Pro-casual sex likely to be psychopaths + Chad myths

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/darwins-subterranean-world/201902/why-are-there-so-many-jerks-in-the-world

The Chad trope has no actual basis in psychology. Journalists lie.

http://www.epjournal.net/articles/bodily-attractiveness-and-egalitarianism-are-negatively-related-in-males/

Anti-equalism is politics, not personality.
Attractive men are likelier right-wing (genetic attractiveness) and they didn’t study personality but attitudes.
Political attitudes.

Left-wing men score ‘better’ on generosity games because they believe resources are infinite, this does not make them kinder people. Lab conditions are not reality.
Actually when competing in studies, socialists cheat.

Attitudes are not personality.
“People who tended to favor their group over themselves were scored as more altruistic/egalitarian.”
Measure of self-loathing or social desirability bias/lying.
The fatter men would score higher…

“People who preferred socialism more were scored as more altruistic/egalitarian.”

See the bias?
POLITICAL STUDY.

If anything socialists are more selfish, but they didn’t study sense of personal entitlement.

Attractiveness actually correlates to IQ which correlates to earnings. Extremes mean nothing for the population.
Some of the most bitter men are not lookers, saying hot men are ‘mean’ because they know the history and purpose of socialism is just blatant envy and disinfo.

SJWs always lie.

Despite the rigged method, “Results indicated a moderate, statistically significant negative relationship”
MSM lies, don’t trust headlines.

CHECK. What did they actually test?

“there was a strong tendency of raters to perceive that more attractive men and women would be less altruistic and egalitarian in real life.”
Bias. Attractive people have to reject more, from the one person asking they don’t see how often that person is pestered. Thinking there’s something wrong with a person saying No to you doesn’t make them mean, it makes the entitled show up why the source was right to reject. I’ve seen ugly women or slutty women try to force a man to date them or touch them, only to explode in rage at the simple assertion of a right to refuse.

“After all, why wouldn’t we expect for attractive people to be less selfish and more altruistic?”
Dehumanizing and bitter.
Control for SES, attachment style, parent/childhood quality?
Mean people can be typical narcissists and clean up well, their temporary attractiveness doesn’t make them mean.
Genuinely attractive are nice if you respect their rights. Due to wrong ideas about their stupidity, they have a low tolerance for controlling bullshit.

“In any case, I can’t pretend these results were too surprising to us, since we did after all hypothesize that most of them would be true.”
Not science. You’re supposed to not bias it?

“Our hypotheses were based on the theory that because attractive people tend to (a) be highly valued by others as mates and allies, and (b) benefit from inequality, they have reduced incentives to (a) increase their value to others by being altruistic and (b) support egalitarian norms.”
It’s an equalism study, Harrison Bergeron bullshit.

Egalitarianism is meritocracy. Equalism is not.

“Our results were also consistent with related research which has hinted at lower altruism among attractive people, and especially among attractive men.”
Context? [And no, it doesn’t, plus studies don’t hint].
“Why is this tendency more evident in men than in women?”
Then it can’t be sexual.
Why should you be forced to give your property away to others?
Burden of proof.

I can only speculate, but it may be related to the increased tendency of attractive males to pursue short-term, low-investment, low-empathy mating strategies.”
Wrong, more men see themselves married one day than women.
“Because they are more appealing to women as short-term mates”
Sexist and women are the less shallow sex in studies.
“attractive men are more likely to succeed with (and hence to pursue) such strategies”
Actually the most attractive men and women don’t sleep around, disgusted with other’s superficiality.
And hence to pursue – non sequitur. Men can think.
“Less attractive men, in contrast, need to be kinder and more high-investing in order to attract a mate.”
Look at the typical domestic abuse case. Not lookers. Criminals in general are uglier. This was found in the Victorian era.
Psychopaths, as covered prior, actually have a totally average IQ. They’re compulsive liars.
There’s also a confound of going to the gym (nurture) because genetic facial ‘hotness’ has nothing to do with your biceps.
Plus he’s implying all men fake being decent, which isn’t actually a Nice Guy.
Unless you mean r/niceguy
“Women also can pursue either short-term or long-term mating strategies, but unlike men, their strategy of choice seems unrelated to how attractive they are to the opposite sex ”
False. The sluttiest women are around 4-6 trying to poach 7-9. Sex is all they offer. The ugly mistress is actually more spiteful, having few sexual opportunities.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10508-006-9151-2
Men are more shallow, as as sex.
“On average, men ranked good looks and facial attractiveness more important than women did (d = 0.55 and 0.36, respectively), whereas women ranked honesty, humor, kindness, and dependability more important than men did (ds = 0.23, 0.22, 0.18, and 0.15). “Sex-by-nation ANOVAs of individuals’ trait rankings showed that sex differences in rankings of attractiveness, but not of character traits, were extremely consistent across 53 nations and that nation main effects and sex-by-nation interactions were stronger for character traits than for physical attractiveness.”

Good husbands are hotter.

Biased researchers assume everyone is desperate and r-selected.

“Attractiveness as a result of having certain personality traits”

https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03333351

Reputation is important.

Surprising no one, alcohol increased male lechery.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-017-0876-2
The Bible did say not to get drunk.

Old men are more petty and embittered than young ones in rating women, who are fair and more realistic.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10410621
“Both younger and older judges showed an attractiveness bias and downrated the social desirability of younger unattractive targets. Younger judges rated younger and older attractive targets as equal in social desirability. Older male judges rated older attractive targets as less socially desirable than younger attractive targets. Results are discussed in terms of cultural expectations of beauty.”
Classic projection, by being harsh on their own age group they felt better about their own aged situation.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A%3A1025894203368
“Physical Attractiveness and the “Nice Guy Paradox”: Do Nice Guys Really Finish Last?”
TLDR: No.
Do men like other men who aren’t douches? Women aren’t another species. They avoid Mean Girls too.
“Overall results indicated that both niceness and physical attractiveness were positive factors in women’s choices and desirability ratings of the target men.”

Facial attractiveness higher in the not-angry.
Weak men can think acting up by being angry or passive-aggressive will attract women. No. Abnormal behaviour is abnormal for a reason. Personality disorders, real or faked, aren’t attractive.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886914003626
“We find that “what is good is beautiful,” with personality reflecting desired traits as facial attractiveness. This phenomenon can also be called the “halo effect.” We can thus presume that personality traits may contribute to judging facial attractiveness and that the personality traits desired in a person are reflected in facial preference.”

Think about it, alpha males don’t have to be insecure.
Judging all men off American teens is ridiculous.

And bullies? Insane reasoning.

The equalist guy’s topic was already covered. This is why you must check up.

e.g.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071129145852.htm
“The study finds that individuals — both men and women — who exhibit positive traits, such as honesty and helpfulness, are perceived as better looking. Those who exhibit negative traits, such as unfairness and rudeness, appear to be less physically attractive to observers.”

