Science discovers freeze response in rape

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sexual-assault-may-trigger-involuntary-paralysis

Tonic immobility occurs in other animals, there’s plenty of biological evidence.
It’s taking years to sort out the newfangled ‘rape gang’ problem with the cheapest solution, a rope, because society (politicians) continue to labour under the delusion that the likes of Ted Bundy was just a serial killer and completely skirt that ‘serial rapist’ is a thing. Most rape is conducted by serial rapists. SJWs don’t mention this for political reasons and something something “stigma”. Like pathology can’t be a ‘bad’ thing.
Because why would predators be sexual predators, and derive pleasure from more than one form of domination and suffering?
That’s just crazy-talk.
Next you’ll say there’s some type of amygdala causing the shutdown!

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0361923006000517

Don’t look in that door!
Definitely don’t go looking for forensic evidence when it comes to rapists and rape gangs, that’s for sure!

They don’t continue to offend with full malice and moreover, escalate – like a serial killer.

This doesn’t constitute reckless public endangerment for political correctness!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/f78ad097-77d7-4ec0-8014-54ace0fc4b11
“I’m a man and I was raped.”
He froze and it wasn’t his fault, it isn’t a choice.

Die Hard lied to you.

Around predators (including the “human” variety) your brain does strange things.
It evolved because surviving with trauma is still surviving, biologically. Evolution is cruel.
In light of all this, consent laws definitely need amendment.
France needs an age of consent, for one.

Horniness =/= consent, this isn’t Brave New World.
Yet children are taught this. By the state. So they can blame the victim for, say, walking with a man or socializing. Summon the church elders, the slattern deserved it for feeling LUST! According to him. Don’t ask the adult man to control himself, perish the thought!

Imagine trying to argue that the other way, like if a man gets a random erection, that’s consent? Nope, the body is weird. Being “turned on” only equals knocking boots in porn. IRL it’s a non sequitur.

Court rules he cannot be prosecuted for rape as she did not protest

The girl’s family says she was silent as she was ‘paralysed by fear’

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4925422/French-court-rules-girl-11-consented-sex-man-28.html

Coming to a bar near you

or a public street….

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/woman-gang-raped-three-men-13525513

Why are women so paranoid?

You should be too. I find it deeply ironic the guys complaining women should feel safe with strangers (no?) often want to open-carry a gun just in case despite being better equipped physically to defend themselves without one.

Riddle me that bullshit.

nb

This assumes they aren’t choked, as sober (no alcohol or other drugs) people often are prior to any other assault, sexual or otherwise.

However, if they’re held down by others in a gang, usually choking is dispensed with (as forensic evidence).

Why do serial predators do this?
It can knock you out, women can be lead to a rape or kill zone elsewhere or thrown in a car for slavery, looking drunk and at best from their end, it’ll weaken your body and decision-making from oxygen deprivation.
That’s how practiced they are.

The term predator is literal, they base their lives around these machinations specifically calculated to exploit your human weaknesses including politeness, conformity and friendliness. How many discussions of rape mention this fact?

If only that drunk man knew this, he might’ve been spared. We distrust nice people for this reason.

“We must learn and then teach our children that niceness does not equal goodness. Niceness is a decision, a strategy of social interaction; it is not a character trait. People seeking to control others almost always present the image of a nice person in the beginning.” – Gavin De Becker

The guys online who don’t get this don’t want laws that protect them, too. Because plenty of serial rapists (unPC spoiler alert) are men – and gay. Deep down, a lot of men already know this and it’s a big factor in homoaversion. Avoiding rape, they have every right to.

Personally I don’t believe it’s fair on other prisoners to put rapists with the rest of the population.

We demand unmasking laws

Notice the efforts to ban hoodies went away and crime spiked?
Scientifically, it produces more antisocial behaviour.
http://www.academia.edu/331707/The_Role_of_Anonymity_In_Deindividuated_Behavior_A_Comparison_of_Deindividuation_Theory_and_the_Social_Identity_Model_of_Deindividuation_Effects_SIDE_

I’ll believe it’s religious when the men fully adopt it.

It’s called deindividuation.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10600364_Deindividuation_Anonymity_and_Violence_Findings_From_Northern_Ireland

The findings revealed that significant positive relationships existed between the use of disguises and several measures of aggression

It’s a known finding over many, many studies. It’s Established Science TM.

(Police wearing facial protection have ID numbers displayed.)

If they have a public cause, the purpose of appearing in public about it is to lend your face and voice. Anything less is terrorism and intimidation for the reasons below.

Sumptuary laws are culturally encouraged for preservation of the peace.

https://www.thoughtco.com/medieval-sumptuary-laws-1788617
Jewish leaders issued sumptuary guidelines out of concern for the safety of their community. Medieval Jews were discouraged from dressing like Christians, in part for fear that assimilation could lead to conversion.”

It directly damages social trust to allow any group to go about publicly with their face covered.

