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.

How to stay married

We need more records from men like this rather than bitter screeds from divorcees and bachelors. The advice sources are polar opposites to one another because they lived it.

There’s an obvious point I made earlier, I’ve noticed any time a selfish person marries (even if they marry a saint) the union is doomed. This is one of my most popular posts:

Don’t marry a selfish person who cannot combine in a marital UNION or if you are one, know this and do not marry. You can’t “make it work” unless you get a personality transplant. Being selfish, they don’t really try and therapists will tell you they superficially make an effort only as a means to abuse and control. The power dynamics must be equal because both are working for one another.

Do I have to mention the obvious, like liking each other when sex is off the table? Shared values? Good taste in friends? No vices?

His points are, for the record and lightly extrapolated:

  1. Faith in God. Appreciation for the sacred.
  2. Loyalty (goes both ways, just assume on all these).
  3. Asking God for a loyal spouse, who would stay in hard times too.
  4. Know your dealbreakers and shun them quickly (nothing you do yourself either), especially addictions and the delusions that often accompany them e.g. smoking.
  5. Do not put yourself in a situation where you grow close to someone unsuitable. Common sense?
  6. “Your wife will be your best friend in the world or your worst enemy and which one she is, is down to you” – Grandmother.
  7. “No matter what, you never speak bad of her in front of anyone else, never (bitch) about her.” – Grandmother, about respect.
  8. Never degrade or make fun of her” (mockery, is not funny) – “to her face especially, the world will do that enough and try to put her down, she doesn’t need her husband to do that” (be the sanctuary). – Grandmother
  9. “Everything you buy, put her name on it. She’s an equal portion of this family and treat her as that, don’t treat her as a second-class citizen or worse, a slave! She’s equal in every possible way” (investment, union) “including in the bank accounts and anything else that you have your name on.” (trust)
  10. “Wait five years before you have children, before you even consider having children. That time will be the glue that allows you both to know each other and love each other. That five years will be invaluable.”

The most important takeaway, don’t indulge in the gay best friend bitch fests society is also introducing and encouraging men to take part in. The thing a woman most wants is the same as a man: respect. If you can’t give that, it won’t last. It is down to the man to show respect and it will be reciprocated (since, implied, he sets the tone).

We need valuable old advice like this.

Bravo, bravo.

I wonder what the divorce rate is if one is an atheist? I have won a lot of bets checking that.

Nice girls finish last (earn less)

https://www.aftau.org/news-page-business–management?=&storyid4701=2305&ncs4701=3

It’s to be expected on a level of Duh that forcing women to directly engage in competition with men in the workforce would produce some social changes.

At the very least, modern workers weigh more and age faster (cortisol).

This applies to both sexes. Perhaps women were the fairer sex because the home environment is quieter (cortisol can be triggered by loud noise, although a home can be equally or more busy depending on the industry compared).

The structure rewards masculinity at work. Women need to be. However, even this isn’t enough.

If you’re doing the same work, you should be paid the same. Basic contract law, nothing to do with sex.

Social masculinity is often contextual. As in, plenty of stern women at work soften up in their personal lives. Men compartmentalize too, dating back to the clinical detachment of doctors and surgeons. This is healthy.

I’ve found kindness is frequently punished as we go by an American system (loud, annoying, rude).

There is some evidence for a masculinity wage gap but yes, also a gender/sex-based one.

However, it does varies by industry, like the feminists refuse to accept.

According to the researchers, the same goes for dominant men versus their more conciliatory male counterparts — but even dominant women earn far less than all of their male colleagues, dominant or otherwise.

Women notice how you treat the rest of us

My best friend confessed his love for me but I can't love him back because of the way he's treated other girls.  

https://whisper.sh/js/embed.js

This is very common and often a hidden factor in women supposedly ‘leading men on’ with polite affection or ‘friendzoning’ that doesn’t seem to make sense. She’s seen how you behave in a romantic context and she doesn’t know that person. She doesn’t even like that person. One of the few times 2 ladders theory comes in. She ignores it when you’re just friends but when you try to herd her into that other pen, where, as she sees it, you’re mistreating women like animals or treating them as less than human, she’s smart to say no thanks. Probably one of the things you like about her is her self-respect.

