patrick.net

feminists are attempting to repeal biology via the legal system and by shaming men for "cultural" attitudes which are in fact deeply instinctive. men who listen to feminists about all this will quickly be eliminated from the gene pool.

I wasn't addressing the high-scool biology aspect of it. Maybe there are some here who haven't heard this stuff before, but if you step back and look at what you're saying, it's pretty straightforward.

And none of it matters unless you're having sex for procreation. The vast majority of sex these days is not for that purpose.

This part I quoted is the part I don't get. It seems to me that the more common outcome these days is that feminism traps you into being included in the gene pool, through the manipulation and guilt trips women have learned to use on men. Given how family law courts work, I'm more concerned with dealing with a manipulative guilt-tripping chameleon than whether or not I have children.

For all the talk about a chaste/choosy woman being important, if I'm using a condom or some other reliable birth control method, then none of this matters. And even if you expand to include sex for procreation, the odds of a cuckolding are well under 5% these days. Genealogists say it's probably between 1 and 2% historically, and women are less likely to pull anything these days because of paternity testing. And you cannot know your partner that well, anyway. ALL women underestimate their actual partner count.

And what the hell is wrong with being eliminated from the gene pool, anyway? What century are you from? The genetic variation among humans is so small - because our population has exploded so rapidly - that there are millions of backup copies of every good and bad gene we have, floating around out there. I think that my reproducing or not doing so has an impact on the future of this race of right around nil.

I know three women I grew up with who were outright whores in high school and college. Of the five kids they have, all look like the birth-certificate fathers.

You assume all sex is for procreation, and that therefore all this stuff can be understood in the context of basic evolutionary biology. That's a strange assumption.

There are still three layers: biology, culture, and free will. You can't explain the whole cake in terms of just one of these layers.

By the way: your statement that no man would want a woman who has had a lot of partners is completely false. I know plenty of married former sluts.

thunderlips11 says

According to the "Paradox of declining female happiness", whether women had or didn't have kids, they were less happy.

I think the fundamental issue is that women are fed lies from childhood. Many women are raised to believe that a certain sort of man exists who has his professional life in order, rarely needs emotional support, and will devote his free time to them. They are further told that this is their right, by virtue of being born female, and that they do not need to expend any work to sustain such a relationship: it is their entitlement.

I would guess that feminism is only partly responsible for this, because non-feminist women sometimes suffer from it. I believe part of the blame lies with movies and television.

By the way: some women escape these delusions, wholly or in part.

men who valued sluts and provided for them did not leave any descendants

This is complete bullshit. They probably left descendants; it's just that in some cases, they left fewer descendants than imagined.

I have heard of a survey of paternity in Glargow, for kids born in the 1980s, which found an illegitimacy rate of 20%. That was in a lower class zone with high unemployment and high transience. Glasgow is not part of planet Earth. I'd bet that illegitimacy rates anywhere above 10% are unusual outside ghettos.

HydroCabron says

And what the hell is wrong with being eliminated from the gene pool, anyway? What century are you from?

Pretty much all non-Caucasian and non-Asian countries are going to shit. And amongst those all non-European and non-American countries have have pretty much locked their borders, for good reasons. Subtle variation in the gene pool plus cultural values matter as anyone can clearly observer. So if you don't give a fuck about the future then it's no problem being eliminated from the gene pool. But if you do these trends should be very troubling for you.

mell says

So if you don't give a fuck about the future then it's no problem being eliminated from the gene pool

Don't preach to anyone on this topic: You don't give a fuck about mass extinctions.

HydroCabron says

I wasn't addressing the high-scool biology aspect of it. Maybe there are some here who haven't heard this stuff before, but if you step back and look at what you're saying, it's pretty straightforward.

thanks for agreeing that it's straightforward, but it's dangerous to state the obvious these days. you might be accused of disparaging feminism.

HydroCabron says

And none of it matters unless you're having sex for procreation.

i'm talking about the psychology, which was shaped by eons of evolution, not the fact that you can have sex without procreation. these elements of our psychology are genetic, not learned, and have profound real-world consequences. it matters a lot.

