Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Porn IS better than the average woman

I don't see what is so surprising about this study, let alone shocking. Women, on average, have gotten worse since 1970 in almost every possible way. Porn has gotten considerably better. Throw in the relative costs involved, and frankly, it's pretty damn hard to make any sort of rational secular case for women, let alone marriage, over porn, video games, and sports.
Pornography is replacing the desire among young men for marriage, according to a new study that finds males are chasing “low-cost sexual gratification” on the web over a wife and family. “Traditionally, one of the reasons to enter into a marriage was sexual gratification. But as options for sexual gratification outside of marriage have grown, the need for a marriage to serve this function is diminishing,” said the report....

Researchers analyzed data from 1,512 surveys completed by American men aged 18-35 between 2000-2004. What they found is that porn use makes marriage unappealing. The study is titled: “Are Pornography and Marriage Substitutes for Young Men?”

The researchers were interested in how declining marriage rates impact society and the economy. They said that “stable marriages create substantial welfare improvements for society, especially to the degree that marital stability produces high-quality children.”

Porn use, they said, can be credited with cutting the marriage rate. They cited statistics showing that men 25-34 are six times less likely to be married than the same age group was in 1970. They also found that divorce rates are twice what they were in 1950.
Women still have a tendency to think they're the only game in town and behave accordingly. But they're not. Men have always felt the call of the wild, but the combination of a good woman and societal pressure tended to overwhelm that. But when marriage increasingly looks like not having sex with an obese bitch who can rob you at any time, it's little wonder that more young men are opting for doing whatever they hell they want all the time for the rest of their lives instead.

It's idiotic to claim that porn is the problem. It's not the problem, it is the suboptimal solution to the real problem. The problem is that far too many women have been raised in a manner that renders them unattractive to the opposite sex and essentially unmarriageable. The boys always go where the attractive girls are. If they can't be bothered, that means the girls are insufficiently attractive.

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

Alpha Mail: to white knight or not?

MT has a question about his sister:
I have a White Knight concept that I would like you address or clarify at AlphaGame.

In regards to women in physically abusive, or controlling relationships, there will be men who will want to "rescue" them or bring them to the knowledge of their errors by speech or force.  This is a continuum.  On one end is the sycophantic pedestalizer (we will generously call him Suitor) who may or may not seek justification for romance in his, uhh...noble and selfless efforts.  On the other end is the concerned father who wants to protect his daughter from those who would use her.  The goal of the men for the woman to be out of the situation is the same, but there are non-trivial differences between Suitor and Father.

1) Suitor comes from a position of relative weakness; Father from relative Strength
2) Suitor approaches for possible personal gain, but may view his actions as dutiful; Father from Duty and Responsibility
3) Suitor has a romantic interest; Father has none*
*2 and 3 may be the same

Possibly you could chart three axes:
1) relative strength (pedestal or parent)
2) romantic interest (present or platonic)
3) responsibility for girl (none/self-imposted or absolute)

If it is true that that the preexisting nature of the relationship between a man and another person (wife, daughter, sister, son, stranger...) has bearing on his responsibility to that person, then by charting the case on the axes, you could guess the necessity of action and tactics.

The Suitor cannot ground the woman. The Father can DHSMV, but more as a way to make a fool of the romantic interest, than to set himself up as an alternative mate.  Either could attempt violence, ill-advised as it may be, but the perception would change as a function of relative strength and responsibility.     

Maybe I hit something here, but certainly, a man's true duty to the safety of another is according to the nature of the relationship. Can you give insight on this situation?  My sister-in-law (19, out of state) is sweet, naive and shacked up with a guy with tight game who is controlling and physically abusing her.  She isn't under the parents' roof any longer.  I'll probably see the happy couple at Christmas.  I'd like to see them apart, but I have no binding responsibility to her, or even a great relationship with her.  Are there any tactics to address this or is this something to leave lie?
This is a good question. My feeling is that one's involvement in such situations totally depends upon the nature of the relationship. Fathers should speak out forthrightly about what they see. They should not hesitate to use their daughters' reliance upon them, particularly financially, as a counterweight, even in the knowledge that it may cause his daughter to turn against him in the short term. He should, of course, make it clear that he will be there for her when - not if - the unworthy love interest eventually shows his colors.

A brother has no similar leverage. However, he has social power that the father does not. He should relentlessly mock and belittle the unworthy man around his sister, planting the seeds of doubt that will one day blossom once the suitor fertilizes them with his inevitably bad behavior. And he should also make it clear that he will be there for her when the time comes.

A brother-in-law, on the other hand, should stay completely out of it. To be honest, in this sort of situation, I see a brother-in-law who is probably rather attracted to his sister-in-law and is likely to see unsuitability where none exists, and to exaggerate it where it does. In any case, there is no responsibility to intervene here, and indeed, to do so would rightly raise a few eyebrows, especially with the man's wife.

