In yesterday’s post, Days of Broken Arrows made the following observation:
“Fatties also have a problem of unreasonable standards. I don’t think I’ve ever met a fat chick who was not convinced that she was still entitled to a 99-point checklist [Ed: 463 bullet point checklist is the term of art] and a man every bit as desirable as what her younger, thinner self would have bagged.”
I’ve been going through online dating Web site profiles and this statement is DEFINITELY true. It’s disturbing and doesn’t bode well for the country that seriously obese women will put out profiles demanding men be a certain height and weight. WTF?
I don’t spend much time at online dating sites, but I’ve seen the same attitude in real life. It’s preposterous, laughable. Fat chicks who pull the “I’m too good for any man” card are engaging in a very transparent example of sour grapes. It’s easy and emotionally cost-free for a fat chick/old chick/ugly chick/single mommy to have standards no man will meet when most men who aren’t losers couldn’t be bothered to meet her standards in the first place. It’s analogous to crowing about being virtuous when there is no temptation to vice.
Anyhow, in response to DoBA, I wrote:
My take on what’s going on: When you have such horribly low Sexual Market Value that most men find you repulsive, it makes a certain amount of self-gratifying sense to carelessly throw realistic expectations out the window and feed (heh) your ego as a dopamine substitute.
And that’s why you see the perverse phenomenon of so many loser chicks flaunting an unrealistic checklist in men when they themselves have little to offer. It’s not about the men; it’s about them. Their egos must be salvaged before their love lives can be rescued.
Remember, too, that once a girl passes a threshold of sexual inactivity (on average, three to six months), she slips more easily into quasi-involuntary celibacy (quasi, because there is always a loser who will dump a five second fuck in a low SMV girl if she’s willing to swallow (heh) her pride) than a man would. Women are built like worker bees in that respect; once acclimated to celibacy and the dull drone of useless paper-pushing office life, they forget the joys sexual abandon. Or, perhaps, rather than forget, they simply don’t experience the same vital urgency to renew sexual relief the way men do. Consequently, it’s easier for a woman in asexual frigidity mode to maintain a facade of high standards that she must know on a subconscious level will never get her sex and commitment, or even a second date, from the men she wants.
And this phenomenon is more acute amongst fat chicks who were once thin. They fondly recall what it was like to be pursued by men, to turn away those who didn’t meet their expectations, and to experience the thrill of men attempting to satisfy their demands, doing it all for the top-notch nookie. But now, as a fatty (or a cougar or a single mom or an acid burn victim), the men they find desirable shun them and, adding insult to injury, the beta males who once lacked the confidence to approach now hit on them with a grating expectation of success.
What’s a put-upon woman to do? Right. Lie to herself. Happy feelings on the cheap. Better yet, surround herself with yenta friends who will abet her self-delusions.
But neither of the quotes above are the comment of the week. That honor belongs to “uh”, who replied to both of us:
There’s not enough neurochemical payoff for a [fat] woman in admitting the truth to herself if the choice is between that and easy self-affirmation. Given that choice, which may be thought of as a false consciousness imposed/reinforced from above (media), and laterally (other women), the woman becomes alienated from true acceptance of herself as a relational being and enters the narrow straits of denial. Neurochemically this almost resembles the pathway of cigarette addiction: cheap self-affirmation gives quick temporary rewards necessitated only by the presence of the toxin — the subnarrative itself.
This is a concise and penetrating explanation of the common female frailty herein known as Absurd Standards Syndrome (ASS). Insulated by the PC media, glam mags, academia, beta suckups and female friends, women have lost touch with their rank relative to other women and are thus finding it easy to slip into a comfortable bubble of self-delusion. Similar to cigarette addiction, the quick dopamine fix — necessitated by the subnarrative, as uh puts it — trumps the harsher acceptance of personal flaws that must be remedied by willpower and self-control (or simply accommodated) to achieve longer term and more fulfilling rewards, or to come to terms in a dignified manner with one’s diminution of mate choice. This subnarrative toxin, an effluvium of pretty lies, perpetuated by feminists, groupthink apparatchiks and fat acceptors alike, is the wicked poison that courses through the sludgy veins of the Western woman, corroding her from the inside out until she is a mere husk of the feminine ideal that once held sway over the hearts of men. Well done, uh.
Men — particularly internet nerds without a hope of meeting a woman in real life — suffer from this syndrome as well, but not nearly to the same degree that it perplexes women. As has been explained before on this blog, the reason ASS afflicts women more than men is because men, as the chosen sex, have to be more in touch with reality to get what they want in the dating market. A deluded man is quickly a celibate man. A woman in her prime, on the other hand, can stand around looking good, ignorant of the rules of mate choice reality, and men will hit on her… until reality rudely turns against her.
Interestingly, uh’s comment has parallels with the denial inherent in economists’ inability to grasp that the drive for relative status is a bigger motivator of human behavior than the urge to maximize utility. (Want to watch a libertardian squirm? Bring up the subject of status jockeying.) Economists, stuck in the narrow straits of the rational actor (their toxic subnarrative), have become alienated from the commonsensical wisdom that humans are relational beings who sometimes do seemingly inexplicable things just to gain status points over a neighbor. Like fat chicks on an ego-assuaging bender, economists in thrall to their theories have forsaken the long hard look at human nature in favor of the quick pleasure fix of aggregate demand and open borders circle jerk pontificating.
The impetus for our economic decisions is not so far removed from the mechanism guiding our mating decisions. Quite the contrary; economics is servant to sexuality — the one market to rule them all.
Solution: people of good (and not so good) intent must strike at the heart of the toxic subnarratives, killing them and salting the neuronal fields in which they grow, unafraid of the certain immune response it will spastically trigger, before the human psyche (and body) can be healed. The way to kill the subnarratives is one this blog has stressed countless times, and which we here happily, some might say sadistically, pursue — The Three Rs of human psychological manipulation:
Reframe.
Reject.
Ridicule.
Progress will be slow at first, but momentum will inevitably build. It only takes 10% of a population holding an unshakable belief to cause that belief to be adopted by the majority of the society. Your goal of spreading better ideas is not as out of reach as you imagine. Alinsky leftists and ideological warriors have known this fact about group dynamics for generations. It’s time for you to know it too.
An anti-fat campaign must be organized. Consisting of demeaning posters in very public places, and rain scorn upon the whales among the ‘Plenty of Fish.’
Imagine sitting in a subway train, and seeing the face of a fattie go through shock, shame, horror and indignation in a matter seconds. What I wouldn’t donate for that…
I am completely serious.
And yet women who aren’t fat talk the good talk.
And stay well away from the buffet table as they say their fat friends are beautiful.
“And stay well away from the buffet table as they say their fat friends are beautiful.”
You know what’s funny about that? Our fat friends never return the favor. In college, I was a roommate to two overweight girls, cousins, who would ALWAYS complain about their weight. Whenever one of them would talk about feeling fat, I was always the first to console them and tell them that they looked fine (they really didn’t – one of them had a large donut of fat mass where the waist should be). However, they would constantly make fun of my own frame (I’m short and skinny), sometimes poking my stomach and thighs or ridiculing my smaller breasts. I was often called ‘bony’, ‘skin and bones’ or a ‘skeleton’. I laughed it off, but it hurt.
Yeah, fat girls are beautiful.
Maybe they just tried to get back at you for telling them bullshit?
Ha. I certainly won’t BS like that again.
