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.

Study: The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty

Meta-analysis/Review paper. Top tier.

http://www.femininebeauty.info/f/rhodes.meta.analysis.pdf

What makes a face attractive and why do we have the preferences we do? Emergence of preferences early in development and cross-cultural agreement on attractiveness challenge a long-held view that our preferences reflect arbitrary standards of beauty set by cultures. Averageness, symmetry, and sexual dimorphism are good candidates for biologically based standards of beauty. A critical review and meta-analyses indicate that all three are attractive in both male and female faces and across cultures. Theorists have proposed that face preferences may be adaptations for mate choice because attractive traits signal important aspects of mate quality, such as health. Others have argued that they may simply be by-products of the way brains process information. Although often presented as alternatives, I argue that both kinds of selection pressures may have shaped our perceptions of facial beauty.
It confirms the obvious…
…..Femininity is the strongest component of female attractiveness, but it showed no association with health (although only one study has looked for this). Femininity may signal fertility rather than health per se (Johnston 2000, Johnston & Franklin 1993, Symons 1979). The reasoning is that high estrogen/androgen ratio are associated with both feminine characteristics (e.g., small jaw, full lips) and fertility. A preference for feminine faces, therefore, would target sexually mature females. Facial femininity could also signal individual differences in fertility in adult females, to the extent that femininity declines with age.
How men age in attractiveness wasn’t studied, nor cross-referenced with sperm quality, which pisses me off. I wanna see the data on that.
What do you expect, it’s mostly men conducting the studies in this field.
Recently, male facial attractiveness has been linked to genetic heterozygosity at sites involved in immune function. Future studies should determine which components of male attractiveness (masculinity, averageness, symmetry) mediate this link, and whether female attractiveness is also linked to heterozygosity at these sites. A more direct test of a link between attractiveness and immunocompetence could also be done by challenging the immune system.
However, this seems to reinforce a youth link in both sexes via immune function and cellular quality.

Women care about looks, stop deluding yourselves guys

We care AS MUCH, sometimes more. The manosphere needs to get over itself on this one. Everytime I hear a man bitch that women don’t care about looks online, you can tell he’s an ugly motherfucker. It’s like a feminist whining about attention paid to pretty girls, it’s pathetic. Stop. Is/Ought.

oh really am I supposed to be scared angelina jolie wanted big man uhuhO rlly? *I’m* the little bitch if I’m the tenth woman in a row to turn down your offer?
It’s almost like people don’t like giving away their valuables at a loss.

Sperm = cheap
Eggs = expensive
Sex = valuable to men, women? Not so much. The one who cares less holds the power, right?

Research: http://psychologyofattractivenesspodcast.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/overconfidence-when-we-think-were-more.html

You’re swallowing what your grandmother told you – “looks don’t matter” (to women) and passing it off as your original belief because it serves your ego in sheltering you from the reality. It’s in the same category as JBY (Just Be Yourself) for advice that requires a disclaimer about a book long and a series of asterisks listing exceptions longer than the Game of Thrones book series. If random people keep pulling this weird, twisty lip face when you discuss dating, you’re probably ugly.

hmm uhuh o rlly really ah sure thing

Don’t take my word for it, do the damn work and find out your number: https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/07/09/an-easy-way-for-men-to-find-their-10-scale-value/ You’ve got a range of 1-2 based on external factors and the desperation of the prettier party.

This doesn’t make us women shallow anymore than not fancying landwhales makes you shallow. It’s nature. Everyone fancies attractive people. It’s evolution, it’s health, and it’s about the health of potential offspring.

Even when it comes down to the r-types, we have the Sexy Sons hypothesis. This overwhelmingly strong female attraction to appearance might dictate the bulk of their psychology, it’s that powerful. The stated exception is gold diggers, because plastic surgery is expensive and they’re rarely natural lookers themselves. The money overwhelms their disgust reflex and they’ve usually been around the block before settling.