It’s evolution!
http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2011/05/facial-expressions.aspx

“Arguably the most important contribution basic science has made to our understanding of emotion concerns the universality of facial expressions of emotion. Darwin (1872) was the first to suggest that they were universal; his ideas about emotions were a centerpiece of his theory of evolution, suggesting that emotions and their expressions were biologically innate and evolutionarily adaptive, and that similarities in them could be seen phylogenetically.”…

Yes, since established.

Real World Applications of the Basic Science of Facial Expressions of Emotion

Findings concerning the universality of facial expressions of emotion and the existence of microexpressions can help people in a range of professions requiring face-to-face interactions improve their skills in reading the emotions of others. Reading facial expressions of emotion, and especially microexpressions, can aid the development of rapport, trust, and collegiality; they can be useful in making credibility assessments, evaluating truthfulness and detecting deception; and better information about emotional states provides the basis for better cooperation, negotiation, or sales.

Multiculturalism is impossible with covered and concealed facial expressions.

It is anti-assimilation, it is intolerant and breeds a sense of alienation, hostility and distrust.

Mixed race isn’t a race

Must I really point this out?

1,000 words

They’d be scared to put me on trial because they’d be forced to admit I’m correct.

On court records for the next thousand years.

It felt churlish to point this out before, I considered it obvious.

We use the term race to be polite, technically they don’t have one.

However, circumstances compel me to explain.

They believe in superiority but not race (mixed isn’t a race).

That is irrational.

The rhetoric that “mixed race are superior” is absurd on many levels.
Here’s one, the most biological and side-stepping value judgements.

A few sharper ones claim to be raceless, this is true.

As updated for clarity:

A race evolves over millennia in precise environments and overcoming specific (natural) selection events, it’s like saying you invented a primary colour. A human group can’t evolve in ALL/NO environment, especially with no advantageous mutational benefit to the organism’s fitness (why I emphasize health).

Mate selection requires informed consent. Medicine isn’t telling them about these things until it’s too late and they experience the problems firsthand. With no warning.

Naturally, not knowing the information (usually they are never told!), they’ll tend to blame themselves as individual parents when it’s really the mating strategy combination. It used to cause health problems in royalty too, since they’d marry across vast distances. Repeating the behaviour made it cumulative. They became too inbred by outbreeding too much, narrowing to a smaller and smaller niche of potential breeding partners with every generation.

There are no separate human groupings (sub-species) made from pre-existing groups! It’s logically impossible! It’s a little like cutting a slice of cake and acting like it’s a new, whole cake. The genetic tree doesn’t sprout from air!

It’s called a phylogenetic tree and I made you one to illustrate my point.
See? I care.
This is the easy to read version because it fits well on the timeline of history.

Rest of the edit:

Genetically, they’re creating niche sub-subraces with severely restricted breeding opportunities (explaining the IVF rates) and I’ve yet to see a mixed race fertility study go into grandparents and great-grandparents, which could already be done.

Maybe it was done and never published.

Cult of silence.

Parental attitudes of mixed children would also be a thrilling read.

As a niche group whose rarer, more recessive mutations are swiftly lost in the blend, we would expect their fertility overall to drop with each generation (this includes mixed White and could explain secular America below replacement level).

A Northern Italian subrace man mixed with an Austrian subrace woman is mixed race (of the White European thede) but we never think of it that accurate way, do we?

We think of a more PC form of mulatto, which is narrower and limited as an idea.
(50% “black”/50% “white” and up to two generations applicable tops).

They’re toying with the definitions of the levels.

Again, because I love you. I want you to understand. Origin of the Species isn’t on the national school curriculum, causing me to write in full earnest. Someone must tell you.

Illustrated:

Subraces you have likely heard of includes Celts, Picts, Basque, Angles, Saxons, Normans, the Cornish and so on.

The modern concept of “mixed race” is false in every conceivable permutation.

Tell me, where do they fit in? On the tree, show me. Where’s the root? Nobody is allowed to ask about the details because it’s political, it isn’t scientific.

A liger is neither a lion nor a tiger. Those are exclusive categories.

We’re defining them by their parents for linguistic convenience.
They are a mix of their parent’s race/s (evolved identity) but they themselves as an individual organism don’t have one.

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of novel sub-subraces. Precise combinations. It depends the fine-grain you want. The mixed part itself is also a category error because it lumps them all in together.

An individual whose mixture is of Celt, Basque, Alpine and Nord heritage has nothing in common neither biologically nor culturally with a combination in one individual of Sub-Saharan African, Aboriginal Australian, Inuit, Yayoi and South American.

Yet they’d lead you to believe this (lie).

It’s called a voting bloc.

Sometimes you can destroy many group’s unique interests by making them sacrifice for a larger group they don’t truly belong to (Empires fall).

Politically, they’re being played because each type will have its own issues and needs and this means none can truly be studied (similar to how most clinical trials are done on men and there are medical problems* applying their findings to women).

*fatal problems

Subraces arose naturally in evolutionary history, they evolved. Their mutations are stable because they’ve weathered thousands of years of events including war or since gone extinct.

This artificial combination called both mixed (too ambiguous) and race (just no, too specific and wrong) when it is neither, is novel (practically born yesterday, unproven) and in mutational terms, that isn’t a good thing.