Fu, check out kettleball swings as popularized by Tim Ferriss to fill out your bust and ass a bit.
I have no problem with my butt (I’m black), however, I will look into getting a kettleball because I want to gain a little weight. Thanks.
I’m sorry. I honestly feel terrible for you. I’m ashamed to say I know how your friends feel. I’m a little on the heavier side, but I hope my friends don’t describe me as having a “large donut of fat mass.” I’ve probably done that to my skinnier friends, but it is just because I feel insecure about my own weight. Yup, you guys are all right- fat girls feel insecure, and they cover it up with their own bravado. I hope you’re feelings weren’t too badly hurt.
Brilliant. The “toxic (sub)narrative of the rational actor”–this is a meme that needs to go viral. And that is indeed how we strike at its very heart, shining the bright light of consciousness onto the fact that sexuality IS the ultimate driver of all economic forces.
This blog is doing that work. This is the realm of understanding true power, the avocation of real men.
Honestly, it already has — Herbert Simon was writing about “bounded rationality” decades ago; Kahneman has new a book out for people who couldn’t understand (me!) his volumes co-authored with Tvsersky. Pop psychology books have caught up pretty well in recent years. Ev Psych itself is basically a standing reproach to the rational actor memeplex (“free will”, “choice”, “ego” are all related concepts). Plenty of clinical psychologists are testing, retesting and counter-testing phenomena like illusion of control, optimism bias, all the permutations of loss aversion, etc.
Denial itself is ultimately a psychological loss aversion arising usually in a subject that suffers from a pathological aversion to relational risk. In the fatty’s case (but not NEARLY limited thereto), she is averse to risking intimacy with a male she instinctively knows will have no permanent interest in her, but because she is alive and must go on, quickly finds herself saving face in the cheapest way she can, i.e. refuses to acknowledge the sunk cost of her being by lowering her expectations in accordance with her SMV. Wherever expectations run too high, you may be certain you are face to face with pathological denial: the human animal fleeing from what it is.
Saving face is really the reduction of anxiety however possible. An animal will not live in a state of anxiety. If kept in that state for too long, it will of course go mad (ever seen a macaw pluck out all its feathers from the madness of neglect? hello, girls who chop their hair “because i was bored”!). Much of human behavior, and above all irrationality, can be reduced to avoidance of situational anxiety — from the beta’s nervous texting to the pathological extrovert’s engaging personality (not that the latter is aware of or has necessarily experienced it). The subnarrative is just institutionalized pandering. At this point, lateral power (diffusion of memes among the target populace) is definitively greater than media power. Once these ideas are unleashed, they can’t be undone. xsplat has written here & there, paralleling arguments I have made for years elsewhere, that modern society cannot be changed because technology cannot be reversed; it is as simple as that. Only catastrophes of a proportion likely involving multiple concurrent tidal waves or a big fucking meteorite can disrupt the unidirectionality of the material basis of these ideas which plague us. I have no doubt they, and therefore “empowered” fatties, shall plague us forever. Christianity’s still with us, isn’t it? This shit doesn’t die. These are vampire memes that can subsist FOREVER without ruthless totalitarian measures to disrupt the narrative loop.
Also …
Legalism will forever require the rational actor. Ascription bias is an evolutionary matter, so that’s another source of traction. Rothbardians aren’t responsible for it, they just worship it in a sort of bloodless homage to their own ability or desire to make money. A reading of not economics, but economists themselves, from the perspective of ev psych would reveal something like Feuerbach’s old critique of Christian mythology from Das Wesen des Christentums — also the starting point for Marx’s analysis of capitalist alienation:
“In the consciousness of the infinite, the conscious subject has for his object the infinity of his own nature.”
Sound familiar? the libertarian economist’s obsessive concern with an infinitely stable market for example?
Great to see I made a blog entry (first time since 2008, I think).
Here’s an even better story! Around five years ago, I discovered a blog by a thirtysomething fat chick living in my town. I mostly read it because after seeing her pics, I could not *believe* this woman was dating regularly. Who would go out with someone who looked this frightening? Are men really that hard-up?
Anyway, her blog postings started to mention her “standards” and she mentioned several times that “now that women have their own money, they’re free to choose men based on looks and sexiness and don’t have to “settle.” I stopped reading.
Five years passed.
And then I saw her on that dating site I was perusing, listed as a “single mom.” So I found her blog again. Turns out she’s hit the skids financially, is a single mother at age 41 (!!!) and is complaining in every blog entry about how her guy left her and won’t pay child support. When she say him down and told him she was pregnant he just stared like a stone statute! So now she gonna take legal action!
But gee, I thought now that women have their own money, they can just go for the sexiness? There was no blog entry on how her own “standards” got her to where she is. I assume that the self-awareness gene isn’t in her makeup.
Oh, and she still a fatass.
GBFM vs. fatass gambler Bill Bennett lzozllzlzozozllzzozozo (hey bill-instead of gambling away millions, why don’t you invest the moneys in great books for men programs at univeresties, you fat fiat warmongering jonah goldberg fmeinist romoting “asscoked women takeme menz” fuck?)
http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/04/opinion/bennett-men-in-trouble/index.html
Editor’s note: William J. Bennett, a CNN (communist neocon neoconning) contributor, is the author of “The Book of Man (lozozlzl he stole my title great books for men zlzoozlzzo butethexxx): Readings on the Path to Manhood. (to betahood mroe liekeit lzozlzlo)” Bennett is the Washington (inside the belytway with pro feminsist honah goldberg lzozozlz) fellow of the Claremont Institute (sucking on the in the beltway fiat teat zlzozooozozozz bankrupting the west both morally and spiritaully lzozozolzl). He was U.S. secretary of education from 1985 to 1988 and was director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy under President George H.W. Bush.
(CNN) — For the first time in history, women are better educated (as the univeristy was sdeousled and dumbded ldown lzozlzlz), more ambitious (getting more assses in tehir cockss cockas in tehr iasses than ever beofre lzozlzlz) and arguably more successful than men (in cretaing debt and dbeauchery. was women rose the west declined and the government burgeoned and assocking and divorce and debcuachery all increased you fat gambling bennet fuck lzozlzolz).
(FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY YOU AASSSUFCK, THE WESTERN WORLD IS MIRED IN DEBT UNSEEN UNKNOWN UNDHEARD OF EVER BEFORE AS WOMENZ CREATE DEBT Lzozoozolozoozozo)
Now, society has rightly celebrated the ascension of one sex. (NO THE FIAT BANKING MASTERS CPROMOTED THE RISE OF THE WOMEN FEMISNSTS TO KILL THE FAMILY YOU FAT GAMBLING FUCK AS TEH DETCORUCTION OF THE FAMILY IS A CENTRAL PLANK OF COMMUNIST MAINIFESTO YOU FAT FUCKITY FUCK FUCKC FUCKC) We said, “You go girl,” and they went (taking multitudes of coks in their asses on the ifat funded, deosuled dumbed down coleege butthexing campuses lzozozoz deousling woemnz in pneocon prima noctae assocking sesisons which re secrtely tkped by tucker max rhymes iwth godlaman sax who is heraldeded celebrated as a six ffoot tall butthexual hero in the wneocnnensths wekely standndnadth lzozozo). We celebrate the ascension of women (as ocks enetred tehir butthole neoocn coaksas lzozozll celebreated by the baknkesters assuskcicifing fiat mastetetrs lozlzlzo sosoonpomizing womenz) but what will we do about what appears to be the very real decline of the other sex? (men aren’t delcinging you FAT FUCK. THE FUCKing west is delcingi you fat fuck!! lzoozozoz for MEN cbuldi cetarete the greta books and bridgeds highways and eveyrthing in the ineteire universe you fat gambling fucktard fiat lusting gambler fita fuckckck lzozlzlzl)
The data does not bode well for men. In 1970, men earned 60% of all college degrees. In 1980, the figure fell to 50%, by 2006 it was 43%. Women now surpass men in college degrees by almost three to two (IN DESOLED, GUTTED FEMINST DUMBDED DOWN DUMBED DOWN DUMBED DOWN FEMINST WELATH-TRANSFERIRNG, ASSOCKING PROMOTING CURRCLCUCIMUSM WHER ETEHY DOECSTURECED TEH GRET BOOKS HOMER VIRGIL MOSES SHSKEPSEARE DANTE YOU FAT FUCKITY FUCJTARD ZLzozozl). Women’s earnings grew 44% in real dollars from 1970 to 2007, compared with 6% growth for men.
