Dating coach banned from several countries after internet feminist outrage over misogynist vid

[parocks]

What kind of psychopath treats someone badly, intentionally?


********************************************
Alphas. PUAs. Garden variety psychopaths. Sociopaths.

We've established that benefits follow from treating women badly. People who want the benefits that come from treating someone badly, intentionally.
Women are with guys who treat them badly, it's not some sort of accident or surprise. Aren't we talking about how there's a shortage of men who are
willing to treat women badly. And badly isn't some sort of absolute.

Isn't one of the core ideas that we're talking about here that women assume you're super great if you treat them badly and then they'll have sex with you? I mean, you're calling someone a psychopath for treating women badly. But the men are only doing that because the women want it. It's providing for the woman's need to be treated badly. We know that treating women badly works. Since then, we've talked about getting eaten by lions 50K years ago or killed by a warring tribe or a desire to be with an alpha and the reason why we're talking about this is because we're discussing the reasons why women want to be treated badly.

"What kind of psychopath treats someone badly, intentionally?"
guys who want to get with the women who want to be treated badly.

"What kind of psychopath wants to be treated badly, intentionally? "
women, because alpha, lions, or undefined crazy.
*********************************************

I'm not saying "act nice," I'm saying be the best human that you can be, and don't give a $#@! what the girl, or anyone else, thinks about it.

**************
I can't remember what you said before that I replied to, so - that sounds reasonable by itself - sort of like good alpha vs bad PUA, at least as how you see it.
Some (not necessarily me) would argue that the banging the hot chick by the alpha and then not listening to her blather about her day is bad or mistreatful or whatever term. Still, it's a math problem. Women respond to being treated badly. It's a theory why. But isn't it easier to say "because they like it", instead of theories about alphas. You can be the best human you can be, but if the woman isn't actually responding to some convoluted drive to find an alpha, but is just nuts and likes to be mistreated, the mistreater, not the best human, is going to be the successful with that woman. The mistreater is successful because of the promo campaign against the mistreating. The promo campaign discourages men from acting in ways that women really respond to and tells them to act in beta ways, to be nice. That's the nonstop oligopoly promo campaign that's been going on for the last 30+ years if not longer. Women want you to act like a beta, to listen to their stories and whatnot. Right? But they want alpha, right? And alpha treats women badly, or neglectfully, and certainly badly compared to the betas. But that's what women want, and in fact being treated badly, or ignored or whatever, is how women will define you as being alpha. You don't have to actually be an alpha at all by any reasonable measuring, you just have to make her think that you are by getting in her head in some way that we've been talking about. I can get a 9, easy, but this one is treating me terrible, so he must be a 10. What isn't happening in this equation is women being able to actually determine merit by any objective characteristics. It's only "how are they treating me". Women think that men that treat them badly are of higher value than men who treat them well. PUAs send the most unobscure signals possible, as quickly as possible that say "I am alpha, I am better than you." Alphas apparently ooze this from every pore with even trying. But this alphaness and the alpha signals that PUAs try to send are completely divorced from merit. I'd suggest that many women aren't really all that good at judging talent, which is basically what we're talking about. We're talking about choosing mates, right? They can't pick the best one. They can pick who they think is the best one based on how they make them feel. Objective vs subjective. Being objectively good flies over their head, is not noticed, is not really even capable of being understood. Learning tricks to screw with their heads or being the kind of person who just naturally screws with their heads is how they're making their decisions. It's not a reasoned analysis of objective reality - it's the effect on their heads, or their hearts or their loins or whatever. Point is - it's their own feelings.

Logically, men and women both should try to be as smart as possible and assess and measure accurately, communicate honestly the level of attraction or perceived merit after analysis. Hello - I have determined that you are very high quality, which is rare. Therefore, I'd like more of you. But that's a beta move. You can't do that, women don't like that. They can't analyze your value. You can theirs. They only can analyze your value based on your response to them, and they're the gatekeepers, so lies have to be cooked into the formula if you want to succeed.

In normal land - you're nice to the women you like, and not nice to the women you don't like. Women, because of alpha, lions or crazy, see this backwards and wrong, or have such a weird spin on it that leads to the bad outcomes by definition. 2 women - one you like one you don't. "I like you." "Thanks for the complement beta, I got you in the back pocket for later with all the others" "Um, I gotta go" "That guy isn't interested in me, he must be an alpha, I gotta have him." The gatekeepers give men sex opportunites with the one women they don't like as much as the other. And maybe it is a case of a guy being a 7, the girl he likes being a 8 and the girl he doesn't like being a 6, but in the real world it really isn't that.

*********************
**************


You can get women like that without treating them poorly. The easiest way is general indifference towards hanging out with them, and to be righteous as you do it. Don't talk to them, don't hang out with them, when you've legitimately got other, better, things to do. If you're making a game out of it, you've already lost it. You can be a total gentleman and a great human, if everything you do is sincere and rooted and positivity, and still pull in all types of woman.

********************************

Well, I'm not suggesting that only PUAs get laid. I was simply arguing that the supply of PUAs, alphas, bad woman treaters is less than the demand for them. If betas weren't told to be nice to women, they wouldn't be, they'd be whatever they were told would work. Betas aren't effective doing what they're doing. You're suggesting to be an alpha (I think that's what you're basically saying). And that's all very nice. I'm not sure how the women I don't know and will never talk to (that's your instruction, right - "don't talk to them, don't hang out with them") are going to somehow find me irresistable. You're using "you" I think to mean people in general.

One can argue that treating them poorly and general indifference are functionally the same. They're both designed to say "I'm an alpha, I have so much going on". Women are saying that what they want is for you to chat with them about their day like a beta. They're reading your indifference (what you recommend) as treating them poorly (compared to what the betas are doing). What exactly is treating them poorly anyway?

**********************************

For what it is worth, I hate ALL progressive feminists. The way they seem to totally disregard evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology, and science, and math, and really anything logical, is infuriating.

***********************

Very much agree with that one.

They're part of the making things awful coalition. Things have gotten much worse in the last 30 years and feminists are a key part of that coalition.

************************

reply in the quote

[parocks]

Haha, I can't tell by the title -- is this something that will make me angry, or something I will like?

I can "how ... society ... create"

If you don't like feminism, you won't like it.

