consciously expecting to spend 10 years getting laid by a variety of studs before even thinking about selecting a father for their child?

    That may explain all your observations?

    • John says:

      “20 yo women who were consciously expecting to spend 10 years getting laid by a variety of studs before even thinking about selecting a father for their child”

      This is the true market shift. Women today are allowed to do what they want, so they maximize the benefit derived from having a hot young female body. This means a variety of temporary relationships with the hottest, most charismatic men they can find, followed by marriage with one or two kids to their “best friend” who is usually an attractive beta provider of similar age.

      Having a baby traps them at home and prematurely degrades their hotness. Being legally bound to a single man prevents them from maximizing the enjoyment they can receive from sex.

      So the fittest and most desirable women these days are just as commitment averse as the most alpha of cads. It’s not until their glory run is over and their looks start to slip that they even start to consider marriage and family.

      At that point, if they have managed their looks well, cultivated their charm, avoided becoming totally insane, and didn’t wait too long — they can still EASILY scoop up a quality man.

      The mating market power of the attractive 18-25 year old female trumps everything else, however, the alpha male’s trump card is longevity. He can fuck prime age women (though not lock them down) into his 50s.

      Not even trying to lock them down is key, because it is always sure to drive them away if they are pre-baby-rabies. This is the fruit of sexual liberation — a sexual utopia for high achievers who enjoy high quality and quantity of sexual relationships, with varying levels frustration and internet porn for everyone else.

      All while the birthrate plummets because it is individually optimal for prime fertility females to keep those peak attractiveness years for themselves by delaying reproduction. Women will make this choice every single time if given the option.

      • I pretty much agree with this, but the point is that this behavior is not contributing directly to dysgenic evolution as Jim as seemed to maintain repeatedly about female mate choice, a point I have made before in these comment threads.
        Jim is wrong if he believes that women are selecting stupid guys to have their kids with. When they are looking to have kids, they are selecting guys based in substantial measure on their assessment of the guy’s intelligence, or at the very least at assessment of real world achievements the guy has accomplished. This intense sexual selection likely promotes evolution of higher IQ. Because of sexual selection, the average guy who has kids is likely above average intelligence by more than the average woman who has kids is below it, (if in fact the mean woman having a kid is not also smarter on average than the mean woman, a question that is less clear.)

      • One more comment. I was that 50 something guy, for some years before marriage to a younger woman.
        Its worth noting that a lot of these hot women manage to overestimate their ability to close a desirable guy when they finally get around to it, and chase their declining SMV down to zero continually asking too high a price. I encountered numbers of stunning and accomplished women I thought were marginally too old for me, especially considering having children as I was, who simultaneously themselves thought I was too old for them, although much younger women were not concerned about my age, and although their sell-by date was very rapidly approaching if not past.

  7. Pepperdork says:

    It is much deeper than all that.

    Evolutionary psychology is real: women want a Real Man capable of physically protecting them. Not a bunch of concave-chested, nearsighted, driveling bloggers whose play-thing “politics” are one-step removed from their previous debates over “Chaotic Good” in Dungeons and Dragons.

    If anything your transparent jealousy of Real Men pushes women further away from you.

    Be honest: when was the last time any of you had sexual intercourse with a non-obese woman under the age of 47?

    • jim says:

      On average, smart males tend to be slightly bigger, stronger, and handsomer than dumb males. They tend to have substantially faster reaction times, which helps enormously in a fight, more than strength does. There is a very strong correlation between intelligence and fast reaction times, and a very strong correlation between fast reaction times and winning in a fight. They are perceived as small and weak because they act small and weak, not because they are physically small and weak.

      • Pepperdork says:

        “On average, smart males tend to be slightly bigger, stronger, and handsomer than dumb males.”

        Lol– rationalizing away your nerdism? Smart males that are concave-chested, weaker and less handsome than athletic men are, in act, still concave-chested, weaker and less handsome.

        Tom Brady is certainly smart, but he married Giselle principally because he’s 6’4″, has a square jaw, plays professional football, and is worth about $50 million.

        And women don’t go for neoreactionary dorks. Try spewing some of this pseudo-intellectual drivel in a bar and see how you do with the ladies.

        You didn’t answer my question: when was the last time you had sex with a non-obese woman under the age of 47?

    • peppermint says:

      Do you really find fat women or women over 47 easier to hit on? I get the sense that they understand what their sexual market value is and are mostly interested in Harry Potter cosplay and transhumanism.

      I mean, if you wanted to, I guess you could dress up as a tranny and do the sex with them. But Roissy wouldn’t do that, and neither would Jim.

      • Pepperdork says:

        Sooooo, do tell: when was the last time you had sexual intercourse with a non-obese woman under the age of 47?

        Or is it all masturbation (physical and “political”) for you at this point?

        LOL is that the origins of the “Dark Enlightment” (jesus even the name sounds like a D&D booklet) – a bunch of frustrated nerds angry at the world?

  8. Thrasymachus says:

    Jesus said be as wise as serpents and harmless as doves, so I think we need to understand the nature of women, and use the understanding responsibly.

    I said something about this is a previous comment. To expand a little, my dad was/is a pretty big nerd, but was able to get married and have kids. He worked at the Rocket Propulsion Lab. The father of my best friend as a kid was an engineer at Plant 42, and he was kind of a player. The father of my other best friend worked with my dad and was a pretty smooth guy. The engineers were more macho than the scientists but the scientists were not at all socially handicapped.

    I think that being smart and basically well-behaved was not a social handicap up until about 1965. My father was actually pretty popular in high school, although I think more as a mascot of the cool guys than a cool guy. Going to a Jesuit prep school probably helped a lot.