(THE IS BECAUSE THE CNETRAL BANKS FUNDED FEMINSMS TO RANSFER ASSETTS FROM MEN AS ONLY MEN CREATE PHYSICAL WELATH AND ASSETTSS LZOZOZOZZ SO THEY TIAGHT WOMEN TO BE ENTITLED AND SEIZE PROPRTY FROM MEN AND BRIG IT TO BEN BERNAKENEK AS BEN CAN ONLY CREATE DEBT WITH HIS PRINTING PRESS AND THEY NEEDED WOMEN TO CONVERT IT INTO PHYSICAL PROPERTY WHILE ALSO SPYING ON THEIR MEN, ASSCOKCING THEM IN DIVORCE COURT AND ALSO WOEMN ARE MOR ELIKELY TO RAISE SLUTTY GIRLS AND VIOLIENET GANG BANGERS WHICH THE NEONCS LOVE AS IT HELPS THEM GROW THE STSTETA STEATETET STATE zlzozolzzolozllz)
William J. Bennett
In 1950, 5% of men at the prime working age were unemployed. As of last year, 20% were not working, the highest ever recorded. Men still maintain a majority of the highest paid and most powerful occupations, but women are catching them and will soon be passing them if this trend continues.
(YES YOUA SOSSOCUK AS THE WESTERN WORLD GROWN BANKRUPT AS WOMEN CREATE MORE DEBT THAN WELATH IN THIER JOBS OF DESECRATIATIN< DEOCNSTRICTION AND DEBUCAHERY WHICH THE IFTA BENRKANE BANKERTSTE NAMSETER WIRE THEM FIFTS fiat dolalrz $$$$ ODLALRZ TO CDOD YOU FAT FUCCKCKKCITYTITY FUCKCKClzozozloz)
The warning signs for men stretch far beyond their wallets. Men are more distant from a family or their children then they have ever been. The out-of-wedlock birthrate is more than 40% in America. In 1960, only 11% of children in the U.S. lived apart from their fathers. In 2010, that share had risen to 27%. Men are also less religious than ever before. According to Gallup polling, 39% of men reported attending church regularly in 2010, compared to 47% of women.
(THAT”S BECUASE JESUS CHRIST AS BEEN PUSSIFIED AND asscoked by the ifat banking caretel and feminsist slzzozo lzozozlzl OGH WAIT I WORTE ABOUT tHIS:
http://greatbooksformen.wordpress.com/2011/08/14/wonce-upon-a-time-mens-wents-2-church-2-find-a-good-wownenez-lzozlzlzloz/
“wonce upon a time mens wents 2 church 2 find a good wownenez lzozlzlzloz
wonce upon a time mens wents 2 church 2 find a good wownenez lzozlzlzloz to be a wife and mother and faithful honor cherish lzozlzzozlolzozlz
today woemnz go 2 churrhc 2 find a beta or gammamale to pay for their three children forrm three fatehrs who pumped dand dudmped theier zazzez afetr asszzcockcing them lzozlzlzlzo”
lzozozolooz you fuckcity neocon fucktRAD
If you don’t believe the numbers, just ask young women about men today. You will find them talking about prolonged adolescence and men who refuse to grow up. I’ve heard too many young women asking, “Where are the decent single men?” There is a maturity deficit among men out there, and men are falling behind.
“NOMEN ARE NOT CFALLING BEHIND!! IT IS WOMEN WHO ARE GETETING ASSOCKED N THEIR BEHIND BY NEOOCN HEROES LIKE TUCKER MAX RHYMES WITH GOLD MAN SAX WHO TAPES SODOMY SESSIONS ASSCKCOING TEITH GIRLS IN SCERTET AND IS PUBLISHED SIMON AND SHUSTER WOMENZ PORMOETED BY THE NEOCNCON WEEKLY STANDARDTH WHO HERALSDS HIM AS A SIX FOOT TALL HERO repeating his lies about his heiaght as neoncsn like lies exalting assockers zlzozllz!! LOZOZOZOO WHIL IGHNORIG THE TRUE HEROES DYING ON FOREIGN SHOERES IN FORENIGN NEOCN WARS WHILE TH ENOEONCNS TEAHC THE MILITARY WIVES OT LIE CHEAT AND STEAL zlzlollzloolz”
This decline in founding virtues — work, marriage, and religion — has caught the eye of social commentators from all corners. In her seminal article, “The End of Men,” Hanna Rosin unearthed the unprecedented role reversal that is taking place today. “Man has been the dominant sex since, well, the dawn of mankind. But for the first time in human history, that is changing—and with shocking speed,” writes Rosin. The changes in modern labor — from backs to brains — have catapulted women to the top of the work force, leaving men in their dust.
FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY TEHE WORLD IS BEING CONQUERED BY LEFTIST CRETAORS OF DEBT AND DEBAUCHERY!! LEFTISTS NEOCN CREATORS OF DEBT AND DEBAUCHERY LOOZOZOZO LZOZOZO OMG LEFTIS CRETAORS OF DEBT AND DEBAUCHERY ZLOZOOZOZOZOZOZ Buttehehxtxujiajaja
IN WAR THE MEN WOULD RAID A COUNTRY, KILL THE MEN, AND SLEEP WITH ALL THE WOEMN lzozozl. TODAY THE BNANKERS SLEEP WITH ALL THE OWMENZ IN COLLEGE ASSOCCKING THEM LIKE TUCKER MAX RHYMES WITHGOLDMAN SAX AND TAPING IT SECRTEELEEY ZLOZOOZO, AND THEN INSTEAD OF KILLING THE MEN THEY LET THEM LIVE AS WAGE SLEAVES TO SOOMIZED, DEOSULED WOMENZ WHOE HAD THEIR SOULS ASSOCKED OUT OTHEM BY NEOCONS BUTTSECUAL “”ALPHA MALE (As they define aplha male as the ability to assock others oand place others in debt zlzlzozlz)” zlzoll HEROES LZOZOOZZZOOZOZ
Hanna Rosin: Are women leaving men behind?
Man’s response has been pathetic. Today, 18-to- 34-year-old men spend more time playing video games a day than 12-to- 17-year-old boys.
