Lightning Round – 2013/11/13

A shorter one today. I have some new responsibilities at work which may decrease the reading I do, leading to shorter LR’s in the future.

18 things every 18-year-old should know. Don’t agree with every one of them, but it’s mostly excellent advice.

Stop searching for secrets to success; take action.
Related: How to get everything you want.
Related: Where to find motivation.

Women, value, and praise.

Female beauty is a gift from God, appreciate it; have standards.

Stoics and romance.

Post-scarcity and the sexual marketplace.
Related: Crowding out the private sector husband.

The new script is nothing like the old script.
Related: Our society knows nothing of marriage.

Female divorce calculator. The women I want to marry would have a 7% risk; not bad.

A defence of duty sex.

On ethno-nationalism.

Potential approximations of neoreaction.

This history of the nations of North America reads awfully like neoreactionary history.

The primacy of scripture: Ballista recommends I use scripture alone.
Related: Protestantism, Catholicism, and the Bible.

Satanism in the church.

Reality fails the Bechdal test.

The lie of “feminism is believing men and women deserve equal rights.”

Gender equality measures “work”.

“Men do not need a “movement”. Men do not need to “go their own way”. Men like women need truth.”

Is paternity fraud worse than rape?

Why women oppose prostitution.

Orson Scott Card’s interview answer.

The new rules of engagement.
Related: Helena Kincaid demands free stuff.
Related: TV is evil.

The difference between totalitarianism and our modern petty authoritarianism is the totalitarians assumed you would become a man, our authoritarians assume you will remain a boy.

The failure of conservatism.

The wages of socialism. Coming soon to a country near you.

More indoctrination in the common core.

Minimum wage destroys the black working class.

The success of Zimbabwe.

On right-wing authoritarianism.

An experiment on the racism of liberals.

The left pursues solidarity over truth.
Related: Remember, the barbarians hate the very concept of beauty.

Is the Flynn effect due to life becoming more like an IQ test?

(H/T: SDA)


Self-Esteem is for Losers

Pride goes before destruction,
and a haughty spirit before a fall.
It is better to be of a lowly spirit with the poor
than to divide the spoil with the proud. (Proverbs 16:18, ESV)

The Bible warns against pride numerous times, but I think a better word would be hubris.

The problem with the word pride is that it holds different meanings, all of which are used interchangeably.

a :  inordinate self-esteem :  conceit
b :  a reasonable or justifiable self-respect
c :  delight or elation arising from some act, possession, or relationship

The biblical injunctions against pride concern themselves with the first meaning; a belief that one is higher than one truly is.

Pride is the original sin and the sin from which all sins flow.

Lucifer, the morning star, thought himself above God and tried to ascend to His throne. His fatal sin was hubris.

Eve’s original sin was pride:

“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it.

She wanted to become as God; she thought herself greater than she was. For that she was forever cursed.

All sin is man thinking his own reason and his own ways are superior to the reason and ways of God. But as God pointedly asked Job:

“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?”

Man, in his pride, thinks himself wise, but his wisdom is foolishness. He elevates himself in his own mind above His creator and suffers for it.

In Proverbs humility is linked with fear of the Lord:

The fear of the Lord is instruction in wisdom,
and humility comes before honor. (Proverbs 15:33, ESV)

The reward for humility and fear of the Lord
is riches and honor and life. (Proverbs 22:4, ESV)

It is clear, humility is knowing your right place before God and before other man.

A humble man may still have pride of the second and third definitions: he may respect himself because he is made in God’s image which is reflected through him, imparting upon him value; he may take joy in doing acts of right, knowing these acts come from God’s providence.

The pride of a humble man and the pride of the hubristic man are as far as the east is from the west.

A man of hubris thinks himself higher than he is, a humble man knows himself for who he is.

A humble man has true confidence, for he knows who he is and accepts his lot. The hubristic man’s confidence is but a mirage.

****

Respect is something that is earned. It is primarily a masculine concept; where a man earns the respect of his warband (or a functional equivalent) by contributing to the warband. A man who is not worthy of respect, who does not contribute leads his warband to its death.

Respect is esteem given to you by others in recognition of your deeds.