Surely people deserve to know this information as teenagers or earlier before they consider how to marry?

A lot of people, when thinking of who should father/mother their children, consider the child’s health their primary concern. This is too important to ignore. Studies must be conducted, the burden of proof is directly heaped upon those making the positive claims e.g. sunny Pollyanna health and life outcomes, magically.

From what little I can find on the subject, the evidence points in quite the opposite trajectory.

Whatever happened to consent?

Information first!

It’s a clear public interest case especially where healthcare is taxpayer funded.
Assuming you want governments lead by science than superstition?

While I’m here “there’s one race, the human race” is bullshit, I trust you knew that too?

“Human race” predates Darwin’s work and the formal classification of species.
e.g.
http://classicalpoets.org/lord-byrons-romantic-ode-to-the-ocean-2/
“That I might all forget the human race,
And, hating no one, love but only her!”

Charles Darwin was a toddler at publication.

Homo is our genus, sapiens our species. Humans/humanity/mankind is a species.
We have a race (or not). We are always a species.
If you want to deny your brain, (sapiens), go ahead!
It’s totally unscientific to say “human race”, in fact, it’s anti-science.

Congratulations, if you use that term seriously you’re a Creationist.
A liberal Creationist.

Atom predates particle physics too, STFU.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/Atom

An ancient term of philosophical speculation (in Leucippus, Democritus); revived scientifically 1805 by British chemist John Dalton. In late classical and medieval use also a unit of time, 22,560 to the hour.

Read more.

“Just being a Negro doesn’t qualify you to understand the race situation any more than being sick makes you an expert on medicine.” [Dick Gregory, 1964]

I have.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/thioda#Old_Saxon

So in conclusion, yes, contrary to another lie, the idea of race has always existed.

Racial erasure is a form of genocide. Race is exclusive as a sub-category of species. No false equivalence here today, thank you. One is not zero, blue is not red and water is not fire.

Anglo- peoples (please research others at your leisure) simply called it something/s else.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/thede#English

Americans are too uneducated to bloody check!

Sorry, I’ve revealed my power level, haven’t I?

Edit: to really put the cat among the pigeons, advocates of a raceless world are genophobic.

Contrary to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/genophilia and scientific.

They personally fear breeding with their own kind but an extension of the term would easily apply to a strong sociosexual aversion to one’s own people, culture or kin. Expansions happen all the time if there’s a need in behaviour (see ‘gay’).

OR geno-cidal, a willful termination of their group included, which we knew.

Medically, they would be suffering from:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/xenomania#English

Humans fear sickness

https://www.insidescience.org/news/brief-sick-people-look-and-smell-less-likeable

I wonder if this has any application to r/K.

Oooof course it does.

It’s like watching someone line up dominoes.

I’d love a study on rotavirus infection history and political alignment.

https://www.insidescience.org/news/cant-eat-wheat-blame-humble-virus

Reovirus and aggression?

How about HPV-worn cells? If the infection clears, would that alter behaviour, much like TPG?

Beauty is pretty objective and makes you a better person

Click to access Langlois.pdf

Common maxims about beauty suggest that attractiveness is not important in life. In contrast, both fitness-related evolutionary theory and socialization theory suggest that attractiveness influences development and interaction. In 11 meta-analyses, the authors evaluate these contradictory claims, demonstrating that (a) raters agree about who is and is not attractive, both within and across cultures; (b) attractive children and adults are judged more positively than unattractive children and adults, even by those who know them; (c) attractive children and adults are treated more positively than unattractive children and adults, even by those who know them; and (d) attractive children and adults exhibit more positive behaviors and traits than unattractive children and adults. Results are used to evaluate social and fitness-related evolutionary theories and the veracity of maxims about beauty.

D is the kicker. Natural outer genetic beauty appears to match prosocial, heavily culturally-informed behaviours aka inner beauty.

Beautiful people also have higher IQs, suggesting greater overall fitness.

See my link about The Mating Mind. Contrary to popular belief, Darwin accounts for intelligence as part of the package of attractiveness.

Female attractiveness and male resources, an exchange

As explained by Monroe.

Don’t you know that a man being rich is like a girl being pretty?

You wouldn’t marry a girl just because she’s pretty….

But my goodness, doesn’t it help?

And if you had a daughter, wouldn’t you rather she didn’t marry a poor man?

You’d want her to have the most wonderful things in the world and be very happy.

Why is it wrong for me to want those things?

Telling a woman not to crave the security to raise her children is like telling men to have children with ugly women out of pity because don’t they deserve a chance? It’s unnatural and wrong, morally.

If you don’t like it, get a sex change.

These are evolved response sets.

Men want babies. They crave sex and companionship.

Women want babies. They crave love and commitment, and isn’t the last easier with a man who can afford to commit time, too?

Paper: What is Cultural Evolution?

Click to access PrepubPrinceton.pdf

Many of you are familiar with cyclical theories of history, they often include a heavy cultural component, for example assigning Millennials the status of a Hero Generation.

The mantle of Western Civ would also  come under this heading.

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.