We aren’t lemmings and we aren’t as stupid as (some of) you seem to think we are. At least on social matters. If a woman lets on though, or tries to explain, she gets accused of being manipulative, when it’s social intelligence. It’s the way most women are, it’s our thing, in fact we’re being honest and a deceptive person never would be. The guys who get defensive like that are digging their own social live’s graves. Since again, all the other women are watching him react and wonder why he doesn’t get it.

Men do not appreciate this fact (that women note down all the ways you’ve treated her sex in the past, like a man noting which of his female friends is the easiest lay or the most feminist) and can be quite shocked when it comes back to bite them later, when she based a decision based on this supposedly ‘unfair’ information. Women are social creatures. It’s like seeing if a man is good with children, animals or the waiter. Or whether he has nice shoes. All of these seemingly random things are trying to infer future treatment. 

It’s easy to fake being decent now, but in a week? In a month? In a year? She’s sorting out the time wasters.

A good friend can be a bad boyfriend. The men themselves object to this as shallow (nothing to do with looks) when it’s simply an acknowledgement that they’re better in one social role than another. Better behaved. It can seem like, when the standards are higher (relationship) and the situation more intimate, they can regress and become brattish and even the parents of toddlers find them high-maintenance. The adult men do this because they figure they’re always in control and the woman can never leave (like their own mother) despite how it’s a tester for a marriage and they’re failing badly. It should be the other way around and the person should get better to know the more intimate you are, this is mature. A person should be the best at their core. If they never mature, you get middle-aged men who still think they should be able to get away with the same callous behavior of a 15-year old. When his relationships keep failing, he’ll always blame the women, especially the bitches who dared to leave him (when they gave him a chance, tried to correct him and realized he’s a hopeless case).

I think this is what women used to mean they spoke of ‘nice guys’ but the wires got crossed and came to mean indecisive pushover (it doesn’t) when used. If he isn’t nice (as a non-sexual person in any context) after he has no further use for you, he isn’t nice. He was never nice. He was probably the inverse, totally fake and manipulative. And I bet he hates children and animals and waiters and others who can see through him.

A lot of men seem to think they have a free pass on their single actions because future women or other female prospects will just discount it. Nope, that’s what men do (boys will be boys is spoken by patient men who matured out of that stage). If you treat other women badly, or have done enough to get a reputation or some stories out there, it will put off women who were otherwise on the fence, like at the initial impressions stage and they might only see you as a friend or badly behaved brother-type at best, where you feel like you have to keep explaining yourself to other women (why do you hang out with him?) and explaining away his bad behaviour like he’s a child (Little Timmy only broke the window because he’s bored). It’s quite disgusting to imagine you’d be treated that way in future once the novelty has worn off, and this goes most of all for cheats. Once a cheat, always a cheat. The only type of woman that is OK with it is also a cheat. It seriously messes up their long-term prospect in the same way as a slut becomes unlikely mother of your children material.

You can’t erect a red flag or few and wonder why people avoid you.

Naturally, we rarely discuss this with men who tend to take it too personally (you’re judging me when we’re just friends???) since it never happens in male friendships (because they’re all the same sex) and it’s alien territory (it’s just how women work, son) so we try to hint with the nice guy stuff or making it really obvious by asking how you treat your sister or mother (women you have nothing to gain from sexually). Even in jest.

You kiss your mother with that mouth?

superman drinking give up nope

Hope this made sense.

p.s. This is why women walk around in groups aside from physical safety. It’s like the crow’s nest in war films or when soldiers stand back-to-back to get a 360 degree view. To watch what, do you think?