    In the late 60’s being smart became bad, and engineers and scientists became villians. Unless you were in a fairly upper middle-class environment, being smart was bad and something you did not show too much if you wanted to fit in.

    This shows one of the ways elite attitudes have much worse consequences among the non-elite. The environment I grew up in was materially very nice, and even high school graduates of slightly below average intelligence had lots of nice stuff. But it was cruel and crude.

    I think you have to raise a child now like in the Soviet Union- tell them the truth, but make sure they understand the truth is not to be spoken of at work or school.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      “Thrasymachus”

      Yes, the Politically Correct commisars are indeed wreaking havoc on candid conversations.

      Best regards,

      A.J.P.

  9. Ripple Earthdevil says:

    “The Nerd stereotype did not exist until 1978-1979. ”

    Not true. I was called a nerd as early as 1971.

    • jim says:

      I also said 1972 in the original post. And another commenter said 1965

      So, between 1965 and 1978, something changed. I kind of think it changed abruptly in 1972, and people started noticing it in 1978, but the precise date does not matter that much.

      The bottom line is that within living memory, things were different, but pretty soon it will not be within living memory, making it easier to rewrite the past.

      • Dr. Faust says:

        It was most likely the PC which changed things as I tend to believe nearly all social change is the result of an antecedent technological development. The introverted types found an outlet for their interests with the computer.

        • peppermint says:

          PCs became common in the ’80s and ’90s

        • jim says:

          Nerd loser stereotype preceded the IBM PC

        • B says:

          Before that, they had books and all kinds of geek toys (Cary Mullis writes about commonly available chemistry sets where you could produce homemade explosives, for instance.)

          I suspect Thrasymachus is right and it’s simply that society and its children became more vicious towards the “weak”.

          I personally noticed that by the time I turned about 14, girls were much less likely to see intelligence as a sign of leprosy and rather liked it (I was also pretty strong physically, and didn’t let anyone intimidated.) It took about 6 years for me to translate that into any regular success, and another 6 or 7 years to start cleaning up without real effort or strain. When you raise a baby elephant with a chain on its leg, the adult assumes the chain is unbreakable and doesn’t try.

  10. spandrell says:

    I take it B’s point is that people should go all full-Orthodox, and any attempt at trying to deal with progressivism will still make you miserable over the long term.

    Not a bad message to take from reading how Roosh has ended becoming just a pissed man-child; but there are better stories out there. Plenty of people (certainly myself) have learned to tell women to shut up, without buying the whole package and going into a fuck-spree in Poland.

    You don’t need to enter the sex-colosseum to learn how to deal with women. It certainly makes it tempting, and may indeed have used it to go into gladiatorial careers, but those are few. And even if they were legion, it’s a price worth paying for teaching some smart conscientious men that women aren’t holy and that all their crap has a pattern which can be learned to make them less annoying to oneself.

    And fixing an annoying wife is just fucking priceless.

  11. Thales says:

    Women are the ones who should really be taught sex realism, and I must believe it was conveyed in some fashion before the rise of the supremely ironically named Feminism. It’s great that nice guys can make better, more frequent pick-ups, or keep wives in their place, but it’s intellgent, high SMV women who must learn to stop wasting their best years chasing alpha cocks if future breeding in the West is going to be anything other than dysgenic.

    • jim says:

      It is inherent in the nature of women to chase alpha cock. Hence patriarchy and monogamy to coercively restrain them.

    • peppermint says:

      Yes, that is what feminists say.

      What’s the result?

      Women are deeply unhappy with having to control themselves and their men.

      • jim says:

        The demand for emancipation is a shit test. Women cannot help giving shit tests, cannot help demanding that we should fail them, and cannot help being sad if we do fail them.

  12. Corvinus says:

    “Most beautiful high IQ high socioeconomic status women are blowing their youth, their beauty, and their most fertile years on low income semi employed assholes with room temperature IQs, the kind of guy who sometimes gets a job folding sweaters, sometimes deals a little dope, sometimes a bit of burglary, but mostly sponges off his exceedingly numerous girlfriends, particularly the flock of them that are high socioeconomic status.”

    

First, you must quantify “most”. What numbers are we talking about here?

    Second, do people not have the liberty to choose who they want to date, marry, and/or procreate with?

    Third, what is your beef with these “low income semi employed assholes with room temperature IQs”? If they are able to sniff out high quality snatch, and are able to procure one if not two white babies in the process, are they not contributing mightily to society?

    Fourth, Roissy spews anti-Godly masculinity. Christian men run the risk of losing their soul by taking his “advice”.

    “Before 1972, there was no stereotype of the sexually unsuccessful awkward high IQ nerd.”

    Clark Kent, mild-mannered reporter for the Daily Planet.

    “The stereotypical smart person used to resemble Feynman and Wernher von Braun, who were notorious hits with chicks.”

    Wernher von Braun became converted to Christ and married his maternal first cousin.

    “Only losers proposition a women for sex.”

    Tease, escalate, and close is the proposition mantra for PUA’s.

    “It is inherent in the nature of women to chase alpha cock. Hence patriarchy and monogamy to coercively restrain them.”

    As it is the nature of these type of men to “pump and dump”. Hence a renunciation and refutation of PUA’s and their anti-social, anti-Godly wares.

    “And fixing an annoying wife is just fucking priceless.”

    I’m sure you have shared this sentiment directly to her face and she has obliged with blow jobs and baked goods.

    “I take it B’s point is that people should go all full-Orthodox.”

    Now you’re talking!

    “There is a very strong correlation between intelligence and fast reaction times”



    MODERATE correlation between intelligence and reaction times. Get your facts straight.

