patrick.net

Dan8267 says

It's the alpha male in the second pane who would do all those things. The beta males in the first pane aren't. That's the point.

I get it. And if you read my next paragraph it says that both men and women have made poor partner choices at times when struck by cupid's arrow. But at the end of the day, most intelligent people don't really want a self-obsessed life partner who mistreats them. Further, most intelligent people want more than a one-dimensional Barbie/Ken. So, yes it's funny. We've all been there. But when the hormones settle, I just don't think that scenario depicted in the cartoon has the long-range sticking power to be generalized in a truly meaningful way.

Prowling Women, take me, take me! Where are they all!

Ceffer says

Prowling Women, take me, take me! Where are they all!

That's easy. You just need to get inside of the imaginations of certain men. Just don't stay too long. I wouldn't want you to return to us wanting Hilary for president.

turtledove says

But at the end of the day, most intelligent people don't really want a self-obsessed life partner who mistreats them.

Sure, once women reach 30, but it's not 30-year-old women shooting "don't rape me" at beta males on college campuses who are in no way rapists while drooling over the very alpha males that are. I'd be shock if less than 98% of rapes on college campuses are committed by anyone other than alpha males or "bad boys". And women who sleep with bad boys are promoting the very rape culture they blame on innocent beta males. Women who reproduce with bad boys biologically contribute to the problem passing on both the trait of sexual aggression in males and the preference for that trait in females.

To end rape, women must stop sleeping with the sexually aggressive kind of men who rape. Genes matter. Rewarding some males with reproduction and punishing others with the lack of it is the very mechanism of selection of genes. The more beta males who reproduce instead of alpha males, the less rape in each successive generation until there is no more. In contrast, women having babies with bad boys, which happens often, increases sexual violence in all subsequent generations. The human race has not stopped evolving because we have iPhones.

Ironman says

...that you're talking out of your ass again... but that's just another day on Patnet with you!

Once again you have a man's ass on his mind. You should just come out of the closet already.

turtledove says

He can pretend all those women are really drooling over him... In my opinion if he isn't really good looking or about to be hired for a position that could impact their lives then it's probably in his head.

Didn't say drooling, or that I was good looking. Just said that women have this perhaps hypocritical pattern of behavior where they are constantly checking out and evaluating the new guy while pretending they are not.

But I have noticed that since I got into lifting weights and grew a beard that the interest level from them is higher than it was. Not imagining things.

resistance says

Didn't say drooling, or that I was good looking. Just said that women have this perhaps hypocritical pattern of behavior where they are constantly checking out and evaluating the new guy while pretending they are not.

But I have noticed that since I got into lifting weights and grew a beard that the interest level from them is higher than it was. Not imagining things.

Okay, that's fair... but looking at you and plotting your capture aren't the same thing. Enjoy the attention. If it makes you happy, pursue it. If it doesn't, cut her lose.

www.youtube.com/embed/M902ZJHzaLE

resistance says

When interviewing at a new company, I alway notice a small flurry of interest in me by all the women who I come into contact with.

The effect seems subtle until once aware of it, but then it's unmistakable and not subtle at all. From the receptionist to the HR woman to potential co-workers, there's a feeling I'm being watched, judged, and talked about. An unlikely number of new random women just happen to walk by and look into the room where I'm being interviewed, no doubt informed explicitly or implicitly by the other women that there is a new man to evaluate. They cannot let the competition get there first! They smile and say hello, as if that were normal on the street. But it's not.

You didn't manage to come out with a phone number or invitation to the local watering hole? That's pathetic. Sounds like a problem with hypogonadotropism not with women.

bob2356 says

You didn't manage to come out with a phone number or invitation to the local watering hole? That's pathetic. Sounds like a problem with hypogonadotropism not with women.

That just might work. Hit on the receptionist when going to your job interview! It takes balls do do that, and the exact same women that would normally accuse any guy of sexual harassment if they could, probably would swoon over such a move. But it could also backfire in the most spectacular fashion.

Quigley says

Just because their primary turn-ons aren't as visual as mens' are, doesn't mean they don't work that way sometimes.

Women are every bit as visual as men, it is just that they would like to hide that fact from the large fraction of the male population that they are frankly not all that interested in looking at. Basically, this tripe that women are not visually stimulated is just another tool from their propaganda toolbox. Don't fall for it.