I'm also very suspicious when I hear about a "sweet, naive" girl who is nevertheless "shacked up". This indicates that she is almost certainly neither as naive or sweet as she portrays herself to be to her brother-in-law, in fact, this raises the question as to precisely who is the player in her relationship with the supposedly "controlling and physically abusive" gentleman in question. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if she had a convincing "rape" story she could produce on demand with a catch in her voice and a tear in her eye.

MT is correct. There is a continuum of sorts. But nevertheless, there is a hard and bright line between "family business" and "not family business" that should always be respected, and that line falls somewhere in between "cousin" and "brother-in-law". In most cases, if you find yourself asking "should I polish my armor and mount my steed", the mere fact that you need to ask the question is sufficient reason to say "no". Women have free will, agency, and they are legal adults in the eyes of the law. If they insist on swimming in the deep end despite not being equipped to do so, you have a solemn duty to civilization and the rule of law to let them drown.

Monday, December 15, 2014

PJ O'Rourke on the Dunham Horror

PJ watches Girls so you don't have to:
Ms. Dunham is 28. I was under the impression that “girls” is a demeaning term for adult women. The title must have something to do with this hipster “Irony” thing, which I confess I don’t understand. The root of the word irony is in the Greek eironeia, “liar.”

I had my 14-year-old daughter, Poppet, instruct me in how to watch an episode of Girls on my computer. (Turns out “content” is not completely “free.”)

Two seconds into the opening credits I was trying to get my daughter out of the room by any means possible. “Poppet! Look in the yard! The puppy’s on fire! Quick! Quick! Run outside and roll him in the snow!”

It turns out Girls is a serialized horror movie—more gruesome, frightening, grim, dark, and disturbing than anything that’s ever occurred to Stephen King.

I have two daughters, Poppet and her 17-year-old sister Muffin. “Girls” is about young people who are only a few years older than my daughters. These young people, portrayed as being representative of typical young people, reside in a dumpy, grubby, woeful part of New York called Brooklyn, where Ms. Dunham should put her clothes back on.

I lived in New York for fifteen years. No one had been to Brooklyn since the Dodgers left in 1957.

The young people in Girls are miserable, peevish, depressed, hate their bodies, themselves, their life, and each other. They occupy apartments with the size and charm of the janitor’s closet, shared by The Abominable Roommate. They dress in clothing from the flophouse lost-and-found and are groomed with a hacksaw and gravel rake. They are tattooed all over with things that don’t even look like things the way a anchor or a mermaid or a heart inscribed “Mom” does, and they’re only a few years older than my daughters.

The characters in Girls take drugs. They “hook up” in a manner that makes the casual sex of the 1960s seem like an arranged marriage in Oman. And they drink and they vomit and they drink and they vomit and they drink and they vomit.

It’s every parent’s nightmare.
Correction: it's the nightmare of every father who actually gives a damn about his daughter. The Dunham Horror's parents obviously couldn't have cared less about her.

Saturday, December 13, 2014

Signifiers of femininity

Science and the art of women's high heels:
Scientists from the Universite de Bretagne-Sud conducted experiments that showed that men behave very differently toward high-heeled women. The results, published online in the journal "Archives of Sexual Behaviour," may please the purveyors of Christian Louboutin or Jimmy Choo shoes -- yet frustrate those who think stilettos encourage sexism.

The study found if a woman drops a glove on the street while wearing heels, she's almost 50 percent more likely to have a man fetch it for her than if she's wearing flats. Another finding: A woman wearing heels is twice as likely to persuade men to stop and answer survey questions on the street. And a high-heeled woman in a bar waits half the time to get picked up by a man, compared to when her heel is nearer to the ground.

"Women's shoe heel size exerts a powerful effect on men's behavior," says the study's author, Nicolas Gueguen, a behavioral science researcher. "Simply put, they make women more beautiful."

...On women as "signifiers of femininity," raised shoes initially appeared in Ancient Greece and Rome, according to Elizabeth Semmelhack of The Bata Shoe Museum.
High heels do make women more attractive. They make women look more slender and less stumpy, and they give a woman a slightly more sexual posture. But the woman at the museum understands the true nature of the appeal better than the male scientist - unsurprisingly, most male scientists being gammas - as she understands that it is what the high heels signify - I am a feminine woman, not a feminist who will behave in a nasty and unpleasant manner - that causes men to behave more gallantly.

Friday, December 12, 2014

The fake rape factory

UVA appears to be ground zero for fake rape:
In an April 29, 2014 essay for the Huffington Post, Emily Renda writes that her story (of her own supposed rape during her freshman year) is “ordinary, normal, average, not unusual and practically commonplace” – all that in just the first paragraph; if Renda is to be believed then, getting raped at U.Va. (or perhaps at any institution of “higher learning”) is hardly different in occurrence or frequency than getting a morning cup of coffee.

Just about the entire rest of her post talks about the importance of fellow victims and their caregivers/advocates hugging it out, giving comfort and burning candles, except where she nonchalantly mentions how all this extraordinary support from others allowed her to feel safe again, “so that it didn’t matter that I saw my assailant on Grounds”.