About 30 years ago the feminists came up the the crazy idea that gender was socially determined. Based on the title, which has society creating, as opposed to biology determining things. Things like - women are the ones who have the babies, and tons naturally follows from that. The gender is socially determined feminists tend to just want to ignore all the differences that are rooted in biology, typically when those biological differences lead to conclusions that they don't like. Feminists will admit to biological differences when it advantages them. Feminists generally will take or dispose of arguments at random, with the central focus being a combination of "I want" and "gimme".

[nobody's_hero]

I can "how ... society ... create"

If you don't like feminism, you won't like it.

About 30 years ago the feminists came up the the crazy idea that gender was socially determined. Based on the title, which has society creating, as opposed to biology determining things. Things like - women are the ones who have the babies, and tons naturally follows from that. The gender is socially determined feminists tend to just want to ignore all the differences that are rooted in biology, typically when those biological differences lead to conclusions that they don't like. Feminists will admit to biological differences when it advantages them. Feminists generally will take or dispose of arguments at random, with the central focus being a combination of "I want" and "gimme".

Awe darn it. I wish I'd saved my reputation for you for this comment.

[willwash]

I can "how ... society ... create"

If you don't like feminism, you won't like it.

About 30 years ago the feminists came up the the crazy idea that gender was socially determined. Based on the title, which has society creating, as opposed to biology determining things. Things like - women are the ones who have the babies, and tons naturally follows from that. The gender is socially determined feminists tend to just want to ignore all the differences that are rooted in biology, typically when those biological differences lead to conclusions that they don't like. Feminists will admit to biological differences when it advantages them. Feminists generally will take or dispose of arguments at random, with the central focus being a combination of "I want" and "gimme".

This is basically the same argument Rothbardian Girl has repeatedly regurgitated on this thread: that women are the gatekeepers of sex and men are the "hunters" who MUST make the first move because of social mores and not because of deep-seated biology. The reasons for the propaganda are obvious: if social mores are to blame for all gender "inequality," then all we need to do is use the power of government and media brainwashing to "force" a change in the culture and bingo! Problem solved! Men will behave like women and there will be no consequences to suppressing their biology because there IS no biology!

If I wanted to socially engineer men to be docile and effeminate, I would make sure that in TV and movies:

Men are always depicted in popular entertainment as incompetent, especially any time a side by side comparison with a woman is involved. Women are even depicted with all seriousness as superior fighters in hand to hand combat. Their karate is just that good. If this lie is repeated enough, real males will come to believe that they actually are inferior in virtually every way.

Romance between men and women must always just happen naturally. No men hitting on women allowed, unless it is early in the show/film to set the scene about how tired she is of "jerks". Therefore, any man who actively does hit on/pick up women must be depicted as stupid, shallow and probably abusive/violent.

Passive beta males must end up with the hot chick in the end...if real males see this lie repeated enough they will come to believe that they can just continue to sit there passively and someday a unicorn will fall into their lap (great analogy btw)

Sound familiar?

[Philhelm]

Damn. I was drafting a response last night and then the power on the laptop went off.

I've just shown that depending on the way the requests are framed, women also tend to have far fewer criteria for having a sexual encounter than one would stereotypically assume. You keep harping on how picky women supposedly are, but you've made no attempt to explain why, except resort to something that was debunked in the study I referred to. Discerning women are that way because they're concerned about safety and whether the guy will be good, not about how much money the guy makes or what his name is. In other words, it's not because they're hardwired to prefer status or money; neither is it because they have intrinsically less sexual desire.

Actually, I agree that the female sexual strategy stems from safety. Biologically, the typical woman will be attracted to men that display dominant traits, confidence being one of the most widely acknowledged of such traits. Dominant traits increase the liklihood that the male can provide security for the female. While wealth is an unnatural trait, women will still gravitate towards wealthy men, even if the woman is not as physically attracted to the wealthy man as she is to the more dominant Alpha male. Conversely, men do not care whether a woman is confident, aside for perhaps how it may relate to sexual inhibition.

I stated that women are more discerning in their mate selection since they tend to have a greater number of boxes to check. For a man, the criteria is generally young, attractive, and sexually available, although even those may be compromised if the male is desperate. A woman tends to want a man that is attractive, physically fit, tall, intelligent, humorous, ambitious, confident, wealthy (or, in most cases, not poor), etc. Probably 99% of the dating profiles I have read expected men to possess those traits, regardless of the woman's attractiveness, employment, or whether she had one or more bastard abominations.

Since women demand a greater number of desirable traits, they tend to be the gatekeepers to sex, which has nothing to do with a woman's desire for sex. The man will tick enough boxes or be sent on his away (or, just as frequently, strung along). While a man prefers an attractive female, if it is just for a sexual encounter a woman only needs to tick the box requesting a ready and willing vagina.

This, once again, has to do with the risk vs. reward thing, as I detailed in my last response (medical as well as the larger one in this day and age, cultural). Also, men are generally perceived as incapable of providing orgasms in casual sexual encounters, while women are; that could certainly contribute to loneliness.

Survival strategy. Biologically, a female doesn't want to be impregnated by a weak male since she will be vulnerable for approximately nine months. Women had to be discerning in their mate selection out of necessity. You orgasm comment is out of left field, but I would imagine that most women would assume that a confident, dominant male would be better able to provide a more fulfilling sexual experience (even if this isn't the truth) than the geeky awkward guy that is afraid to approach her.

What I'm basically saying is that there are no discernible natural reasons why women are "gatekeepers," especially in an era of access to birth control and generally high levels of health care. Every explanation you have given hinges on subjective male preferences that aren't really all that logical, given that sex is a two-way activity. Culture is the sole driving force of women's gatekeeper position at this point.

Sex is a two-way activity but that doesn't change the fact that women are the ones who ultimately determine whether it is going to happen, aside from acts of rape. Speaking of which, only men can rape a woman, while women can "never" rape a man since it is widely, if subconsciously, understood that women are the gatekeepers of sex and it is therefore assumed that the man almost always wants to have sex (please note that I understand that, yes, technically a woman can indeed rape a man, but that is rarely a seriously dealt with issue; whether that is right or wrong is irrelevant for my purpose).

Culture is partially responsible for a woman's gatekeeper status, but at its core it is biological. If anything, modern feminism strengthend their gatekeeper status, except when it comes to dominant males to whom they willingly submit. Rather than the majority of men and women pairing in monogamous relationships, our culture is developing a de facto harem dynamic in which a minority of males have sex with a great number of females. This is great for Alpha males and women looking for sex, but it is bad for the majority of males and the women that eventually seek commitment.