HydroCabron says

This part I quoted is the part I don't get. It seems to me that the more common outcome these days is that feminism traps you into being included in the gene pool, through the manipulation and guilt trips women have learned to use on men. Given how family law courts work,

i disagree. you can quite easily be ordered by family law courts to pay many years of child support for a child your wife had with any random stranger. feminism means the husband must pay, always, regardless of whose child it actually is.

HydroCabron says

For all the talk about a chaste/choosy woman being important, if I'm using a condom or some other reliable birth control method, then none of this matters.

it still matters more than anything else, because women are still programmed to want the best genes they can get along with the some guy to support the kid (who is not necessarily the guy with the genes, anyone who can be made to work will do).

and men are still programmed to do two things:
1. fuck the hottest women they can, because all of those correlates with hotness are evolutionary correlates to fertility
2. be very paranoid about committing time and resources to a woman who has been around

HydroCabron says

the odds of a cuckolding are well under 5% these days. Genealogists say it's probably between 1 and 2% historically

if that's true, it's an epic-level disaster for men. a 5% cuckold rate means genetic death very quickly as you count generations.

HydroCabron says

And what the hell is wrong with being eliminated from the gene pool, anyway?

the answer to that can only be felt, not explained.

HydroCabron says

By the way: your statement that no man would want a woman who has had a lot of partners is completely false. I know plenty of married former sluts.

are their husbands aware of their wives' histories? if so, do you think that had no impact on how they feel about their wives' probable loyalty?

HydroCabron says

I think the fundamental issue is that women are fed lies from childhood.

On second reading, I do not agree with this. Women certainly do not need to be fed lies about how male/female relations should work. Women are perfectly capable of generating the deceitful and manipulative propaganda themselves, even at a young age.

I think women engage in a lot of wishful thinking, and float lots of propaganda items. If men do not push back, and I mean REALLY push back, women chalk each one up as a victory for the sisterhood, and take the propaganda as a gospel to be imposed on men.

There are good reasons to have kids but immortality is not one of them. Your children share 50% of your genes, your grandchildren share 25%, great grandchildren 12.5%, etc, so essentially a couple hundred years down the line, it's like you never existed anyway. Ironically, a better way to achieve immortality is not through children but through looking in the rearview in a form of traveling to as many new places as possible and reading as much as related to history as possible. In that path, one is likely to feel as though they always existed instead of trying to exist forever through the pathway of having kids. Not to mention that the latter will likely interfere with traveling and reading...

dublin hillz says

They have simply mastered the art of "spitting game." They are not 5% in any other criteria. In fact many of them can't hold down a job

Seriously. A lot of these guys are alcoholics - fun to be around only in the short term.

dublin hillz says

There are good reasons to have kids but immortality is not one of them. Your children share 50% of your genes, your grandchildren share 25%, great grandchildren 12.5%, etc, so essentially a couple hundred years down the line, it's like you never existed anyway.

This reasoning is not correct. If you have 2 kids at each generation, after n generations, that's 2^n. Each carry (1/2)^n of your genes.
2^n x (1/2)^n = 1, so your genes are just spread around but in more or less equal quantity. Hopefully the better traits get chosen.

All beyond the point anyway, and bizarrely self-centered. People don't have kids to be immortal. We all know we'll die.
People have kids to take part in a story larger than themselves.

HydroCabron says

I think the fundamental issue is that women are fed lies from childhood. Many women are raised to believe that a certain sort of man exists who has his professional life in order, rarely needs emotional support, and will devote his free time to them. They are further told that this is their right, by virtue of being born female, and that they do not need to expend any work to sustain such a relationship: it is their entitlement.

That's the essence of the problem.

Also, many women are told they can be an Astronaut, CEO, Test Pilot, etc. when in reality, most of them are going to end up as Assistant AP Manager (or cashier, shelf stocker for that matter) and have dull, unsatisfying jobs.

