Millennials oppose carousing

Millennials think getting drunk is ‘pathetic’ and ’embarrassing’

Binge-drinking. Old term for binge-drinking.

Not that alcohol is completely out of the picture, but if you go beyond tipsy in public, you’ll be ostracized. Maybe the same evening, not that you’d remember. It’s not just work events, it’s seen as irresponsible because other people must babysit you.

Mocktails taste better, are cheaper and you actually remember the social event while looking cool, because you aren’t drunk.

It isn’t hot when your grandparents or even great-grandparents do/did it.

“Today in research that makes us feel like old, drunken messes, apparently young people don’t think getting drunk is cool. In fact, they think it’s ‘pathetic’ and ’embarrassing’.

the hostility of that apparently
whew

Eventbrite’s nationwide survey of 1,023 millennials found that alcohol consumption is on the decline in the younger generation, with millennials only consuming an average of five units a week. Only 1 in 10 of those surveyed said they view getting drunk as cool. The rest listed the act of getting drunk as ‘pathetic’, ’embarrassing’, and ‘belonging to an older generation’. We repeat: Ouch.

generally a waste of money
Consumption too conspicuous.

The survey found that in general, getting hammered is no longer something to be proud of among millennials. No longer do young people brag about tactical chunders and passing out with their trousers half way down their legs. Instead, 70% of those surveyed said they’d rather brag about how long it’s been since their last drink, rather than how much they last drunk.”

It isn’t glamorous. It never was, we see through marketing.
Men are not Bond, and women don’t look good either.
Social media makes this very apparent. Cringe.

“In short: Millennials really aren’t that excited about booze anymore, and they think you’re a bit uncool for throwing back shots at every opportunity.”

One round of shots, maybe, for who wants to. Possibly two. But I’ve seen older people try and shame younger about not wanting to drink and it’s just really sad and wrong.

It’s the Boomer Mad Men thing, I guarantee it. Wearing a tie doesn’t make you any less the pathetic alcoholic.
Think of the celebrities who still do it, all trash. Worse, clubber trash. The kind to brag about bottle service (it’s a bottle, calm down). We’d be more impressed by luxury mineral water.
To be perfectly frank, watching aged hippies get sloppy, throw up on themselves and get seductive with people young enough to be their children is enough to put anyone off, really.

War on sugar now war on chocolate by Big Brother

Can we kill the Nanny of the State already?
The politicians who push these laws through and the teachers who search kid’s bags for sweets like they’re guns (illegal but happens) are ALL lard-arses.

Chocolate bars ‘to shrink by 20%’ in bid to tackle child obesity

fine, I won’t buy those bars, neither will anyone else

adults have the money and won’t buy supposed child portions

communists can’t do market forces
nothing to do with currency devaluation, to pay for the newcomers, I’m sure
war on chocolate, never a war on alcohol, which contains the most natural sugar and empty calories without any balancing ingredients
name and shame companies providing what is promised? trading standards anyone?
ooh some cuck penpusher is mad at you, better run and hide those profits because they can smell money and it makes them angry
irony is working class children used to gorge thousands of calories in chocolate during the industrial revolution, to have the energy from the cheap chocolate to work; it’s actually antibiotics, GFS and carbs like bread making them fat

omg shut up stupid dumb idiots argh ahhhh hiddleston facepalm deep blue sea

Use it as marketing, proud to rebel against our insane and FAT civil servants.

authoritynutrition.com

coffee and tea are worse for you
Fuck, why not go back to rations?

wait that would include champagne you socialist scum

If it’s about the sugar, ban it in restaurants, especially fast food – but noooooo they won’t do that. Ban butter too, processed bread and so on.
That would affect them.

The rare times feminists hit on the truth

I wanted to give them a fair hearing. It’s like a tiny grain of sand within the pearl of lies. This refreshing collection took a while to add up.
I like to think of these as Original Feminists, back when they had standards that everyone held to.

12549027_1020301234682070_4174465352468957216_n

THANK YOU.
Honestly folks, it’s that simple. The person committing the crime is the criminal! The innocent person is the victim!
FINALLY.
940931_1022204501158410_829242774044190240_n

The term comes from a guy who wanted to fuck his own mother so badly he assumed every other man in the world must too. Mummy Issues is a thing as much as Daddy Issues. Same for penis envy and womb envy, it’s two sides of the same coin. If one is valid, so is the other.