(THATS VBECAUSE THE UNIVERISTIES DEOCNSTRUCTED AND SDESTORYED THE GREAT BOOKS CURRICUCLUME LZOZOZOZLZLZOZOZO THE GREAT BOOSK FOR MEN INSTEAD PRESCIBING MEN RITALIN AND DRUGGIG THME UP AND DUMOPBING THEMD DOWN YOU ASSWIPE GANGLER GAMBLER BENENET G”AMBLING AWAY MILIOPNS INSTEAD OF INEVESTING MILLIONS IN GREAT BOOKS PROGRAMS WHAT” AN NEOCON LIBERAL LZOZZLZOOZ DC STatISTSIT ASSOCKER OF THE GEENRLA PUBLIC VIA FIAT DEBTGTHN lzzlzozozozo)
While women are graduating college and finding good jobs, too many men are not going to work, not getting married and not raising families. Women are beginning to take the place of men in many ways. This has led some to ask: do we even need men?
(LZOZOZLZ YOU NEED MEN TO WORK AS LIFELONG SLAVES TO MPAY OFF THE MASISVE DEBT INCURRED BY THE FMEINISTS “BENAKNKING “REGIMES OF THE WETSTS LZOZOZOZO)
So what’s wrong? Increasingly, the messages to boys about what it means to be a man are confusing. The machismo of the street gang calls out with a swagger. (AS THE WEKLY STANDARD EXLATS SECTRIVE TAPER OF BUTTHEX AND BULLY TUCKE RMAX RHYMES IWTH GOLDMAN SAX WHILE JONAH GOLDEBER AEXLATS FMEINSISMS ZLOZOZOZ) Video games, television and music (CRETAED BY LEFTIST NEOEONCS LIKE BILL BENNETT) offer dubious lessons to boys who have been abandoned by their fathers. Some coaches and drill sergeants bark, “What kind of man are you?” but don’t explain.
Movies (CREATED BY BULL EBEBNENETES NEOCON FRIENDS LZOZOZ) are filled with stories of men who refuse to grow up and refuse to take responsibility in relationships. Men, some obsessed with sex (SOME OBSESED WIT BUTTHEX LILKKE THE ONES THE NEONECS PUBISH AND WIRE FIAT CASH ADVACED STOO), treat women as toys to be discarded when things get complicated (THIS IS BEVCAUSE THE WOMEN HAVE BEEN ASSOCKED AND DEOSULED BY NEOCNS). Through all these different and conflicting signals, our boys must decipher what it means to be a man, and for many of them it is harder to figure out.
(DUDE__BEING A MAN IS ALL ABOUT CLALING OUT FATSASS BILL BENNTETETS WHO ARE GAMBLERS AND WHO HATE THE SPIRIT OF JESUS AND MOSES AND HOMER AND THE HOERES WAND WHO PRETENDS TO LOVE THEM BY WIRTING A BOOK OF VIRTUES WHICH HE JUST PLAGIAIRZED COPIED FRO OTHERS TO MAKE A PROFIT NEOCONS LIKE THEIR PROFITS FIAT DOLALRS ASSOCKING zlzoozooz)
For boys to become men, they need to be guided through advice, habit, instruction, example and correction. It is true in all ages. Someone once characterized the two essential questions Plato posed as: Who teaches the children, and what do we teach them? Each generation of men and women have an obligation to teach the younger males (and females of course) coming behind them. William Wordsworth said, “What we have loved, others will love, and we will teach them how.” When they fail in that obligation, trouble surely follows.
We need to respond to this culture that sends confusing signals to young men, a culture that is agnostic about what it wants men to be, with a clear and achievable notion of manhood.
The Founding Fathers believed, and the evidence still shows, that industriousness, marriage and religion are a very important basis for male empowerment and achievement. We may need to say to a number of our twenty-something men, “Get off the video games five hours a day, get yourself together, get a challenging job and get married.” It’s time for men to man up.
HY YOU FUCKATRD! THE FOUNDING FTAHERS ALSO BELEIVED TAHT WOMEN SHOULD NOT BE ASSCOKED BEFORE< DURING, AND AFTER MARRIAGE. BUT TODAYS WEEKLY SYTANDADATH REPORTS ON ASSOCKCKERS OF WOMEN AS HEROES< ASND THE WOMENSZ CHOOSE THE ASSOCKOEOEROS BUTTHEXUAL HEROES TUCKER MAX RHYMES WITH GODLMAN SAX LZozOOOZOOZOZL
BAsiclaly the fiat banking masters sned for their tucker mx rhyes with goldman sax asscocker to assock women and deosul them and beernaniky them, making women loyal firtst and ofoertemost to the fita dollar instaed of to man god and family. Then they banking masters ocmmand the owmens to assock their huds=pand in divorce court and transfer mens asseeettss to the nabnking centeral banking firat masters zzoozllzlzlzl
read all about it!!!!
http://www.cruelhoax.ca/#top
lzozolzlzlozlo
What’s ironic is that it’s historically been women who’ve had the most rigid standards for a physical ideal in men.
https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2011/09/15/womens-physical-standards/
You see, men will very readily cater their physical sexual “preferences” in accordance with what has proven sexually successful for them in past experiences. In other words, men tend to return to the same watering hole they found to be plentiful in the past.
On the other hand, from a purely physical perspective, it’s women’s idealized masculine form that hasn’t changed in millennia. While there may have been a rubenesque epoch when men loved the fatties of the 1600′s, no such era ever existed for women’s physical preferences. The classic broad chest, wide shoulders, six-pack abs and squared jaws of greco-roman athleticism are still the idealized male form that has graced EVERY romance novel cover in existence.
This is pure gold, Roissy.
Reframe — If she matters to you in any way, you have to reframe. We men are rare creatures, there are not many of us and there are plenty who want to be part of our lives. You have to not just act this, but live this, constantly. I do this with pretty females, I also do it with customers, family and friends. If they don’t want to deal with it, they are free to GTFO.
Reject — and often. When someone says something that’s idiotic or that has nothing to do with you, you have to enforce that your time is superior and you’re not taking crap. Also, reject anyone who doesn’t follow your rules. This includes hot women — LJBF them as fast as you can if they’re not falling in line.
Ridicule — I only do this when I am in a position of great superiority and someone challenges it. There are a handful of people in my life that are superior to me (mentor, my dad in some situations, etc), but for the rest, if they’re jockeying for position, I put them down and I put them down hard. My business card says my title is “Asshole” and I mean it — if you want a nice guy, talk to one of my customer service employees. You’re dealing with me, and if you don’t like it, I’ll pound your confidence into the group. I’ll also do this with the whole “fat woman” thing — if she isn’t at least trying to lose weight. Encourage those, but the rest need to be shamed for their lack of responsibility hand-to-mouth.
Don’t use excuses. Stop with being the weakest party in the room or in a group. Challenge others who draw lines, and let people fall into place behind you.
You’re not an alpha if you’re not leading every part of your life: financial, work, sex, love, friends, whatever. You can’t fake leadership — women and men both can smell the lack of confidence that oozes out of fake leaders, fake alphas.
Everything you say coalesces around confidence, pure and simple. You don’t have to be a cocky asshole, you just have to be 100% sure that you mean what you say, you can get whatever you want, and you’ll follow through on your promises without reminders.
it sounds like you’ve got a ‘sub-narrative’ yourself similar to the self-deluded woman in the example. but i have to say yours is more likely to bring about
happier outcomes than hers.
maybe it’s not that delusion per se should be criticized, but the quality of the delusion.
One man’s reality is another man’s delusion, I’m sure.
But I do believe that we males are predesigned to naturally be this way. I know that I picked up plenty of knowledge just being my own boss at a young age — talent that I never would have thought to use in other relationships.