    “The great value of game is that the fact that game works reveals that women should never have been emancipated”

    Game only works for those men who have the predisposition, aka a natural inclination, to use their charm and wit and convince women to fuck them, then weasel their way out of a long-term commitment. We are talking about the upper crust of men—good looking, suave, sophisticated–which is NOT reflective of the overall population of men.

    What game actually reveals is that “high value men” create a specialized program aimed at men with “lower social value” who have average looks at best and the inherent propensity to be clumsy around women. These boot camps may temporarily increase the student’s confidence around women, but as soon as he pays the $2000 for essentially two nights in Vegas, the learning curve dips and he is inevitably back to square one. Sure, he may pull the lucky chick who is a 6 or 7 out of his hat, but those high value women that he craves are still not on their sexual radar. Why? Because of the guy’s evolutionary defaults.

    “As it happens, I banged my future wife at seventeen, and kept her around all my life with her mostly being reasonably respectful and obedient, by using some of the more cruel and manipulative tactics of what is now called game, though back in those days there were no PUAs or books on the art of the pickup”

    Except men are not using game to secure a monogamous relationship and engage in coitus for the exclusive purpose of siring children. Nay, a number of young men are simply making excuses to live the Don Juan lifestyle with all the trimmings. What is the end result? A bitter man in his 40’s with plenty of pussy pelts on the wall, still trying to chase young tail with his favorite lines, but without the trophy wife nor prodigious progeny.

    “By the same principle, just because one learns a bit of game, that doesn’t mean he will be be banging sluts till he’s too old to have a hard on.”


    Ask Charlie Sheen and company.


    • jim says:

      “Most beautiful high IQ high socioeconomic status women are blowing their youth, their beauty, and their most fertile years on low income semi employed assholes with room temperature IQs, the kind of guy who sometimes gets a job folding sweaters, sometimes deals a little dope, sometimes a bit of burglary, but mostly sponges off his exceedingly numerous girlfriends, particularly the flock of them that are high socioeconomic status.”

      

First, you must quantify “most”. What numbers are we talking about here?

      The substantial majority. Most women don’t marry until their charms, and their fertility, have substantially faded. When they are no longer that attractive, then they are reluctantly willing to settle for a man who might marry them and stick with them for the rest of their lives. When they are really hot, they are fucking the part time sweater folder. Women are marrying late. Who were they fucking before they got married?

      MODERATE correlation between intelligence and reaction times. Get your facts straight.

      At the extremes, which is what we are talking about, a moderate correlation means that pretty much everyone who is really smart will have really fast reaction times. Example Olympic medallist, Nobel laureate, Niels Bohr.

      Except men are not using game to secure a monogamous relationship and engage in coitus for the exclusive purpose of siring children.

      In the current environment, if you don’t have game, your wife is probably fucking someone who does. And if you marry a thirty year old, chances are she spent age eleven to age thirty fucking men she found a lot more desirable than you, but she decided to settle for you because the booty calls are not coming as often.

      • B says:

        >Most women don’t marry until their charms, and their fertility, have substantially faded. When they are no longer that attractive, then they are reluctantly willing to settle for a man who might marry them and stick with them for the rest of their lives. When they are really hot, they are fucking the part time sweater folder. Women are marrying late. Who were they fucking before they got married?

        Late marriage was a standard pattern of North European society for many centuries, yet they didn’t degenerate into gladiatorial sexuality. I think your assumption that healthy human beings who are not married will necessarily have sex illicitly is wrong. Most of the women I’ve known who were spending their 20s waiting for Mr. Right to show up were not getting sex regularly, maybe once every few months unless they had a steady boyfriend.

        • jim says:

          Late marriage was a standard pattern of North European society for many centuries, yet they didn’t degenerate into gladiatorial sexuality.

          Late marriage with strong constraints on female chastity works fine. Late marriage while marrying non virgins works horribly badly. Bring back executions for the case that there is no blood on the sheets, then late marriage would work fine.

          I think your assumption that healthy human beings who are not married will necessarily have sex illicitly is wrong.

          To prevent it, extraordinary and draconian restraints are required.

          • Corvinus says:

            “The substantial majority.”

            You are being purposely vague. Hard numbers offer a glimpse into the true nature of what is taking place. Again, what is your beef with these “low income semi employed assholes with room temperature IQs”? If they are able to sniff out high quality snatch, and are able to procure one if not two white babies in the process, are they not contributing mightily to society? Besides, you’re married, so why would you even be remotely concerned with their lives?

            “Most women don’t marry until their charms…”

            Value judgement.

            “and their fertility, have substantially faded.”

            The average age of first marriage in the United States is 27 for women and 29 for men in 2012, up from 23 for women and 26 for men in 1990 and 20 and 22 (!) in 1960. While some studies suggest that peak fertility dips beginning at age 27, it is not until a women’s mid-thirties before their opportunity to become pregnant becomes “compromised”.

            “Women are marrying late.”


            Their liberty to make that decision, similar to the PUA’s and MGTOW’s opting out of holy matrimony.

            “…a moderate correlation means that pretty much everyone who is really smart will have really fast reaction times. Example Olympic medallist, Nobel laureate, Niels Bohr.”

            [Laughs] you must have been sleeping in Psychology 101. A moderate correlation refers to +/-.40 to +/-.60. Bohr’s reaction times represents the HIGH end of the spectrum. In other words, it is more likely that those who are smart MAY have faster reaction times compared to those who are not smart.

            “And if you marry a thirty year old, chances are she spent age eleven to age thirty fucking men she found a lot more desirable than you…”

            Could you offer a percentage and verify it with data, please? You’re merely making unsubstantiated statements.

            “if you don’t have game, your wife is probably fucking someone who does…”

            That would be grounds for divorce in this particular case.

            “Late marriage with strong constraints on female chastity works fine.”