Note: on a one-to-one personal interaction basis, not political.

“Nice guys finish last” – consider the source.

The ugly angry men are literally trying to claim they have a “great personality”. It’s absurd. Having a bad boy persona won’t make up for their genes.

The halo effect is based on something real. A true stereotype.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12147-015-9142-5
And rule-breakers are considered uglier.

Bad ‘boys’ are the balding smelly guy at the bar with a pot belly ten years after high school.

https://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/education/childhood-bullying-adult-health-wealth-crime-social-outcomes-longitudinal/
“Involvement with bullying in any role — bully, victim, or bully-victim — was associated with negative financial, health, behavioral and social outcomes later in life.”
They are at high risk of low IQ habits.
“Bullies were at high risk for later psychiatric problems, regular smoking, and risky or illegal behaviors, including felonies, substance use and self-reported illegal behavior. …All groups were at risk for being impoverished in young adulthood and having difficulty keeping jobs. Both bullies and bully-victims displayed impaired educational attainment. There were no significant differences across groups in the likelihood of being married, having children, or being divorced, but social relationships were disrupted for all subjects who had bullied or been bullied.”

The unstable men who try to make others (including women) absorb their anger are simply defective.
Bullies haven’t actually matured. They’re just weaklings, all groups have them. Low emotional intelligence.
http://www.keepyourchildsafe.org/bullying/consequences-for-bullies.html

“What happens to many bullies is that their social development becomes stuck at the point where they win power and prestige through bullying, and they tend not to progress toward individuation and empathy as adolescents usually do. They get left behind.” – Sullovan, Cleary & Sullovan

“They are more likely to commit acts of domestic violence and child abuse in their adult life”
“Bullies are more likely to commit crimes, with a 4-fold increase in criminal behavior by age 24. By this age, 60% of former bullies have at least one conviction, and 35% to 40% have 3 or more.
(Sources: Nansel et al., 2001; Olweus, 1992; Smith, 2010)”

The death penalty used to address this.
Emotional retards who can only be aggressive and have criminal kids. When they’re eventually losers, this is just the consequence of their anti-social behaviour.

Who wants to be like that? What woman wants a guy likelier to abuse her and their children?

Back to personality, EI also (as covered previously) predicts occupational success.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4873083/
“Research on personality has shown that perceiving a person as attractive fosters positive expectations about his/her personal characteristics. Literature has also demonstrated a significant link between personality traits and occupational achievement. Present research examines the combined effects of attractiveness, occupational status, and gender on the evaluation of others’ personality, according to the Big Five model. The study consisted of a 2 (Attractiveness: High vs. Low) x 2 (occupational Status: High vs. Low) x 2 (Target gender: Male vs. Female) between-subjects experimental design (N = 476). Results showed that attractive targets were considered more positively than unattractive targets, and this effect was even stronger for male targets. Occupational status influenced perceived agreeableness (lower for high-status targets) and perceived conscientiousness (higher for high-status targets).”

Perceptions. Not reality. And they’re probably judged by the average earner and comparatively less attractive, a bitter bias. Like the average woman who calls all better-looking ones slutty despite how that’s actually less likely.

Men are deluded about the importance of genetic looks and refuse to believe in their own ugliness despite world cues.
https://psmag.com/social-justice/louis-c-k-assortative-mating-men-overestimate-level-attractiveness-83197
“Generally, the fewer men at a level of attractiveness, the fewer total messages women sent. The fours, for example, constituted only two percent of the population, and they got only four percent of all the messages.”
As a group, women know their league and most of them are smart enough to date in it.
Men are rejected so much by an ignorance of their league.
Maybe in both sexes the exceptions are personality disorders e.g. histrionic, narcissistic, borderline entitlement.
“What about those with so-so looks? Women rated as twos received only about 10 percent of the messages sent by men. But men at that same level received 25 percent of the messages women sent. The women seem more realistic.”

Average and ugly men actually ignore average and ugly women.
They choose to be alone.

Deny assortative mating all you like, marriage studies prove it.

Video: James Fallon, psychopathy and the dead amygdala

Is this an old drum? Yes, it’s made of human skin. Deal with it.

We’re going into virgin ground, it’s going to be creepy. You’re used to it with me, with me, the questions get asked and nobody can say I’m braindead, at least. We’re trying, here.

Cut to 14 minutes in if you already know who this is.
Limbic system generally, deep cortex, and the amygdala structure referenced first.

This is intentional. From a lecturer, order matters.

Reader, pretending to care:


“It’s not something you can get used to”
louder for the naive psychopath worshipers at the back.
You cannot train it, it’s dead.
“It’s, it’s – The first part that develops, the cortex, in an infant”
“Before puberty: They’re full of emotion, or full of- morality.”

You might note similarities in the way he expresses himself, and the way I express myself.
Academese, mon amis.

He means there is only id and superego, devil and angel, “the orbital cortex is intimately connected to the amygdala…”
“In a psychopath, there is NO SENSE OF MORAL REASONING.”
So you can’t be moral and use psychopathic techniques.
It’s physically, biologically impossible.
You don’t get to claim to be a cool-headed psycho, but also a really nice, prosocial guy with a strong moral compass.
They have NO principles, that IS their principle.
Everything is totally, 100% selfish.
There are “impulsive” people with weak orbital cortex (DS: need training) that shut off “but they know what they’re doing is wrong.” Hedonists, this is very important. That is why they hide it, the personal and professional splinter, that dissociate compartmentalization. It also preserves the ego, as well as public persona.
In psychopaths, ‘morality’ doesn’t connect as something to countenance, it literally isn’t anywhere in their head.
They can predict other people probably care, but this is if you ask, if you plant the seed and make them think, referring to the hypotheticals of the interactions they’ve had with neurotypicals.
“A kid is really moral, oftentimes, hypermoral.”
I can see where he’s going but fear of punishment, a little different.
Naturally, he can’t see the difference.
Children have a strong sense (moral absolutism) because they are so weak and helpless. They see it clearly, good/evil and don’t rationalize excuses to be a shitty person like adults often do to ‘save face’, in part because no one would listen anyway. They’re not allowed excuses, only to obey the rules.
Where it’s “turned off” is epigenetic switching.
A psychopath has no instinct for what’s right. A latent psychopath still doesn’t, but they’re less inclined to act out, the
so-called successful sociopath. They can comply with the right authorities.

“Ethics is the rules of the game, psychopaths really know the rules of the game. They understand what you think and can therefore, play off it, but there’s no INNER sense of morality.

Empty, hollow, dead inside (that part of humanity).

Culture brainwashes you out of what natures instructs.

We know now Plato was correct, more than anybody, where you’re born with an innate sense of morality, you don’t have to tell a kid ‘don’t steal, don’t kill…’ they know it, we know now that you don’t have to be taught languages, you’re ready, your BRAIN is ready when you’re born.”