Why do you believe women are special snowflakes when it comes to options? It’s ridiculous. Given two equally appealing choices, everybody, male female or alien would go for the more physically attractive. This was often swept under the rug because women had little historical say in mate selection (the betas and lower are the ones bitching about this now for that reason, they lost their power) and arranged marriages, complete with veil, meant if they knew they had a negative opinion of their husband-to-be, she had neither time nor purpose to point it out. It wasn’t as if women were expected to enjoy sex, was it? The woman’s sexual desire wasn’t a factor in the historical equation, so very little was written about it. Then courting came around, then dating and now hookup culture, where it’s plain to see if you pay attention. Look at any male model’s instagram account. Same as a woman’s, isn’t it?

Of course people care about looks when it comes to the opposite sex, that’s the difference between friends and more – do you find them physically attractive? It’s almost like boys in the manosphere haven’t heard the two ladders metaphor. This defines a big difference between male and female attraction mechanisms. If a woman fancies you, you’re on the prospect ladder. If she finds you ugly (that’s the brutal truth, it’s yay or nay) – you’re on the friend ladder. You ain’t never getting off, and the Friendzone is such a big deal online, because the boys in question refuse to believe women have eyes.

And dare to exercise a personal choice in whom to date.

You’re probably average, no shame in it, get over it. What do you think the Brad Pitt rule is about? Do you honestly think that guy needs a single bit of Game to have women interested in him? Pre-fame and money? Christian Bale met his wife when he was dirt poor and she traveled round with him. Any guesses why, children? [Clue: everybody has a personality, that doesn’t count as an answer.]

The starving artists stereotype is always drop-dead gorgeous. As is the hot nerd. And the hot librarian. And the hot businessman. And the hot gamer. It isn’t the context/skill/status that makes them hot, but adds to pre-existing hotness. And all pure stereotypes that appeal to women sexually, are already 10s….

What was I saying?

Gee, I guess that’s a MASSIVE coincidence…

You can’t convince women to be turned on by losers (genetic or otherwise), neither can feminists or SJW freaks. Attraction isn’t a negotiation. I’m saying this to help you. Women didn’t lie, your mother probably lied but she has vested self-interests, it’s usually the media who lied to you. The world has always been this way. Prince Charming isn’t the Hunchback, he’s a physical specimen of 10 like the Princess. The Beast turned into a hottie at the end to match his fiancee. Look at all romance plots written by women, the guy is never ugly.

Of course women are shallow, when it comes to dating, that’s all it is – being really, really shallow. Until you meet someone’s mutual standard of shallowness. One of the few totally valid PUA criticisms – they look at their actions, including external factors like income, and never pause to consider their physical league. If women seem to have a “bitch shield” around you, and you aren’t being rude, you’re probably swimming in the wrong gene pool. People with status abhor being approached by the SMV/MMV equivalent of peasants. This goes for men too, don’t start on a misogynistic rant about how all women are bitches and blaming them for your problems. If you were unemployed and walked up to random successful men in swish suits in coffee shops and in the street, they’d be disgusted too. You gotta have something to offer those people and bring to the table. What’s relevant in business? Contacts, contracts, money, skills. What’s relevant in dating? Looks, looks, looks, and a wildcard, like maybe you have a sense of humour like most people on the planet. You know that thing where everyone laughs at the hot girl’s non-jokes? It’s cos you don’t really see past the packaging, isn’t it? Women online are upfront about this, who they crush on and who’s the hottest out of XYZ options and men have the temerity to call us superficial…. nah, not gonna cut it, men discuss passing women in the street with the same lack of respect and when men have topless calenders and read lad’s mags at work, inappropriate doesn’t cut it either. We’re all adults here, opinions are okay. Alpha/quality males are serene about this and acknowledge quality women have options too and the non-quality proles of both sexes will daydream (few are foolish enough to try and play out of their league).