            

For YOU, perhaps, but not everyone else. Why are you opposed to people exercising their liberty to make their own decisions regarding marriage?

            “To prevent it, extraordinary and draconian restraints are required.”



            Never go full Stalin. Or Pol Pot.

            Duly noted, Jim, that you condone the methods of Roissy and his merry band of anti-Godly masculinity companions.

            • jim says:

              The rate of miscarriage starts rising and fertility dropping at age twenty, but does not become a serious problem till age thirty. Health complications of pregnancy however diminish to age twenty and remain low through a woman’s twenties. In terms of bearing children, the safest age at which to have children, best have them between twenty and twenty four. In terms of having the energy to manage them as they grow up, probably a bit younger is better.

              However the problem with late marriage is not so much diminished capability to have children, though this becomes a problem from thirty onwards, but that the woman has spent many years fucking men she found more attractive than her husband. (Since a woman get a more attractive man as a fuckbuddy than as a boyfriend, and a more attractive man as a boyfriend than as a husband.) Ideally women should be tightly supervised and severely disciplined from age ten or so so that they remain chaste till seventeen or so, marry at seventeen, delay children for three years (delaying children for longer creates a risk of breakup) and then start having children rapidly at age twenty, completing their agreed family size in their twenties.

          • peppermint says:

            » if not two white babies in the process, are they not contributing mightily to society

            see

            https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2015/01/24/the-moar-white-baybies-troll/

          • peppermint says:

            » Why are you opposed to people exercising their liberty to make their own decisions regarding marriage?

            Because they don’t know what’s good for them, or are too sinful to carry out what is good for them. We know that marriage, with a prohibition on cousin marriage, is the best way for humans to reproduce, because there is a certain set of alternatives, and none of them lead to the kind of people who build great civilizations.

            I mean, this experiment has been done. We see the results right now.

        • jim says:

          In the past I have argued that female misbehavior starts at a disturbingly young age, and other people have told me it is not so, and there was no way to resolve the disagreement. Recently a way of resolving the disagreement occurred to me. If you go into a shop that sells a broad range of stuff, it will have a great pile of mass produced books written to formula for the lowest common denominator, organized by sex and age. Now if you look at the boy’s books, they are about boys having adventures. Nominally female characters are in there for reasons of PC, and are actually boys, thinly disguised.

          And if you look at the young girls books, targeted at ages six, seven and eight, they are about young girls having adventures and all the important characters are female. But if you look at books targeted to girls age nine, ten and eleven, there are male characters, and the female protagonist is very interested in these male characters. The male characters start out acting all aloof alpha male, and after spending about nine tenths of the story being aloof alpha male spend about a tenth of the story revealing their soft beta inner core, that they actually have feelings inside.

          And, just as the female characters in boys’ books are thinly disguised boys, the boy characters in girls’ books are thinly disguised adult males.

          In short, the romance genre, thinly disguised to avoid shocking parents, starts at age nine or so and pretty much dominates the field.

          • B says:

            (after picturing Jim Donald perusing the 9-11 year old girls’ section of the Walmart bookshelf with a very serious expression on his face for 90 minutes straight)

            It doesn’t follow. The typical boy doesn’t do anything remotely resembling any of the stuff he fantasizes about from the books until he’s in his late teens.

            • jim says:

              We know that the Victorians were in massive denial about widespread female misbehavior because they were in massive denial about Queen Caroline’s misbehavior.

              And similarly, we know that twenty first centurians are in massive denial about young female misbehavior, because they are in massive denial about Lena Dunham’s misbehavior.

              It is not clear how the eighteenth century working class managed the problem, but the eighteenth century upper class kept its girls locked up till shortly before marriage.

              The eighteenth century upper class did not let its girls out until time to get married, whereupon they would dance with parentally selected gentleman. After two or three such parties, they would become engaged, meaning that the girl and the gentleman had a legally and socially enforceable agreement that if they had sex, would get married, whereupon the couple were allowed to get better acquainted. After a very short time of getting better acquainted the parental hammer would come down, and they would get married. Which system seems to imply that getting better acquainted was guaranteed to lead to fucking in short order.

              So don’t tell me about late marriage in the eighteenth century. The eighteenth century system presupposed that starting at age ten or so, girls would crawl nine miles over broken glass to have sex with their demon lover.

          • Corvinus says:

            “Because they don’t know what’s good for them, or are too sinful to carry out what is good for them.”

            Do you even hear what you are saying? The “casual sex” lifestyle is immoral regardless of gender. Why the free pass with men? Need you be reminded what God says about fornication outside of marriage?

            “We know that marriage, with a prohibition on cousin marriage, is the best way for humans to reproduce…”

            Then using your rationale, you would be opposed to sex before marriage by men AND women, which is included in the biblical definition of sexual immorality and cited in Scripture, because this conduct is NOT in line with this “best way for humans to reproduce”. Great to know.

            “The rate of miscarriage starts…probably a bit younger is better.”

            Blah, blah, blah, Jim. You are acting just like a SJW, touting the party line.

            
“but that the woman has spent many years fucking men she found more attractive than her husband.”

            The average male loses his virginity at age 16.9; females average slightly older, at 17.4. Studies also suggest that genetics may be a factor: inherited traits, such as impulsivity, can make a person more or less willing to have sex at an earlier age.

            Women have an average of four sex partners during their lifetime; men have an average of seven. So while it is true women have sex with men other than their PROSPECTIVE mates, it is also true that men engage in similar conduct.

            “Since a woman get a more attractive man as a fuckbuddy than as a boyfriend, and a more attractive man as a boyfriend than as a husband”

            Where is your evidence supporting this trend?

            “Ideally women should be tightly supervised and severely disciplined from age ten…”

            Ideally, being the operative word. Regardless, by taking away the fundamental freedom of people by coercing them when to marry and who to marry, one acts like a dictator.