A humble man’s contributions usually relate to or exceed how he thinks of himself, so he is oft respected in proportion to or exceeding his beliefs of his own station.A man of hubris is rarely respected according to his belief, as his empty thoughts of pride far exceed his contributions.

A man should strive to be both humble and respected.

Know your place, accept your place, contribute the best you can, and let other raise your esteem.

“When you are invited by someone to a wedding feast, do not sit down in a place of honor, lest someone more distinguished than you be invited by him, and he who invited you both will come and say to you, ‘Give your place to this person,’ and then you will begin with shame to take the lowest place. But when you are invited, go and sit in the lowest place, so that when your host comes he may say to you, ‘Friend, move up higher.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all who sit at table with you. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.” (Luke 14:8-11, ESV)

This is the masculine form of respect.

Respect is very different when framed in a feminine mode of thinking. This mode of thinking is devoted to a close-knit family where everyone is valued because immediate survival is not on the line and division in the home can rend the clan’s survival as surely as a rival warband.

Man is to be respected not for what he contributes, but simply for existing.

Treat everyone with respect.

This, as with most feminine modes of social interaction, works well on the small scale, in a tight knit family group apart from the immediate demands of survival. When applied to the immediate kin group, it leads to harmonious family relations working together for survival and against foreign threats.

It does not work in an extended group or when the lion is skulking in the bush. When applied to a survival situation, respecting the incompetent leads to a swift death.

When the feminine mode is applied on a greater scale, respect becomes meaningless. If everyone is respected, then what good is respect? If you give the same esteem to the criminal as to the saint, how is your esteem of any value? If one is respected regardless, why should one contribute?

In greater society, respect must be of the masculine form; it has to be earned for it to be of any meaning or value, otherwise it is naught but dust.

Not everybody deserves respect.

****

We come now to self-esteem.

Self-esteem is always based within the feminine mode of respect. “Everyone should have good self-esteem“, regardless of their actual contributions or abilities.

One should esteem oneself regardless of whether one is worthy of said esteem.

To this end, the dullard is praised as highly for butchering the English language as the wordsmith is praised for his beautiful sonnet evoking ancient imagery.

Under the cruel tyranny of self-esteem, man’s hubris is raised far beyond any reasonable estimation of his proper place. His elders, those wolves in sheep’s clothing, lead him into the violent trap of the sin of pride.

To add to the cruelty, he is incapable of developing proper self-respect or respect from others. His hubris overtakes him, but he knows in his heart of hearts, that something is not right. He knows in his heart of hearts he does not actually measure up to his own hubris, for reality continually and brutally contradicts the words of those sweetly poisoned tongues. His true confidence is eaten away nibble by tiny nibble, while he invests ever more heavily in his false hubris to keep from emotionally drowning.

Eventually, he will fall and self-immolate.

But, to twist the knife ever deeper, despite his inflated opinion of himself and the false praise of his elders, he will never earn real, masculine respect. His words will always exceed his deeds for how could he learn to contribute when he is taught to value his failures as highly as his contributions?

He will never earn the true respect of others. Because his self-esteem to be based solely on honey-dipped falsehoods, rather than the confidence of real accomplishment, this will eat away at his emotional and spiritual core. He will need their praise and their false respect, for his self-esteem depends on it, yet he will never have true respect and genuine praise for he is incapable of earning it.

He will never know and accept his proper place; he will never have the true confidence of the humble man. He will always think himself better than he is and pine for the respect and rewards he believes himself entitled to, but because he is not as high as he thinks he is and he has not earned them they will forever elude him. This will cause bitterness, as he questions his whole self, never knowing why he is not in “his proper place”, yet never being able to truly find his proper place.

Thus we end, self-esteem is for losers.

It is a false confidence that robs one of true confidence and replaces it with a sinful mirage. It erodes your emotional and spiritual core and makes you dependent on others for your confidence.

Winners gain confidence by trying until they succeed. They put in the effort, improve themselves, and eventually, their pride comes from knowing they have earned their place and being confident because of it.

Losers have no success upon which to build their confidence. They do not know their place, or they know and shudder at their worthlessness, so they demand others’ praise to inflate their sinful hubris.

****

I say this to you:

If you have any love of a young one, fight his self-esteem, crush it ruthlessly. Praise his true successes, but never let your praise be inordinate. Do not praise his failures; when he fails encourage him to try harder, to practice more, to push himself beyond what he currently is, so he can truly succeed.

