Proxy studied: credit score.
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.”
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:
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.
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.
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.