And you're apparently incapable of figuring out why this is. Your confirmation bias is showing. Of course you're going to think all men are the pursuers when that's all you have observed because of specific societal expectations of how men and women pursue sex.

Biology and therefore some cultural manifestation (i.e. putting the pussy on the pedestal). Unfortunately for me, women are of higher value than men, as we do not have wombs that can create life. While men are certainly necessary for the impregnation process, one male can easily impregnate hundreds of women. On a biological level, men are simply disposable; it is no small wonder that the remains of millions of men scatter the battlefields of history while women have been relatively sheltered and protected for the most part. There is no sympathy for a weak (disposable) male, but there is sympathy for a weak female.

Sure, cultural factors can be applied, but the cultural "decisions" stem from biological factors. But the bottom line is that, at this time, men tend to overwhelmingly be the pursuers. Frankly, I don't understand why I'm being bothered to have to explain this. Whether the men as pursuers role is due to biology, culture, patriarchy, or elven magic is off point; it is what it is.

At this point, only in stupid reputational terms.

There is a price to pay since there is a "sexual marketplace" of sorts in which men and women possess varying degrees of sexual value. For women, that tends to be youth and attractiveness, while for men it may be a combination of attractiveness, wealth, status, confidence, physique, etc. It's nothing new that women have often leveraged sex in order to influence men; however, it's less frequent that men use sex in order to influence women.

There is no logical reason for this preference. I can't think of a reason why "sluts" aren't marriageable outside of very prejudiced assumptions about female sexual desire, or the supposed lack thereof in comparison to men. They may or may not have undesirable personality traits, but I have seen no evidence of those traits being connected to their sex drive. If other factors are involved, why the need to specifically denigrate their sexuality?

People use past behavior in order to predict future events. The more men a woman has slept with, the less value the next man will likely have. A virginal woman will have fewer men to compare her lover to, while a woman with a high partner count will be less likely to view her lover as being all that special. While the same can apply to men, the double-standard exists because of a sexual dynamic (caused from your pick of: biology, patriarchy, or elven magic - it doesn't matter) in which women are the gatekeepers of sex. Women can essentially choose when they want to have sex; such is not the case with men. Therefore, when a man has a high partner count, it provides a form of validation to his "prowess." This does not apply for women because there simply is no challenge for a woman to get laid (before I get cherry-picked by pessimist, obviously women who have visual symptoms of Ebola, are in a coma, dead, stranded on an island, have an acid-scarred face, etc., will have a hard time obtaining sex). It's insane that I have to point out that women can obtain sex at their whim while men, aside from perhaps the very tip-top percentage, simply do not have that luxurt. Insane!

I think there are a lot more lonely women out there than you're assuming, first of all. Women don't always have that option. What if we remove alcohol from the equation - does it still hold true? Probably not. So if your entire model breaks down when one variable is removed, I would say it's not a particularly great model.

Total bull$#@!. Even without alcohol, it would be a piece of cake for a woman to schedule a gang bang or whatever sexual activities she can phathom; a woman can simply post an ad on Craigslist Casual Encounters and get several eager responses within the hour. You can't really be this clueless of your womanly super powers...can you?

Regarding lonliness, the women that are lonely are the ones that won't date on their level. I have met plenty of obese women that stated they are only attracted to thin, attractive men. Obviously the thin, attractive men (outside from outlier chubby-chasers) would never actually date a hog, although they may use them for sexual convenience. So, even the lonely women are sexually fulfilled if they so choose; men don't always have that option.

I'm not sure that any of these statements logically follow. Not everything can be reduced to simple metaphor. Economic models of marginal utility are simply those - models. Models are approximations of reality, but reality should not be approximated to look like a model. No commodity actually behaves like the behavior given by a typical supply-demand model, let alone such nebulous and complicated issues as sex and marriage.

Is this even on point, or is it just eloquently written drivel? In any event, I explained above why men attach a lower worth to women with a high partner count, aside from casual fun.

[Antischism]

I see the "biotruths" are in full effect now.

[Rothbardian Girl]

Damn. I was drafting a response last night and then the power on the laptop went off.
<snip>

I stated that women are more discerning in their mate selection since they tend to have a greater number of boxes to check. For a man, the criteria is generally young, attractive, and sexually available, although even those may be compromised if the male is desperate. A woman tends to want a man that is attractive, physically fit, tall, intelligent, humorous, ambitious, confident, wealthy (or, in most cases, not poor), etc. Probably 99% of the dating profiles I have read expected men to possess those traits, regardless of the woman's attractiveness, employment, or whether she had one or more bastard abominations.

You cannot use an extremely limited sample (the online dating profiles you've read) to make generalizations about all women's criteria for a sexual encounter. The reason why women react so differently to an offer of casual sex from a man is because they generally perceive that the man will be terrible at sex, as well as concerns for medical safety (not "providing security" as you twisted it in the paragraph before this one) - it doesn't mean their checklist is longer. Bisexual women in the study were overwhelmingly more likely to accept an offer of casual sex from a woman instead of a man; are there different checklists for different genders, or what? Remember, you're conveying the idea that women look for way more things than males before deciding to sleep with someone. Using your own logic, men on online dating sites are too choosy as well. The people who frequent online dating sites probably do so because they have some deep-rooted social anxiety that causes them to withdraw and make long lists of why they can't interact with people. The women on these sites therefore are not a great representative of women at large.

Another part of the study that refutes the "status über alles" theory is that when women were asked to choose between sleeping with Donald Trump and sleeping with Johnny Depp (men were asked to choose between Angelina Jolie and Roseanne Barr), they were just as likely to choose the conventionally attractive person as the male was. So the idea that women are attracted to status and the ability to care for prospective children at some deep-seated level, such that they "gravitate" or some such nonsense, is not supported by this study's findings.

Survival strategy. Biologically, a female doesn't want to be impregnated by a weak male since she will be vulnerable for approximately nine months. Women had to be discerning in their mate selection out of necessity. You orgasm comment is out of left field, but I would imagine that most women would assume that a confident, dominant male would be better able to provide a more fulfilling sexual experience (even if this isn't the truth) than the geeky awkward guy that is afraid to approach her.