12509509_1288432604641267_2059716406532880195_n

What often goes unmentioned is the reason for being gradual about it. The pure vitriol women get for putting down a gamma or lower upfront. Another aspect is how romantic relationships are not owed to anyone, and the bitchy type often lie in the beginning about their intentions (like some FWB women), amping up the friend element and leading into “we’re such good friends” and trying to segue into a girlfriend situation. As if we’re stupid.

cuntword

Irony that it took a man to point this out.

assaultanddrinks

It’s never ‘just a drink’. They think they’re buying you. Like a sex slave.
And they think you’re cheap.

At least whores are paid in cash, market rate, based on time and services rendered.
Hook-up culture is just hooker culture, fooling itself.

catcalling

The intended purpose is to make you feel bad because they know you’re out of their league. They know they don’t have a realistic chance so it’s like long-distance negging to prop up their delusions of alpha maleness. Those aren’t men, they act like teenagers. As if feeling SMV-inferior around someone is an excuse to verbally abuse them, they don’t dare pull that on other blokes at the bar or start on women walking with men, weaklings. It came from black culture and it’s hostile there too.
On the flipside, sex attackers often start with a catcall to test the intended victim, to get her to stop, come over here out of public sight, tell him your name so he can stalk you or they get a simple thrill from making a woman fear them, however temporary. The best thing you can do is ignore them or laugh, and that’s why so many women wear headphones nowadays. You don’t give strangers compliments, ever. Women aren’t dumb enough on the whole to try but desperate men think it’s fair game to judge while they’re standing in the street like losers and in addition, they think it makes them look less desperate for any female attention (no).

Solution? If you must express appreciation, a simple, single wolf-whistle.
That’s it. No words. No words are needed and you’ll screw it up.

12541115_1032880563445449_1806870584443679452_n

Literally me. Turns out they still blamed it on white men. For letting them in?

12573962_1020757527969774_4469542575472964008_n

There is no continuum or scale. It’s have or have not.
Sex is consensual. Without it, that’s the crime of rape. Whatever the sex of the initiator, I might add.

12615548_1021155484596645_2617871818339386548_o

There is a responsibility on men to know the difference between assertive and aggressive.
Former is romantic, latter is illegal (test: would you try those actions on a man who could physically equal you?).

12646809_1021597047885822_4040475063028680711_o

They rape women in hijabs. They raped women in petticoats. That’s like saying never buy anything nice and expensive in case you get mugged or burgled, it’s no way to live. This is the First World and we all have the right to show skin (including topless men) without being stoned to death. The responsibility for self-control lies with the tempted party. Feral males need to stop blaming women for their own weaknesses. Note: women groping stranger men is also wrong, the other side of Eve Teasing.

12647221_1022203891158471_6579726465610768773_n

Happened a lot during those days. Happens to this day when people have the excuse of alcohol (in studies, people act drunk with placebo drinks). They retain responsibility for their actions (including drinking within their limits) if they’re sober enough to enact them in the first place. Sober enough to do it? Sober enough to know better. Grabbing and kissing someone who isn’t interested ain’t right. Being in a club isn’t an excuse either, you wouldn’t be able to behave like that in a brothel ffs.

maleentitlement

Men can handle rejection as time saved. Boys take it personally.
Men have more experience of interpersonal rejection than women, usually. However, they also have more interpersonal opportunities as the approaching party.

means out of your league

I’ve heard some lower status men dispute the existence of leagues.
The veiled term men use for a woman out of their league is ‘high maintenance’, among others.

myreligion

Includes all belief, including political.
from the “You can’t call her Bruce!” pronoun people

objecticatoninmedia

Men say they’d be totally fine about male objectification until it happens.
Then they point and shriek like banshees because it makes them feel insecure…..
….. and how do you think we feel?

Get over it, like we do. Woman up. Stop taking it so personally. We probably aren’t comparing you to underwear models, because let’s face it, you’d lose.

takingitpersonal

Another stellar example of “You’re proving our point for us.”

We predict you’ll do XYZ when we use the male trigger word ‘misogyny’ in any context.

*XYZ happens*

Told ya so. 

Quit being so bloody predictable, if you didn’t feed them with instances of trolling or insults, they’d fizzle out and get real jobs.