As the generations march on, people become aware that not only do they lose something by working so much, but that even with the sacrifices, the CEO dream ain't gonna happen. Devoting more time to work is only going to make them Marcy the Copy Editor instead of Marcy the Copy Developer after 10 years of sacrificing family time to work F/T or more, with a few thousand bucks in salary difference, no life changer, along with a whole lot more responsibility on the job.

Call it KKKrazy says

I think you're both right. Women are fed the bullshit by other women who engage in a lot of wishful thinking the relative failure of which they pass on to younger women either through parenting or popular cultural media.

Exactly. The truth is there is a "Mommy Track", even in the Nordic Countries. When they give shared parental leave, women always take the greatest share. They tried to force men to take parental leave and men basically took the minimum.

The women who want a completely level outcome in all things (although never, strangely, in menial dangerous work like coal miner, but rather in hospital admin and law firm partner) definitely want to push for that, and are actually becoming opposed to Maternity Leave and Flexible Hours as a way of chaining women to work and stopping the drift of women into P/T work in their 30s when they start having kids.

At my workplace, we've lost two women (really great gals) in about 5 years in the same position, both left after their second child was born.

Heraclitusstudent says

good genes unstable

That is a contradiction regardless of gender. Someone who is unstable cannot possibly be considered a carrier of good genes. Instability leads to lack of accountability/dependability and is associated with biological/personality disorders such as depression, bipolar, borderline, narcissism, etc.

dublin hillz says

There are good reasons to have kids but immortality is not one of them. Your children share 50% of your genes, your grandchildren share 25%, great grandchildren 12.5%, etc,

Not exactly, because we are all more than about 99% the same genes anyway. But it is the small differences that count. Saying immortality is not important is the same as saying evolution is not important. Just ask women what they think about mating with a chump (or chimp) instead of the hollywood hunk-of-the-month. The answer is right there.

Heraclitusstudent says

Your other post about women being delusional about their real chances to get the top 5% to commit - and unhappily falling back on second choices - seems more realistic. They honestly think they can deserve the high status top 5% guy, because that guy will indeed sleep with them. But then he refuses to commit to more. And so the women keep trying until being forced into 2nd choices.

Now you are getting the point. Women refuse to accept that there is a huge gap between the kind of guy that might sleep with any of them once or twice, and the guy that will sleep with one of them AND STAY. The 95% of women who are all trying to get the 5% guy to stay simply refuse to acknowledge the mathematics of the situation, the simple fact that their equation does not have a solution, so to speak. And feminism is what enables women to do this from age 15 to age 30+, at which point their marital value (being still unmarried) drops like a rock, and they end up alone.

justme says

they end up alone.

Not quite alone :)

Seriously, though, if Beta Males were so undesirable, there sure are a lot of them, many with kids of their own. And yeah, some of them were tricked, but there are just too many kids who look like their dad to believe it's extremely high..

The extreme end of what Justme describes is Susan Smith, who was willing to kill her children because she thought if she was childless, the big Alpha in town would marry her.

She had an extremely supportive network, a great relationship with her Ex and his family, but she decided that she needed to remove her children in order to get a shot with Mr. Alpha, even though Mr. Alpha was a player and made it clear to all he had NO INTEREST in having a family.

http://www.alabamapress.org/uploads/Cat%2012%20Div%20A_Feature.pdf

justme says

Now you are getting the point. Women refuse to accept that there is a huge gap between the kind of guy that might sleep any of them once or twice, and the guy that will sleep with one of them AND STAY. The 95% of women who are all trying to get the 5% guy to stay simply refuse to acknowledge the mathematics of the situation, the simple fact that their equation does not have a solution, so to speak. And feminism is what enables women to do this from age 15 to age 30+, at which point their marital value (being still unmarried) drops like a rock, and they end up alone.

That is very true and a direct consequence of fully, legally and societal endorsed female hypergamy.

• college educated (sometimes advanced degrees)
• single for longer, married later
• working in tech/eng, often in management, and often officers of corporations

I just described both sexes as I encounter them in the late 20s to 40s crowd here in California.