Build in him true confidence, so he can climb to the mountain-top, look down, and know his place.

Only those who hate their children develop their self-esteem.

****

Also know this, if someone demands your unearned respect or curses you for lowering their self-esteem, they are a loser. They are drowning themselves in the sin of pride and demanding you help them do so. They need your accolades to prop up their ego because they lack the true confidence that comes with success, with genuine contribution, with real respect.

By demanding unearned respect they are only showing they are not worthy of it.


Cheers to Rob Ford

Some of you may have heard of Toronto mayor Rob Ford and his current cocaine scandals. Its one of the few times that a Canadian politician has gotten this much international attention, and from a simple mayor no less.

Fellow traditionalist Richard Anderson thinks he should leave his office, but I disagree.

Sadly, Rob Ford is one of the few vaisya politicians in Canada willing to stand against a political culture made almost entirely of Brahmin. Because of this he’s popular, at least in Toronto’s suburbs, which “aren’t part of the real Toronto” if you ask any of the elitist Brahmins who oppose Ford.  Some thought Harper and his conservatives might fight, but aside from a few minor changes (the gun registry and dismantling the wheat board) their rule has been almost insignificantly different from those of the Liberals prior.

He’s not a reactionary in any sense, but he is a vaisya’s vaisya, because of this he has earned the enmity of the brahmins far out of proportion to his actual power and status. He has been hounded mercilessly by the Cathedral. Really, has any other Canadian politician, even our prime minister, received as much international attention, all negative, this year as this one mayor?

His cocaine scandal has dwarfed that of a national (socialist) party leader being caught naked by police in a massage parlour known for trafficking in underage prostitutes. In fact, shortly after those revelations, “Smiling Jack” was all but deified upon his death. They dwarf the revelations of another national party leader. Trudeau, who admitted to smoking weed while working as an MP. despite this, his hereditary assumption to the liberal throne was all but a given despite his sole qualification consisting of being substitute teacher (and being named Trudeau).

Nope, Rob Ford has been demonized because he is not one of them. He is not the inner party, the enlightened. He is an outsider that dares defy the brahmins in their Citadel; the home of the (Red) Star and the state controlled CBC. Even worse, he has the unmitigated gall to be successful in opposing them and being popular while doing so, turning democracy against the champions of it.

The fight over Rob Ford is one of the prime examples of the democratic, class war between the vaisyas and the brahmins. The brahmins control every bit of leverage, almost all the press coverage, most of the major blogs, all of the universities, and the bureaucracy. The entirety of the Cathedral in Canada, along with parts of international Cathedral, has been been arrayed against him, yet he stands against them where they are strongest, with only the quiet support of his class.

So here’s to Rob Ford. Long may he govern.

Is Rob Ford a good politician? No, not really. But, he is the best the vaisyas have in Canada. He is the only one sticking it to the Cathedral; the only one even trying to fight the left.

Every day he remains in office is one more day the brahmin’s are blasphemed in their strongest cathedral. That alone makes him worthy of support, whatever his other failings.

The system has failed, as it was designed to, and the collapse is inevitable; at the very least we can enjoy the mockery Ford is making of of our self-proclaimed betters.

The only sad part is, that this is what one bumbling man with a spine fighting for the vaisyas can accomplish. What if the vaisyas could actually produce real politicians that had the courage of their convictions? What if we had a charismatic, competent leader who was ideologically strong and firmly loyal to his class?

Think of how successful he could be; we might even be able to turn the tide against the collapse.

If only better men of our class would stand and fight as Ford has.


Lightning Round – 2013/11/06

Science and game: flirting trumps looks. Great post.

The female fear of male standards.
Related: The loser mentality of the left.

Submission and corrupted authority.
Related: “Why do modern women try to use sex to secure commitment from men?”

On gender constructs.
Related: Why sluttiness is unattractive.

Victim-predators.

Testing a wife: is she a good worker?

Micro- and macro-game.

Social Pathologist thinks the Cathedral is lining up for a major attack on the manosphere.

Even old women hate gammas.

As outside, so inside: you can judge a book by its cover.

7th century BC poet on women.
Related: An African folk tale.

Good advice on ripping off restaurants and credit card companies. I do both.