Misogyny has recently made otherwise sensible men a laughing stock in the public eye, it practically makes them foam at the mouth whatever the bones of the argument being discussed. They lose it. Aren’t they meant to be the rational ones, as they claim?

Manosphere wrong on evolution again

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/the-science-of-sex-most-important.html

I mentioned parental choice obliterates most of their theories. In favour of Dad-types. In evolutionary terms, the man who reproduces is the Alpha. Notches count for nada. It’s like the spergs who record a tally of all the sexual acts they’ve done with a woman. Like, do you want a medal? It’s somewhere here just check the evolution tag, probably. Maybe the little girls marrying creepy old men myth.

No matter how much evidence stacks against their silly little notions of supremacy, they’ll never admit they’re being unscientific. Sometimes, we’re worse than the feminists.

This aims to be a neat summary. Neat explanations are frequently superior.

The system of parental sexual choice seems to be unique to humans – which makes it a matter of exceptional biological interest: we may be the only species that has not evolved to choose our own mates.

<laughs in CH’s direction>

…Another way of describing this is that parents screen or filter prospective spouses – and individual preferences only work within this pre-screened and filtered population. Consequently, modern men and women are not adapted to select a partner from an unscreened population – and not equipped with the proper instincts to assist their choice; so they are vulnerable to deception and exploitation.

Much like a…. game….

…In sum (and in terms of their biological fitness) modern men are too worried about working hard, and not worried enough about meeting and impressing individual women.

The opposite of MGTOW. (lmao)

So men and women who are apparently, in biological and historical terms, extremely well-qualified as potential husbands and wives, remain unmarried and childless in large and increasing numbers.

Social Alphas.

…Another omission is the role of intoxication by alcohol and drugs. Much of modern sexual behaviour is initiated in parties, bars and nightclubs; and occurs more-or-less under the influence of intoxicants – and this in itself deranges delicate brain functioning and destroys the benefits of behavioural adaptations that may have taken centuries or millennia to evolve.

An intoxicated person is maladaptive.

The first thing a traditional society would do is ban nightclubs.

Nanny State turns its evil eye to alcoholics

Are you watching closely, America? This could be you.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/melanie-mcdonagh/2014/08/forget-warnings-and-labels-make-problem-drinkers-pay-for-their-excess/

It’s fair, they take up most A&Es on Friday and Saturday nights. Modern alcohol is too strong and too cheap.
First, they came for the smokers. Then, they came for the biscuits. Now, they come for the booze. The Nanny State will not stop.  The champagne socialists may object, but their precious EU would uphold it in the name of health. You see, when you have a socialist healthcare system with overburdened infrastructure, a selfish aging population and unending immigration leeches, it looks to cut corners, and people daring to enjoy themselves are first for the chop, because that’s unequal.

I welcome the move, because I can handle my drink very well, and it would turn most young people against the Left faster than banning nightclubs.

Prediction: likely STD treatment (especially precious antibiotics) for the promiscuous slags/manwhores next. Expect it to be shoe-horned in under ‘sex addiction’ enabling.

Far-left Royal Holloway Student’s Union will refuse to serve alcohol to drunk students

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/05/28/NUS-Try-To-Cut-Alcohol-On-Campus

You couldn’t invent a better satire story. Apply it to other London Universities, we dare you.

Sugar they're going down.Remember kids: Under Communism, alcohol is a luxury!

Drugs #101: Addiction and Physical Dependence

They’re completely separate things.
A drug is a typically organic substance that can impair physiological functioning or kill when given to the healthy population and a drug as medicine is a chemical composition that will repair your improper bodily functioning or you will die without it in an individual body, long term. Addicts may develop non-medicinal physical dependence but medically-obligated physical dependents are not addicts per se.

A drug user with medical physical dependence only can take a processed form of their medicine without the psychological effects (commonly a high) very happily whereas an addict would require the high, the specific form of drug is merely a trigger for the brain created by past memories of use by the amygdala. These extreme-intensity usage memories create many of the symptoms of withdrawal (psychosomatic) and delude the brain into believing it genuinely needs the drug e.g. claims marijuana is as healthy as a vitamin and the push to normalize (the societal danger of addict populations, social contagion and acceptability).