The biology argument doesn't resonate with me in the era of ready access to contraception. The entire point is that access to contraception is supposed to level the playing field for both men and women in terms of seeking casual sex (i.e., neither is the "gatekeeper," but there are still stubborn cultural barriers in the way. And your assumption is completely wrong - women get more pleasure out of casual sexual encounters when they are sufficiently relaxed, which generally translates in having a partner that they trust. This doesn't exactly bode well for society's caricature of a dominant man, because men are told that in order to be dominant, they have to be downright psychologically abusive.

Sex is a two-way activity but that doesn't change the fact that women are the ones who ultimately determine whether it is going to happen, aside from acts of rape. Speaking of which, only men can rape a woman, while women can "never" rape a man since it is widely, if subconsciously, understood that women are the gatekeepers of sex and it is therefore assumed that the man almost always wants to have sex (please note that I understand that, yes, technically a woman can indeed rape a man, but that is rarely a seriously dealt with issue; whether that is right or wrong is irrelevant for my purpose).

Nice appeal to tradition there. You don't see a problem with this circumstance at all? Please continue belittling male rape victims and forcing everyone to conform to absurd stereotypes about sexual desire. I can't tell whether you actually believe that nonsense or you're just parroting what the conventional wisdom is. Again, the biological reasons for "gatekeeper" theory are just about completely obsolete by this point, leaving cultural explanations as the main factor.

People use past behavior in order to predict future events. The more men a woman has slept with, the less value the next man will likely have.

This is only true if sex is zero-sum, and treats all sexual experiences as the same. Sex cannot be explained in terms of marginal utility.

I have to run now, but I may write more later.

[KingNothing]

you can be, but if the woman isn't actually responding to some convoluted drive to find an alpha, but is just nuts and likes to be mistreated, the mistreater, not the best human, is going to be the successful with that woman.

Then I don't care about her and she can find some loser to be miserable with. She isn't a positive, growing, person and is not worth my time.

One can argue that treating them poorly and general indifference are functionally the same.

Some guys treat women well because they want to be liked by women. I treat women well when I interact with them because it is good manners. When I'm not actively interacting with them, I generally do not think about them. A value judgment on which is most kind or beneficial to the woman is in the eye of the beholder, I guess. What is patently obvious, though, is that treating someone poorly so that they will want to have sex with you is ridiculous.

They're both designed to say "I'm an alpha, I have so much going on". Women are saying that what they want is for you to chat with them about their day like a beta. They're reading your indifference (what you recommend) as treating them poorly (compared to what the betas are doing).

My indifference is not designed t say anything. It is a product of actually having a good life, and a very real understanding that there are literally millions of potential mates.

[parocks]

This is basically the same argument Rothbardian Girl has repeatedly regurgitated on this thread: that women are the gatekeepers of sex and men are the "hunters" who MUST make the first move because of social mores and not because of deep-seated biology. The reasons for the propaganda are obvious: if social mores are to blame for all gender "inequality," then all we need to do is use the power of government and media brainwashing to "force" a change in the culture and bingo! Problem solved! Men will behave like women and there will be no consequences to suppressing their biology because there IS no biology!

If I wanted to socially engineer men to be docile and effeminate, I would make sure that in TV and movies:

Men are always depicted in popular entertainment as incompetent, especially any time a side by side comparison with a woman is involved. Women are even depicted with all seriousness as superior fighters in hand to hand combat. Their karate is just that good. If this lie is repeated enough, real males will come to believe that they actually are inferior in virtually every way.

Romance between men and women must always just happen naturally. No men hitting on women allowed, unless it is early in the show/film to set the scene about how tired she is of "jerks". Therefore, any man who actively does hit on/pick up women must be depicted as stupid, shallow and probably abusive/violent.

Passive beta males must end up with the hot chick in the end...if real males see this lie repeated enough they will come to believe that they can just continue to sit there passively and someday a unicorn will fall into their lap (great analogy btw)

Sound familiar?

Right.

You could keep typing. Thousands more words. It would be hard for me to come up with anything more accurate than "right".

I'm probably the oldest person on this thread. I was around, at college and law school, back then 80s-90s, in the early days of "Gender is Socially Determined". It was clear then that that was the battle line. I can't remember exactly why I had to read these ideas, compulsory, elective, but there was a lot of discussion of that, explicitly. I noticed at the time, that these ideas were bat$#@! crazy, that they were being pushed hard, and that the implementation of these ideas would be very very dangerous.

I mentioned in another post the coalition. That coalition includes women and government. If feminists wanted to make changes, they would have to enlist the government for help, very expensive, near totalitarian help. Without government, in the state of nature, in a truly biologically determined world, nothing would be the way it is right now. So, government and the feminists are in a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" arrangement. Women vote for more and bigger government and government gives women the laws they want, spend the money on all the things that women absolutely must have from government to have the society function at all the way they like things to be.

If you look at Libertarian / less government, and you look at my earlier posts which included a weird bunch of random things that could be different that men might like, you'll notice that most of what the feminists are pushing are costly, restrictive of liberty, basically not things that Libertarians would support. I think outside the box. The box has not been working for me at all. The specific parameters of the box are being up by the coalition of the awful.

I could rattle off a lot of ways that things could be different.

1) No more welfare.
2) No more child support.
3) Baby selling is ok.

- Those 3 should all in theory be considered Libertarian, right? All of those 3 would be accomplished by taking away the Government, right? Welfare is government transferring money from taxpayers to women, child support is goverment forcing men to transfer money to women. Baby selling is the solution, which the government won't currently allow, to the problem of what happens when no money at all is coming in to feed the babies. The pieces work together. We could save a lot of money and have a lot more freedom if we just did all 3 at once. And all 3 would be Libertarian, right? I'm not say we should do those things, but they did get typed.

Here are some more, random ones, that don't fit together in neat packages.

4) The Civil Rights Act of 64 banning discrimination. Get rid of that. Or make it apply only to blacks and native americans, because blacks and native americans were the only ones getting screwed. If employers, rightly, thought that things would generally work better if the women were at home taking care of the babies, instead of everyone in the workplace, upper middle class men and women in higher paying jobs, lower class men and women in lower paying jobs, you'd have less income inequality.

5) Major cuts in police services. Cops are expensive, more expensive than no cops. Typically it's the women who want more cops. Typically it's the women who are calling the cops. We can shift the laws back to "this is a personal matter, not for the government", fewer laws for the government for the government to enforce, fewer cops needed.