The video portrays a very lopsided view of sexual power dynamics. Its oversimplification is that women control the physical act but men somehow control more of the marriage/lasting relationship equation. In truth both sexes control major segments of both of those realms.

The declining women's happiness trend is so complex, and doesn't point to feminism making women more miserable, or any one thing someone could point at as “the cause". It has far less to do with sex and the pill, than it does with equality in workplace, rights to vote, and be treated as a full equal person. Women can now compare themselves to broader segments of people/lifestyles, have more to seek in life, live more complex and richer lives, and might just be being more honest about their happiness now. It’s absolutely ludicrous to think my mother and wife’s generations aren't more happy now than the previous two generations before them. In sheer life burden alone, that's just beyond untrue.

The actual big secret is that women and men aren’t that different at all, where much of sexual desire, life goals, etc. are concerned. They may be approaching things at slightly oblique angles, but motivations and desires are much more similar, than they are different, at their core. And yes, I am casually writing off all the “men are from mars, women are venus” comparisons we love to make, down to brain waves, socialization, and hormones. Well and truly, there are differences (bless the differences!), but at the end of the day for relationships/sex/work/marriage/life : the goals aren’t diametrically opposed, they are aligned. If they weren't, the war of the sexes wouldn't sound so sexy.

Heraclitusstudent says

Probably more 15 yrs old are like that than unmarried 23 yrs old.

False. It's college and up where body modification and sexual activity are higher. 15 is way young in "maturity", especially in America. The difference between 15 - 18 isn't as great as 18 - 21 in experiences and self identity (again, for the USA).

There is some crazy stuff written about women, by men, on pnet

Rew says

There is some crazy stuff written about women, by men, on pnet

They say women are far more than the little mammal described on pnet. Women are at least the equal of the horse.

Rew says

It’s absolutely ludicrous to think my mother and wife’s generations aren't more happy now than the previous two generations before them. In sheer life burden alone, that's just beyond untrue.

If you go back far enough before suffrage and other changes it may seem so (though we don't know for sure). However if you take you take the generation that were roughly from the 60s to 80s in their prime and family-building years and compare that to Gen X/Y or millenials, you assertion seems wrong - can't blame this on honesty. More likely influence of radical feminism and economic decline of the middle-class. What good is a director position if you need two to pay off your bay area shack?

We need to start insisting that women and their families bear the consequences of their actions, and pass a law requiring the mother and her immediate family (her parents) to exhaust their resources before providing assistance to Single Mothers. And my Beloved "One is a mistake, Two and it's hysterectomy time in order to continue to qualify for benefits, since we are obligated to care for children but are NOT going to allow you to burden society further." policy.

Why reward Bastard Factories with their own home and living, when they can live off mom and dad?

"Gee, if I get pregnant with the local petty pot dealer, I can get my own place, food stamps, and some EBT cash, and party hardy! My house, my rules, screw you Mom!"
"Well, worst thing that happens if Bob the Bouncer impregnates me, I can get additional government assistance on top of my waitressing job."

And South Africa is hugely more developed than Europe of the 15th Century, much less the Dawn of Civilization, much less Hunter-Gather era where the Homo Sapiens, Habilis, and Erectus spent 90% of it's the genus Homo's existence.

marcus says

More like at least 50. And even then, surely people occasionally lived decades beyond that.

No. Even in the Napoleonic Era, for a working class male to reach 40 was an accomplishment. Most Kings of England up till the 19th Century seldom saw more than 50 years, many saw less than 40.

Only 2 (TWO) of Edward I's 19 (NINETEEN) progeny lived past 50:
http://www.sarahwoodbury.com/sick-kids/

The median for the extremely well off noble children of the most powerful and elite family in all England was 38 for men, 35 for women.

Anglo-Saxon Grave Sites 400-1000AD have almost no burials of ordinary folk whose bones date past the age of 45, out of hundreds of skeletons.

This is the era of widespread Agriculture, Fishing Boats, Settled Communities, etc. Imagine how much shorter it was back in the pre-Stone Age, before Agriculture.

