Illusory superiority (Dunning-Kruger)

Recognize feedback from the world.
Know the rules.
On most things you suck, as does everyone else.
A sense of oneupmanship is the cliche, the arrogance of male bravado.

You can admit your opponent has a point.

I haven’t seen cross-cultural studies on this but it would appear uniquely prominent in America due to social pressure. Yep, peer pressure. Real or imagined.

Video: How promiscuity hurts men

Society still holds polite people to standards but they need to be tightened up.
Anyone thinking they can have it all has been lied to, male or female.
That lifestyle makes you more isolated and easier to sell things to, to fill the void love should take.

A lot of men are gonna die alone, when they didn’t expect to. This will make them bitter bachelor types. This isn’t the worst thing, it emulates post-war conditions because only those who want to breed, will be allowed. Those who miss the boat would probably make poor fathers regardless. Men refuse to drop their standards once they realize their own, aged league for marriage after dating/fucking around a lot (The Tinder Effect), spoiling them.

Part of the reason? A completely delusional hold of reality. They become feral and believe women find the aggression attractive or hostility wise or whatever is going on up there…. they’re not smart.

A fine example is shaming Southern for not being married. I don’t even like Southern but holy cow did I balk. With friends like those? Well, most of the men complaining… are super-single, they can’t even date, so if you suddenly can’t be traditional before you get married (no, all the people I’ve seen were born that way) then it’s pot-kettle-black, innit?

Like, what is the line here? No singles allowed? Really? Society never operated like that. What are they thinking because it seems to be a feminazi=single train of thought and most of the world just finds that weird.

Or is it that they won’t listen to a woman until she rushes a man, ANY man with a functioning pee-pee, to the altar, because clearly such a woman would be a good person, a balanced person and have her head screwed on straight?


Good women are rarer than ever before so most will marry.
There will always be exceptions, but the same could be said of good men. It’s a slim margin of “Never found the right one” and they shouldn’t be shamed for it. But by the time a man’s clock loudly ticks at around 40, he’s old enough to be a grandfather and no sane woman would prefer him. Money can’t make up for autism and schizophrenia rates, sorry?

The sexual revolution was great for men. Young men. It ages old men out by the ick factor. Ick, he could be my dad.  Ask any divorced man on the dating scene. In the olden days, maybe a compliment… maybe. Nowadays? Who wants to be the trophy wife of a creep? Who wants to know he’ll die decades before us and we’ll be alone in the very years we need a spouse the most (after kids moved out)?

That’s how women think.

Assortative pairing evolved for very good reasons.
Men ignore it at their peril.

Divorces are caused by many things but disconnect in life stage is huge.
Ideal age gap is five. F-I-V-E. Lowest odds of divorce I saw were male is 5 years older than the female. Same age is acceptable, a couple of years more preferable. The woman needs to respect his maturity but not lose that cultural connection of growing up with the same references.

Stringers vs. winners

For those women who want to marry, common sense advice.

“We ran across at least fifty men we could identify as stringers. They can be very dangerous. I estimate each one is responsible for at least two women remaining single. They are destructive because they con women into wasting their time during the years when they are most attractive and most likely to get a proposal. They stay with women, live with women, promise them marriage, and string them on and on indefinitely.”

Breach of promise.

I can change him is my best vapid line. Oh, so he’s a tire?

TLDR Markle

My post from a solid year ago is trending and yes, I knew this was coming.
Harry is always the damaged rebellious one, this was never going to change.
The woman is a control freak and the Royals have forced her to tone it down, like with the make-up, to be seen in public. Did you see the way she grabbed his arm so he wouldn’t talk about her friend? I’m not saying it’s abuse, but I’m not saying it isn’t. Their first official appearance together and she’s sticking her arse out like a Vegas girl.

Possessive hand and everything.

She spent the interview on self-promotion. Nobody is here for you.

At least the friend’s details leaked anyway. You’re welcome, bitch.

This is the woman who dropped her husband, broke up a marriage to get a part (slept around with directors a LOT) and dropped her live-in boyfriend the moment she met Harry. She didn’t let him finish getting the words out to the proposal before accepting.

In a totally hypothetical scenario, he would’ve been totally hypothetically barred from marrying a divorcee. We barely recovered from Eddy’s fuck-up with a literal whore (she worked in an Asian brothel). Let alone an American, and a mystery meat one. That’s why they traced genealogy, to find out what exactly she is (supposedly).

Nobody’s buying it but we all have to smile and nod and be nice.

In public.

In private? Much laughter and derision.
Oh! Oh, the headlines!
The dogs like her, implying she’s mystery meat.

The joke went over the heads of American journalists completely.
Gets along well with dogs, does she? If only that meant something else in GB.

