Oh look, a diversity hire.
A fine idea.
And an Asian too.
This is a coincidence and certainly nothing nothing privilege.
Oh look, a diversity hire.
A fine idea.
And an Asian too.
This is a coincidence and certainly nothing nothing privilege.
“often fail to embody the sterling academic credentials they include with their applications, and do not live up to the expectations these universities have for top tier students.
Less delicately put: They cheat.”
We know. We all know. They can’t speak full English, FFS. They can’t reason and inspire the way their personal statement does.
you, an intellectual, might ask: how is this fair to non-Asians?
To continue my thoughts on college admissions and Asians:
Many people, reading of the clear discrimination against Asians, become all righteous, thinking of those poor, hardworking Asians. Come to America, work hard, and look how the system screws them.
But that reaction ignores the stereotype.
The stereotype, delicately put: first and second generation Chinese, Korean, and Indian Americans, as well as nationals from these countries, often fail to embody the sterling academic credentials they include with their applications, and do not live up to the expectations these universities have for top tier students.
Less delicately put: They cheat. And when they don’t cheat, they game tests in a way utterly incomprehensible to the Western mind, leading to test scores with absolutely zero link to underlying ability. Or both. Or maybe it’s all cheating, and we just don’t know it. Either way, the resumes are functional fraud.
Is it true for…
View original post 3,568 more words
Theft of a future, too.
Not to mention the genocide angles of depriving natives. Tragedy of the commons, outgroup favoritism has a time limit.
I’d love to see an EU/Euro and a GB/£ version of this.
It’s r-selection in practice.
Articles like these are always PC, they’re trying to defend the ‘sex positive’ line.
At least it didn’t mention bonobos (red herring) on such a loaded question.
This comment is better than the article.
I disagree with the premise. If you look at Chimps… the females sleep around so that no one can be sure of paternity and they entire group will be invested in protecting the progeny. But in those societies males aren’t invested in parenting and they themselves sleep around.
However, human males have evolved to be invested in parenting. That’s why they develop biological changes such as increasing prolactin to help them bond with the child. The greater the paternal investment in rearing the offspring the greater the necessity to ensure paternity.
Any man irrationally terrified of cuckoldry in the age of DNA testing is flashing beta (anxious-avoidant attachment style) like a neon sign, why else would he think it’s possible that a woman would want to cheat on him?
[notable exception: rape]
Nature only has two options for that– either you become a lot bigger like male Gorillas so you can fight off other males to protect your harem or you invest in monogamy. If you compare humans to Gorillas we are lot less sexually dimorphic with only about a 10% difference compared to 50% difference. For monogamy, of course it makes sense that we have developed the biology to feel romantic love. When human males fall in love their testoterone actualy decreases and female testosterone increases. Making us more similar to each other. Both males and females feel jealousy at their mate with another person. Humans have actually evolved for monogamy compared to our closest relatives.
All true. Mate guarding is proof positive of monogamy in humans.
Why guard when you have others and don’t care?
Infidelity would lead to tribal ostracisation, the man would probably die a genetic death if he wasn’t bludgeoned to death by the genuine spouse (rightly, crime of passion) but the female would be left either with children and no provider or the children would remain behind without a carer and fall prey to a wolf or something, those remaining wouldn’t really care for the children.
Women have more to lose from cheating and the current law corrects this. Anyone in a committed relationship who cheats is scum anyway, who cares what happens to them?
Bring on antibiotic resistance.
OT: So-called ‘dread game’ actually attracts anxious women and makes them act out, not the secure ones who care. When you pull away, they let you. It keeps the crazies.
These have always been around.
They’re trying to play both fields, good girls and bad.
The simplest filter is to refuse to sleep with them, hence the infamous Nice Guy meltdown.
If sex is all they want instead of that romantic buildup, they’ll leave.
See how they portray themselves on social media. If they don’t have social media or heavily filter it, run, because nowadays only two types of people don’t have it: serial killers/rapists and people trying to hide who they really are.
Note how quickly they’ve gone through women historically. If they get over women quickly they’re either a plain cheat or a serial monogamist (emotional infidelity, lining up the next before dropping the last, stone cold bastard).
Good girls are likelier to fall for it out of unwillingness to conceive that some men might fake romance to get a higher quality of woman into bed. Aka Casanova strategy.
When the romance reaches a peak, ask clearly “Is there anyone else?” Other than an immediate, clear, slightly-hurt No, there’s someone else. If there’s someone else when you’re in full romance mode, he’s worthless.
See, he doesn’t want you to throw his lie back in his face later on, his social group will shame him more than he feels himself (clue: none). He’s hoping you’ll never ask. However, either party has a right to ask when the connection is building.
Worse than the honest fuckboy who upfront says it’s only about sex.
Thankfully, they rarely pass on their genes, too infatuated with possibility and The Chase to settle on a single woman. What single woman could be Perfect enough to bear his child, after all? He has so many to compare her with!