Fetal psychology?
Could this be the answer?
Could this be a form of birth defect when maladaptive to its Darwinian environment? In the extreme cases?

The same thing with beauty, there’s an innate sense of beauty so-“

I love how that’s the next thing he immediately latches onto.
I wanna see those studies, God-damn… imagine it…. but what would psychopathic art be? An instinct for corruption, decay and ugliness? It’s the deepest heart of emotion, so it must be the flipside.
Beauty must be limbic too, right? It’s gratifying to see my own thoughts align with other intelligent people.
“We accept instincts in animals but we’re not above that. No, we’re not. That’s innately there.”
The correct term is biological determinism.
The evolutionary stages of the fetus in the uterus is also BD.
SJWs are all about opposing any form of it, that’s insane. Completely disconnected from the biological realities, since all of biology, to be philosophical and technically accurate, all of biology is deterministic. It all grows in a precise pattern like chemical crystals, there’s a process and structure – you can’t have a diamond that isn’t related to graphite. Deterministic. Rare word outside of ivory towers, like reductionistic; related in practice. We can reduce a human to cells, human cells are deterministic of the human species, we grow from those stem cells.

See?
Back to instinct.
“Unless that area doesn’t develop, and it’s NOT THERE. It’s a kind of a blind spot. For morality, in psychopaths, it’s NOT There.”

Brain damage? I suppose most variations must be… depending on the rest of the structure, naturally.

“But the ethics they can learn and they use it against you.”
The antisocial rely on everyone else being prosocial. Predators rely on nice docile prey, even intraspecies predators, well, especially those.
In game theory, if you never punish, even the supposed Good players take advantage of you.
In a fake game where the stakes are ego.
Golden Rule involves reward AND punishment, at the same intensity. If your understanding of the Golden Rule isn’t 2+2=4, action and consequence, then you have understood it wrong.

I’m going to stop at the 20m mark, please read the book and watch the rest yourself, I wanted to show – since I haven’t for a while, that there is sound academic backing for some of the things I’m saying.

They sound off because I’m not lying – school was.

Dr Fallon has also done TED among other things, he gets around.
He shows it’s possible for someone with that brain to be a productive member of society.
Great guy.
You can find interesting write-ups.

RETURN TO FREUD.

YOU KNOW YOU WANT TO.

Come to the Dark Side, the cookies are choc-chip.

We have biological correlates now, you can’t resist us.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/scientist-related-killers-learns-psychopaths-brain/story?id=21029246
“Conscience and a sense of morality and impulse control lie in the limbic system and in the orbital cortex in the brain, according to Fallon.
“They connect and inhibit each other not unlike the super-ego controlling the id,” he said. “It’s the interface between the intellectual mind and the emotions attending to them.”
Fallon’s brain scans show low activity in both regions of the brain.
“No behavior is really evil or bad — it’s all contextual,” he said.

[what moral relativism was initially, Darwin]

“There is a time for sex and a time for killing, when someone attacks the family. But it’s done in context. The orbital cortex adjudicates the idea of morality and interacts with the amygdala’s drive to eat, drink and screw. There would be mayhem if it didn’t exist.” [which label do I cite? degeneracy, moral decay, dysgenics, dyscivics et cetera et cetera]
As a neuroscientist, Fallon said he always believed humans were ruled solely by their genes and not their environment in the nature versus nurture debate.
“I never took it seriously,” he said. “I was the poster boy for genes causing everything. But I had to eat crow and say I was wrong.” [he wasn’t though, it’s still natural and not manmade in CAUSE]
His personal story was the subject of a TED talk that went viral on YouTube in 2007 and he even had a guest role on the television show, “Criminal Minds.” Fallon was contacted by literary agents last year to write a book about his experience.
He blames abuse in the first three years of life, combined with biological features that turn off serotonin in the brain, leading to psychopathic violence.”

Loudspeaker: Epigenetics is still genetic.

The clue, is in, the name!
If political left-wingedness has a defective, atrophied, shrunken amygdala (lower volume, to put it clinically), that puts them closer on the Spectrum of Development to a psychopath, I find it funny he’s a moral relativist who stresses his own safety, moments after discussing revenge.
They think you don’t notice their slips. You’re not allowed to question their authority, think Cartman.
Serotonin, again, implicated, again…
I’m tired of being right. So, so tired…
Why are so many lefties needing to be on SSRIs? In good times, historically novel?
What happens when the meds aren’t made?

Here’s the emotional reaction of a neurotypical to violence, in colour.


Literal coldness in the psychopathic. Cold, hard reasoning. Calm in a crisis, calm enough to coolly kill you.
No emotion.

In the ABC article;
“I don’t have special emotional bonds with those who are close to me –– I treat everyone the same,” he said. “I am involved in a lot of charities and good works, and my intentions are good for the world. [he lives here] But I don’t have the sense of romance or love I am supposed to have for my wife. It’s not there.” [broken pair bonding, faulty attachment mechanisms]

I’d love to see Dr. Fallon and Anonymous Conservative interviewed by Stefan Molyneux.

A girl can dream.

I’m gonna throw out a theory here, while I’m here.

K-types have well-developed orbital cortex pathways.
In the future, there will be no leader, moral or otherwise, who doesn’t need to provide this proof of moral agency.
Otherwise, no one will trust them not to screw the ingroup.

Think of the scope of this information, it changes everything.
It needs to become public, it will eventually.

I wonder if there’s a hyper-K version with mild psychopathy (to protect one’s own) and strong conservatism in the amygdala?
Can we genetically engineer for this? Where can I sign that petition?

Data drive: Psychopaths don’t have high IQ

They’re lying, idiot.
Narcissism is illusory superiority, delusions of grandeur.

“Narcissists and, to a lesser extent, psychopaths exhibited self-enhancement on two objectively scored indexes” – Paulhus and Williams, below.

How can you be dumb enough to believe a compulsive liar’s self-report?

I can’t believe I had to make a whole post on something this absurd.

A theme that could be applied to this blog: smug

They are not superheroes. They are not good people.

“Psychopathy is characterised by a distinct cluster of interpersonal (e.g. deceitfulness and manipulation), affective (e.g. lack of empathy, remorse or guilt), and behavioural (e.g. irresponsibility and impulsivity) characteristics (Hare, 1996).” from 1st study link.

They are nothing to look up to. They are worms.

Comment: Psychopaths may have a special knowledge about how to manipulate humanity, but their IQ has been found to be below average. Andrew Lobaczewski, author of Political Ponerology writes,

The average intelligence of the psychopath, especially if measured via commonly used tests, is somewhat lower than that of normal people, albeit similarly variegated. Despite the wide variety of intelligence and interests, this group does not contain examples of the highest intelligence, nor do we find technical or craftsmanship talents among them.Take a wild guess who might of spread the idea that psychopaths have high IQs. source

Or if you want a study before you talk shit;

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4720052/

Results indicated no significant direct relationship between primary or secondary psychopathy… and intelligence.

those scoring higher on psychopathy but with lower intelligence portray the expected emotional responses to the affective stimuli (primary: β = −.56, p < .05; secondary: β = .80, p <.001). These findings indicate abnormal reactivity to emotional stimuli in lower intelligence, higher psychopathic individuals, and suggest differing roles for the two facets of psychopathy in affective responsiveness deviations.