6) Legalize prostitution. World's oldest profession? Why is it still illegal? This one goes straight to the gatekeeper idea. And, of course, legalize prostitution either is or should be a core Libertarian idea. I've been thinking a lot recently about all the fun ways to have lots of prostitution. There's the standard Libertarian - there shouldn't be laws about that.

It's even more fun to think about legalized prostitution though within the context of the current big government (if it's run by men.) Because. not getting any decreases mental and physical health of men, I'd say that sex is a form of health care. So, free prostitutes paid for by the government! There goes any gatekeeper at all. Wheeee! No reason to listen to women's blather at all unless the extremely high quality free sex that you're getting from the extremely hot teenage girls just isn't enough for you.
One of the interesting features of Obamacare is that old and young pay the same. Old use doctors, young do not. Old have money, young do not. Old vote, young do not. Men and women pay the same. Women use doctors (having a baby in a hospital is expensive), men do not. So, why should young men have to pay the same as the people who actually use doctors? Shouldn't men get something out of this too? I'd sign up for super high quality teenage pussy. Let's use IQ tests to ration. The men with the highest IQ tests get their pick of the recent high school graduate girls. There could be a draft. I'm not exactly serious here, but feminists seem to think that they have full 100% control of all new ideas, and that everything will go hunky-dory for them as long as the coalition of the awful is strong. Maybe yes, maybe no.

Enough of those ideas.

You go into some detail about the brainwashing that the media is doing. They do a lot of it. You mention 2 things specifically - teen rom/coms teaching that passivity = unicorn pussy and the myth of the ass kicking super strong women. Those are 2 things that you've noticed and you've probably noticed a ton more. And the commonality between those 2 and the hundreds of other things is just that those things that are being taught are just completely wrong. Passivity doesn't get you laid, which is a bad lesson to teach, and those movies are also bad because they aren't telling you what does work. The movies say "this works". It's wrong, and guys learn how to do things wrong. But the bad movies displace the theoretically good ones. Movies would be better if the hero of our thread was the hero of the movie, and the main character, while fighting crime, whatever, ran around grabbing girls heads and yelling pickachu. I'm not sure that guys are going to think that women are superstrong based on movies, so the danger might be overstated there, but it does serve as an example.

If you count all media, not just movies, you include the recent friendly "street harrassment" facebook video as one of many many many "teaching / brainwashing" moments. The gay / sex change area is where things are most nuts. Because the core thing they're working on is the "gender is socially determined" idea. Sex change is at the heart of it. So, the absolutely craziest is with sex change. Remember a few years back when the media just enthusiastically proclaimed that a man was having a baby? Not possible. Never possible. But the media proclaimed it to be so. And every crazy guy who wants to wear a dress and use the womens bathroom is a girl. Because why "gender is socially determined". No, it isn't. But every single story will always call the boy with the male chromosomes a girl. They very very much want you to believe that black is white on that one.

The coalition of suck and awful and crazy and police state and oligopoly is worse than ever before. No year is better than the year before. (I'll stop just short of saying everything new is awful) The interests of the coalition are directly opposed to the interests of decent people who want truth and freedom. And the coalition is fighting hard for lies and restriction.

[willwash]

Regarding lonliness, the women that are lonely are the ones that won't date on their level. I have met plenty of obese women that stated they are only attracted to thin, attractive men. Obviously the thin, attractive men (outside from outlier chubby-chasers) would never actually date a hog, although they may use them for sexual convenience. So, even the lonely women are sexually fulfilled if they so choose; men don't always have that option.

To clarify the above, the reason women refuse to date at their level is that they tend to overestimate their own level. Bertha 5 quickly learns how easy it is to lure Trevor 7 and even the occasional Matt 9 into bed for some casual sex that she thinks will lead to a relationship. The fact that Trevor and Matt then proceed never to call or show any interest in commitment means nothing to her; in her mind, Bertha 5 has promoted herself to her appropriate target "range" of 7 to 9. Therefore Steve 5 doesn't even exist on Bertha 5's radar and has to settle for Helga 2. For men much below a 5 (IE, about half the male population), it's blind luck, sex tourism, prostitution, and/or lots and lots of porn.

[Christian Liberty]

Go $#@! yourself. That's just not an acceptable thing to say.

To clarify the above, the reason women refuse to date at their level is that they tend to overestimate their own level. Bertha 5 quickly learns how easy it is to lure Trevor 7 and even the occasional Matt 9 into bed for some casual sex that she thinks will lead to a relationship. The fact that Trevor and Matt then proceed never to call or show any interest in commitment means nothing to her; in her mind, Bertha 5 has promoted herself to her appropriate target "range" of 7 to 9. Therefore Steve 5 doesn't even exist on Bertha 5's radar and has to settle for Helga 2. For men much below a 5 (IE, about half the male population), it's blind luck, sex tourism, prostitution, and/or lots and lots of porn.

How would you define "blind luck" in this case? How are we rating people? What criteria?

[libertarianinternational]

To clarify the above, the reason women refuse to date at their level is that they tend to overestimate their own level. Bertha 5 quickly learns how easy it is to lure Trevor 7 and even the occasional Matt 9 into bed for some casual sex that she thinks will lead to a relationship. The fact that Trevor and Matt then proceed never to call or show any interest in commitment means nothing to her; in her mind, Bertha 5 has promoted herself to her appropriate target "range" of 7 to 9. Therefore Steve 5 doesn't even exist on Bertha 5's radar and has to settle for Helga 2. For men much below a 5 (IE, about half the male population), it's blind luck, sex tourism, prostitution, and/or lots and lots of porn.

Steve 5 must have both no game and no money whatsoever if his life is that bad. Is he an autistic hobo?

[dannno]

Steve 5 must have both no game and no money whatsoever if his life is that bad. Is he an autistic hobo?

Steve 5 is your average guy, an austistic hobo would probably be autistic hobo 1 or 2.