Leave the boys to it.
Seek the men.
If you ask cheating, adulterous sluts whether they want someone with sexual experience for a ONS, of course they’re going to pluck the first suspiciously round number that pops into their head. If you asked them whether cheating within marriage was moral, they would also lie. The MSM wouldn’t post the surveys result of a Christian dating website or an arranged marriage-minded one.
This ‘study’ has nothing to do with fidelity or relationships, they step out on their own spouse. They are incapable of that.
Adultery is the only grounds for divorce for good reason.
The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.
You don’t own your own bodies once you’ve made the marriage vow, the other person keeps guard over it, as they also belong to you, that’s the whole commitment! That’s literally the entire point.
The mean average is skewed by the sluts, once accounted for the median drops like a rock. About 4-5. Maybe 7 would be pushing it. To make the sluts feel better, many studies count kissing as sexual activity. You know, the thing you do to your grandma probably.
Add to it that men lie through their teeth. Self-report bias.
A quarter of the men have had sex with over 10 different partners throughout their lifetime. For women the average is a lot lower with only 4.7 sexual partners.
Notice all the dodgy wording. A quarter – over 10 different, lifetime, lot lower, only. Weasel words. Comparing a quarter of men with the whole mean average of women is not scientific. Yet the demand is to report on it in a way that hurts nobody’s feelings.
Relate’s 2014 The Way We Are Nowreport found that 31% of men and 21% of women had slept with more than ten people in their lifetime.
See the game theory of marriage post, those people deserve one another. Both are high divorce risk.
And men are the bigger sluts.
the largest gender differences were found among those who’d had sex with over 20 people (8% of women vs 16% of men).
Truth hurts, manwhores.
This is why you can’t find a wife. Even among r-types (see first study) they wanted someone less r-selected than themselves.
I know what a trite response to this will be, divorce risk.
I looked back into the manosphere’s and neoreaction’s most hyped finding: a study that looks at only half demographics. Just women, in a vacuum. As in, nobody has calculated in a study this divorce risk based on male promiscuity, so you cannot claim it isn’t a causal factor in marital dissolution.
As one comment wisely pointed out;
The number of sex partners a man has is equally important, regardless of the individual impact on relationships. After all, WITH WHOM DO YOU THINK HETEROSEXUAL MEN ARE GOING TO HAVE SEX WITH IF NOT WITH WOMEN?
Men cannot have 20 partners each while women all remain virgins. Unless you are advocating abusing women via prostitution or prostitution-substitutes (the young women with low self-esteem, no family support and/or no healthy boundaries).
We either encourage both men and women to limit the number of sexual partners or we accept that for each man who “gets lucky” a woman who might one day marry is also having (and maybe even enjoying) sex with a non-husband. This is not a single gender issue.
If anybody wants to calculate the divorce risk for manwhores…
This is part of the dataset they used (2002). Oh look, data about men! Finally!
Note the second chart that disproves the manosphere myth about women being more promiscuous in this century. Men are the sluts. For most of history, women were considered the slutty sex due to Eve and our short refractory period, so no, you don’t have the history excuse.
Education is also a factor (actually IQ, smart women don’t divorce, slow to marry, K).
IQ is actually a bigger predictor of female divorce risk than sex.
A bachelor’s degree is a 40-point decrease in the odds of divorce over a high school graduate.
But sure, too many women in college, right?
Once a cheat, always a cheat = If someone makes that choice once, they’ll make it again.
Behavioural genetics is confirming what the traditionalists already knew.
As for the neurochemistry of vasopressin, low levels of any count as pathological (see depression, OCD etc).
If the K-types wanted a surer mating game in future, a simple genetics test to distinguish the short allele (K-selected, monogamous) types from the deceptive hedons with a long-form allele (r-selected, high infidelity risk) would cut the latter off at the heels. It isn’t an excuse, but again, if they make that choice once, they’re tainted and should be divorced.
Imagine short-listing the prospects for your daughter’s hand, and your grandchildren’s genetics, based on this, oh the wonders of technology! Simply cutting them out from social circles would be a genetic death. Why do you think slutty people congregate in urban areas, where nobody knows them and they’d have to be dismal to build a reputation among their own? Why do you think we collect alcoholism, drug and sexual information as a bundle?
This isn’t just a marital issue, it covers social deception, this is just one sexual application of it i.e. K-selected males would be unwise to accept an r-male into their group, because he’ll screw you over metaphorically. And you shouldn’t leave him with a free house (some stay-at-home fathers) because he’ll invite over your wife too.
Most sperm are destroyed by white blood cells. However, here’s a horrifying fact about where it can escape;
“Once sperm cells reach the end of the oviducts they are free to swim out of the end of the tube and into the body cavity, where they are eventually destroyed. So many women walking around today will have sperm cells swimming around the interstitial fluid that surrounds their body organs. The female reproductive tract does not finish in a dead end.”