Call it KKKrazy says

As long as you understand you're flouting God's Plan.

You know who would really get hit under my plan? Those Mormons dudes with 5 wives, all of whom are on welfare.

Men stayed happy due to the saturation of drive-up fast food chains and the proliferation of "Merry Maids Metros"...
thunderlips11 says

Men lost their "Dinner waiting when I walk in the door" and "Spotless House", stayed happy.

Ignorance is bliss...

HydroCabron says

By the way: your statement that no man would want a woman who has had a lot of partners is completely false. I know plenty of married former sluts.

this is damning evidence...

justme says

The real use of the pill was not casual sex with strange men. That was always easy, condoms or cervical caps have been available for a long time. The real use was that a woman could have unprotected sex with her husband and still avoid getting pregnant by him, while keeping secret that she was in fact impregnable.. She could then get pregnant by her preferred man by skipping the pill strategically. Or she could do the "save the marriage" thing and get pregnant just when her husband was about to leave her, for whatever reason.

IOW, hollywood and liberalism.
It's ok...we all know...you can say it.

HydroCabron says

I would guess that feminism is only partly responsible for this, because non-feminist women sometimes suffer from it. I believe part of the blame lies with movies and television.

SoftShell says

Men stayed happy due to the saturation of drive-up fast food chains and the proliferation of "Merry Maids Metros"...

Yep. Men are about finding solutions. Women are about expressing feelings.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/-4EDhdAHrOg

thunderlips11 says

Beta Males

The alpha/beta wolf concept is now regarded as an embarrassment by the man who created it, and is thought to be inapplicable in human societies by anthropologists and other social scientists.

It turns out that similarity to one's alcoholic, physically or sexually abusive father is the primary characteristic women seek in a man. A prison record on top of it - especially if you're actually physically in prison - is a huge plus.

I have seen too many pathetic whiny alkies, bellies distended with their bloated livers, who keep their beautiful devoted wives. I don't believe that status markers, or even having your shit together, play a role in keeping a woman around.

One woman resented me because I earned twice what she did. Who knows how this stuff works?

thunderlips11 says

No. Even in the Napoleonic Era, for a working class male to reach 40 was an accomplishment. Most Kings of England up till the 19th Century seldom saw more than 50 years, many saw less than 40.

You might want to do more research. Going back to antiquity it was not THAT unusual to make it to 70. There is a lot of different research on this, but many come to this conclusion.

Obviously infection or violence were far more likely to kill you before the advent of antibiotics. But I believe you are wrong and it's easy to find research that supports my opinion.

What does your common sense tell you ?

I might have been a little high in asserting that at age 20, one could expect to live to at least 50. Maybe it was only a 60% chance they made it to 45, and then at 45 the average life expectancy was another 12 to 24 years.

Try removing the confusion and bias everyone has about life expectancy at birth, then be open minded, do some research and get back to me.

YOu might start here http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/faculty/gurven/papers/GurvenKaplan2007pdr.pdf

I figured a lot of men delay on or never marry because they have seen their fathers get fucked over by the modern feminist culture. Delaying marriage until a later age also exposes the crazy side of women in general and there lack of ability to hide their crazy side.

rpanic01 says

the crazy side of women in general and there lack of ability to hide their crazy side.

I find they can hide it for over a decade, depending on the perceived size of the diamond at the end of the waiting period.

They are incredibly skilled at hiding selfishness and indifference to the fate of others.

marcus says

I might have been a little high in asserting that at age 20, one could expect to live to at least 50. Maybe it was only a 60% chance they made it to 45, and then at 45 the average life expectancy was another 12 to 24 years.

marcus says

Try removing the confusion and bias everyone has about life expectancy at birth, then be open minded, do some research and get back to me.