They’re more emotional. Because anger (spite, vindictiveness, sadism) still counts.

https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2015/4/2/are-you-smarter-than-the-average-psychopath/

Psychopaths command more press then their less cunning, weaker-stomached cohorts. But are they brainy, calculating sordid executioners or simply unapologetic criminals with brain abnormalities previously mistaken for genius?

Dexter isn’t real. Reading all this pro-Dark Triad shit makes me channel him.

needtostabsomethingdexter

The ultimate joke of Dexter is that a psychopath could have a sense of humour.
I feel this irony was missed.

It’s like believing in Disney Princesses, grow up.

But unlike the fictional psychopath superpowers beget by Hollywood, I assumed that nonfiction psychopaths are genuinely above average intelligence as portrayed on screen, a widespread assertion based on Hervey Cleckley’s 1941 benchmark study and subsequently published results entitled “The Mask of Sanity.

But in recent years the assumed relation between high I.Q. and psychopaths has been countered with evidence suggesting otherwise. According to the Journal of Personality Disorder (August 2005), a Swedish study well disputes Cleckley’s findings after thorough analysis of institutionalized clinical psychopath and non-psychopath males. This new data concluded that high intelligence in psychopaths simply predicted an earlier start in offenses and enhanced destructive potential but that intellectual acumen and psychopathology are not necessarily correlated.

not even a correlation!

ouch
fanboys put down your Bateman business cases

In other words, intellectual psychopaths indulge their dark side earlier and are more deviant than average psychopaths, who are just, well, average.

even the brainy ones use it to act dumb
No impulse control isn’t sexy, you don’t want something in common with a toddler.

The IQ data is suppressed because it relates to black versus white crime data.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Zach_Walsh/publication/8117226_Psychopathy_IQ_and_Violence_in_European_American_and_African_American_County_Jail_Inmates/links/0deec51cb7f6592810000000.pdf

Click to access jrp.02.pdf

Link expires, paper title “The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy” by Paulhus and Williams.

“The measures were moderately inter-correlated, but certainly were not equivalent.”

The Dark Triad is distinct, it isn’t one big blob.

Click to access 0912f50757f4860706000000.pdf

Yeah, let’s revere these guys. Sounds prosocial.
This one splits by race too, so no, you can’t explain white greatness with psychopathy.

The mean PCL: SV score was 2.67 (SD = 3.50) for the total sample, 3.53 (SD = 3.79) for males, 2.16 (SD = 3.23) for females, 1.70 (SD = 2.80) for whites, 3.86 (SD = 4.06) for AfricanAmericans

Am I the only one who did the reading rdj tony stark

Always yes, apparently.

Screech reeee all you like, self-styled redpills.

Table 1 is pretty funny too, not that these guys throwing pure opinion at me (ree!ing) would understand it. Since they’re the same guys throwing shade because they don’t understand IQ constructs by sex, I don’t have to explain it, do I…?

table1table1atable1b

it’s a good thing they’re genetic suicides and they’ll never find a woman to breed with them anyway, because they make me fear for the future of the species

so to reiterate, white people aren’t psychopathic, stop claiming it and fyi that’s such an SJW thing to say

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16178679

Blame Cleckley for the Sexy Psychopath Trope.
Ironically the ‘intelligence’ he claimed was female or feminine in nature- emotional and verbal aka the same type these guys believing in the trope will claim doesn’t count for standard IQ studies because it benefits women.

Here’s one on women before you claim sexism. Science doesn’t care.

cool nothing shocks me scientist indiana jones calm haha amused

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23551975

women with greater psychopathy traits (total PCL-R score) had lower IQ scores.

There’s your real red pill. Shove it.

Where’s your BS claims to evolution and greatness now?

Would it kill you to do one single Google search before humiliating yourselves?

Male borderlines

Borderline is already under-diagnosed in women, more often depression, histrionic personality, (ego, identity) anxiety or narcissism.

But male borderlines are under-diagnosed even more than that. Usually men are tarred as sociopaths (antisocial personality) if they feel empty, or narcissitic personality if they’re grandiose (faking it).

http://namimc.org/male-borderline-personality-disorder-know/

A lot of manosphere and self-proclaimed redpill types match this, and even complain when (other) borderlines are attracted to them, or plain narcissists (there is a co-dependency between the conditions in romantic attachments, the NPD feeds off the BPD’s attention and false identity is created like an ego plug, for both).

Red flags to look for include:

  1. Frequent romantic relationships (often too close together): Do you know a male who has been with tons of women? Did this guy feel guilty or did they feel admired? Believe it or not, some males with BPD symptoms will date multiple women (feel guilty later) and refuse to commit due to a fear of abandonment. Other males will “scare” their spouses away with their quick tempers, argumentativeness, and sometimes even physical aggression. An interaction with a male with BPD may include the individual saying any and everything to trigger their spouses anger. Their relationships may be frequent and too fast. Individuals with BPD tend to be emotional which is why some individuals pursue multiple relationships that begin too fast and end before you can blink.
  2. Drama laden behaviors and attitudes: Most of society, primarily men, would say that “women are dramatic.” Some women would agree. In fact, it is a natural thing for women to be emotional with all of the emotions and hormonal fluctuations. But for males, the drama would look at bit different. For example, I previous worked with a 13 year old male who would come to therapy idealizing me and his work with me almost all month until the final week of the month when he would become very detached emotionally and standoffish. He fluctuated between liking me and confiding in me, to rejecting my ideas and therapeutic support. During these “episodes,” he would also break up with a girl and pursue another. He would also reach out to old girlfriends via texting with the excuse that: “I didn’t end things right, I need to make it right.” This continued for years.
  3. Roller Coaster emotions, thoughts, and behaviors: Again, as stated above, most men are not dramatic but sometimes the way in which emotions are expressed can feel like multiple personalities. Men with BPD will often become “hot” and “cold,” change perspective quickly, or exhibit very angry and hostile emotions toward others. This is the type of person who will exhibit a consistent and stable pattern of behavior, perhaps even for a long time, and then quickly change into what seems like a completely different person. An example of this would be a teenager being a “daddy’s girl” one moment, and then later telling the father how awful of a person he is and how unfair his parenting is.
  4. Hot and Cold interactions with others:Some individuals with BPD really struggle with relationships and often have trouble with interpretation of comments, body language, and emotions. For example, a male with BPD might find it quite disturbing that his wife speaks to other men while in public. He might begin to behave oddly such as being emotionally distant, becoming easily angered, not openly communicating, or begin taking everything personally. This same man may later act as if nothing happened and instantly appear to be one of the most fair spouses you could ever have. The emotions of BPD are like a roller coaster at times and it can be difficult to determine what emotion the individual might exhibit from one moment to another.
  5. Frequent suicide attempts or SIB: It is a known fact within the world of psychology and psychiatry that individuals with suicidal ideations (i.e., thoughts), gestures, or threats will often use suicide as a way to manipulate their loved ones or somehow prove that they are “lovable.” For example, the man above on #4 might become so jealous of his wife talking to other men than he decides to tell his wife that he will kill himself if she does not refuse to talk to other men.In this case, suicidal thoughts, threats, or in gestures is used to manipulate someone else. However, there are individuals who are seriously considering suicide because the symptoms of BPD “causes” difficulties in various domains.The pain is so intensified including the fear of abandonment that suicidal thoughts may temporarily comfort the sufferer.
  6. Attention seeking behaviors: Some individuals with BPD (primarily adolescents with BPD traits) crave attention, even if it is negative. The loud attitude, the blatant and aggressive words, the criticism, the accusations of being unloved and abandoned all draw attention to the individual. Males who exhibit BPD traits will often cut themselves or harm themselves in some way and then draw attention to how they harmed themselves. Other males with BPD traits may engage in risky behaviors such as unprotected sex, having multiple mother of multiple children, domestically abusing his family, making threats to keep everyone afraid and confused, or entertaining a negative group of peers (e.g., gang involvement),
  7. Dependency/co-dependency: Co-dependency or dependency is often a very common symptom of BPD. As stated above, the fear of abandonment makes it difficult for individuals with BPD to maintain safe, healthy, an satisfying relationships. On the other hand, there may be times when someone connected to the individual with BPD begins to rely, emotionally and psychologically, on the individual with BPD. The relationship is dependent upon the other individual who may be just as (or more) emotionally and psychologically unstable.
  8. Anger outbursts but social charm: Many of us are used to hearing that sociopaths or narcissists are superficial, shallow, and manipulative. But we must also consider that an individual with BPD (who may also have other diagnoses) can become very angry to the point of manipulating situations or responding to confrontations/arguments inappropriately. Anger outbursts can occur more than we think in individuals with BPD.

To any kind of personality condition, they refuse to accept responsibility for their actions or the outcomes because it’s so integral to who they are, they cannot conceive other means. It will always be the fault of the Other e.g. so a gay BPD man will blame all Other man, a straight BPD man will blame all Other/ all women, see what I mean with the manosphere thing? Is that not exactly what they do?

Despite claiming to be alpha (no grit, no LT plans like a psychopath) and chill (apathetic), they frequently burst into rage online, in articles and videos and in person. They usually have domestic abuse accusations on file, but like a psycho, play victim. You can’t be the strong one and the victim. However, they’re highly emotional and try to talk out of this with rationalization, confusing it for rationality because again, they have no true identity so may think they’re ASPD and secretly getting one over on everything, but in truth they don’t even know what those things mean e.g. loyalty, love, rationality, they lack a sense of self like a baby.

PUA appears to be an excuse that all the antisocial behaviours are signalled as positive e.g.

I’m not a slut, I’m a stud!

Women don’t want me? Women can’t have me! Nobody can hold me down!

I’m not dramatic, I’m exciting!

Draining? You’ll miss me when I’m gone!

I’m not mean, I’m funny!

I treat them badly because they deserve it, and I deserve to be worshipped because I am Manly Man McAlpha!

I’m not lonely, I’m a lone wolf!

I could get any woman I want, they’d be so lucky to have a user like me.

When I’m cold, it’s cool. When a woman’s cold, she’s a frigid bitch and there’s something wrong with her.

Dark Triad are losers

He reframes reality to fit with his narcissistic delusions. Sleaziness, violence, stalking and perversion-sadistic games played at other people’s expense–are framed as “hedonism”,  “childlike innocence and playfulness” or “libertine freedom”. Lies are framed as “creative interpretations of reality” or clever “modes of persuasion”. Manipulativeness, slander and back-stabbing become, in his deranged mind, “Machiavellianism” or “cunning”. As the psychopath’s idiotic grins which often accompany his malicious actions reveal time after time, his behavior and intentions are as far removed from “childlike” or “harmless fun” as possible. “Freedom” too is a meaningless concept, given that his main goal is to trample on the freedom and rights of others. He intends to control and harm others: control by harming them, to be precise. 

https://psychopathyawareness.wordpress.com/category/psychopaths-are-losers-who-view-themselves-as-leaders/

Read the guy who came up with the clinical concept and measured it before you apply it improperly like a retard.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Without-Conscience-Disturbing-World-Psychopaths/dp/1572304510

It’s nothing to be proud of, if you search “psychopaths are losers” you find plenty of resources explaining their parasitism. That is the opposite of strength.

“In 1998, McHoskey, Worzel, and Szyarto[13] provoked a controversy by claiming that narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy are more or less interchangeable in normal samples.”

They are, so there’s no ‘good’ side to it.

It’s like saying serial killers are culling the gullible. It’s victim blame.

Even other DTs want non-DT friends. Clue?

Encouraging men to be criminals isn’t ‘alpha’

This is the stupidest Alpha posturing post I have ever seen.

http://alphagameplan.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/live-bold.html

The manosphere makes the simple error of availability bias: they base all of their advice on an entire sex, which exists worldwide with as much variance as men, around the narrowest of demographic bands: white American sluts with nothing better to do than hang out at bars (alcoholics).

You can spit in a girl’s face and she will still be attracted to you. You can call her terrible vulgar names and she will still be attracted to you. You can even beat her up repeatedly and she will still be attracted to you.

Do you want to attract borderlines? Because that’s how you attract borderlines.

Women aren’t crazy, the ones attracted to you are.
Once you hit double, triple digits of failed affairs, the problem isn’t the women, the common denominator of failed relationships is you. Dodging responsibility is such a feminist move e.g. women shouldn’t carry weapons to defend themselves, why are women being attacked?

Do you blame the people giving you this advice? No. You know they’re trashy when you got involved and you liked it. You don’t get to change your mind at the end and pretend you were taken in. The PUA-types like Bad Girls and want a Good Girl’s Happy Ending. It’s deluded as the career woman thinking she can pick up a man at 30 like dry cleaning.

No wonder these guys get hauled in front of the courts on assault charges and rape accusations, they 100% deserve it if this is the nonsense they internalize. Then play Victim like the bitchy gamma they secretly are. If confronted by such a woman’s brothers, uncles or father, they’d shriek like a banshee, we all know it. This macho posturing is now opening up the door to incitement, since when is attacking women a show of strength? I covered the reddit abusers trying to justify their crminal actions as redpill (using it as a shield, little cowards) when actually redpill theory is essentialism, traditonalism, that treats the weaker sex with respect because they don’t have to prove anything to anyone (this is all homoerotic posturing to other, decent men, who are naturally disgusted). It gets worse.