If you dare try and pull that feminist shit like “we don’t like being judged, it hurts our feelings” – erm, how do you think we feel, being literally marked on a scale when we walk down the street, like produce? Which sex is more sexualised in the media? Again, grow up. Adults judge things all the time and it’s a good thing. If you fall short, that’s your personal issue, not the people judging you and finding you wanting. You didn’t bring it to the table. You weren’t tall enough for this ride, whatever. Offer rejected. Nothing personal. You’d be a glad of a “bitch shield” if it was your wife maintaining it, in fact, you’d rely on it. That’s what really gets us – you expect us to make an exception for you and turn around and complain about special snowflakes. Does that make your hypothetical wife a bitch? Nope, she’s a quality woman who doesn’t fall for that casual nonsense we call pick-up, you’re just crybabies that spitting certain lines isn’t like a cheat code for sex with any random woman.

Short-term, who cares, get rejected thousands of times for all it matters. I don’t speak to those guys who wanna die alone because it fulfills some mythic complex about Eve and the wicked temptation of women.
For long-term, you need to redpill and look at the data. Assortative mating. People end up (most of the time don’t anecdote me) with someone of similar attractiveness to themselves. Not higher. Not lower. Similar. This way, neither party feels like they’re losing out on the deal of the relationship, getting the wedding is the easy part, maintaining the marriage requires effort on both sides. Sure, she loses post-pregnancy weight for you, but you can’t get a beer belly and wonder why she keeps getting headaches. It’s an exchange, no woman will ever be your mother (a mother figure you wanna fuck, creep alert!) unless she’s a co-dependent drip you don’t respect or trust. Long-term it’s an exchange of genetic material, the most serious decision you’ll ever make, an Eloi with a Morlock is poorly matched and won’t stick around for long and no, celebrities aren’t a rule or proof for anything in the real world.

Nothing wrong with being average, it isn’t your spiritual worth as a person, but it is your real SMV and likely highly correlates to your MMV, male or female, gay, straight, bi or whatever. Better happily matched, once your ego is over the shock, than #foreveralone because you had the male equivalent of Cinderella syndrome. Notches aren’t alpha, that’s a lie from PUAs trying to sell their book/site/method by spinning out notch numbers (not accounting for quality), your life isn’t a video game where you score for your score and if you’re top of the leaderboard you’re Mostest Alpha Man; it’s getting the Best woman in a social circle (the socio- in sociosexual hierarchy) and keeping her is what an alpha male does.

Bonus attachment!

If a man could have a sexbot, why would he want a woman?

http://www.reaxxion.com/9735/how-virtual-reality-could-destroy-western-society

Blatantly obvious question to a person with common sense.

Men primarily desire sex, women primarily desire emotional comfort.

You can see women awakening to this discrepancy in their reaction to male sex toys. Oh, theirs are “empowering” but men’s are “gross”….

no what I don't believe it can't be true disbelief pushing daisies

Futurists are sci-fi psychics. If they ever had any prognostic powers, they’d be designing and inventing what they foresaw. It’s highly pop-culture-based guesswork, they slavishly follow trends.

Men on the whole do not desire a woman for reproduction until a certain age or unless they’re broody by character (rather rare and commendable) – they want the appearance of it, the sex act itself, like women want the appearance of a high-quality Alpha (and rarely consider genetic fitness). Evolution is deceptive. It tells us we want A because it is the means to acquire B. Evopsych studies the divide between what we want as an organism and how our mind tricks us into getting it against our better judgement.

The brain is an organ dedicated to self-deception.

Look no further than optical illusions for demonstrations.

Women presume their true value to men (fecundity) compels their desire. In some men, perhaps this is true. On the whole, men are driven by the same superficial concerns as women – the mating markets are designed to make snap judgements so as not to lose opportunity (all those studies about how quickly we assess mate potential, it isn’t the conscious mind doing it in split seconds, is it?)