Two books by John Durant that look worth reading.

20 signs he’s a player.

Where have all the good women gone?
Related; Women’s worst enemies are other women.

Savages and the post-civilized world.

The end of the grey middle.

Making neoreaction simple.
Related: The conceptual tools of neoreaction.

Anti-anti-reactionary FAQ: ever-leftward movement.
Related: The anti-anti-reactionary FAQ: freedom and monarchy.

The neoreactionary racial litmus test. I do rather like Sowell myself.

The shibboleth threat.

Entryism and apostolic succession.

Orson Scott Card on the SFWA.

Hitting the left where it hurts.
Related: Punch back twice as hard. Don’t support the left.

Rumblings of the Catholic right.

Tradition and broadway.

3 possible reasons for leftist behaviour.

Rollo, Susan Walsh, and SMV.
Related: Some more on Walsh’s errors. And some more.

Things seem to be going well for Chad.
Related: He’s voting no longer.

A letter to millenials.

How Alger Hiss explains the Tea Party.

Leftist propaganda in Toronto.

The pull of Harvard.

Another story of life in liberal academia.

The degeneration of language.

Week of praise: Zooey Deschanel.

Vaccines are racist.

The pro-Vietnam war hard hat riots.

Women should not be held responsible for their actions after drinking.
Related: Fixing rape culture in 3 easy steps.

Looks like the MRA’s are getting some support from feminists.

Feminism: Marriage for me but not for thee.
Related: More from Tracy Clarke-Flory, where she becomes an unfeminist bridezilla.
Related: Hehe… Talk of feminist weddings. Feminists are funny.

Slate XX feminist engages in beard shaming. I love the hypocrisy of feminists.

How feminism undermined itself.

Gamers, Anita Sarkeesian, and narcissism.

Study: Paid maternity leave doesn’t work.

Murdering grandma does not reduce health care costs.

Canada has lotteries for a family doctor. I have a family doctor I haven’t seen in 5 years; I usually just use a drop-in if I need. The only reason I got to sign up was because I phoned the clinic the first hour on opening day.

DC Court of Appeals strikes down birth control mandate.

A small list of Obama’s lies and abuses.
Related: The NYT covers for Obama.
Related: It is now acceptable for the president to directly influence journalists. Wonder what the reaction would be if his name was Nixon?

Whitehouse pressuring insurance insiders who speak about ACA.

““Can’t you email it to me?” Alice asked. We’re not set up for that, the Obamacare operator replied.” Everything you need to know about government in one sentence.

Matt Walsh becomes a liberal.

Your Brahmin superiors lecturing you on your mode of transport.

How are you enjoying the ice-free Arctic.

The stupidity of forcing your parenting strategies on others.

Rules of writing: the four elements of a novel.

 

(H/T: GLP, Instapundit, SDA,


Study Resources

I recently started running a young adults small group at my church (as part of my quest to become more of a leader). Right now it’s just four guys, but it’s open to both sexes. The last month we’ve been doing casual topical bible studies, but we want something more structured.

I’m brainstorming what to go through. Can any of my Christian readers recommend some good study resources or books I could use?

Nothing overtly Catholic or Orthodox; the materials need to be approved by an elder and one of the guys is very anti-Catholic.

Thanks.


“The List” and My List

Donal makes a list of what he requires in and offers to his future spouse, and suggested others do the same. I will, but first I’ll talk a bit on lists.

Unlike many in the ‘sphere, I do not have a negative reaction to a list; in fact, I support “the list”. I think it is a positive if a woman rationally plans ahead and has a strong list of non-negotiables she would require of a spouse before marriage and even a list of negotiable preferences. I think every single person, both men and women, should have a list.

A woman should have high standards; in fact, I think women should demand more from men than what they currently do. Women should not settle and should refuse to settle. Many of our modern difficulties come not from women with “lists” or high demands, but rather from women lacking either.

Men should have high standards and a list as well. In fact, I encourage any man reading this who is considering marriage to go and make a list of non-negotiables once they’ve finished reading this post.

****

The purpose of the list is something that should be kept in mind when making the list. The list exists, or should exist, for two main reasons:

1) To clarify what you are looking for in a relationship so you can focus your romantic efforts where they would be most valuable and avoid wasting time on people who are not what you need in a relationship.