[KingNothing]

I feel like this entire conversation has become much more complicated than it needs to be. There are some things that we know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, because of rigorous experimentation and data analysis:

Men and women both desire a youthful, healthy, biologically fit, mate.
Women also consider social and financial status when selecting a mate.
Men more strongly consider youth and beauty.
Women tend to prefer men who are taller than them.
Men tend to prefer women who are shorter than them.
Most humans in the western world mate with people within 3 or 4 inches of their height.
Overweight and obese individuals are not considered sexually desirable in the western world.
One of the most important factors in whether or not a woman orgasms during sex is the financial status of her mate.
Women prefer men with strong masculine features when they're at their most fertile, and they prefer men with less masculine features at other times.
A woman's waist-to-hip ratio is important to most men.
Women tend to prefer men with larger chests, and men who have broader shoulders than waists.
Men and women both tend prefer healthy-looking, straight, white, teeth. This is a sign of youth and health.
Men and women both tend prefer a pronounced dark-ring around the iris. This is a sign of youth and health.
In general, women tend to prefer men who have facial features that represent the presence of testosterone. This is evident in a man's jaw-line, and the depth at which his eyes are set. There's also a correlation between fetal exposure to testosterone and your adult body -- look at your hand. Is your ring finger noticably longer than your pointer? If so, you have more testosterone than most humans.
In general, men tend to prefer women who have facial features that represent the presence of estrogen. Generally, this is evident by having "softer" facial features. Also, women tend to have longer pointer fingers than ring fingers.
Speaking sex hormones, their presences influences how you smell to potential mates. If you have the "right mix," certain people will like your musk. Men with lower testosterone tend to have a less-appealing scent to women.

Each of those points can be easily verified via Google. It is basic biology.

Do you want to attract women? Get a better job to make more money. Workout, eat right, and sleep more to improve your chest-shoulder-waist ratio, and to keep your body youthful. Increase your testosterone by eating meat, working out large muscle groups, taking cold showers, having more sex, listening to powerful cars rev their engines, oogling large breasts, (yes, all of those things increase testosterone production) etc. And if you're vain, whiten your teeth and wear contacts that accent the ring around your iris.

Do men and women like good conversation in a potential mate? Do they want to be loved and respected? Sure. Who doesn't? Any lasting relationship requires those things. But humans seem very willing to forgive some potential shortcomings, at least temporarily, if they fall in lust with someone who appeals to them on a biological level.

If you're spending time learning PUA techniques, you're an idiot. Go to the gym instead. Learn how to cook a healthy meal. Get some sleep. Interview for a new job. All of those things will actually give you value, and they'll make you a better person. Why learn how to pretend to be better, when you can actually become better instead?

[libertarianinternational]

Steve 5 is your average guy, an austistic hobo would probably be autistic hobo 1 or 2.

Average guys can get what they want if they try hard enough. The notion that they're not good enough for average girls (or even attractive girls) is just an excuse to make up for their diffidence.

[KingNothing]

To clarify the above, the reason women refuse to date at their level is that they tend to overestimate their own level. Bertha 5 quickly learns how easy it is to lure Trevor 7 and even the occasional Matt 9 into bed for some casual sex that she thinks will lead to a relationship. The fact that Trevor and Matt then proceed never to call or show any interest in commitment means nothing to her; in her mind, Bertha 5 has promoted herself to her appropriate target "range" of 7 to 9. Therefore Steve 5 doesn't even exist on Bertha 5's radar and has to settle for Helga 2. For men much below a 5 (IE, about half the male population), it's blind luck, sex tourism, prostitution, and/or lots and lots of porn.

Good men date up. Women hook-up up.

I'm probably a 7. My girlfriends have all been 8's, 9's and 10's. I've certainly hooked-up with girls who are.... not. I'd say most of my friends fit that description, too.

[dannno]

Average guys can get what they want if they try hard enough.

The problem is you are basing the rating on looks. Looks have less to do with attraction for women. If they 'try hard enough', or maybe have a couple drinks, get a good buzz on and let loose with some interesting conversations they can temporarily become or at least imitate a 7 or 8 and get lucky.

The notion that they're not good enough for average girls (or even attractive girls) is just an excuse to make up for their diffidence.

I don't think you quite understand the dynamic..

[KingNothing]

If you're an average-looking guy with a decent job, and you're only dating less-than-average-looking women, you either have a personality that is infuriating at best, or you're doing life wrong. ... or, you are more enlightened than I am and totally capable of ignoring physical attractiveness and able to focus on the things that actually matter about humans.

[parocks]

Then I don't care about her and she can find some loser to be miserable with. She isn't a positive, growing, person and is not worth my time.




Some guys treat women well because they want to be liked by women. I treat women well when I interact with them because it is good manners. When I'm not actively interacting with them, I generally do not think about them. A value judgment on which is most kind or beneficial to the woman is in the eye of the beholder, I guess. What is patently obvious, though, is that treating someone poorly so that they will want to have sex with you is ridiculous.



My indifference is not designed t say anything. It is a product of actually having a good life, and a very real understanding that there are literally millions of potential mates.

I just typed a really long one, so instead of a really long one, just this basic idea.

Supply and Demand.

What your saying is fine. The problem is - it means a whole lot of men just aren't getting laid.

Because Betas being nice doesn't get them laid.

If women actually wanted betas, if women really wanted men to do what they are telling them to do, they'd have sex with them, but they don't.

So you have a whole bunch of women issuing instructions via the coalition of the awful, and they're not responding. What they're saying is "$#@! off" don't talk to me, I'm crazy, I'd rather have sex with guys who are faking confidence because I'm just not that smart than have sex with the guys who actually like me and are following my instructions. This leads to a whole bunch of guys not getting laid.

Guys want to get laid - guys not getting laid is a bad outcome. Personally, I've given up. I'm on this thread in large part because it really didn't occur to me that being mean to chicks has been worked into a system of getting laid. Since I'm just often generally rude (when things suck, I say it. when someone's stupid or someone likes something that sucks, I'll say it) I'm thinking that this behavior might somehow work to my advantage. I always assumed that I could complain about the garbage state of the world because I gave up. I did not think that "all of your opinions suck, you're stupid, and here's why" or "there is nothing in your brain at all is there?" are actually used as pickup lines.

Supply and Demand. There is no demand for the betas who are responding to the "be nice to me or leave me alone" instructions. They don't get laid. There is no supply of alphas or fake alphas for the women who have to have that. Apparently, the alphas and the fake alphas all share among themselves a huge number of women who like to be either ignored or mistreated because that's what their crazy brains, hearts, loins are telling them.

Many here believe that's exactly how it works (this is something that I'm learning from this thread - I haven't thought about it much before this) - and the problem isn't what one guy should do, and how one guy should respond, it's a market problem.

Media (coalition of awful) creates passive betas (by request of the feminists, also coalition of awful), women have no Demand for passive betas. And the passive betas don't get laid. The problem is that passive betas aren't getting laid, and I'm sure they'd like to.