You can be a complete psychopath, murder your parents, or tattoo a swastika into your forehead, and more than a few women will actually find that attractive.

Kevin-Hart-Really-o rlly lies

All it takes is one sperg to believe you. These are the ones saying SlutHate are deluded for thinking women value looks (lookism). Hybristophilia is a fetish. It occurs in men too. That’s like say all men are trannies, and secretly want dresses, because a few men like to wear little girl dresses and feel a desire to self-castrate. It’s so damn wrong I don’t believe I have to point this out, what are you all thinking? You don’t know the female mind better than us. We don’t know yours better than you. Quit playing Professor Xavier and gaslighting already vulnerable mentally ill women into fitting your delusions on the entire sex (the ‘You Really Wanted It’ line is used by rapists btw, that won’t look good in court). You can make a vulnerable person believe anything (see white female Islam converts for a fitting example), but that doesn’t make it true.

The signalling to other men re violence should involve violence toward other men.
If someone challenges you to a fight in a bar, you don’t punch his girlfriend, what the hell is wrong with you? What happened to the manosphere (my guess, keyboard alpha entryism) to make this signalling reach the mass hysterical point where saying this is not only OK but met with praise?

I just.... I don't even know what to....what??

You have criminal responsibility and moral agency, you’re old enough to know better. So many people reading this are 25+, well beyond the age total ignorance is acceptable. Weren’t these guys saying we should hold men to a higher moral standard because they need to lead women? And to do it all to impress some slut? What sort of pedestal BS is that? No bitch is worth prison!

Have you actually seen Dark Triad people IRL? I don’t mean streaming Dexter on Netflix and feeling witty or reviving a videotape of American Psycho or Fight Club. Actual psychopaths and sociopaths? Have you seen what their life outcomes are and what happens once they’re past their prime (35+) and people stop putting up with their abusive nonsense and giving them 12th chances? When they’re held to an adult standard?

Read Hare’s accounts of psychopaths and read how bitchy and depressed they are and you will know pretty damn quickly these are people nobody should emulate. They hate themselves and their own lives and punish others out of envy.

You know what happens to them?

Dead or prison-raped, in general.

What marvellous advice for modern men already getting that Men Are Evil propaganda from the feminists, thanks for the show of faith in boys. That’s exactly what they want you to do, so much so I suspect this may be a black ops coup of the Narrative.

It leads me to believe the manosphere bought into black gang culture and genuinely believe criminals are glamorous, as opposed to the truth, where they’re as low as junkies and nobody shows them respect.

Going by this, any man showing deference to any woman socially (called manners and etiquette, boors) is a ‘pussy.’ Considering the type always slinging that insult (themselves losers), who cares what those manboys think? That’s the general attitude of every great man I’ve ever met.

‘Oh, you call me a pussy. Am I supposed to care?’ 

If you can be moved around like a little pawn by a word, you’re no better than the SJWs. If calling you chicken like Marty McFly will make you kill yourself, you aren’t brave, you’re terminally stupid.
Sticks and stones, bitches! Don’t react to a few non-applicable terms like they’re a punch in the face or an insult to your manhood.

If all you care about is counting notches, you don’t have any honour to speak of and everyone knows it.

This is meant to be an evopsych argument (women are programmed to like this – in the State of Nature, not the 21st century, numbnuts) but all the evidence points to Types. Plural. As in, different people evolved to like different things. Human taste is irreducible to a single demo, like sex. In basic studies on body type, a simple measure, computerized, we can agree it’s empirical, men thought women like Muscle Man. Huge, hulking, high maintenance. To this day, men dare disagree with the findings, as if women don’t know what sexually appeals to them, as if you can gaslight an entire sex into finding what you have sexually attractive (an anti-evolution position), just like the fat acceptance feminists (‘tingles’ is also an inaccurate term, the brain codes for attraction, a physiological response isn’t vital/instant as it is with men, it’s projection for the weakness of their own body betraying their interests, like we care), and they go on to insist that their bulking of gainzzzz is actually about women, instead of signalling social desirability as a tribal member to other men (the homoeroticism upsets them). Watch the way they compliment each other at the gym. Watch them. Hella gay.

Notes

Spitting in someone’s face is illegal. It’s assault. It’s considered worse than, say, a punch, because it transmits disease. Sometimes ranked up to battery without actual contamination. It’s a filthy thing nobody in the First World should be forgiven for doing. Live in the Middle East, they do it all the time. Considering it’s usually done by men to women too weak to throw a punch, this would be an aggravating factor for sentencing as an act of misogyny, don’t take cues from porn, addicts. They’re paid to pretend they like bodily fluids.

Lynsey [1995] is the case law relevant to the UK.

Doing things because a girl wants you to is beta.

Changing everything about your life around what you think women think is omega.

Changing your actions because of what people might think of you isn’t manly.

Being a cad used to have a social cache because it was difficult and could get you run out of town or worse. Nowadays anyone can get laid if they drop their standards enough. The glory has gone. You go to the nearest American city and buy a cougar a drink at 2am. Casanova you ain’t.

This isn’t school, who cares about being cool anymore?

Anti-socials don’t have good social relations. Duh?

‘And it doesn’t matter if you try to conceal your cowardice by calling it “being a gentleman”‘ – Not the words of traditional men in support of a Patriarchy, where all the men are forced to be gents. When they say they support such things, it is a lie and again, signalling, because men who truly believe that wouldn’t treat their peers with open disdain.

Compare with: http://alphagameplan.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/when-gamma-reacts.html

“He is a coward and will abandon most everything to save his skin, and this fact gnaws on him internally. Being so narcissistic he is unable to imagine other people not being secret cowards so he will regularly talk of being brave and accuse others of being cowardly.”

They have jumped the shark.

red dwarf ace rimmer interior alligator surfing

Sexual selection in females evolved for – Dads, not Cads

http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/sexual-selection-has-been-done-mostly.html

Yet another topic where the manosphere is wrong, totally off the reservation. It’s lies, damn lies.

They keep focusing on the sexual elements like teenage boys (perhaps in some part to abstaining from porn, a psyche fixation they project to women for the comfort of distance) and totally omit the social gravitas, a whole half of the formula that only an autist would remove.

Many of the evolutionary terms they misuse apply to the Marital Marketplace (MMP), only, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the Sexual (SMP) – which is sterile. (n.b. Abortions count in this case).

No, women don’t ‘sexually select’ Dark Triad. And if you care about shit like that, you aren’t DT either. It only counts as sexual selection anyway if she gets pregnant (aka all that PUA sex, when real, cannot count).

fury anger hades

I shouldn’t keep having to point this out. They’re straight up abusing the academic definitions like feminists using ‘equality’. It’s all one huge ego prop. On the flipside, what’s the man supposed to be agreeing to? When saying Yay or Nay to a potential wife? That can’t be SMP based. Come on.