2) To create a hard standard to prevent you from making a bad choice while being swept away in lust and emotion.

A list exists to protect you and your time from those who would use and waste both.

Leap stated:

The underlying subtext of this is all wrong. It’s a beta list for Beta’s and women who feel guilty about not dating them. She actively admits dating men that contradict these values.

He understands the proper subtext but misses the point of the list; the list, for women, is and should be to keep her from dating the alphas who would ruin her. It exists to protect her from her emotions so she doesn’t go through “alpha now -> beta later“.

A man’s list should exist to keep him from marrying the blonde bombshell with BPD. It serves as a firm anchor point when the tidal wave of lust overwhelms his good sense.

Every list should have this, not just as the subtext, but as the main point. Remember one of the main points of Proverbs, protect yourself from the adulteress.

Keep your heart with all vigilance, for from it flow the springs of life. Proverbs 4:23 (ESV)

****

The problem is not the concept of the list itself, the problem is with some women’s poor and irrational attempts at creating a list. They go about it the wrong, resulting in the incorrect use of the list. Here are some of the errors people make:

1) Creating a list that is unmeetable, but still expecting to get married. Too many women make a large list that no man can possibly live up to, than wonder why no man lives up to it. You must accept the reality that the higher your standards and the longer your list, the less likely anybody will meet it and the less likely marriage will be. If your standards are too high, you might remain single for the rest of your life.

My list of standards is fairly high (at least for our modern world) and I’d be surprised if even 10% of the single female population met them. In fact, my original list had more points (13) than the list Donal criticizes (12) and my new list below has the same number. But I recognize that my standards are high and accept the reality that I might remain single for the rest of my life. I simply know that I would prefer singleness to marriage to a woman that did not meet these basic standards.

Rule of thumb: Something should not be on your list unless you would rather remain single for the rest of your life than compromise on it.

2) Focusing on frivolities, ignoring the important – What matters for a marriage is underlying character, behaviours, and values related to a successful marriage. A list should focus on these. A list should avoid things unrelated this.

Too many times, when people speak of standards, of demanding more, they think of the superficial standards (absurdly high income,  a height requirement,  unrealistic standards of attractiveness). You should demand more and have high standards, but of character, not the superficial.

3) Making a list, then ignoring it – It is my impression many women make a list, sometimes reasonable, sometimes not, then, if they don’t meet a man who meets that list, rather then reconsider some parts of the list or simply go without a relationship, they completely ignore the list out of desperation. Usually when they ignore the list, it is the more important parts (character, values) they ignore in favour of the more superficial parts that shouldn’t be on the list anyways.

The list exists for a reason; if you make a list, stick to it. A non- negotiable list should be just that, non-negotiable; if you can’t meet anybody who meets the list’s requirements, either modify the list to something more reasonable or accept that you may be single for life.

4) Vague emotional standards, rather than concrete rules – I know romantic love can not be reduced to a formula, but a list should primarily be of concrete attributes, not vague emotions. A list which focuses too much on how someone makes you feel is counterproductive. It violates the purpose of a list, which is protecting you from your own emotions and lust. One or two points about emotions and attraction may be fine, but the bulk of the list should be observable traits independent of your emotional state.

****

Donal criticizes a particular list, but I don’t see much trouble with the actual points of the list in themselves. My only real problem with any of the particular point as written is #11 because it is theologically inaccurate, even though I have no problem with women expecting a certain, reasonable level of romance.

The problem is, as Donal mentions, the attitude behind this list and the way certain things on the list, particularly those related to emotions, may be (mis)construed could be problematic, but the list itself, as written, is not really offensive.

Also, the lack of concreteness is a problem: #7,10, and 11 can all be summed up as gives me good feelings. Good feelings should be one point on the list, if that, because good feelings are what the list should be protecting someone from; not a quarter of the list itself.

Irrelevant side note on the comments debate on attractiveness: The lady who wrote this is extremely attractive, both subjectively and objectively; a solid 9 at least (but I’m partial to blondes). On the other hand, I find Angelina Jolie unattractive, while I recognize she’s probably objectively attractive. There’s something I can’t quite identify about the fat lips that I find off-putting and her eyes always seem to look either cold, hard, or dead, none of which is attractive in a woman.