[KingNothing]

I've a theory that men are just as likely to be rejected by a 4 as they are a 10, regardless of their own attractiveness. Due to the bell curve distribution of human attractiveness, they simply come across less 10's than 4's, and therefore experience less successes in total, if they even approach them.

I'm almost certain that I've thought "wow, why is this hot woman so into me," and "oh boy, this woman just rejected me? Yeesh," an equal percentage of times.

[willwash]

If you're spending time learning PUA techniques, you're an idiot. Go to the gym instead. Learn how to cook a healthy meal. Get some sleep. Interview for a new job. All of those things will actually give you value, and they'll make you a better person. Why learn how to pretend to be better, when you can actually become better instead?

PUAs recommend all of these things in addition to their pickup techniques because, as you've noted, they also work.

[KingNothing]

I just typed a really long one, so instead of a really long one, just this basic idea.

Supply and Demand.

What your saying is fine. The problem is - it means a whole lot of men just aren't getting laid.

Because Betas being nice doesn't get them laid.

If women actually wanted betas, if women really wanted men to do what they are telling them to do, they'd have sex with them, but they don't.

So you have a whole bunch of women issuing instructions via the coalition of the awful, and they're not responding. What they're saying is "$#@! off" don't talk to me, I'm crazy, I'd rather have sex with guys who are faking confidence because I'm just not that smart than have sex with the guys who actually like me and are following my instructions. This leads to a whole bunch of guys not getting laid.

Guys want to get laid - guys not getting laid is a bad outcome. Personally, I've given up. I'm on this thread in large part because it really didn't occur to me that being mean to chicks has been worked into a system of getting laid. Since I'm just often generally rude (when things suck, I say it. when someone's stupid or someone likes something that sucks, I'll say it) I'm thinking that this behavior might somehow work to my advantage. I always assumed that I could complain about the garbage state of the world because I gave up. I did not think that "all of your opinions suck, you're stupid, and here's why" or "there is nothing in your brain at all is there?" are actually used as pickup lines.

Supply and Demand. There is no demand for the betas who are responding to the "be nice to me or leave me alone" instructions. They don't get laid. There is no supply of alphas or fake alphas for the women who have to have that. Apparently, the alphas and the fake alphas all share among themselves a huge number of women who like to be either ignored or mistreated because that's what their crazy brains, hearts, loins are telling them.

Many here believe that's exactly how it works (this is something that I'm learning from this thread - I haven't thought about it much before this) - and the problem isn't what one guy should do, and how one guy should respond, it's a market problem.

Media (coalition of awful) creates passive betas (by request of the feminists, also coalition of awful), women have no Demand for passive betas. And the passive betas don't get laid. The problem is that passive betas aren't getting laid, and I'm sure they'd like to.

I can't really respond in any way but this: men who overcome beta-ness --whatever that is-- by adopting PUA habits are lying to themselves and to women, and will be unhappy in the long-term. What they should do, is work to become better people and then draw confidence from that. Anything else is insincere, lazy, over-thinking, nonsense.

[KingNothing]

PUAs recommend all of these things in addition to their pickup techniques.

Well, then their only shortcoming is a moral one, and it is massive. They should absolutely not preach "negging," and other rude nonsense. From my experience, when people throw negativity out into the universe it does them no good in the long run and does not help their confidence. I'd suggest they learn how to win people over by being optimistic and positive. Playing on someone's insecurities by making them feel even worse about themselves is horrific.

[dannno]

If you're an average-looking guy with a decent job, and you're only dating less-than-average-looking women, you either have a personality that is infuriating at best, or you're doing life wrong. ... or, you are more enlightened than I am and totally capable of ignoring physical attractiveness and able to focus on the things that actually matter about humans.

Interesting thing is all the girls that have paid attention or dated me in the last few years have been at least several years younger than me and several points higher up on the attractiveness scale. It is few and far between, and I don't bed them all..but they do all at least have that in mind which always gives me hope.

Girls who are at my level or below in attractiveness barely pay attention, even when I'm completely interested in them for their personality and the fact that I generally rate women at least 2 points higher than your average guy - I'd like to slay a hottie but in the end I'm really not that picky. My ex was way hotter than I thought I would ever end up with and we lived together 2 years, talked about marriage, kids, etc..

So I am definitely in the camp that less attractive women tend to $#@! - 'up' and a lot of guys get left behind because of it. The more attractive ones see something else in me and they are over screwing guys who are just interested in them for sex. But again, very few and far between.

[Philhelm]

You cannot use an extremely limited sample (the online dating profiles you've read) to make generalizations about all women's criteria for a sexual encounter.

It was merely an example, and an extremely prevalent one at that.

The reason why women react so differently to an offer of casual sex from a man is because they generally perceive that the man will be terrible at sex, as well as concerns for medical safety (not "providing security" as you twisted it in the paragraph before this one) - it doesn't mean their checklist is longer.

Why don't men have the same concerns for medical safety? Furthermore, assuming women do have a greater concern for medical safety, wouldn't that be a factor in determining that women are the gatekeepers of sex, since men are oh so cavalier about their medical safety while women are cautious? Do you even understand the concept of gatekeeper? More sex would be had, but for the woman's caution - but they're not gatekeepers?

Regarding the checklist, you're trying to tell me that a man that is unemployed, doesn't own a car, and is living in his parents' basement is going to have the same ease of success at obtaining sex as a woman with similar circumstances? If so, why do you believe that (please don't cite that pissant study again - use your own words and thoughts)?

Bisexual women in the study were overwhelmingly more likely to accept an offer of casual sex from a woman instead of a man; are there different checklists for different genders, or what?

If a woman is a bona fide bisexual, it kind of falls outside the scope of this argument since other psychological factors must be weighed. Please stop obfuscating.

Remember, you're conveying the idea that women look for way more things than males before deciding to sleep with someone. Using your own logic, men on online dating sites are too choosy as well.

It isn't really that men are too choosy, but that it is harder for an individual to stomach dating down, although men will do so when push comes to shove. Women overestimate their sexual worth since it is easier for them to have casual sex with more attractive males. I will concede that physical attractiveness is a more important factor in online dating, since most women can't even bother to read the goddamn profiles. However, when they do meet, the other factors such as confidence will come into play.

The people who frequent online dating sites probably do so because they have some deep-rooted social anxiety that causes them to withdraw and make long lists of why they can't interact with people. The women on these sites therefore are not a great representative of women at large.