They’re separate things. Completely. Yet the manosphere doesn’t play in that gene pool and gets jealous to be left out of anything (keyboard alpha syndrome) so they pretend there’s crossover. As license to pontificate on it.

Look at the life outcomes of Dark Triad and their children. The crime, the death, the disease. Psychopathy is characterized by social parasitism (makes you unpopular) and aimless (nobody trusts you). Their children are genetically inferior to survive (lower fitness value) and more prone to pronounced mental illness. Read Dr Hare’s book about working with psychopaths and how they think. They’re hollow, hardly human. They are ill people who cannot be cured.

You wanna know why it keeps popping up in studies? It’s a costly signal. It’s exactly like the peacock tail. It isn’t attractive for itself but in spite of it. When you look at the whole picture, excluding that piece. Any other signal works the same way. In fact, as far as signals go, with mentally stable women it can act as a serious turn-off, as in Proteans;

These signals often indicate that the sender is trying to decide whether he or she is interested in the “receiver”. However, some individuals, instead of playing along, will overestimate the sender’s interest and do something more obvious, like asking for a phone number. This can be clumsy and confusing to both parties, and understanding the concept of protean signals is useful for avoiding such missteps. Misinterpreting those cues and responding to them overeagerly is commonly said to happen to men more than women, although both can suffer when this happens.

Sound like anyone we know?

snort lol laugh haha hmph derision yeah duh really uhuh mhmm princess bride

Related: I’ve written before about both negging and plowing.

I think many of those newcomers must be on the autism spectrum because they just don’t get it and never shall.

There’s a reason James Bond doesn’t have a family. (Giving Archer one is preposterous, it jumped the shark with that one). What sort of Patriarch would he be? A great one? A good one? Mediocre? Deadbeat, often absent? In evolutionary terms, James Bond is a failure. Mother Nature is a bitch. He isn’t a Patriarch. He’s a boy playing dress-up. He’s the stereotypical man and he is an island. A cardboard cut out of insecurities (money, status, sex). The flash cars and gadgets give it away.

In an evolutionary equation, men who pass on their genes, secure a faithful attractive woman for decades and raise those children into success is the alpha because he is the Patriarch.

These PUAs count meaningless notches like arcade scores. Evolutionally, they don’t count. They don’t exist. The fertile value is zero. Evolutionally, they are virgins.

The term beta orbiter is preposterous when the manosphere admits these are the men who constantly reproduce. The alpha is dominant by genetic legacy as in lions. Whoever has the most, successful children, wins.

Inb4 “cuckoldry” – in the most promiscuous society in millennia, that rate is about 10%. Pipe the fuck down. 9/10 of those men are fine and we live in an age of easy DNA testing so I don’t see what the big deal is.

 

Shocker as low time pref predicts ability to maintain relationships

Proxy studied: credit score.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2015/10/07/relationshipstrategies/you-may-want-to-add-this-to-your-online-profile/

Commitment = ability to choose the long term over the short term.

What a shock.
Also a proxy for class. (Class similarity predicts longevity too, another surprise considering assortative mating).

“Credit scores are widely used in a variety of contexts as an indicator of reliability and ability to honor and maintain a broad range of commitments, such as rental and employment relationships, not just those involving debt and credit.”

Time preeeeeeeference.

The honor is IN the maintenance. Sure, I guess you married her with the best intentions, but that doesn’t change the fact you slept with the secretary, you know?

We know that impulsivity predicts poor relationship skills, and low credit scores may reflect impulsive spending behavior. In fact, one of the primary characteristics of Dark Triad males is impulsivity. (Jonason & Tost, 2010; Jones & Paulhus, 2011).

What matters here isn’t the brevity of their relationships (which might be agreed upon) as much as the fact they cannot maintain them. It isn’t an ability in their repertoire. They fall short, they fail.

Another study found that “Individuals who have intercourse in the context of hookups are differentiated by high impulsivity, low concern for personal safety, low dependency, their erotic approach to relationships and an avoidant attachment style.” (Paul, McManus and Hayes, 1999)

Anything other than secure attachment style is relationship hell for the other party. They’re afraid of emotional intimacy (and commitment, which is like emotional prison for them because of it).

Clearly, the inability to defer gratification through saving should be a massive red flag.

I love how attention whores brag about their shitty relationship skills. They wouldn’t do that with any other ability, like driving. Maybe maths, since these people aren’t especially bright. Stupid people tend to pair off again. Most couple’s fights are over money (generally, the man’s job, I should point out).

And blogging (public!) about a woman’s sex life without her permission is about as bad as posting a guy’s small penis selfie to his boss and colleagues: http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2015/09/28/politics-and-feminism/a-normal-male-reproductive-strategy/ These are the same type who’ll go on about a woman’s reputation and how important it is, totally flouting the trust placed in them (they’d make such wonderful husbands, that 4 and 5) to have a sexual connection.

The male will compromise his standards for short-term mating, but not abandon them altogether. He attempts to maximize quality given the tradeoffs required by his overall goals.

Furthermore, the vast majority of men want to marry. They seek a monogamous lifelong partner. Research shows that when asked how many sexual partners a man wants in the next five years, the median answer is 1. (See the research HERE.) Marriage is by far the most successful way for men to pass on their genes.

Actually, the masculinity of what was called ‘sexual congress’ was bound up in the virility of the Pagan Gods. It was said The embrace of a god is never sterile or some such. It had nothing to do with the sex act itself. A man who has sex with 3 women and gets 2 pregnant is batting 66% reproductive recombination average. Hell, a virgin who marries and has children with one woman has a 100% success rate. A man who beds 500 women and bears no heirs (the male incentive, legacy) is a genetic failure. A man who beds every single, fertile woman on the planet with no heirs is judged impotent (not the same as infertility originally, because he could physically have children but the problem was …psychological). It used to be grounds for divorce if a man refused or didn’t want children with his wife, in a time when women didn’t have much going for them under Patriarchy (which always sides with the K-selected legacy producers aka future taxpayers). Everyone has a personal fertility rate, and in their heart of hearts, most of us don’t want to be genetic suicides.

This is why humans are monogamous. It guarantees not only paternity, but male virility (when in the state of nature, the baby or the mother would die or be killed/aborted without his protection). Evolutionary strategies around fitness ONLY APPLY WHERE THE PEOPLE INVOLVED REPRODUCE. It’s like if I applied the archeology of dinosaurs to the Bible, it’s embarrassing, please stop. Evobio comes down to maths, much like game theory. Think of all the sterile sex going on. You think Evolution counts that? It’s a blip in the history of mankind, like men who couldn’t get it up. Nature is culling those people. They are self-selecting OUT of the gene pool. Let them! 