            “and then start having children rapidly at age twenty, completing their agreed family size in their twenties”

            Tremendous advice for people living in the 19th century. In today’s economy, two incomes to live comfortably and provide their children with financial stability is a requirement. Men and women having children in their early twenties is an unrealistic expectation in our modern world.

            “We know that the Victorians were in massive denial about widespread female misbehavior…”

            Men of that time period lamented how they were revolted by prostitutes, characterizing them as “fallen women” who deserved the shame and disrespect—yet it made no concerted effort—with the exception of the religious minded—to make prostitution illegal because prostitutes provided a “basic service of satisfying men’s uncontrollable needs”. So, who is also debasing themselves in the eyes of the Lord?

            God forbids involvement with prostitutes because He knows such involvement is detrimental to BOTH men and women. Proverbs 5:3—”For the lips of an immoral woman drip honey, And her mouth is smoother than oil; But in the end she is bitter as wormwood, Sharp as a two-edged sword. Her feet go down to death, Her steps lay hold of hell”

            So, Jim, should married men be allowed to fornicate outside of marriage? Should married men who embrace the Good Book sit idly by when their Christian counterparts who have one night stands, trysts, or pay for sex, therefore violating the sanctity of marriage and defiling their reputations in the process? Speak up, Jim, we cannot hear you.

            “We know that marriage, with a prohibition on cousin marriage, is the best way for humans to reproduce…”

            Then using your rationale, you would be opposed to sex before marriage by men AND women, which is included in the biblical definition of sexual immorality and cited in Scripture.

            • jim says:

              The average male loses his virginity at age 16.9; females average slightly older, at 17.4.

              The female statistic is absurd. Very hard to find a virgin past fourteen. When I found a seventeen year old virgin, it blew my mind. And that was a very long time ago. Things have gotten much worse since then.

              For the statistic to be true, guys would have to be getting it one with slightly older women, which is obviously not the case.

              “We know that the Victorians were in massive denial about widespread female misbehavior…”

              Men of that time period lamented how they were revolted by prostitute

              Prostitutes not the problem. Queen Caroline was the problem. That, and the fact that most respectable women did in fact behave like Queen Caroline. That, and the fact that Queen Caroline could get away with acting like Queen Caroline, and still be deemed respectable, rather than getting a good public flogging, followed by a new career in a whorehouse.

              What should we do with women who behave like Queen Caroline? If no whorehouses, and none of their sex partners are prepared to take permanent possession, should sell them into slavery to someone who is prepared to take permanent possession.

            • jim says:

              Women have an average of four sex partners during their lifetime;

              Queen Caroline attended a ball naked from the waist up. Left the ball to go to a hotel with a guy she met at the ball. Supposedly she had only one sex partner in her lifetime.

          • k says:

            Or spend some time on Yahoo Answers…

          • Corvinus says:

            “The female statistic is absurd. Very hard to find a virgin past fourteen.”

            Find a source to validate your claim. Otherwise, all you are doing is blowing smoke and looking like a fool.

            “For the statistic to be true…”

            [Laughs] the statistic generated came from a survey of thousands of people. The statistic is representative for that particular group. Now, if you want dispute those results, locate a counter source.

            “guys would have to be getting it one with slightly older women, which is obviously not the case…”

            You truly do not comprehend the art of debate. Not all opinions are valid. You have made unsubstantiated statement after unsubstantiated statement. You must locate evidence to back up your claims. Do you need a primer on how to back up your assertions?

            “If no whorehouses, and none of their sex partners are prepared to take permanent possession, should sell them into slavery to someone who is prepared to take permanent possession.”

            Hello, Jim, anyone home? I will say this again to help you out—Men of that time period lamented how they were revolted by prostitutes, characterizing them as “fallen women” who deserved the shame and disrespect—yet it made no concerted effort—with the exception of the religious minded—to make prostitution illegal because prostitutes provided a “basic service of satisfying men’s uncontrollable needs”. So, who is also debasing themselves in the eyes of the Lord?

            Jim, should married men be allowed to fornicate outside of marriage? Should married men who embrace the Good Book sit idly by when their Christian counterparts who have one night stands, trysts, or pay for sex, therefore violating the sanctity of marriage and defiling their reputations in the process?

            Speak up, Jim, we cannot hear you.

            • jim says:

              the statistic generated came from a survey of thousands of people.

              The statistic came from asking thousands of people. For obvious reasons, women tend to massively understate the number of sexual partners that they have had, and massively overstate the age at which they first had sex. You surely know this from personal experience with women. The only way to tell if a girl is virgin is feeling her. You don’t ask because you get the same answer regardless.

              Hello, Jim, anyone home? I will say this again to help you out—Men of that time period lamented how they were revolted by prostitutes, characterizing them as “fallen women” who deserved the shame and disrespect

              That was the political correctness of the time. The successful adulteries of Queen Caroline demonstrate the reality of that time. Victorian hypocrisy was not men visiting prostitutes, it was supposedly respectable women fucking around and yet retaining their supposed respectability. Similarly Lord Byron seems to have screwed numerous married aristocratic women without those women suffering any adverse consequences, while Byron did suffer adverse consequences.

              Jim, should married men be allowed to fornicate outside of marriage?

              Heterosexual offenses should be handled as violation of property right and/or breach of contract, as in the old testament. Since men do not bring their bastards home, the modern concept of “fornication” is not meaningful in the old testament context, and there is no word or phrase in the old Testament that can be correctly translated to fornication in the modern sense.