****

I’ve created a list of indicators of a good wife and mother on here before and in rel life I made a list of my minimum requirements for a wife. I’m not sure where I left the RL list, so I’ll try to recreate it here.

1) Christian – I am not too particularly worried about denomination, as long as it is non-heretical and non-liberal (but I repeat myself). I would even be willing to seriously consider converting to Catholicism and Orthodoxy if that was important to her, given that I’ve been leaning more in that direction over time.

2) Virgin, or has a low count but is genuinely repentant – My wife has to have a right view of sex. A virgin would be ideal, but I would not absolutely rule out a low count non-virgin if I knew she was honest about it and genuinely repentant and had enough positive traits to make up for the deficit.

As I’ve said before, I find the problem with marrying a genuinely repentant ex-slut is how accepting the church is of female fornication. When even “Christian” women accept the slut culture, how much can you trust a woman’s repentance?

3) Sufficiently attractive and healthy – Essentially, is she attractive enough to arouse me to the degree sufficient to desire and enact the procreative act and will she be so 20 years down the road? Is she healthy? Healthiness and attractiveness are strongly interrelated, hence why they do together here. It’s not a particularly high bar; most white or Asian women who take care of themselves would probably meet it.

(Note: #3 effectively rules out marrying outside of the white or Asian races, as I am generally not attracted to any but the most unattainably attractive women from non-Asian minorities).

4) Pleasant – Is she a joy to be around or is she a pain?

5) Not stupid – My wife needs to be someone I can genuinely converse with. She doesn’t have to be super-intelligent, I phrased this point as I did on purpose, but I don’t want to spend the rest of my life exasperated with and rolling my eyes at everything she says. Also, included under this would be sufficiently low time preference that she would not take drastic, unthinking actions that could destroy.

6) Not emotionally volatile – I am a calm, non-emotional INTJ. I simply can’t handle emotional outbursts all that well.

7) Prioritizes motherhood, family, and children – My wife who primary earthly goal will be motherhood and the family and she will need to be willing to have many children (I don’t have a non-negotiable number of children, but she’d have to be one amazing prize for it to be fewer than four).

8) Good mother – This is kind of vague, but does she demonstrate traits that indicate she would make a good mother?

9) Believes in traditional Biblical marriage – She needs to accept the model of marriage provided in the Bible. I am willing to date a Christian without this, given the sad reality of modern thought on marriage, but she must convert to this model before we marry. She also must be willing and eager to take my last name, no hyphens.

10) Willingness to homeschool – My children are not going to public school. Out of all of these this is the weakest on the list; it’s on the border between non-negotiables and strong preferences; I considered moving it to the top of my preferences list. I would be willing to accept alternatives such as Catholic private school or possibly Montessori education.

11) Responsible/Reliable/Loyal/Disciplined – Essentially, can she be relied upon. Marriage is essentially a business partnership based around running a household with the added bonus of sex; so, would I be willing to run a business with her? Does she wastefully spend and get into debt? Can she be counted on to keep her word? Can I depend on her to be responsible for those areas under her care? Etc.

12) Under 30 – I’ve written about this before, so I won’t say much more here. Under 30 is required, under 25 is a high priority, but negotiable.

My original list had 13 requirements, so this is not exactly the same, but I can’t think of anything that’s missing. The difference is probably because I mixed a few requirements together in this list that were discrete in the original.

Now, I don’t think I’ve made a list that is unreasonable. In fact, I’d be willing to bet that 100 years ago 90% of the single, white, Christian female population would have met this list. Even 50-60 years ago, I’m sure more women than not would have met this list (excepting some of the religious requirements).

In this fallen age, most women would not meet my list, but I think that says more about the decline of our civilization than any unreasonableness on my part.

****

Lastly, what do I bring to marriage. I’ll start with Donal’s LAMPS:

1) Looks – I’m tall and broad-shouldered, with a decent jawline. I have some muscle mass but I also have a bit of a gut. I’ve been told I’m handsome by a number of older women from church and my family’s social circles; I’ve never really inquired about it from women my own age. I’d guess I’m above average in this regard (but one must always remember the Dunning-Kruger effect).