The topic of hypergamy again. ~big sigh~

Oh, now you guys finally give a shit about sociology? Now you think it’s real? Why isn’t it part of the subject called sexology then, genius? What’s the socio- in sociosexual hierarchy all about? They aren’t the same or the topics would be merged. Stop misusing the words again, Christ on a bike, read a book. A textbook. Or make up your own words instead of poaching a thing the means the exact opposite of what you’re trying to prove.

Expecting a woman not to care about social status (read; keeping her safe) is like a fat feminist expecting Ryan Gosling (he’s popular, right?) not to care about physical attraction (read: to get it up). See? It all fits. Quit buying into the undercurrent Narrative that the sexes are meant to be the same. Is/Ought is a guillotine that murders reason. If they were meant to be the same, evolutionally, then sexual dimorphism in our species wouldn’t have happened.

The drop of arranged marriages is actually nixing marriages of social advantage.

…Today most people marry their approximate social equals, and in much of the world hypergamy is…in slow decline.

This is bad for men. The same men who tried to leverage their status (often inherited) into a better quality of wife (works both ways, don’t it?). And patriarchs (fathers) who would only give away their property (daughter) for the best price?
Which sex is more likely to ‘trade up’ (ugly term) after marriage? Clue: which sex had practically all the active profiles on Ashley Madison?

Which one usually has the problem maintaining their end of the relationship (up to marriage vows)?

…Roughly 10-20% of both men and women are promiscuous, though the most promiscuous men are more promiscuous than the most promiscuous women. (Research HERE.)

They believe it doesn’t affect their future prospects (it does with K-women aka wife material).

Futhermore, the opposite of hypergamy is hypogamy, which simply means that men tend to marry down. As hypergamy has declined with assortive mating and the egalitarian marriage, so has hypogamy. The marriage and divorce statistics contradict any notion of hypergamy as guiding female choices today….

I quibble with this when it comes to divorce settlements but the general point is true.

Here are the reproductive strategies [DS: that is not a moral license] Jared Rutledge and Jacob Owens employed to get sex:

Rape

Here’s an example from one of their podcasts (H/T: Wj):

Young Jay (Jacob), after describing a woman as manipulative:

It was really fun cuz we had sex in the shower. Hospital sex is weird! And when she is drugged, it’s strange, but it’s really cool.

Papa Jay (Jared): Could she give consent?

Young Jay: Uh-oh! (Laughter)

Papa Jay: You might have violated some California laws.

Young Jay: That is mah bad. That is mah bad.

Papa Jay: Good thing we don’t live in California. (Much laughter.) 

Projection. Scum. I bet he thinks it’s rape when a man is drunk though.

For the record, the mother of the patient, referred to as “A.” is planning to bring charges against her daughter’s rapist.

Physical Abuse

Jared admits to “wailing on a woman with a belt” and “gagging her with my dick.”

Holistic Game also tweeted this dating advice: “Bitches get stitches.”

See it all HERE.

It’s like they’re doing the jury’s job for them.
See, the problem with jokes is that some total retard is going to do it, thinking you were serious. And that could count as incitement if it’s on a somewhat serious platform like a blog, certainly in Europe. These twits don’t bother to check the laws of the countries they travel to as sex tourists and complain when they get done.

No one is faulting the men for promiscuity. With the exception of the hospital patient, the women described appear to have consented to sexual relations with Rutledge and Owens.

It’s freedom of association. They were literally two-faced (the common stereotype I have no doubt they accuse of women). I doubt those women would’ve done if they had known the other side and that’s why the blogs didn’t use their real names (what social proofing, are they doing something to be ashamed of?). At least guys like Roosh have the balls to use their real name (although he lies about it while travelling which would beg legal questions about consent). A future question on the scene might be “are you a fuckboi or PUA”? for legal protection in case he turns out to be (you laugh but it could happen, nobody likes misrepresentation and those cases are pretty cut and dried).

I. Of the 50 women Rutledge had sex with, only 3 qualified as “carousel riders.”

He found that the rest were seeking monogamous relationships, in some cases agreeing to casual sex in order to get that. He exploited that opportunity.

See what I mean?
That right there is a social contract, folks.

oh shit damn fuck hell no give up dean winchester shrug

The rest is quite pathetic.

“…Women want to be swept up in an emotional whirlwind, and the more I tried to keep my “Alpha cool” the more they responded with flakiness or coldness.”

I know teenage boys with more common sense. “If I don’t show I like her – she’ll think I don’t like her!” actual quote, I was very proud of that one.

They assume you’re politely fading them out. They tend to follow. And being honest, did either look Alpha? Come on. SMV-wise. Come on.

On the manosphere;

“There’s a tremendous amount of ego, and a lot of anonymity.

…They didn’t hear the hurt, they didn’t see my mom cry when she learned how many people I’ve had sex with. They don’t see what the judgmentalism they are still engaging in did to myself and other people.

I am not going to be on my deathbed having engaged in these kinds of judgments anymore, this breaking people down into their component parts. [DS: breaking people down and using their broken-ness to manipulate what you want out of them, leaving them broken – those are the actions of a sociopath] It’s unhealthy for me, and it causes irreparable and widespread damage to other people.”

She knows she raised a scumbag. She sounds like a nice woman and he let her down (and by extension, her sex, which she also let down by producing and raising him, yes women think like that, on that scale of complexity). It’s little better than a drug problem, with a similar rate of disease. If you are aware enough to see the societal decay, you have a civilian duty to never contribute to it, maybe try to repair it. Social problems happen in shockwaves. Never be the rock.

Enjoying the decline is about not causing undue pain to yourself – or anyone else.

This article ends badly, the red-pill isn’t twisted, this information used to be considered Common Sense (e.g. women and men are different creatures) and should form a reaction/reminder to unrealistic PC lessons. A balm to the bruise. Twisted people are using it as a shield to hide behind and hide their abuses of the human condition we all share. I’ve written here this has become a ‘disturbing trend’ and one we here blogging might become known for.

Ironically, real sociopaths with low time preference (called ‘successful’) are almost always married, and quite happily. They slot right into the role, overjoyed to fit in for the first time ever and have a safe outlet for their personal doubts. Those men are not sadists and their wives love them. They make good husbands.

Dark Triad and sluts

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886914005960

The Dark Triad (DT) of sub-clinical narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy has been found to be related to competitive attitudes and behaviors, chiefly in men. Using a women-only sample (n = 439), we examined the relationship of DT with general and sexual competitiveness. Factor analysis indicated that the distinction between inter- and intra-sexual competition in women may be less clear than previously conceptualized. We found significant positive correlations between DT and both general and sexual competitiveness. Regression analyses indicated that DT, and in particular, narcissism, are significant predictors of general and sexual competitiveness. These findings are discussed in relation to evolutionary theory, and directions for future work on sexual competition and DT are suggested.