              The extremely low rate of rape in women categorized as wife of head household occurs in part because husbands forbid risky behavior. If a fertile age woman is in the laundromat at midnight, she is single. Thus, we may conclude that husbands fear cuckoldry considerably more than women fear rape, and thus the property rights framework of the old testament more accurately reflects the harm of improper heterosexual activities than our current woman’s rights framework.

              Heterosexual activities are improper to the extent that they undermine the family, make it risky to have children, and deny children their natural fathers. These harms are more accurately captured by a property rights and contract framework like that of the old testament, than by a woman’s rights framework.

              Forbidding fornication by males is peripheral to the primary objective, that family formation should be safe and effective for reproduction and raising children, and is largely irrelevant to that objective. The problem is to restrain women, since they are the ones who get pregnant, not men. Restraints on men are a minor and unintended byproduct of restraints on women. Brothels are not a problem because men visit them. They are a problem because they provide an alternative career for women.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            “[Laughs] the statistic generated came from a survey of thousands of people. The statistic is representative for that particular group. “

            You have a serious problem with epistemology.

  13. […] a post on game, Jim mentions that the geek-as-disgusting-to-women stereotype is relatively […]

  14. […] What changed in American society such that a 1950s engineer would be viewed favorably by his fellow citizens, but a 2010s engineer is seen as despicable and gross? Jim theorizes […]

  15. […] of Jim, he notes (with a colorful personal illustration) that, “Yes, Roissy is Correct”. Also, Society is a racial construct. It certainly is that. And also, for the sake of completeness, […]

  16. j says:

    If I was giving advice to a young shy boy, it would be “Do what Feynman did”.
    Find your rabbi or guru and ask him to teach you. Feynman went to a professional pimp to learn. I had my uncle Bela.

  17. Corvinus says:

    “You have a serious problem with epistemology.”

    Wow, you googled a term and used it correctly in a sentence. That took tremenedous effort. Now, my dear chap, why don’t you explain yourself.

    “That was the political correctness of the time.”

    Patently false. The expected sexual behavior of BOTH men and women was to refrain from indulging in vice.

    “Victorian hypocrisy was not men visiting prostitutes, it was supposedly respectable women fucking around and yet retaining their supposed respectability.”

    You are historically illiterate. The Victorian Era is known for its strict social code for MEN AND WOMEN. The nobility in particular was held to the highest standard as the means to maintain their standing. Violations were to be met with severe sanctions; however, both genders habitually transgressed and rationalized their behavior as the means to exonerate themselves.

    “Heterosexual offenses should be handled as violation of property right and/or breach of contract, as in the old testament.”

    Separation of church and state, my friend. Freedom of religion my friend.

    “the modern concept of “fornication” is not meaningful in the old testament context, and there is no word or phrase in the old Testament that can be correctly translated to fornication in the modern sense.”

    It is true that in the Bible, the word for fornication does not necessarily refer to sex before marriage. However, the sanctioning of a sexual activity is defined in the Old Testament through boundaries of what is considered sinful, which is covered extensively by Leviticus 18.

    Try again.

    “Heterosexual activities are improper to the extent that they undermine the family, make it risky to have children, and deny children their natural fathers…”

    And, yet, you pay homage to Roissy, who promotes this lifestyle that supposedly you condemn. Interesting.

    “Brothels are not a problem because men visit them. They are a problem because they provide an alternative career for women.”

    Because MEN covet and provide those services!

    • reakcionar says:

      There is nothing inconsistent in paying homage to Roissy and promoting traditional monogamous relationships, chastity before marriage and fidelity after. Roissy might be a sex addict who crushed his soul with that lifestyle, but that just makes him a crippled soldier in the greater fight for finding the truth about human nature.

    • Steve Johnson says:

      “Corvinus says:
      February 8, 2015 at 8:22 pm

      “You have a serious problem with epistemology.”

      Wow, you googled a term and used it correctly in a sentence. That took tremenedous effort. Now, my dear chap, why don’t you explain yourself.”

      In other words, you googled the term and didn’t understand how I used it.

      I’ll make it clear: a one thousand person survey isn’t good evidence when you’re asking women about their own sexual behavior.

      That you think it is evidence that shows the actual behavior of women rather than evidence that women lie about their behavior is your epistemological problem.

      “However, the sanctioning of a sexual activity is defined in the Old Testament through boundaries of what is considered sinful, which is covered extensively by Leviticus 18.”

      and literally none of the proscriptions there are what you’re asserting.

      Here’s the whole list:

      Keep my decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live by them. I am the Lord.

      6 “‘No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord.

      7 “‘Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.

      8 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father.

      9 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.

      10 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter; that would dishonor you.

      11 “‘Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father’s wife, born to your father; she is your sister.

      12 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s sister; she is your father’s close relative.

      13 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your mother’s sister, because she is your mother’s close relative.

      14 “‘Do not dishonor your father’s brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.

      15 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son’s wife; do not have relations with her.

      16 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife; that would dishonor your brother.

      17 “‘Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.

      18 “‘Do not take your wife’s sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.

      19 “‘Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.

      20 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor’s wife and defile yourself with her.

      21 “‘Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.

      22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

      23 “‘Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.

      24 “‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled.”

      tldr: Don’t fuck your close relatives, don’t fuck your close relatives wives, don’t fuck your neighbor’s wives. Don’t ass fuck men. Don’t fuck goats.

      Literally zero mentions of “don’t fuck a chick if you’re not married to her”.

      Maybe they just forgot to write that one down or maybe you’ve swallowed a bunch of progressivism and are claiming that the progressive rules are actually the traditional Christian rules.

    • jim says:

      “Victorian hypocrisy was not men visiting prostitutes, it was supposedly respectable women fucking around and yet retaining their supposed respectability.”

      You are historically illiterate. The Victorian Era is known for its strict social code for MEN AND WOMEN.