You're confused. The numbers I gave for Anglo-Saxon Dark Age Britain were the lifespans of ordinary individuals measured by the ages of hundreds of skeletons in the grave - if anything it's biased upwards by not counting all the stillborn and dead and abandoned infants left in the woods (or the ones eaten by wolves, died and left to rot on the battlefield, etc.).

https://books.google.com/books?id=hBNr765THaIC&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=anglo+saxon+graves+lifespan&source=bl&ots=yaz2-ODDw8&sig=GooXSHGf7MJVRm5Pwo-xfK_5htw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAGoVChMIk4OnnIeOyAIVgayACh2Z-Qj5#v=onepage&q=anglo%20saxon%20graves%20lifespan&f=false

If my aunt had balls, she'd be an Uncle. If a soldier didn't die from a bullet, and didn't die from sickness, and wasn't sunk in a transport on the way home, he'd survive the war... If, If, If.

Children are humans. When they die, it counts towards the average. If you get a 100 on one test, and a 15 on the other. You can't say "Oh Teach that don't count, you can only count test scores over 30, because that 15 would distort my grade." But even if you don't count the "15" test scores, the average grade of people who "passed the class" was a D+ or C-, compared to the "B" average of people today.

EDIT: Make that tens of thousands of skeletons.

Life span of Hunter Gathers as counted and studied over the long term by Anthropologists, along with the numbers of people over 50.
http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/faculty/gurven/papers/GurvenKaplan2007pdr.pdf

You'll see the person-years for the over 50 crowd is a fraction of than the person-years overall in each population.

Swedes from a decade in the mid 18th is given for comparison; it's in the same ballpark as the Hunter-Gatherers.

Everything backs up the "to get past 50 is rare" theory.

thunderlips11 says

You're confused. The numbers I gave for Anglo-Saxon Dark Age Britain were the lifespans of ordinary individuals measured by the ages of hundreds of skeletons in the grave

Some conclusions from the Hunter Gatherer Paper (link) I shared for you to check out:

A fundamental conclusion we draw from this analysis is that extensive longevity
appears to be a novel feature of Homo sapiens. Our results contradict
Vallois’s (1961: 222) claim that among early humans, “few individuals passed
forty years, and it is only quite exceptionally that any passed fifty,” and the
more traditional Hobbesian view of a nasty, brutish, and short human life (see
also King and Jukes 1969; Weiss 1981). The data show that modal adult life
span is 68–78 years, and that it was not uncommon for individuals to reach
these ages, suggesting that inferences based on paleodemographic reconstruction
are unreliable.

http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/faculty/gurven/papers/GurvenKaplan2007pdr.pdf

thunderlips11 says

Swedes from a decade in the mid 18th is given for comparison; it's in the same ballpark as the Hunter-Gatherers.

Everything backs up the "to get past 50 is rare" theory.

No.

OR try Wikepedia and its sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

This directly contradicts you.

Having survived until the age of 21, a male member of the English aristocracy in this period could expect to live:[24]

1200–1300: to age 64
1300–1400: to age 45 (due to the impact of the bubonic plague)
1400–1500: to age 69
1500–1550: to age 71

Maybe you can get to where you realize that you might be wrong. Again, what does your common sense tell you ? DO you really think we evolved that much in a few centuries, or a couple thousand years. Sure environments and other conditions have often made it difficult for humans to live for their natural lifespan, but that natural lifespan is and has been in the neighborhood of 6 to 7 decades probably for thousands of years. Current diets, less stress, medicine, and so on have added a few years to this. And of course antibiotics and big reductions in infant mortality have made it possible for way more people to make it to a full lifespan, bringing the averages way up.

For evolution to optimize the age at which they have children, you would need to consider a life expectancy that will cover most females (i.e. below average) in pre-historical times. Preferably over a couple millions years.

marcus says

Maybe you can get to where you realize that you might be wrong.

The Chart you posted excludes a large group of humans, including many of reproductive age, under 15. In traditional times, plenty of "Children" under 15 had children of their own

Again, it's the old "If my aunt had balls..." type of measurement to make the primitive era look better than it was.

The is a reason modern society population graphs are a rectangle, and going back prior to WW2 it's a Pyramid. How could this be if so many people were living so long?

High Child and Childbirth mortality is even more of a reason to reproduce early and often.