The only way this could’ve brought down the monarchy more is if Harry pulled a mantrum the way Harry has a habit of doing and hypothetically threatened to elope, to Scotland or America. The Queen had to give in, but she’s restricting them in other ways, like the shame location for weddings (Camilla is overjoyed nobody has space to hate her anymore).

The official response has been deeply sarcastic.
He’d previously forced her on the whole family at Balmoral, they didn’t want to meet her.

Corbyn’s response too, he got a dig in about how much ‘fun’ they’ll have together. He’s been with Abbott so it’s hardly a race thing.

She’s a two-faced clotheshorse who is given those clothes and accessories like a WAG. She loves the lifestyle. Would she be allowed to divorce him? Yes, before kids. After, nobody is sure, it depends if the Queen is still alive.

The fam is terrified she’ll divorce him, blab, take a book deal, go on reality TV, start her own show (maybe like Oprah) and maybe star as herself in a film about her life. I hope there’s a NDA at least!
Would a child of a foreign nation be legitimate?
Would the child be allowed to return to America? Honestly? No.

Update: why is this post so popular, I’m getting worried.

No really, please stop sharing this. Parts of this aren’t common knowledge.

Who’s afraid of universal welfare?

Who’s Afraid of a Universal Basic Income

The people who work to pay into the system so others don’t have to?
Everyone eligible = greater demand. Same supply.
A cheap answer but the most blunt.

Human labour is not interchangeable. I don’t want a plumber removing my kidney.

I surmise this would make the welfare cliff worse.
It would become all or nothing, for eligibility of other benefits. Sort that first.

Sweeping solutions fail.

For example, this is an ageless roll-out of the pension. That system is going so well.

Should it be illegal to re-marry?

After divorce.

How can you be trusted to give a vow until death do you part, if you couldn’t stick to it the first time around? You know, the way adults are held to all other legally-binding commitments involving debt and humans (i.e. children).

After how many times? How many times before we cap it?

The purpose of marriage is the security of monogamy. This spits in the face of security and allows serial monogamy, which is, looking back, a kind of fraud compared to what was promised. False light should come back into enforcement with all the other laws that protected the sexes.

At least end no-fault divorce. EMTs don’t use the term ‘car accident’ because they’re never accidents. There’s always at least one party at fault.

Why are legal bailouts allowed for cases that don’t involve a breach of the vows?
Jesus said it’s fine to divorce an adulterer. JESUS. And if one party won’t try, which is what you get married to do, how are they not at fault? Marriages require cooperation, it isn’t one-sided.

And can I bet on the odds of Markle releasing an engagement chicken recipe soon?
Fact: when they divorce, she still gets a title.

No such thing as common law marriage

NEWSFLASH: You want the benefits of marriage, you have to actually get married.

There is only living in sin.

Stupid is as stupid does.
You don’t have tenancy rights without signing a tenancy agreement.
Neither do you have employee rights without signing an employment contract.

You lost everything, years of your life, because not once did you think to fucking Google it? I searched this years ago and the Government did their job, it’s the top of the first page. You don’t just get to assume you have rights by the power of wishful thinking. Nah, I don’t buy it, you deserve to be miserable. You know who doesn’t? Any children, tiny tot ATMs.

That’s the real secret. Married couples have less rights to benefits than “cohabiting”.

The kids are still gonna be screwed up, the same as single parents.
Children need the security of marriage.

Room mates don’t have rights. It’s like claiming the town bike is cheating. Nope! They owe you nothing! A girlfriend or boyfriend owes no fidelity.

Marriage is literally a vow of monogamy. No legal right to the latter without the former.
Engagement is the fringe case with a verbal contract. Cohabiting means jack shit.

How many people even know engagements have a time limit? After a couple of years, specifics vary, the proposing partner can claim you never intended to get married, because you delayed and the verbal contract was rescinded. ASK A LAWYER.

Why do women take up more government resources?
Which sex is left holding the baby? Blame deadbeats, they ain’t paying for their little splunk junket. We are. Everyone else.

Bringing in bullshit laws would make modern marriage even more useless.
People need incentives. And price controls for wedding basics would help.
I was planning a wedding recently and OMFG. They’re just flowers. Stick bridal before something and the price goes up 50x.

For the scaredy boys?
Single male friends don’t want you to get married for the same reason single female women don’t want their friends to get married to quality either: less attention, less time. They are replaced as a primary social obligation in your life.
Married men are happier than bachelors, some are frenemies trying to put you off the Best Woman For You, like you’ll get a second chance. If she’s the best option, the prospect of fucking her repeatedly isn’t a trial.
Re-marrying? Having seen the stats? OK, don’t bother. If you couldn’t make it once, you can’t do it again.

It’s easier to write a sitcom doofus fucking up if there’s no wife to help him.