      The Victorian era is known for its hypocrisy. In particular, Queen Caroline got away with the most lewd, shocking and depraved conduct, behavior that even twenty first centurians would find disturbing. Her husband got blamed for being cuckolded, which was deemed proof of his wickedness and Queen Caroline’s saintliness.

      This was routine, and almost universal, ending only with the widespread acquisition of handy and portable cameras, which may have led to the reaction against female emancipation in the early twentieth century. Cameras stopped respectable women from fucking in the streets and frightening the horses.

      It is true that in the Bible, the word for fornication does not necessarily refer to sex before marriage. However, the sanctioning of a sexual activity is defined in the Old Testament through boundaries of what is considered sinful, which is covered extensively by Leviticus 18.

      Which prohibits pretty much everything that modern Churchians fail to prohibit, such as homosexuality and female initiated divorce, while entirely neglecting to prohibit having sex with women one is not married to.

      The nobility in particular was held to the highest standard as the means to maintain their standing.

      Christianity was weaponized as a tool to undermine the power of the nobility. Thus the rules were applied only to noble males, never to noble females, for example, against Lord Byron, but not against any of the numerous married noblewomen that Lord Byron had sex with.

      If the Victorian era had a strict moral code for both men and women, would have publicly flogged most Victorian women, stripped them of their possessions, and put them in the street.

  18. Corvinus says:

    “In other words, you googled the term and didn’t understand how I used it.”

    No, I understood the term completely. You were purposely vague until I properly called you out on it.

    “I’ll make it clear: a one thousand person survey isn’t good evidence when you’re asking women about their own sexual behavior.”

    That particular survey offers insight for that specific group of people. Whether you want to believe or not believe their answers, then YOU have to disprove them. Otherwise, their responses are indeed factual and constitute evidence. Granted, other survey results may contradict those findings, but their responses reflect their perspective.

    “Literally zero mentions of “don’t fuck a chick if you’re not married to her”.”

    Einstein, ALL make the implication that you are prohibited from having sex other than your wife. The punishment for such actions are clear in Leviticus 20:10 “If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife–with the wife of his neighbor–both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death”. Are you also conveniently forgetting Exodus 20:14 “You shall not commit adultery.”? Listen, it is absolutely clear that the Old Testament absolutely declared adultery sinful and unlawful. Do you?

    “are claiming that the progressive rules are actually the traditional Christian rules.”

    The Three Little Pigs thank you for your straw(man) argument.

    “The Victorian era is known for its hypocrisy.”

    Your fixation on Queen Caroline duly noted, men and women EQUALLY violated the moral standards of the time period. Technically, the Victorian Age is from 1819-1901. Caroline’s actions actually predate this time period. Regardless, she was popular by the masses largely because she ran counter to the despised King George III. Moreover, Caroline was sent into exile in 1816 and was put on trial in 1819, so she did not go unscathed for her sexual antics.

    “Her husband got blamed for being cuckolded…”

    He was blamed for a host of things besides his own sexual depravity.

    “There is nothing inconsistent in paying homage to Roissy and promoting traditional monogamous relationships, chastity before marriage and fidelity after.”


    
Roissy and his gang promote men to fuck women and then leave their sorry asses. If you are supporting his lifestyle, then you are decidedly NOT in the corner of exclusivity. Any acceptance of their “values” is remarkably INCONSISTENT to monogamous relationships. Who are you trying to kid?

    “Roissy might be a sex addict who crushed his soul with that lifestyle…”

    He IS a sex addict, and your glorification of his conduct will only crush YOUR soul.

    “If the Victorian era had a strict moral code for both men and women, would have publicly flogged most Victorian women, stripped them of their possessions, and put them in the street.”

    You make the assumption that these actions were the ascribed punishment. Nonetheless, your lack of focus on the hypocrisy of men during this time period is not surprising. Prostitution was regarded with the same disgust as drunkenness, blasphemy, and other public disturbances. Yet, it was permissible for a man to have multiple partners without any consequences. You condone their conduct while shaming women for their own actions.

    Christian teachings in this era dictated that neither spouse should, in fact, engage in adultery—“While the Christians in the pre-Victorian era were content with restricting sex to marriage, Victorians were concerned with how best to harness sex and rechannel it to loftier ends. For Victorians a moral man abstained from sex outside of marriage and was highly selective and considerate in sexual expression within marriage. And a moral woman endured these sporadic ordeals and did nothing to encourage them. Pleasure was not an appropriate goal for either sex, but especially not so for a woman.” (Fundamentals of Human Sexuality, p. 483)

    • Steve Johnson says:

      “Einstein, ALL make the implication that you are prohibited from having sex other than your wife. ”

      Funny then that dozens of conditions were listed and that was no where in the list. The list specifically stated that mother fucking is prohibited but it’s just left “don’t fuck a willing unmarried woman” to implication. You’re nuts.

      At least you’ve backed off of your original claim that you have any actual textual evidence for your claim.

      “Listen, it is absolutely clear that the Old Testament absolutely declared adultery sinful and unlawful. Do you?”

      You don’t know what adultery means when it’s written in the Old Testament.

      It’s sex with another man’s wife. Not a married man having sex with a woman not his wife.

      Hence the word “adultery”. From the same root as “adulterate” – meaning to make impure by mixing in fluids that do not belong – as in, adding fluids to a married woman’s womb that don’t come from her husband.

    • Steve Johnson says:

      “That particular survey offers insight for that specific group of people. Whether you want to believe or not believe their answers, then YOU have to disprove them. Otherwise, their responses are indeed factual and constitute evidence.”

      This stupidity is exactly why you have a serious epistemology problem.

      Where’s your evidence that these women are telling the truth?

