Link: Selling cuckoldry to wives

omg I heard this was real but really? What’s the point of being married, then?

aaaand of course it’s written by a dude

an “expert”

Men are trash. Trashy men. That kinda “man”. Who DOES that?

I am so disgusted but clearly Hollywood’s been warming up to this.

I was researching vintage wedding advice for a friend and this kept coming up. Completely neutral ‘marriage advice’ searches. “Hotwifing” is adultery, it’s disgusting. R-types need to take their shitty pair bonding to the divorce office or better, never marry. There was also a lot of random “femdom” kink, which appears to be related. While possibly harmless, what’s to stop any of that turning abusive? Especially in divorce court.

The new riser in common male sexual fantasies

(sorry for the riser remark)

come at me bro scarlet pimpernel

Cuckold roleplay fantasies.

Distinguished from actual cuckoldry (where the male is oblivious) in that the men who get off on it rarely desire for it to be real.

Ley hypothesizes that men currently live in a “pornified culture,” so that their sexual appetites can hardly help but be influenced by the lustful “realities” they encounter on the Web. As a result of repeated exposure to the seductive exaggerations of Internet sex, why wouldn’t their erotic fantasies begin to include images of their wife’s being ecstatically “done” by some powerful, oversexed stud (with whom they conveniently identify!)?

So they’re all porn addicts, it’s a symptom?

It only makes (erotic) sense that if we’re now subject to a porn-centric culture, many men—especially young men, whose sex drive is so intense that they have difficulty distinguishing between real love and ravenous lust—would be exceptionally turned on by fantasizing their partner as an enticingly provocative porn star, unrestrainedly exhibiting the wildest excitement in expressing her rawest, most provocative sexuality. And with a super-stud aggressively thrusting his oversized penis into whatever orifice she has to offer him.

After all, what would be so abnormal about a man’s being markedly turned on by picturing his partner as really, really hot and being feverishly lusted after by other virile males (possibly even more virile than himself)? Unquestionably, there’s a great deal of ego involvement here. For the idea of sharing his highly desirable, “temptress” wife (often made much more alluring through his imaginings than might actually be the case) enables him to puff up with pride that, finally, he’s the one that retains ultimate “ownership” of her. Chauvinistic as it may be, what could possibly boost a man’s testosterone level and excitement more than indulging in such a narcissistically exhilarating fantasy?

…Pornographic social proofing?

Link: Assortative mating and class

Hardly any social mobility. No hypogamy. No hypergamy (the small-scale sociology theory seems to be wrong over many generations when you look at the genetics). I wasn’t expecting that. It shows psychology has its limits too, when they’re looking in the wrong place (teachers) and asking the wrong questions (how valuable is an education?).

What we see is clearly an argument for sexually selective Leagues. (Bear in mind, it would count MMV as well as SMV). It seems to be mostly genes.

The idea that this transmission of status over time has been as Clark found it squares well with another facet I discuss frequently on this blog: the fact that parenting doesn’t have much of a lasting effect on children’s outcomes.

Although parenting can let the team down if it’s atrocious (i.e. modern) and without instinct. But it seems later generations might have hope of regaining lost ground. Presumably there’s regression to mean in parenting quality, and since most people are totally forgotten by the 4th generation it’s no wonder we see no effect.

The interesting thing is that even the people who take me seriously on this point still believe that there’s something their efforts can do, beyond keeping their children fed, clothed, clean, and cognizant of the basic ways of the world. Steven Sailer frequently suggests that the outcome of poorer children, especially those of color (mostly Hispanics) would improve if they had fewer of them, and hence could afford to invest more in each, despite the fact that this doesn’t hold up in adoption studies.

It’s an oxytocin-based instinct, but it only seems that the majority of the affectionate instinct actually needs to be applied to the spouse (in both directions) to maintain the stability for the children. Another reason divorced parents are awful. Also, I wonder whether this would change the minds of any cuckolds saying they ‘don’t mind’ if a child isn’t theirs, as long as they raise them? This applies to women raising the children of former wives too.

This study found that “cultural transmission” (i.e., from parents) couldn’t explain the pattern seen in children (indeed, the parent-child correlation was negative once you removed heredity). The non-parental environment explained the variance, suggesting that other influences, such as peers, likely explain the results.

Why else do you think mothers care so much about who their child has for friends?
It can predict crime, drug use and all sorts (peer pressure).

This issue squares the matter with Gregory Clark’s results. That is, when you consider other facets, education per se doesn’t seem to mean much in the end. Apparently, you can’t teach moxie. This is revealed by the fact that every trait “going in” that shapes a person (and should be relevant to educational attainment) reliably shows absolutely no shared environment impact.

The Middle Class fallacy. Grit and resilience come into it too (the upper class have it, the middle class despise it).
You could put little Tarquin in the best school to ever exist, it won’t make him a genius.

…including one’s work preferences and interests, the presence or absence of mental disorders, and including the features of a person we think of as “character.” Parents leave no lasting effect on any of it, aside from what they bequeath to their children genetically….

The upper class try to teach their children life skills like grit too.
The middle class assumes it will just happen. Guess who wins.
We’ve all heard comparisons of our character or habits to deceased family members, right?
I would like to see hobbies compared genetically because birth order and sibling rivalry supposedly make children opt into different ones despite genetic similarity.

Who you choose to have children with is the most important decision of your entire life. No pressure. 

Indeed, when we consider the effect of measurement error (adding it to the heritability estimate and to the somewhat nonsensical negative gene-environment correlation values), the heritability of political attitudes and social values skyrockets, being upwards of 85% (74%) for views towards pornography in women (men). The heritability of overall political orientation, when accounting for measurement error, teeters on 100%!