Is is the same propaganda toolbox that contains the phrases "but I hardly know you, we should get to know each other better first", or "women are different, we don't just want to have sex, we need to develop feelings first". Any man that has ever been objectified as a provider-object rather than a sex-object surely has heard these phrases or some close variation thereof. It's complete bullshit. It just means that she is more interested in you providing for her than she is in having sex with you.

Quigley, I think the right way to say it is that women also have OTHER turn-ons than the visual. But their visual turn-ons are every bit as strong as they are for men. It is just that it is to their benefit to hide that fact, and lie about it.

turtledove says

That's easy. You just need to get inside of the imaginations of certain men. Just don't stay too long. I wouldn't want you to return to us wanting Hilary for president.

The fevered ramblings of the biologically insecure male! The wailing and gnashing of teeth of all those unrisen and unborn spermatozoa!

Dan8267 says

In all fairness, this is a biological, evolutionary mechanism, not a conscious choice of the part of women. It's not like they have any say in the matter.

Women do have a conscious choice to make, absolutely. Women are quite aware of when is "the horny time of the month". Now, they can choose to be forthright about when that is, or not, but most of them will not be forthright about it, and hide it as best they can, especially if they are with a man from which they want extract resources and effort.

In other words. the ability to hide the external symptoms is evolutionary, but the choice not to tell is made consciously.

YesYNot says

Dan8267 says

Imagine if all your female coworker's asses turned red and plump whenever they ovulated. I don't think most people would be comfortable with such a work environment.

Thankfully, most of us guys aren't throwing poop at each other and masturbating all over the place too.

You mean it's just my company? I should ask for a raise.

Dan8267 says

I don't know who TurtleDove blames.

I blame people. I think that many people get into relationships for the wrong reasons only to learn later that they made a terrible match. I don't think people are doing it on purpose. Are there women out there who are looking to trap a man? Yes. Is that all women? No. Are there men out there who are seeking a really young woman to help them through their mid-life crises? Yes. Is that all men? No. It's absurd to say that all women are "this" and all men are "that." We're individuals. In fact, we're kind of like people that way.

Dan8267 says

I think the mating market has shifted towards short-term, disposable relationships because of the pill, the removal of reputation as a means for men to filter undesirable mates, and the decrease necessity for women of choosing good mates to ensure their children's survival and their financial well-being.

The mating market... The real question in the end is who gets to breed.
Too many people here are talking about sex and choosing a mate. The reality is short-term, disposable and sterile relationships don't count.
Having kids makes a woman dependent on a man. This is not just a question of evolutionary biology, this is also practical logic.

Absolutely. Take Naomi Wolf. I bet you $10 when she was in her 20s, she dated older men. Now she is writing about how terrible it is that 30s-50s men are bringing hot young things to parties instead of dating "Wonderful Women" like herself.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/a-wrinkle-in-time-twenty-years-after-the-beauty-myth-naomi-wolf-addresses-the-aging-myth/2011/05/11/AGiEhvCH_story.html

Heraclitusstudent says

The real question in the end is who gets to breed.

Depends on what you value. If you value only your genetic code then yes, that's all that matters. Of course, you are no different than an amoebae, a slug, or any other creature that is a slave to its DNA. Of course, with the human population at 7 billion, peak baby, and the population at maximum capacity, your individual reproduction is an utterly insignificant and transient contribution to humanity's genetic code. Especially so when 99.9% of your genetic code is identical to everyone else on the planet.

If you value the genetic quality, by whatever standards you have, of the human race, then again yes that's all that matters. However, as genetic engineering and designer babies become the norm -- and they will -- then ultimately most of the genes in beta males and females will be selected for such as genes for intelligence and compassion. So it doesn't matter who reproduces as their offspring will have these beta genes injected into them in order to compete with everyone else.

If you value happiness, then no. All that matters is how happy you are during your very brief existence.

If you value meaning, then it depends on what you think gives your life meaning. I value family, but I don't need to have kids of my own. I would be quite content bringing happiness to nieces and nephews, taking care of my aging parents, and having wonderful friendships and family quality time.