2) Athleticism – I participate in a few sports, but they are less intense ones, and a martial art. I started lifting recently, but my lifts so far are not all that spectacular. I have a strong handshake and have decent burst capabilities but I’ve always had low endurance; but it’s been improving these last few years. Again, above average.

3) Money – I have a respectable, but not particularly exciting, middle class government job. I’m not yet 30, but I have a salary significantly above my province’s average. My salary is about average, maybe small amount above, for my peer group. I own my own home, have a decent amount of savings, and have a gold-plated government pension. There is a good chance my current career path could lead to six figures by retirement.  Above average here.

4) Power – I am extremely confident, dipping into arrogant at times, but I am not particularly dominant and rarely take the lead due to my introverted nature and my natural apathy to the social hierarchy. I’m working on becoming more dominant though. Probably below average here.

5) Status – I have no idea. I have a respectable but unexciting job. I generally have the respect of my elders; among my peers, I’m thought of as a bit of a right-wing nutball. I’m Probably average to below average here.

Overall, I’m probably average to somewhat above average (hopefully, Dunning-Kruger isn’t rearing its head).

I scored a 4 on Roissy’s Dating Market Value Test, lumping me in the Classic Beta category.

As for the counterpart to my list above:

I am a conservative Christian who believes in traditional marriage Biblical marriage, a virgin (but I do have struggles with pornogrphy), moderately attractive and rather healthy. I am intelligent and emotionally controlled (perhaps too emotionally controlled, according to some). I earn enough to be an excellent provider.I’m also responsible, loyal, disciplined, etc.

I’m probably not very pleasant, but I am fairly easy-going. My major deficits are my social skills are sub-par, I am devoid of charisma, and many women find my views of marriage, society, politics, religion, etc. off-putting.

****

So, am I worthy and capable of achieving the marriage partner I desire?

I’m not sure, but for now I’ll keep trying and improving myself and we’ll see.


Child Support is not Fatherhood

I was reading this post, An E-mail from a Proud Deadbeat Dad.

Matt is correct that fathers are important and that a man abandoning his child is an awful human being, but, while he does give a cursory out for men who have been kicked out their homes, he is far too accepting of the “women get pregnant and men abandon them myth”.

Matt, in the unlikely event you read this, the women who wish they had a man around are as much requiring of exorciation as men who abandon their children.

What kind of despicable women has children with a man who is not going to be there?

Why are these women not picking out better men to have children with, instead of cads who pump and dump them?

You should ask this question in your next blog.

(I sent him a e-mail asking him this, but in a more polite manner, we’ll see if he has a response).

****

BW is the product of feminism. “His body, his choice.”

When women can renounce motherhood by destroying their child in the womb, how can society judge a man for renouncing fatherhood?

How is BW any worse a person than the women who has serial abortions?

****

I came across this comment, by one gastronaut76:

I raise a daughter alone, after her father- who I was engaged to- whose idea it was to have a child, who was so excited to have a baby, who I realized I couldn’t make a life and separated from, slipped out of my daughter’s life, stopped paying child support, and owes me thousands. Your reductionist argument that I’m not only somehow defective because I was in love, believed a man who promised to support me and bore his child, only to be left holding the bag, but also AT FAULT for his actions? I have no words.

This gastronaut is obviously entirely at fault here, yet she seems to blame the man.

She kicks the father of her child out of her house for undisclosed (which likely means immature) reasons and then he’s the deadbeat for not paying child support.

This kind of crooked thinking can only be the result of a complete lack of understanding of what fatherhood is.

Child support is not fatherhood.

Every second weekend is not fatherhood.

Visitation rights are not fatherhood.

A man who has been removed from his own children and his own home can not engage in fatherhood. He can try to father the best he can, and any man that does gets my respect, but there is simply no way a father, no matter how great a man he may be, can fulfill the functions of fatherhood while removed from his children’s lives.

Even soldiers, sacrificing everything and fighting wars on the other side of the world, get home leave to spend quantity and quality time with their families.

A father needs to be there for his children, to spend time with them, to teach them, to discipline them, to love them, to nurture them. A father need quantity time with his children.

Every second weekend, no matter how “quality” it is is not enough.

Fatherhood is not disposable, and child support is not fatherhood.


Lightning Round – 2013/10/30

Shattering the delusion; a must-read for Christian men. I’ve come to a similar conclusion in the last year.