Why? I’m certain that societal pressures and norms made me refrain or even refuse to treat people as commodities until they’ve proven their value in my life. Now that I know better, it all just happens naturally.
If I have to take time to actually THINK of an action, I’m already failing. Over-thinking is a primary destroyer of a male’s alpha education. The difference between a man and a boy is that the man already trust his gut instincts.
So is it delusional? My opinion is that it isn’t — it’s delusional for males to think they can act like boys (or girls!) and do well in life. THAT is delusional.
“If I have to take time to actually THINK of an action, I’m already failing.”
A wise uh once said, An organism that must define itself before moving toward its maximal advantage is already doomed to extinction. This holds for microorganisms alike for our extended phenotype.
One must rather define others, i.e. enforce frames and exploit their utility. Doesn’t matter if they’re false; what matters is not the truth value (or more commonly the heuristic valence given to a systematic analysis of relations: vice [harmful addictive or venal pleasures] does exist but Christianity only interpreted it as “sin” and “eternal damnation”) but the process behind the enforcing which is always everywhere exploitation of one organism by another. All “identity politics” for example is a mechanism designed for academic women by youknowwho to facilitate and reinforce the institutional thwarting of instinct in the white male to make him more compliant, unable to cohere and act politically in their own name and interests.
Roissy is online classes in self-defense against the metanarrative.
“Asshole” on your business card — while a little bit on the nose — reminds me of this encomium to Steve Jobs, world-famous prick … that everybody wanted to work for:
http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Steve-Jobs-RIP
If you take the long perspective, you realize this era of Man as Villain is already passing. The ten percent Roissy is talking about, the advocacy, the capacity for perpetual outrage at fat women bloggers — it’s all spittle-rage in the gathering rainstorm. Cathartic, but not driving the dynamic.
Still, leaders will emerge and organize the inchoate emotion into something effective. It’s too bad the current pioneers and would-be field generals are so poon-obsessed that they sublimate a truly revolutionary force into harmless sexual hooliganism, like soccer does to a young man’s thirst for war. But I repeat myself.
I’m not so sure. In most of my businesses save one, the client bases are super beta and they just love my crass attitude. Hell, I am known for kicking out “customers” who window shop too much and waste my employees’ times. In the one business, I’m the lowest alpha on the totem pole — those guys above me are ridiculous in attitude.
We need more leaders and fewer followers — the HMO Act of the 1970s really screwed men up by combining health care deductions with employment. Too many W2s, not enough 1099s.
You completely lost me (as well as the plot) when you started ragging on economics. There’s nothing in economics that preclude people from having utility functions that incorporate relative social standing as a component. Ditto for sexually derived motivations.
I look at all relationships from an economic perspective. I think everyone should.
First of all, as Roissy states, you can not look at aggregate numbers to figure out anything specific — economies are individual in nature. Yes, tens of millions of people are being foreclosed on, or are single, or lost their jobs, but each individual situation is completely and totally unique. That’s what matters in economics — the individual.
When it comes to love or sex, there are supply and demand values attributed. One person may just want casual sex, whereas another person may want marriage. There’s a pre-set supply of casual sex within that person’s market, and that supply is decreased as you increase parameters (weight, age, attractiveness, location, distance, time availability, etc). There’s a pre-set supply of people one can marry.
If you look at YOUR market of available partners, and then look at how many other people like you also want access to that limited supply (we economists call that demand), there’s a point they meet — that’s the price for the transaction.
The price for a really hot, really young, really fun, non-shit-testing virgin in any market is really high: and it’s not a financial price. That price is you have to be as much of a man as possible, because very few other males (“competitor”) can pay that price — they fail because they act like boys — and the product/service you’re “buying” won’t accept a low bid.
It’s all economic. Everything. Even friends. But economic doesn’t mean “having to do with money” — it means “involving a supply and demand for a good or service or relationship.”
I agree, Stuki — individuals make economic decisions that are “rational” only in the sense that they are intended toward achieving a desired end state, and so they engage in economic activity that is calculated to achieve it (although often with imperfect calculation, or incomplete/inaccurate information).
The rationality of that end state, in a general or abstract sense, is not really an issue. What matters is that people want what they want, and they do (or give up, or forgo) certain things in order to get it.
I know a woman who was good looking in her prime and had a now ex-husband that was the kind of man that women would hit on. Some food allergies on top of getting older and less active hello obesity and like an aging baseball player still reminisces about the glory days. She still doesn’t quite get what she can get away with in terms of dating market value. Kind of sad in a way. We’ll all get old someday and unless your rich like that Spainish Duchess that’s pretty much it. Enjoy it while you can. Speaking of which, the guy she’s marrying alpha, beta, omega or snakea; you be the judge.
http://news.yahoo.com/spain-enthralled-wedding-85-old-duchess-141454008.html
The man she’s marrying is a starving motherfucker.
But he will benefit from alpha cred and preselection among the female corpses in the cemetery.
I recently saw the woman who cuts my hair on a dating site. Ugly, fat, not getting any younger, with at least one kid. “As adults we all know there should be at least a little physical attraction.”
I’m not sure the world has, or ever will see again so many ugly women so delusional about their looks.
I have some fun over at OKCupid — a little side research that I someday want to compile into a free e-book to toss around.
The gist of my fun is to create a profile in some relatively big city — big like Chicago or at least large like Orlando.
I have a host of photos of some random guy I found online — he’s a pretty handsome guy, cute but not boyish, nice smile, good hair, etc. I use this random dude’s photos.
I set up the profile as any typical beta would, with nice quotes, books”I” read (typically whatever books I find that other women list on their profiles, commonly), whatever.
The key to my research identities is that I usually put in a “fatal flaw” — I’ll make the guy 5’2″, or I’ll make him divorced with 2 kids, or I’ll say I’m actively looking for work and put my income as $0-$20,000 or whatever. Or just a high school education, etc.
Then I’ll just write random women — hot ones, fat ones, lesbian ones, etc. I typically use the same pre-written introductions, although the last time I did this a few months ago, OKCupid flagged it as “you’ve said this before” so I have to change a few things.
With probably 0.94 correlation, of the women who actually respond (after writing about 3000 introductions over 4 years across probably 35 identities in 35 cities), the fat ones always pick on the fatal flaw. All of them. “You seem wonderful, but I would like someone taller/employed/without children/etc”. It doesn’t matter what the fatal flaw is, I guarantee that a solid 50% of fatties who respond going to pick on it if they’re fat.
What amazes me is how many decent looking (6-6.5) gals respond with interest. Hot women never respond, ever, if their profiles are even real. I haven’t had one average slim gal ever disparage the fatal flaw or even inquire about it — although I never respond to their responses, it’s just a test of the general female public’s dating situation.
Fat women have GOT to be there just for the ego boost of receiving initiations from guys. I can not imagine that they’re able to actually make demands like they do.
An interesting, and I am sure entertaining, pass time. One thing to keep in mind is fat chicks have some immunity to social pressure. The slim girl is more likely to be self conscious and even sympathetic to feelings of inadequacy. You are not getting a bargain with fat chicks. They are usually worse in every way. No one is going to tell them what to do. They are so good that what handicaps someone else is of no consequence to them.
“…after writing about 3000 introductions over 4 years across probably 35 identities in 35 cities…”
And with that, you just blew it. A man such as the one you would have us believe you are from your previous comments wouldn’t be wasting his time with this sort of activity.