Dan8267 says

I've seen a few betas in their mid-20s get noticed and appreciated by women. They always end up married and their wives are very happy with them. But those wives are rare and way smarter than most American women. I've never seen one of these marriages end up in divorce and today that says a lot.

worked for me. we were both 25 when we got serious, married at 30, and it's been very good. she stayed home with the kids for the first 7 years or so because her mother told her she should.

young wives and a pretty big age difference would help a lot with marriage stability. women should get married at 22 and men at 32 imho, and the women should stay home until the kids are at least 10, for optimal happiness all around (not perfectly happy, just the most you can realistically be). when the kids are pretty independent, the women will still have significant career options if they want them. motherhood is a great thing, and should not be disparaged.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/france-upholds-the-ban-on-paternity-tests/

Theres no mistake in the title. It is true French men are forbidden by law to attempt to find out whether the child they are paying for is in fact their child or not. In fact, it has been illegal for men to attempt to find out if their child is theirs for many years. But a few days ago, the ban was challenged once again–and the government upheld the ban. Is it really a surprise that a socialist government disagreed that men have human rights too? Whats even more striking is that there is NO mainstream media...

Dan8267 says

Why do people have the wrong reasons?

For a million different reasons that cannot be neatly explained with "girls do this and boys do that." Society isn't Wild Kingdom. We have complex psychologies. Experiences affect why one person might choose a particular path over another. Abused, mistreated, popular, rich, poor, educated, uneducated, two parents, one parent because of divorce, one parent because of a death, large families, small families, families with pets, families without pets, working mom, stay-at-home mom, siblings with disabilities, siblings who are superstars, a traumatic event, struggling to learn, being a genius, suffering from an illness... there are literally a zillion things that help to shape the people we become. And even then, we are still changing. What you wanted at 20 probably isn't the exact same thing you want now.... and I'm sure it will change again as the years go by. To say that "men must do this because that's what men do is to deny your very own individualism and marginalize the richness of your past experiences. Why would it be any different for women?

rando says

It is true French men are forbidden by law to attempt to find out whether the child they are paying for is in fact their child or not.

Probably because that would lead to them not having to pay, and then no one would.
The other approach of course is to force men paying for kids they know aren't theirs, which I think is done in the US.

Incidentally, I think in most cases a man can tell whether the child is his or not. In many cases it is obvious.

rando says

worked for me. we were both 25 when we got serious

And that seems to be the pattern I've notice for all successful marriages. It's always a woman, alpha or beta, marrying a beta man who she started dating in her late teens, early 20s, or mid-20s at the latest. The age of the beta male doesn't seem to matter, but most of those marriages were ones in which the beta male was the same age or up to five years older.

rando says

women should get married at 22 and men at 32 imho

I would have loved to have dated the love of my life starting at 18 or earlier and then married her straight out of college at 22. That way you get to spend your whole life, especially the part in which you are making all the important decisions in life, with your life partner. Plus, men need women a hell of a lot more when they are young and extremely horny. To be quite frank, sex is mostly an ego boost in middle age. It feels psychologically good, but it's not mind blowing and all-consuming like it is when your 18. Young men need, enjoy, and appreciate sex way more than middle age men. I don't know if the same holds for women or not. I never had sex with a woman over 27.

rando says

women should stay home until the kids are at least 10, for optimal happiness all around (not perfectly happy, just the most you can realistically be)

I'm not sure about that. There's something to be said about having the income of two doctors and a really nice house and no financial worries. That said, it's not really an option for the vast majority of Americans anyway. It takes two median incomes to raise a family with a modest middle class lifestyle today. Granted, you can still do it on one income if that income is in the top 10% (six figures).

Just for the record, if I were to marry Taylor Swift, I'd have no problem being a stay-at-home husband and dad. My career is great, but hers is more valuable. So I'd be willing to sacrifice my career in that scenario. I'm generous like that.

turtledove says

For a million different reasons

On that I disagree. There simply isn't enough diversity in our species for there to be a million different reasons for any human behavior. It may come at a shock to most people's egos, but human beings really aren't that unique. Online marketing proves this every single day.

At most there are a dozen or so reasons for any single human behavior. And in most situations there's only three or four. We are all far more alike than different.

turtledove says

that cannot be neatly explained with "girls do this and boys do that."

Certainly one should not judge individuals based on group behavior. However, one can most certainly judge and measure group behavior.

It would be foolish to ignore the incredible influence that gender has on people. No, it's not the only factor, but it is the single biggest factor of life that changes how you behave and how you experience life. This is not a judgement, just an indisputable observation.