This is a side issue and could be worth a conversation on its own. However, I will say that online dating has become more mainstream as compared to, say, the 90's when there were stories of people falling in love despite never having met. It doesn't work that way. Have you ever used online dating?

Another part of the study that refutes the "status über alles" theory is that when women were asked to choose between sleeping with Donald Trump and sleeping with Johnny Depp (men were asked to choose between Angelina Jolie and Roseanne Barr), they were just as likely to choose the conventionally attractive person as the male was.

I don't care about this pissant study. Please use your own thoughts and reasoning capability. The study is flawed because the choice is obvious. Obviously men would prefer to be with Angelina Jolie (I hope I don't have to argue this point as well - please spare me). Obviously men would prefer to be with Johnny Depp as he is handsome, rich, and high status; his wealth would be sufficient for any gold-digger, so there would be no need to choose Donald Trump. Furthermore, I never stated that women do not care about physical attractiveness. What I did say is that women have a lot more factors that they weigh. A better study would be Donald Trump vs. a random, unknown man that is handsome like Johnny Depp. I'd bet that Donald Trump would get more hits in that scenario.

So the idea that women are attracted to status and the ability to care for prospective children at some deep-seated level, such that they "gravitate" or some such nonsense, is not supported by this study's findings.

See above. The only material variable was physical attractiveness, so the study was flawed from the outset.

The biology argument doesn't resonate with me in the era of ready access to contraception.

Just because a woman is seeking to get pregnant doesn't mean that she isn't trying to find an acceptable mate on a subconscious level. Technology doesn't really change this.

The entire point is that access to contraception is supposed to level the playing field for both men and women in terms of seeking casual sex (i.e., neither is the "gatekeeper," but there are still stubborn cultural barriers in the way.

What would really level the barrier is reliable male contraception, particularly a male equivalent of birth control pills. No more child support for unwanted, baseborn abominations.

And your assumption is completely wrong - women get more pleasure out of casual sexual encounters when they are sufficiently relaxed, which generally translates in having a partner that they trust. This doesn't exactly bode well for society's caricature of a dominant man, because men are told that in order to be dominant, they have to be downright psychologically abusive.

Being the dominant male does not mean being abusive. It could be simple things such as self-confidence, ambition, decisiveness, self-motivation, social standing, etc. There is no reason why a woman cannot be relaxed around a man with those characteristics.

Nice appeal to tradition there. You don't see a problem with this circumstance at all? Please continue belittling male rape victims and forcing everyone to conform to absurd stereotypes about sexual desire.

Are you blind? I conceded that men can indeed be raped and that society doesn't care, but that is a side issue that I don't really care to discuss within the context of this thread. For the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, why can't you ever stay on point without deliberate misrepresentation, deflection, and obfuscation? I don't believe that I've done that to your arguments; I try to meet you head on and be as straightforward as possible, but I am not extended the same courtesy.

I can't tell whether you actually believe that nonsense or you're just parroting what the conventional wisdom is. Again, the biological reasons for "gatekeeper" theory are just about completely obsolete by this point, leaving cultural explanations as the main factor.

I just don't buy that fear of STD's and not achieving orgasm accounts for the great disparity between a man's capacity to obtain sex and a woman's capacity to obtain sex.

This is only true if sex is zero-sum, and treats all sexual experiences as the same. Sex cannot be explained in terms of marginal utility.

I have to run now, but I may write more later.

Try to stay on point nex time. Cheers!

[parocks]

Since women demand a greater number of desirable traits, they tend to be the gatekeepers to sex,

I just wanted to hit this one point at this time.

"Since women demand a greater number of desirable traits, they tend to be the gatekeepers to sex,"

NO

"Since women GET PREGNANT AND HAVE BABIES, they tend to be the gatekeepers to sex,"

[pessimist]

This thread is absolutely amazing.

it is absurd, irrational, humorous (often unintentionally), educational (thanks for the book) but most of all entertaining. Keep it going.

[Philhelm]

I feel like this entire conversation has become much more complicated than it needs to be. There are some things that we know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, because of rigorous experimentation and data analysis:

STUFF

That's pretty much it. It's just frustrating when people like Rothbardian Girl would try to argue against every point you have made. "Nah, women only like straight, white teeth because of the patriarchy!"

[Antischism]

I just wanted to hit this one point at this time.

"Since women demand a greater number of desirable traits, they tend to be the gatekeepers to sex,"

NO

"Since women GET PREGNANT AND HAVE BABIES, they tend to be the gatekeepers to sex,"

No, women are perceived to be the "gatekeepers" of sex due to social conditioning.

[KingNothing]

That's pretty much it. It's just frustrating when people like Rothbardian Girl would try to argue against every point you have made. "Nah, women only like straight, white teeth because of the patriarchy!"

I don't think that is what she's saying. I think she is probably struggling to deal with some of the more absurd points that have been made by men in this thread, and that she's coming off a bit differently than she intends.

Society certainly conditions people to state that they want certain traits in a mate, and it certainly conditions potential mates to act in certain ways. That isn't really deniable. But how strongly does it influence people? I think it has a stronger effect on their words and thoughts than on their actions, and may ultimately lead to some sort of existential disconnect -- "I was supposed to feel a certain way about this! But I don't! What is wrong with life?! Why don't the things that are supposed to make me happy actually make me happy?!" And she's ascribing sexual agency to women that they definitely do have. Generally, women like sex and do pursue it. However, I do think she misses the boat when she presumes (or at least, I think she does) that women are sexually attracted to a similar percentage of men as vice-versa. Most guys I know would have sex with virtually any female between the age of 18-50 who is not obese. I don't think the converse is true. Women can get sex whenever they want. Men can too, for the most part, but their pool of potential mates will be much smaller. But, even absent social conditioning, I don't think that is the sort of thing that the average woman truly desires. I'm not saying that they all want monogamy and a life-partner, but I don't think they dig one-night-stands nearly as much as men do, even assuming that their safety were always assured. Even in $#@!-buddy relationships, studies have shown that women tend to put a far greater importance on the "buddy" part of that than men do.

So, I think there's probably some middle ground here where we have to acknowledge social conditioning and the impact it has on modern human sexual interaction but that we also have to admit that the dominating force is biology. If it weren't, there wouldn't be such a gigantic pile of evidence supporting the things sexually-desirable characteristics I listed above.