The sole cause of addiction beyond a doubt is beginning use in the first place. It is impossible to be addicted to (or physically dependent on) a substance the body (and brain) has never experienced. This is a self-selecting type of stupidity (hubris/arrogance) regularly found in teenagers (immature prefrontal cortex) because such users do not think or disbelieve their mind could be compromised by addiction. Their brains already create this illusion to necessitate the anticipated reward (high) prior to initial use or they wouldn’t take it (such as the processed form with no high). The foolproof layman method to test for addiction is simple: substance deprivation for a year. Prepare for a list of excuses.

A physical dependency is often created by doctors to treat patients with chronic conditions, usually chronic pain symptoms (ongoing). Addicts try to ape this category (some sincerely, others deceptively) but are increasingly thwarted by processed (reward-weakened) variants of their poison. Specific advocates for drug legalization ignore the essential fact of escalation and compensation. As part of the brain’s hedonic treadmill, it craves increasingly more of the reward from use, compelling drug users to harder toxins (harder reward, creating deeper addiction and physical damage) and this is the biological component of addiction that makes the habitual behaviour of use so challenging to physically extinguish from the brain.

Physical dependency creates withdrawal symptoms too but the patient’s individual physical needs (inc. not dying) and substance type distinguish this from addicts e.g. insulin to a diabetic.The human brain is connected to facilitate the reward response feedback loops because they are evolutionally guided by the basic needs to survive (food, water, sex) and this is why there is no such thing as a food addict, water addict or sex addict, merely people with impulse control issues seeking a social ‘displacement of responsibility’. Beyond these essential elements for the sustenance of our individual life and species general, anything chemical creating a vacuous boost in the reward system is a drug, whether you like it or not. Drug users resent the stigma for their activities whether or not their poison is legal (ethanol/alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, cocaine etc) because the positive emotional response loop (dopamine, serotonin release) caused by their usage memories creates defensive dissonance when challenged by non-users. Even polite persistent enquiry can sometimes trigger a psychotic episode where the patient is completely detached from reality and VERY DANGEROUS. This is why trained professionals intervene. In the latter stages, the drug/s become integrated into personal identity and extraction or therapeutic measures become unlikely to resolve the issue without constant medical care (rehabilitation facilities). Moreover, this reduces the risk of sudden death caused by the somatic shock of going ‘clean’ and allows overall physiological strength to be built up (reverse what the drugs did) while the problem is gradually resolved.

If a substance exists in a natural form within, say, a foodstuff, it is not addictive because food reward circuits are natural and normal and can never be extinguished. This is why milk (dairy), sugar, chocolate, chilli, coffee and caffeine ‘addiction’ is a misnomer. However, a person habitually needing a purified artificial version of these may constitute a non-medical physical dependence or perhaps a behavioural addiction e.g. alcoholism. Behavioural addictions require holistic (whole life) perspective for diagnosis e.g. someone who works online cannot be an internet addict if those hours online constitute their occupation (add to their success and life) and they can easily disconnect for a while. Behavioural addictions where they do exist are more accurately termed compulsions and relate to personality disorders or obsessions created by unmet needs. Substitution is the norm where one behaviour is broken, another is taken up. Social contagion is a significant factor for poor impulse control. Behavioural or result-based addictions when positive are discounted for lack of stigma nor bodily harm e.g. ‘high’ grades, promotion (power/status boost), painting. However, they can display withdrawal symptoms from endogenous neurotransmittor levels e.g. low serotonin creates acute compulsiveness completing the cycle to repeat a rewarding behaviour and low dopamine creates psychomotor agitation including pacing and fidgeting, also apathy, chosen social isolation and anhedonia (nothing is enjoyable and everything fast becomes boring).

 

By most definitions, Sherlock Holmes is not an addict. However, he qualifies as an addictive personality with a high arousal threshold and high need for cognition.

By most definitions, Sherlock Holmes is not an addict. However, he qualifies as an addictive personality with a high arousal threshold and excessively superhuman high need for cognition.

Related terms: Dosage Response Curve and (innate) Arousal Thresholds causative of addictive personality tendency.

Post inspired by this video, Sherlock Holmes’ withdrawal symptoms

Mark the positive addiction withdrawal symptoms from endogenous behaviour-triggered stimulation.

And yes, you can be addicted to love.