Also, acknowledging and understanding gender differences is not ammunition for zero-sum games. Understanding a problem is the only way to fix it. Gender studies are extremely important for helping both boys and girls in all aspects of life including academics, career, romantic relationships, and parenting. I have no problem with scientists trying to enlighten us on gender issues regardless of how politically charged such issues are. Ultimately, the more we understand, the better decisions we can make.

turtledove says

What you wanted at 20 probably isn't the exact same thing you want now

I want today exactly what I wanted at 14, 20, 25, and 30, a beautiful, intelligent, nice, and faithful 18-year-old woman who finds me sexually irresistible and all other men disguising. Oh, and a pet dinosaur.

rando says

http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/france-upholds-the-ban-on-paternity-tests/

Theres no mistake in the title. It is true French men are forbidden by law to attempt to find out whether the child they are paying for is in fact their child or not. In fact, it has been illegal for men to attempt to find out if their child is theirs for many years. But a few days ago, the ban was challenged once again–and the government upheld the ban. Is it really a surprise that a socialist government disagreed that men have human rights too? Whats even more striking is that there is NO mainstream media...

Not only should this ban be overturned, but the state should have to pay for universal paternity tests and any man who was duped should be compensated with high interest at the expense of the personal wealth of the politicians, judges, and lawyers responsible for the ban.

Heraclitusstudent says

rando says

It is true French men are forbidden by law to attempt to find out whether the child they are paying for is in fact their child or not.

Probably because that would lead to them not having to pay, and then no one would.

That's not even a remotely justifiable reason. One could just as easily pick a random person and make that person pay and it would make as much sense and be as ethical.

In fact, one could argue that it is a human right for a man not to be forced to pay for a child that is not his as doing so is effectively slavery.

Dan8267 says

That's not even a remotely justifiable reason. One could just as easily pick a random person and make that person pay and it would make as much sense and be as ethical.

I agree it's not justifiable. I'm just giving the rationalization: the French state puts kids welfare ahead of a man's right.
Once men were forced to pay for child care, they were deprived of their main leverage within a family cell: that if they don't like it they can leave.
But here it's even worse: they are seen as wallets on legs, and generally, as subhumans with no rights whatsoever.
It would be much better to give taxpayer financed welfare to single women.

Heraclitusstudent says

Dan8267 says

That's not even a remotely justifiable reason. One could just as easily pick a random person and make that person pay and it would make as much sense and be as ethical.

I agree it's not justifiable. I'm just giving the rationalization: the French state puts kids welfare ahead of a man's right.

Actually, that's exactly NOT what the state is doing. The state is putting its own financial interests before both the man's rights and the welfare of the children. The children are gravely hurt by having misinformation about their family's medical history.

If the state were to put the children's welfare ahead of everything else, the state would require paternity testing and knowing exactly who the father is and it would also guarantee state support of the child in the case where the man finds out he is not the father and leaves.

we have divorce courts, we have the concept of "equitable division of assets

--------------

DA PATRIARCHY!!

Heraclitusstudent says

It would be much better to give taxpayer financed welfare to single women.

Here's the plan I would propose, and I understand that many people will hate it, but it is both socially just and provides anti-parasitic selection.

The state will pay for anyone's essential needs (food, shelter, education, medical care), but the person must pay the state (society) back in the same real dollars at no interest. Until that happens, the person and all of his or her living descendants must accept temporary chemical sterilization or a physical barrier like a chastity belt. Once the person has paid back the state, this measures ends. However, until then that person can have no more descendants.

Some people will never pay back the state and the taxpayers will have to eat the cost of those people's living expenses. However, the inter-generational dependency on welfare is eliminated and there is an evolutionary incentive not to fail to pay back society. In the worst case scenario, society ends up paying to remove unfit people from the gene pool. Not a bad deal for society, and it makes future generations better off.

There is also an incentive for people to take care of their aging parents and grandparents.

Granted, there are also bad incentives like wanting to off grandma so you can have kids. And some people will try to use the system for eliminating those they find undesirable. However, I do think that such a system could be built while preventing those two things.

There is a moral question as to whether or not human beings have the right to reproduce. However, for men, reproduction has never been a right. It's always been a privilege that they had to earn. Personally, I don't think that reproduction should be a right since many people are incapable or unwilling to take care of the children they produce. But I do appreciate the other side of the argument.

Dan8267 says

It would be foolish to ignore the incredible influence that gender has on people.