That’s really cool.
So it turns out that they are so committed to the defense mechanism of “having” highly particular standards, i.e. an ideal mate to shield them from men who have exploited them, that they develop a perspective bias selecting for those traits, or indeed the one trait, in a generally acceptable mate that fails the corresponding criterion.
If my theory is correct — pathological denial — what we’re seeing is a reflex of that, the unrealistic standards being arranged around her trauma (real or anticipated) precisely to thwart on-comers. The pay-off is dual: she saves herself from risky exploitation (for the nonce! lolzozlzz) and gratifies hers ego.
Not to be left out is that you did this online, which allows for more rational selection. If you were coming on in real life, they’d probably fall for it, and you’d be stuck with a two hundred extra pounds.
What becomes important to the subject in denial, as to any headcase, is the surrogate satisfaction — the truly satisfying, fully human reward being blocked.
I don’t think Adam Smith got laid much so that’s probably why economics is the way it is.
Good post, and likely to cause much agita among female fatties who dare darken the door of this website. I have noticed that their ASS syndrome is often aided and abetted by their (thinner) girlfriends, who say stuff like “Any man would be lucky to have you–you have so much to offer!” (They’re right, but only accidentally) And “you go girl, don’t compromise!” Meanwhile the thinner girl gets the pink hammer and fatty goes home to another evening of Lifetime and Haagen-Dazs. It’s sad, but this is reality. Thin women need to tell it like it is to their friends, but they’re either held back by political correctness or some perverse cruel joy they get in watching men ignore their friends and instead focus on *them.* I suspect it’s the latter.
Roissy, your 3 R’s are amazing. I’ve been musing lately in my personal philosophical papers on realist economics (rather than the rational actor framework), and have come up with something eerily similar. Indeed, power structure is the very framework of society and nature in itself.
As a reader for roughly 2 years now (off of spearhead…thank god I don’t read that crap anymore), but only lurking, I say bravo and keep laying the axiomatic smack-down.
Fat chicks need lovin’, too.
‘Cept they gotta pay.
—Quagmire
Perfect video for this topic:
http://www.break.com/break-originals/other-funny-stuff/shes-too-good-for-everyone-2024186
This video has been posted frequently. I still click on it every time though. It’s very well done and the chick is cute. Nothing cuts more effectively to the quick than satire. The song is worth a dozen blog posts of earnest pleading to man up.
It begs for a post-game sequel, but I don’t think that folk-singing ginger has gotten the memo.
Wait, Roissy plays guitar, right?
I am afraid it is one of those strange but incontrivertible laws that the more gross a woman is, the more demanding she becomes. (I say that principally from my experience as a Doivorce Lawyer.) Perhaps by getting the attack in first she feels that this will disarm you from noticing her unattractiveness – it doesn’t. The More attractive woman, however, seem to be more reasonable. Probably fat chicks like to reject first so that you don’t reject them. Moral: screen out the unattractive.
“Moral: screen out the unattractive.”
This is actually excellent advice. It runs counter to the BS Hollywood feeds us — such as movies like “Shallow Hal.” But experience has taught me (the hard way) that nasty looking girls (especially artsy ones) tend to be the nastiest while nice looking girls are sweetest.
Just take whatever Hollywood tells you and reverse it and there you’ll find the truth.
A couple of times, I’ve been willing to overlook some pounds, but only in women who are utterly submissive. Any backtalk whatsoever, any clinging or nagging, and over the railing they go to rejoin their whale pod.
But then, it’s only fair. I apply the same rules to the hot ones. They’re just not as desperate as the fatties should be.
“(Want to watch a libertardian squirm? Bring up the subject of status jockeying.) ”
I’d guess you’re reading some poor sources of libertarianism if you think that’s substantive criticism.
What’s happening is obvious. This site never mentions it. There’s been a demographic shift. I would guess that males are almost equal to, or perhaps even slightly outnumber females in the general population. I am convinced of this. It would explain feminism, multi-culturalism, and the acceptance of out-of-wedlock bastards who are raised on the public tit. Some people will argue and say these policies came into being from a female majority who vote for these things. This is not entirely correct. It comes from a large number of women who push for these things, but it also comes from an even larger male population who willingly plays along in the hopes of getting laid.
A list of standards is like a sign that says “I have options.” And when fat chicks have options, ego, and attitude, something unusual is going on. When women behave poorly, and do so willfully because they know they’ll get away with it, something unusual is happening.
Traditionally, females who were of reproductive age outnumbered their male counterparts. The great fear of parents of female children was making sure she had enough redeeming qualities to find a suitable husband. Those who were slutty, bitchy, etc, were doomed to a life of spinsterhood, prostitution, etc. Why? Because men had options. They didn’t have to settle for a 34 year old with a caramel colored bastard, and an ego as inflated as their waistline. Those women were discarded and left to live on the fringe. If you were a male with a skilled trade, and no serious vices, there were 6s and 7s waiting on every corner to be faithful to you, and cook you dinner each night.
Traditionally, men were the true minority. And they were the largest minority which is the most desired position to be in because it makes you the most sought after. It’s why Ferrari calculated that the number of people who could and would buy an Enzo to be at 400, so they built 399 to ensure there would always be demand for it, and so it would maintain it’s exclusivity, mystique, etc.
Women today spend a decade after college riding the cock carousel before deciding to marry in their early to mid 30s. Once they have their one or two kids to bind their husband into a seemingly lifelong financial obligation, it’s back to the carousel. They do this because they can. Because the number of options for men is declining. Because even sluts who spend 10-15 years on the carousel can still find someone who will excuse their past behaviors.
If you look at men and women as commodities, the market for women clearly indicates an increase in demand for a deteriorating supply.
Encourage your male friends to start driving a little faster. Encourage them to rely on violence to solve their problems. When you hear one say “hey y’all, watch this,” give them your undivided attention to make sure they eliminate themselves from the gene pool in a blaze of glory.
Men tend to be the older in the pair, and declining birthrates generally means a shortfall of young women even at 1 to 1 ratios. Increasing birth rates tend to make happy men, still at the 1 to 1 ratio. That is besides the lower mortality rates in men.
Jason, you’ve got the basics right.
There’s a relatively short shrift of young, hot, tight girls. But’s not due to birth or pure numbers, it’s entirely “thanks” to the obesity epidemic. It’s not due to pure demographics. Statistsically speaking, 51% of all live births are female, and male babies suffer more infant deaths, so even right out the gate, they outnumber us. Even in pure e So yes, the young hotties know they have options. It increases their SMV, because they have their same-age, mostly gameless peers chasing them, and then a lot of older, also mostly gameless dudes. So they get hit on a lot.
But interesting things happen demographically. Men do die off quicker, but we also peak out much later in life, so there is a phase shift in market value for men with game that gives US the advantage in our mid-30′s. The only thing that even slows us down is the societal misandric messages that girls get about dating their same-age peers being more acceptable than dating other guys. But girls have a genetic tendency to find older men attractive. We just have to screen for them… and have tight game.
Nothing ground breaking here. This is all stuff you’ll find easily by reading the archives here.
Once you consider prison populations and early deaths, there are fewer men than women. But gals often consider the bottom 50-60% of men in any population of men utterly undateable. It is a filter they apply without even consciously being aware of it, I think. They call it “standards” when it is in fact simply their hypergamous wiring firing away.