      If you want evidence that women lie about every single thing related to sex, their own sexual experiences, their own sexual preferences, their sexual intentions and the sexual preferences and intentions of women generally there’s plenty of it both of the bullshit modern “study-based” and actual lived human experience varieties.

      Survey evidence is evidence that women said “x” about themselves – not evidence that x is true about women. That’s all.

    • jim says:

      Einstein, ALL make the implication that you are prohibited from having sex other than your wife. The punishment for such actions are clear in Leviticus 20:10 “If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife–with the wife of his neighbor–both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death”. Are you also conveniently forgetting Exodus 20:14 “You shall not commit adultery.”? Listen, it is absolutely clear that the Old Testament absolutely declared adultery sinful and unlawful. Do you?

      Root of the word adultery is mixing, as in watering the milk. The sin of adultery is the sin of undermining certainty of paternity, not sinfully having fun. Thus you can only commit adultery with a woman who is legally and socially obligated to bear another man’s children.

      This is treated throughout the old testament as one man violating another one man’s property rights over a woman.

      Today, no woman is legally and socially obligated to bear any particular man’s children, so fucking them is fine by old testament standards. See also the old testament treatment of rape of a non virgin who is neither betrothed nor married.

  19. Corvinus says:

    “Funny then that dozens of conditions were listed and that was no where in the list.” The list specifically stated that mother fucking is prohibited but it’s just left “don’t fuck a willing unmarried woman” to implication. You’re nuts.”

    A reasonable person, unlike yourself, is able to take those prohibitions and make the logical leap forward.

    “At least you’ve backed off of your original claim that you have any actual textual evidence for your claim.”

    [Laughs] I offered Leviticus 20:10 and Exodus 20:14.

    “Where’s your evidence that these women are telling the truth?”



    YOU made the claim, pal, YOU have to back it up. If you don’t want to take their word at face value, fine; nonetheless, it is evidence.

    “If you want evidence that women lie about every single thing related to sex…”



    See, this is where you fly off the rails. Every single thing? Every single time? Care to revise your foolish statement?

    • jim says:

      A reasonable person, unlike yourself, is able to take those prohibitions and make the logical leap forward

      Reading the list of prohibitions, in the context of all the other laws relating to sex, the logical implication is that heterosexual sex between people who are not close kin can only be only wrong to the extent it violates another man’s property right in some woman’s reproductive capacity – that old testament women, and old testament relationships between the sexes, were governed primarily by contract and property law.

      [Laughs] I offered Leviticus 20:10 and Exodus 20:14.

      Leviticus 20:10

      And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

      The concept of fornication is not even expressible in old testament Hebrew. If a Hebrew was to try and express the thought, he would have to tell a little story and say “like that”. In a worldview in which women have a legal status similar to that of pets, the thought is not readily thinkable. Not only does the old Testament not forbid fornication, the people who wrote it lacked the mental framework and the words to express the thought. If we were conquered by people with the worldview of Old Testament Hebrews, their reaction to unowned women wandering all over the place would be pretty similar to their reaction to unowned deer wandering all over the place. They would cheerfully help themselves.

    • Steve Johnson says:

      “YOU made the claim, pal, YOU have to back it up. ”

      This is why you have an epistemology problem.

      Jim made an argument.

      You claimed to have evidence undermining his argument. Your evidence? A survey.

      Literally the only thing a survey is evidence for is how people answered the survey question. Your argument rests on the hidden premise that women are telling the truth in a survey about their own sexual behavior – when we know that they are almost certainly lying about it.

      Now, I could site other studies that show this (women state vastly greater numbers of sexual partners when they believe they are hooked into lie detectors, women rate other women as being interested in men when the women self report that they aren’t interested and the men report that the women are interested, etc.) but I’m not going to because the weight of human experience and the knowledge passed down in surviving books like the Bible – which you sadly try to rewrite to support your position – is overwhelmingly in favor of an entirely different view of women and that’s much higher quality evidence than social science.

      Like I said in the first place – epistemology problem.

      and just for fun:

      ““Funny then that dozens of conditions were listed and that was no where in the list.” The list specifically stated that mother fucking is prohibited but it’s just left “don’t fuck a willing unmarried woman” to implication. You’re nuts.”

      A reasonable person, unlike yourself, is able to take those prohibitions and make the logical leap forward.”

      You take from a list that specifically prohibits things so disgusting and degrading like mother fucking and goat fucking that it probably also included “don’t screw fertile aged unmarried women” by implication? Presumably because men who needed to be explicitly told not to have sex with their own mothers(!) would just assume that screwing nubile unattached women is – what? – so much worse that it doesn’t even need to be mentioned?

      Epistemology problem.

      If you had any text to back you up you would have cited it. All the texts you’ve pointed to do not back up what you’ve asserted at all.

  20. namae nanka says:

    “All he sees is a fat diesel dyke making menacing gestures like an overweight angry gorilla and braying “waah waah waah””

    haha, anyway this did happen by the 90s, unfortunately it’s only escalated sinec then.

    ————————

    By the end of his essay Rothbard cut to the real motive of the feminists: the campus date-rape campaigns of the early 1990s weren’t motivated by a genuine concern for the well-being of women. They were part of an ongoing attempt to delegitimize heterosexuality to young, impressionable women by demonizing men as rapists.

    The only point I’d add is that the regulations the feminists were proposing applied only to men, not to the hordes of lecherous dikes teaching in “Wymyn’s Studies” departments whose most prized occupational perk is brazen sexual harassment of young women with complete impunity.

    – Feminism’s Third Wave, Angela Fiori

  21. […] Here is a bit this week on GOOG’s flirtation with its own left-singularity. Inspired by some Jimian observations, this bit from couple weeks back was funny and […]

Leave a Reply