SFG remarks:
Women are shallow, but so are men. ‘Shallow’ means caring about appearances, which are the only things that matter in the social world. So ‘shallow’ is something we socially-inept types sling around to insult those who are better at marketing themselves.
Using the word “shallow” as it is reckoned by those who typically use it — women, feminists in particular, manboobs, and assorted fellow loser travelers — it is more precise to say that humanity is “shallow”. Women are just as drawn to shallow traits in the opposite sex as are men; the difference is that women’s shallowness is exalted in the public sphere. And it is exalted because there is no social compassion for the men who fail to meet women’s shallow standards and slip through the cracks. In contrast, women who fail to meet men’s shallow standards are decried as victims of oppressive male objectification and showered with sympathy.
This double standard exists because men are biologically expendable and women, sadly, biologically perishable. The underlying biological ur-reality forms the psychological reality which overlays it and projects into consciousness the workings of the subconscious id. Every word we say and action we take is ultimately slave in service to the primordial beast in our brains.
Another reason men are more easily and rapaciously slapped with the “shallow” label is because their sexual preferences are more visually discernible; female prettiness and sexiness, which is what men desire above all, are readily observable. Such is not the case (at least not to the same degree) of women’s sexual preferences; female preferences are focused more on men’s status, dominance and charm, and thus less easily distinguishable at a glance. The non-visual, time-delayed nature of much of women’s animal desires allows them to plausibly evade the smear of shallowness. But just because women’s preferences rely more on feedback from judging men’s dominance displays and comparing men’s relative statuses than on feedback from seeing men’s looks doesn’t make women any less shallow. It just diverts the flow of shallowness to a different part of the kiddie pool.
In truth, women’s preferences are no less shallow than men’s. It’s proxies for reproductive and survival quality all the way down.
Of course, the entire premise itself — that shallowness is an apt description of sexual preferences — is false, and the disparate semantic impact that the term “shallow” evokes is nothing but misty misdirection from the real truth: that there is nothing at all shallow about the deadly serious business of finding the highest quality mate(s) possible and, in a state of nature, passing on one’s genetic legacy into future generations. If the meaning of life is to fuck, then the means by which we achieve our purpose are the deepest, most profound feelings we possess.
Interesting post. I wonder how much of a shitstorm this one is gonna make
Women have an outrageous double-standard on that claim, of course- I remember a line from this blog back in the day, about the claim that women *really* don’t care all that much about their looks:” “The existence of the multi-billion dollar beauty, makeup, hair, and plastic-surgery industries refute that assertion.” True dat- women doll themselves up whenthey are in man-hunting mode (an in general) precisely because they know their SMV is based on looks.
Nothing new there, of course- but women will say that they doll themselves up, and practice all the myriad little vanities (clothes/shoe shopping, hair, makeup, etc.) because they “enjoy it for themselves”. Well, that’s because their genes tell them to: they enjoy it because it attracts men, and that behavior over the course of many generations in the distant past led to greater reproduction/ was evolutionarily favored. Same reason men have the drive to get to the top of a given hierarchy: innate competitiveness attracts pussy, and so was favored evolutionarily.
I suggest the last sentence be put on the mast head of the blog. Well put.
is this the modern poetry or what? im personally tired of gods, stars, myths. how about truth? science? this is absolutely fascinating and coming convo (convo get it?) -luted in order for you to get it (get it?)
I was under the impression that women were not shallow in the sense that….
they want a good story
they dig contrast
they dig romance novels with plot twists
they measure a lot more traits than a mans apperance to formulate value
but they were extremely fucking shallow
in matters of
.. “love” (as in superficial sexual love vs. agape love)
abstract thought
morality
and general depth of knowledge
and ability to detach themselves from their narcissism and see things as they are
“Shallow” is the word used by the losers of the SMP, no point against that; of course, that means fightning shallowness with shallowness is the natural consequence of it, and I don’t have a problem with that. The only issue is when the marriage apologists shriek against this use of logic and reason and insist you to be a morally superior nice guy and marry the shallow specimens anyway. The more they keep denying the poligamy that exists, the more obvious it is how worried they are about the certainty of their security checks.
“Of course, the entire premise itself — that shallowness is an apt description of sexual preferences — is false, and the disparate semantic impact that the term “shallow” evokes is nothing but misty misdirection from the real truth: that there is nothing at all shallow about the deadly serious business of finding the highest quality mate(s) possible and, in a state of nature, passing on one’s genetic legacy into future generations.”
Bingo. I’ve been saying the same things for months now. Nothing shallow about it – there ain’t nothing deeper than selecting hotties.
“If the meaning of life is to fuck, then the means by which we achieve our purpose are the deepest, most profound feelings we possess. ”
– I’ve always contended that life has no meaning whatsoever. But If one leans toward the more biological side – this is the most interesting and noteworthy things you’ve written in a while.
Sure life has meaning.
believers think life has meaning because they think god, by existing and being conscious to give meaning, endows it with meaning.
That makes complete sense to them. It even makes sense to atheists who will usually agree that sure, *if* god existed, it could give meaning.
But we exist. We are conscious. We have everything anyone attributes to god that
allows god to give meaning to life. We are entirely capable of giving sense and meaning to our own lives. Appeal to higher power is needless.
We are the stuff the universe is made of, awoken and aware of itself. We are the universe being conscious of itself.
I’ve discovered and field-tested the best response to expose or surface a girl’s shallowness.
Text her one word: “Interesting…”
This gets the hamster going and she will just completely spill the beans about whatever or start asking a smillion questions.
The context for discovering this was my ex…who I dumped in December after a year because her shit-tests and overall craziness was over the top…came out to a party I was at with some dude….it was a beta orbiter.
I was gaming one of my coterie and began chatting with this young girl. Out of the corner of my eye, I spot my ex get up and walk over to the bar and start talking to some random dude.
A short time later I had to leave and didn’t say bye while she was chatting with the dude.
The whole thing bothered for a number of reasons but rather than calling her on this move, I texted her: “interesting…”
2 seconds later she replied with “What’s interesting?”
I didn’t reply. A few hours later she texted me back with a very detailed explanation or rather “qualification” of the beta orbiter, why she was hanging with him and how she was only introducing the dude at the bar to some friend of hers…
Anyway, I’ve tried this verbally too…when a girl asks “What do you think of this outfit, my hair, my drawings, my singing, my cooking”
I reply with “It’s interesting…” try it…
Using the word “shallow” as it is reckoned by those who typically use it — women, feminists in particular, manboobs, and assorted fellow loser travelers — it is more precise to say that humanity is “shallow”.
Dead on. I’ve never once heard an attractive girl or a guy who’s in shape complain about people being “shallow”; it’s always nerds, feminists, and fatasses.
This stuff is depressing sometimes. It makes me feel like modern women are absolutely useless except for a quick piece on the weekends and best dumped off. No kids, because the kids will suffer from the inevitable hypergamy, and no love or companionship until you are old and grey and it doesn’t matter anymore.
So tired of plain tho ugly ass uggos feeling entitled to Don Draper look alikes.SMMFH.