The other day someone cited a New York Times article, where college gals at North Carolina (?) claimed that something like a third of the young men on campus were unacceptable dating material. Think about that. Men at a good school, in their prime. Undateable. Heck, put women in the room with the biggest rock band, and they will all want the lead singer. If they only get the drummer, they think they are settling.
Reframe.
Reject.
Ridicule.
Are there resources here or elsewhere for effective uses of each?
I’d like to learn this effectively.
open borders circle jerk pontificating
I noticed this, why are these economists blind to idea of a community protecting its ideals, values, etc.?
Anyway, I too have noticed that fat chicks are bitchy as a proactive self-defense. But they typically smell, so who cares. But, as a younger more beta-er guy, I noticed this and I bet a lot of other men thought of the implications, if this war-pig is pre-emptively rejecting me, then I must really suck. And that’s another reason gaming the lower SMV girls is bad, it messes with your perceived smv.
This happens anywhere on the scale. I get slim but unremarkable 6′s rejecting where 8′s light up.
“proactive self-defense” …. i wish i could be so succinct. damn. i really am chomskybot.
“I noticed this, why are these economists blind to idea of a community protecting its ideals, values, etc.?”
they view such things as delimiting restrictions upon the absolutely free market in which they prosper; rothbard wrote somewhere, apparently, that even the requirement to feed one’s children is a coercive factor acting against the fully “free” economic agent.
this is why the average libertarian will feed you the lie that the nazis were “left-wing”, despite importing close to 50% of their grain and lipid oils from the soviet union, some of which was in transit on june 21, 1941. in their minds this fact would mean they were in collusion with the soviets and therefore not classically “right”. in fact it was the communists participating in a war-time exchange market.
America NEEDS fat chicks with unrealistic standards:
How else will black guys get laid.
And that’s why you see the perverse phenomenon of so many loser chicks flaunting an unrealistic checklist in men when they themselves have little to offer.
To be fair, the same could be said for PUA keyboard jockeys and their insistence on “HB8+”.
My corpulent little angel – with these words, I thee neg.
I’d neg her as soon as I’d wed her. What would be the purpose of playing on a fatbody’s insecurities? Just on general principle?
Yeah, no point in negging her for two reasons.
One–why, if you’re not interested. I’m not. Next!
Two, assuming you’re interested, (gag!!) it’s clear she has self esteem like peanut brittle, and you’re likely to leave her in a puddle of mewling, bawling insecurity with anything but the most mild neg.
economists in thrall to their theories have forsaken the long hard look at human nature in favor of the quick pleasure fix of aggregate demand and open borders circle jerk pontificating
Sad but true.
I agree with all of this post except the economics part. What does that have to do with Game? If anything, Game could be called a result of applying economic theories (market value, supply and demand, Nash game theory, etc) to sexuality. Although yes, people do irrational things too, but economy (and Game) often account for that as well.
Insulated by the PC media, glam mags, academia, beta suckups and female friends, women have lost touch with their rank relative to other women and are thus finding it easy to slip into a comfortable bubble of self-delusion. Similar to cigarette addiction, the quick dopamine fix — necessitated by the subnarrative, as uh puts it — trumps the harsher acceptance of personal flaws that must be remedied by willpower and self-control (or simply accommodated) to achieve longer term and more fulfilling rewards, or to come to terms in a dignified manner with one’s diminution of mate choice.
Translation:
Five quarts of Ben and jerry’s equals five years of Beta.
I propose a new Ben and Jerry’s flavor:
“Better than Beta”
What’s in it?
Hah! What’s not in it…
I wish you explained once to your readers what these women you talk about should do?! I guess your answer is that we should settle for a guy we don’t like/love/are not attracted to?!
Do you recommend we swallow our pride just to not be alone? No one is going to do that, you know?
You offer solutions that wouldn’t really work. If men now ridiculed me, I doubt it would help me in any way.
“You offer solutions that wouldn’t really work. ”
The right diet works.
Maya. Still waiting for Godot.
Like the puppy whose owner died. Every time she hears footsteps on the walk, she rushes up to the window in anticipation, faces disappointment … and then goes right back to anticipation. Bless your broken little heart, baby doll.
“Do you recommend we swallow”
Yes.
we were talking about fat women. are you now a fat woman?
I’ve always thought that Maya writes like a fat chick. She writes ugly.
Maya you are a lost cause anyways 😉
It’s more about the men than the women really. Women can’t help themselves, although frequent reader Neecy suggested that it might be prudent not to give away sex that easily if you want to actually be pursued and see investment by men. This of course is a two way street, there will just be less men getting laid while the masters still get their share.
When you are fat your option is always to lose weight. Ugliness is hard to cure (as fatties are always delighted to point out). After all, if you loathe yourself how can you not disrespect the person who chooses to be with you?
Maya, here’s what you do–a 100% foolproof, money-back guaranteed way to make more men, and hotter men, attracted to you:
1. Get the diet right. Eat paleo/primal exclusively.
2. Work out. Hard. But only 2-3x weekly.
3. get clothes that flatter you.
4. learn a bit of makeup skill. Not a lot, a little goes a long way.
5. grow your hair out, and wear it in a flattering style.
6. act feminine. Don’t cuss. learn to cook & give great massages and world class head.
A woman I know lost 70 pounds, count ‘em SEVENTY, and this after her second kid, by simply following points #1 and 2 above for about 6 months. She has sizable breasts from being fat, but now you can see her abs and the definition on her legs and arms. That’s a very.. compelling combination. At 5’2″ and 110 lbs, she is several orders of magnitude hotter that when she was 180 lbs (after baby weight!)
Let me tell you, this girl’s level of male attention has increased by a magnitude of 1000. Men ignored her before, and how they drool when she walks by.
Is it beta to write a novel with a non-stripper female lead?
Why is the struggle for status a problem for libertarians and economists? The struggle for status is at its most vicious, distressing and destructive when economic differences are small and irrelevant, as in academia, or completely nonexistent, as in high school. When economic differences are substantial, people tend to focus on getting nice stuff and forget about status, behave in a way that is a pretty good approximation to homo economicus.
“getting nice stuff and forget about status”
Hmmm.
The one couldn’t have anything to do with the other, could it?
For hetero economicus, it sure does.
This is so true and it’s rather quite paradoxical as well. The females who have always said the nastiest things to me have always been fat bitches, women with no bodies, old bitches (30 and over), women with bumps all over the face, single mommies and negresses. I have never been dissed by a truly attractive woman in the same way that I have been dissed by some colossally huge land whale, some black as pitch negress or some female with the body of an adolescent boy. This has got to be one of the strangest things I’ve ever encountered; so strange in fact, that it’s counterintuitive. I actually feel far more confident approaching really hot women, then some fat bitch or some woman with acne all over her face. If the world were a logical place, it would be hot women I’d fear the most; however, it isn’t. It’s fat bitches, 30-year-old women, women with bodies shaped like young boys etc. who scare the crap out of me. I guess the saying really is true: nasty on the outside, nasty on the inside.