I've done no such thing. Of course a person's sex is an influence. It's just not the only influence. To say that there are only a handful of experiences that shape us is ridiculous. A woman who was molested as a child is going to perceive men differently than a woman who wasn't. A woman who grew up in an all-male family; a woman who grew up in an all-female family; strong/weak male figures in her life; strong/weak female figures in her life... educated/uneducated... those who have more than the normal amount of responsibility at a young age (like a dead mother and the girl fills in as caretaker for her younger brothers/sisters).... Daddy's little girl who was spoiled non-stop.... and so many other possible experiences that can and do affect the way a person acts in adult relationships. Like I said, you seem to want to simplify the issue by saying that "we as a species act like such and such... and therefore, "this" is always the reason why women do x,y,z..." Forgetting for a moment that not all women do x, y,or z and for those who do -- their motivations are influenced by the multitude of individual experiences had throughout their lives.

I don't agree with what Dan Savage is saying below, but he is a smart and honest guy.

www.youtube.com/embed/w8SOQEitsJI

Seems like lowering one's standards to accept a mate who cheats at all.

Also, I don't think most people believe that because you are in love with and committed to a person, you don't feel lust towards others. You just sacrifice your own selfish interests for the interests of the relationship understanding that what you get out of the relationship is worth far more than what you are sacrificing.

However, Savage is right that humans are not evolved to be completely monogamous. Hell, the shape of the penis is a dead giveaway. It's shaped like a plunger for a reason.

That said, human beings are closer to monogamous than the vast majority of sexually reproducing animals. Monogamy is extremely rare in nature.

There are advantages and disadvantages of monogamy, but you simply don't find a high degree of paternal (father) investment without the females being sexually loyal. Paternal investment requires paternal certainty.

Dan8267 says

o be quite frank, sex is mostly an ego boost in middle age.

As expressed in the most honest song ever written.

www.youtube.com/embed/lQlIhraqL7o

Dan8267 says

the great deforestation

lol!

thunderlips11 says

I bet you $10 when she was in her 20s, she dated older men

alpha males for sure...she still has a good rack though

thunderlips11 says

Absolutely. Take Naomi Wolf. I bet you $10 when she was in her 20s, she dated older men. Now she is writing about how terrible it is that 30s-50s men are bringing hot young things to parties instead of dating "Wonderful Women" like herself.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/a-wrinkle-in-time-twenty-years-after-the-beauty-myth-naomi-wolf-addresses-the-aging-myth/2011/05/11/AGiEhvCH_story.html

From article...

And yet I did not feel the frisson of envy among the men present, nor did I see a bristle of jealousy from any of the stylish, accomplished women in their 40s. In fact, the mood of both genders was tender, almost pitying. The man may have imagined that he was showing off the youth of his date the way he might show off a new Maserati; but parading her around like an acquisition seemed only to make his friends feel sorry for him.

Yeah, that's not what's going on. That's a older woman's fantasy about what she wishes was going on.

Dan8267 says

accomplished women in their 40s

both genders wrongly assume the other gender thinks the same way that they themselves do. this quote is a classic example. there should be a name for this phenomenon, since it's so common.

men tend to assume women are primarily interested in looks, but that's wrong. women mostly want confidence, dominance, and accomplishments and will put up with quite a lot of ugliness to get it. evolutionary theory predicts this, since women needed a protector and provider to raise children historically.

women tend to assume men are interested in their accomplishments, but sexually, accomplishments in women are invisible. men couldn't care less about that. it really is mostly about looks for men, which makes evolutionary sense too, since men were after their fertility historically. accomplishment was largely irrelevant to raising children.

maybe that's not completely true. being a geeky guy, i was impressed that my wife was in the phd program in physics in ann arbor when we met and could help with my engineering homework. though i was definitely more interested in certain other features.

MMR says

alpha males for sure...she still has a good rack though

She looks damn good for 50+, I gotta say.

It has definitely been liberating that men are no longer expected to be exclusive bread winners in the family. The past has brought undue pressure, stress and early death to male gender. The present is bright and the future looks brighter. Enjoy the progress and embrace the change. You are free to believe what you want and live your life accordingly, but if you try to force the "return to 1950's" beliefs on others, you will get justifiably steamrolled.

rando says

women tend to assume men are interested in their accomplishments, but sexually, accomplishments in women are invisible. men couldn't care less about that. it really is mostly about looks for men, which makes evolutionary sense too, since men were after their fertility historically. accomplishment was largely irrelevant to raising children.

How about a woman who fits neatly on the plywood pillory, but doesn't have one of those piercing, shrieky, screaming voices. Perhaps just an attractive Sotto Voce.

Women should be rated by how well they can be muffled with pillowcases and linens. Ought there not be a standard?