Though Renda’s claims of the ubiquity of rape seem a bit exaggerated, her credibility doesn’t really begin to come into question until one considers her Huffington piece in its entirety, and then comes across some of her other claims, found elsewhere.
Let's face it, at this point it is obvious that claims of rape in college are nothing more than female attention-seeking. The majority of real college rapes are those that no college wants to admit, which is those involving black scholarship athletes.

And it's no wonder that there are so many of these fake rape stories:
“Do you ever kind of really want to expose a situation or topic and then kind of like shop around for a more concrete story that would be better for you to write?” a student asked.

“Yes, I absolutely do. I’m working on one right now where that’s the case,” Erdley replied. “That’s something I’ve done a lot when I’ve written for women’s magazines where I’ve written a lot about women’s health and women’s rights.”
It's not news or investigative reporting. It's pure fictional propaganda.

Thursday, December 11, 2014

White knight... or black?

Even feminists hate the idea of monthly paid menstrual leave:
An idea so damaging to women, only a man could have dreamt it up: Catherine Ostler says top doctor's advice on 'menstrual leave' couldn't be more wrong.

Somewhere, surely, there must be a cigar-strewn cave where misogynistic men sit and concoct evil plans to get women out of the workplace and back into the kitchen. How else to explain the schemes that, on the face of it, look terribly sympathetic and female friendly, but are actually designed to ensure no rational person ever employs a woman again? Take, for example, the plotting that resulted in a woman's right not to tell her employer if or when she was coming back from her year-long maternity leave, making it impossible for firms to plan for either absence or return....

Gedis Grudzinskas, formerly of St Bartholemew's Hospital but now based in Harley Street, suggested that we poor pathetic women should receive 'menstrual leave'. He argued we should be entitled to up to three days' paid holiday — sorry, 'rest leave' — a month because of the bodily upheaval caused by period pains and menstrual tension.

Grudzinskas added that on no account should it interfere with our right to career progression. Yep. An extra 36 days — more than seven working weeks — off each year, just for women. In the real world that's unlikely to sour anyone's 'career progression', isn't it? The male members of staff would never notice.... those who would welcome his proposition for menstrual leave might consider the wider implications of suggesting that women are biologically incapable of working a full month, even out of the best of intentions.

Surely this move is nothing but yet another way to render the 'weaker' sex unemployable.
On the other hand, perhaps Dr. Grudzinkas - surely that can't be a real name - is taking black knighting to a whole new level. It has occurred to me that the fastest way to kill off feminism is to simply grant women even their most outrageous demands. I mean, take the new female quotas for corporate boards in Norway and Germany. Why leave it there? Why not embrace the ultimate black knighting and impose a 100 percent female quota on Congress and force women to assume the entire burden of running the country?

That's the dirty little secret of feminism. They are usually looking for a free ride, not to shoulder the actual responsibility. So give them the control they're demanding, but be sure to refuse to subsequently do the work for them as they're expecting. This works very well in relationships as well. Whenever a woman is running her "helpful criticism" routine, simply hand her the job, pat her on the back, and say, "Thank you. I expect you'll do a much better job than I possibly could."

Then walk away smiling. It's a win-win. Either you won't have to deal with it in the future, or she'll learn to keep her mouth shut when you're doing something.

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

The Dunham Horror sticks to her fake story

Why she chose to lie about being raped and falsely identify a fellow graduate:
It has been almost a decade since I was sexually assaulted. It took me a long time to fully acknowledge what had happened and even longer to discuss it publicly, in the form of an essay in my book Not That Kind of Girl. When I finally decided to share my story, it had ambiguities and gray areas, because that’s what I experienced, because that’s what so many of us have experienced. As indicated in the beginning of the book, I made the choice to keep certain identities private, changing names and some descriptive details. To be very clear, “Barry” is a pseudonym, not the name of the man who assaulted me, and any resemblance to a person with this name is an unfortunate and surreal coincidence. I am sorry about all he has experienced.

Speaking out was never about exposing the man who assaulted me. Rather, it was about exposing my shame, letting it dry out in the sun. I did not wish to be contacted by him or to open a criminal investigation. I am in a loving and peaceful place in my life and I am not willing to sacrifice any more of it for this person I do not know, aside from one night I will never forget. That is my choice....

I was not naïve enough to believe the essay in my book would be met with pure empathy or wild applause. The topic of sexual assault is far more inflammatory and divisive than it should be, with tension building around definitions of consent, and fear ruling the dialogue. But I hoped beyond hope that the sensitive nature of the event would be honored, and that no one would attempt to reopen these wounds or deepen my trauma.

But this did not prove to be the case. I have had my character and credibility questioned at every turn. I have been attacked online with violent and misogynistic language. Reporters have attempted to uncover the identity of my attacker despite my sincerest attempts to protect this information. My work has been torn apart in an attempt to prove I am a liar, or worse, a deviant myself. My friends and family have been contacted. Articles have heralded “Lena Dunham’s shocking confession.” I have been made to feel, on multiple occasions, as though I am to blame for what happened.
Well she is to blame what happened. She is a liar and a child molester. Who else is there to blame?