Liberals and conservatives will be battling for a long time to come.

Bodes well for r/K.
I think this is why K-types seem so betrayed when divorced. Total speculation. I’m sure a lot of spouses cheated on would like to stone the 3rd party responsible. Religion is a good excuse to kill the competition.

(Hence the “shared environment” ≠ “all environment.”)

That needs to be made clear for the all  would-be sociologists.

But that’s all OK, yes? The whole point of education is to “shape” the raw individual beyond his/her genetic predilection, right? Wrong.

Education cannot change potential, it can only improve performance up to the ceiling OF potential, how many times do I have to say this?

The problem is that everything that comes out, the adultout comes, shows a shared environment impact that is also zero.

If your parents were screw-ups and couldn’t hold a marriage together, you’ll probably be a screw-up too. It’s the circle of life.

OK, so you might be willing to accept that you can’t shape your child’s personality or values. You can’t control his major life outcomes. You can’t even control how much money he will go on to earn. But surely you can do something useful, like leave your children a lifetime of happiness, right? After all, I believe, and advise, that a parent’s key duty, after ensuring that their children grow up healthy and safe, is to ensure that each has a happy childhood. Surely that must count for something, too,? It does, in the form of fond memories of childhood.

This is so brutal. So redpill.
The lesson is choose your spouse wisely and once you’ve got them, stick with them. You can’t choose your own genetic profile, but you can damn well choose theirs! (This is why women are so selective).

One’s lifetime of happiness boils down to genes and to the fickleness of luck.

yes lestat dancing happy cheery morbid black comedy

I’m one of the lucky people who can be contented in a shed.
It’s like when I was told Follow your Dreams and the money will follow! I was always like ‘but if you are happy, why do you still need the money to justify your decision?’, that art teacher did not like me, not one bit. School really is a prison but that’s news to nobody, frankly. You’re there to do a thing (pass grades) and finally they grant your release. Might as well game the system and learn other, more useful things with their resources while you’re there.

He will be who he will be. It’s only my job to help him get there, and pass on the legacies of all those who came before him. I did all I could do: I married well. Beyond that it’s in the hands of “fate”.

That’s the healthy parental attitude, not the Trophy Child, as I call them, where they need something to brag about like it’s a prize-winning pet or the Dead Dreams Model where the child is pressured to do what the parent wishes they had (a whole career, not little stuff).

The vagaries of the circumstances no doubt imbued good fortune on some and dashed the success of many others.

Whether your society (born into) was just and meritocratic, I’d wager.

But through it all, the thing that is at the root of continuity – DNA – remained the active ingredient to propagate lineages in their respective places through out the ages.
It is as it was said in the Richard Donner Superman films: “The son becomes the father, and father becomes the son.

Superman quotes now? Epic.

Video: The rise of cuckoldry as a fetish

Just because you’re married isn’t an excuse to be a pervert.

Forcing your loved one to do things they don’t want to, cos you’re bored, isn’t love.
And they’re always porn addicts, that’s where they learn it.

Most sexual fantasies, are supposed to remain in the head.
Any good therapist would tell you that. It throws off your power dynamics, you lose serious respect and the guilt….

Marriage is supposed to be sexually “boring” (by their perv standards).
Culturally it started with a request for a threesome. Which is still cheating. But married people doing this type of stuff? Save yourself time, bitch, and get divorced. Tell everyone you married a cuck, shame is the only remedy in this situation. He might even get off on that.

You’re supposed to be together. Just the two of you. Forever.

That’s what you signed up for!
Get creative without being weird.

Most women don’t cuckold

Buss is a #1 resource of social studies, whatever your opinion of this website. However, I would feel more comfortable if paternity tests were compulsory, we have the technology.

Women high in mate value can get it all from the same man

High SMV women aren’t being “entitled”, they know their value (and lower value men can’t stand it, no amount of parlour tricks can bridge a certain scalar gap).
I don’t understand the redpill trope of marrying a good girl (high SMV/MMV) later on. You cannot “Have it All”, nobody can. No good girl I’ve ever known would want a washed-up burned-out player (they mentioned the STDs, it was a very big deal, and the sexual comparison/trust issues). It’s the closest the manosphere gets to feminist delusion and it’s worrying. It’s like those types (virgin MGTOW poseurs no doubt) are just bitter that women still have options (when attractive enough) and could dare to reject the “player”. Or can’t they perceive female selection rationale from a female perspective?

10-12% of women pursue a dual mating strategy

It is no coincidence that this minority is the same size as the number of women who identify as promiscuous, seek short-term flings and go for bad boys who don’t commit.

And make up the majority of college hookups on campus. There is only a hookup culture among a minority, most students stuggle with simple dating.

In short, the men who diligently rehearse their pickup lines in hopes of getting laid are aiming for a small minority of women with probable low mate value who select exclusively for good genes indicators. Which would explain the very high failure rate of “manufactured” players.

I would add the players have no intention of marrying these women. Failure rates just demonstrate how short-term people (r-types) can’t pretend they’re K. Promiscuous people should never get married, for everyone’s sake. You don’t have to, no one is making you.


Are polygyny, promiscuity, hypergamy and cuckoldry pathogenic?

Yes, why aren’t there studies of vaginal bacteria cultures? Doctors already take millions of samples.
I would also like to see male sample studies from STD checks to ascertain % transmission. As do the men, I would imagine.

Is this why feminists are insistent upon receiving oral? Subconsciously trying to pass on promiscuity or cuckoldry-causing strains?

dean that's enough no more internet laptop shut no no no nuhuh supernatural

This is too much of a fuck-mind to consider all at once. It sounds scarily probable.