An example. One time I went to a bar and I started getting real nasty stares from some real large fat bitch. This fat bitch had a double chin, a stomach hanging over her belt and a huge fat ass. You know, the works. Now, to put this in perspective, I’m a total omega, but I’m ripped… I’m 180 lbs of solid, rock hard muscle. I pretty much look like a bodybuilder. Now, here we have this fat bitch, sticking her nose in the air, telling her fatty friends about how hot she is and how she turns down hundreds of hot, ripped guys everyday. Man, I’m telling you. Modern western women are so narcissistic and delusional, it’s unbelievable. I’ve actually gotten nothing but nasty stares from fat bitches. Fat bitches turn me down, even when I’ve never even asked a fat bitch out in my entire life. It’s always the fat bitches saying nasty things to me. And to top it off, fat bitches are the ones always going out of their way to stick their fat asses in my face in order to say rude, ignorant and nasty things, even though I try to avoid fat bitches like the bubonic plague.
Getting hit on by someone they are not interested in reminds them of their obvious short comings and they lash out in an attempt to regain their perceived status. Hot women know they have status and are, therefore, not threatened. Ugly women, no matter what makes them ugly, know what is wrong with them deep down, no matter what other people tell them. Hence, the lashing out.
Maya-
I think that the point is that womens’ attraction triggers have been hopelessly corrupted.
Having “tasted” the alpha carousel, they have to choose between spending the rest of their sexual half-life getting pumped and dumped by men with options or “settling” for a beta they detest.
Of course, they could always go lezbo or jump off a bridge, or whatever – I’m just listing the two most obvious options.
ASS is a symptom of the first stage of hippodom, denial. At the end is acceptance when they discover they were a lesbian all along and never needed a man in the first place.
I think you should do another post on this topic which discusses the differences between ASS in American vs. Foreign (particularly European) women. Based on my experience, I would say that this disorder afflicts American women at much, much higher rates than Euro women. In fact I say that in most European countries this is non-existent. Perhaps one piece of the puzzle is that European women tend to be much slimmer; stroll the streets of Amsterdam and tell me how many chubby women you see, let alone truly fat women! Most European women would never even pretend that they can put demands on men when they lack the element most critical to a woman’s SMV.
[Heartiste: Female obesity has been a nightmare for betas. With fewer slender babes, the remaining hot chicks’ market value goes up and any man less than an alpha gets priced out. It’s no surprise that in Europe (particularly EE), where more women are thin, their attitudes are better. That is a direct result of there being more female to female competition for male attention.]
Do you recommend we swallow our pride just to not be alone? No one is going to do that, you know?
Whattabout a diet?
Great Master Heartiste, teach us, mortals, how to work with “The Three R’s”.
Great Master Google, don’t know about it.
Enjoy it while you can. Speaking of which, the guy she’s marrying alpha, beta, omega or snakea; you be the judge
For a 61-old public servant in collapsing Spain, it seems to be a pretty good deal. Hey, most men do not have either Berlusconi’s stamina or status at that age.
Watch Al Bundy for great examples of Reframe, Reject, and Ridicule.
That video was funny. Shame we can no longer skewer deserving targets. The Tolerance Hypocrites only allow men to be ridiculed now.
This has to be up there as one of the better entries that has appeared on this blog. First class.
http://gameforomegas.wordpress.com/2009/12/26/fat-women-and-the-omega/
The Three Rs of human psychological manipulation:
“Reframe. Reject. Ridicule.”
Ladies and gentlemen, this information is dynamite. Nay, it is a 500 kiloton thermonuclear device. No fuck that, it is a fully armed and operational death star. For experienced handlers only.
damn, is this blog cosmo for guys? and someone said “pink hammer” hahahahaha! truly wild and VERY unappealing… enjoy yourselves, stop bugging about other guys approval, it gives a serious tone of inadequacy to the whole forum. ya shabab… live your lives and check your bravado (or don’t — but at least don’t cancel it out by actually bragging about it)
Ask not for whom the rationalization hamster spins… it spins for thee, hippos.
Obesity is not just an american problem. In Britain and Ireland, it is a borderline pandemic among females.
As a result, any slim woman has a ludicrously increased SMV.
A lot of folks here recall the slimness of American women with great tenderness, which should give you an idea of how screwed up things are here.
Thanks bro.
I know a lady who’s slim and pretty. Takes exercise seriously, and watches what she eats. Looks great as a result.
A lot of her female friends and family are on the fat side, and are always undermining her – trying to get her to join them in the trough.
She has a beautiful figure, and they’re hell-bent on destroying it.
Say what you like about us fellows, but not one man in a million would try to undermine a friend or brother in the same way.
“Economists, stuck in the narrow straits of the rational actor (their toxic subnarrative), have become alienated from the commonsensical wisdom that humans are relational beings who sometimes do seemingly inexplicable things just to gain status points over a neighbor.”
According to economics people’s ends are ultimately given and subjective and their action in pursuing these ends are necessarily rational.
Even if your desired end is having a front lawn that’s prettier than your asshole neighbor’s because then you believe it’ll improve your chances scoring with the hot divorcee across the street.
By employing the means YOU BELIEVE are most appropriate, you are behaving rationally. Maybe wrong, but still rational.
You should really read up on modern subjectivist economics. Try Mises, he’s a breath of fresh air.
I may have missed something, correct me if I did.
Guys of lower value rarely set standards that women cannot attain, to assuage pangs of knowing they will never get laid. Most guys of lower value will lower their own standards until they find a vagina that will accept their penis, even if that vagina is attached to a rhinoceros.
When I was overweight I didn’t want anyone that would want me fat. If someone asked me for a date, I usually told them I didn’t date. It really had nothing to do with them, I just didn’t want anyone that would want me fat. Maybe other women feel this way too.
Beta males are utterly complicit in the enfattening.
Field notes from an hour ago:
Hanging out in the kitchen with the alpha, being instructed on cooking up two grass-fed bacon-brie burgers (PRIMAL ALL THE WAY!), when the fat, nerdy, very sweet and intelligent roommate comes home and asks us why we’re not having buns and fries with our burger.
Me: I’m trying to drop five pounds.
Beta roommate [gasps, both hands to face]: YOU? No way, you’re soooo thin. You could stand to gain a few. I just want to make you a sandwich.
Alpha [looks me up and down coldly, critically, then puts a hand on my ass like I’m being sold at market]: She could firm this up a bit. She can start by bending over and getting me a beer [cocky smile].
Look on the roommate’s face is priceless.
[Heartiste: lol. good stuff. that beta is such a fuckin beta. rings so true.]
well, there are sub-narratives and there are sub-narratives.
for every case of the pathetic loser woman you showcase here there may be one who is successful in holding to unrealistic high standards; she is not of the reality-based community. like bush-cheney and co.,she makes her own reality, somewhat like some of the aphas who comment here. she may be a practitioner of a subversive ‘inner game’. she does what she wants and screw ‘em if they can’t take a joke.
to be sure these may be the outliers, psychological manipulators nonpareil, but their existence shows it’s possible however rare or common they may be. i’m sure even our blogmeister has seen such cases, women so arrogant and confident that their social success has everything to do with pure chutzpah and nothing else.
having said that, having a clear vision is probably the best for most of us who are not gifted with sustainable grandiosity or talent for dazzling with brilliance.
so which is it: do you advise us to delude ourselves that we possess a higher smv than we in fact have? or is this advice only applicable to guys?
Just saw this from a chubby chick with a busted face only a mother can love…
“Looking for a man who:
1. want my heart, not my body.
2. loyal to me, not to every other girl.
3. respect my opinion and doesn’t force his opinion to me.
4. love me, care for me just the way I am.
5. always support me with all of the things I hv been doing my entire life.
6. doesn’t smoke any kind of smoke and not a drunker.
7. love kids.”
I couldn’t get past #1 without a good ROFLMAO. Who the hell wants that body?