SMV is real; the data supports Rollo’s chart.
Related: The deeper economics of the sexual marketplace.

The single father deficit crisis. Related.

Related: Defeating the demon of entitlement.

Rollo on NAWALT.

See a woman how she sees herself.
Related: Using “good girl”.
Related: Sadly, shallow communication is where I am the most weak.

A follow-up to the Daily Beast article of last week.

Wives and denial of sex in marriage.
Related: Lazy housewives.
Related: The love and caring of submission.
Related: Bored housewives: women need struggle.

On the proper division of housework.

HUS goes off the rails in her criticism of the SMV graph.
Related: HUS goes further off the rail in regards to rape stats.
Related: A bit more on Susan’s intelelctual failure.
Related: Man, Susan has taken a lot of criticism this week.

Jack Donovan on the 20/20 piece, the KKK, and Salon.

Basic girl game: how to land and keep a boyfriend.

Defining tradcon feminism: Theory, Principles,

The insane anti-female ideology of modern feminism.
Related: Pope Pius XI on women.

Courting, marriage, and busting rates. If she’s not happy with a very basic ring, she’s not worth marrying.

Women are either equal or they aren’t.

Can stupid, young women be held accountable?

A good post on the victim culture of the “rape culture” movement.

Now that is cynical.

Fecundophobia.

On modesty.

Maybe I should use less foul language here? “Evil words for evil things”, but is that just self-justification for using degenerate language? Hmmm…

I wonder how long until some of these divorced men start murdering the judges?

On being friends with women.

ABlack spade (cards)’s story.
Related: Francis’ journey.

Dicipres returns after a couple months to advocate spanking your wife.

“It is the OBLIGATION of any man who wants to better civilization by promoting intellectual endeavours, learning and civilized behaviour to ALSO be attractive to women.”

The distinction between the good of groups and of individuals.

Neoreaction research priorities
Related: Questions.

The underlying problem of the anti-reaction FAQ.
Related: The decline frame.
Related: In response to claims concerning Chang Hsien-chong
Related: Jim on crime against the anti-reactionary FAQ.
Related: The problem of measuring the decline.

Neoreaction is anti-utopian.

Monarchy, Schelling points, and Japan.

The necessity of propaganda.

Democracy is rule by idiots who vote for things that sound good to them at the time.”

Brian Leiter, philosopher and Brahmin paragon, wants to lock you up.

Defectives deserve death.

Why have major technological changes stopped since the 1960s?

A bleak view of the church’s immediate future.

The iron laws of pedagogy.

Half of newborns will see their parents split by 15.
Related: A divorced friend or relative greatly increases odds of divorce.

How to fight the welfare bums.

Looking forward to our future of eating beans.

America Inc. and the trouble with Texas.
Related: A book review and a good discussion of immigration.
Related: Immigration and female coders.

Race, crime, and the creation of banlieus in America.

The outrages of public school are not a failing; they’re the goal.

The curse of the middle class: the ambiguity of status.

The pill and the doctrine of double effect.

Hehe… Steve Sailer with a great little quip.

Secular theism.

25 reasons for Trinitarian scepticism.

Against ADHD.

Advice for preppers.

“The whole purpose of politics and hence of government is to reward failure, if people succeed and prosper, the they don’t need government. Politicians* promise unearned rewards, and the more vicious ones promise to penalise success. Some set out to penalise success and promise reward to those who set them on their way.”

The seen and unseen in Sweden. I noticed similar in Norway; a pizza was about $30-40 and a McD’s cheeseburger meal was about $10.

The problem of the 40-hour work week.

The government wants to start tracking your car, at some point.

Armed citizen prevents mass shooting.

Wow… That’s one awesome 10-year-old.

Pepper-spraying cop awarded $38k in damages.

Gays: the creation of a voting bloc.

A great post on healthcare.
Related: Obama knowingly lied about people not losing their insurance. I’m surprised.
Related: Once more, those in pain must suffer to protect the failures from themselves.

Just another example of the institutionalized lies of the left.

France: A warning on the self-limiting nature of government.

Why should banks be able to blame the victims of identity thefts for the banks’ errors?

The philosophical failure of modern science.
Related: Science has lost its way.

The changing politics of public sector pensions.

Food stamp enrollment increased by 70%.

(H/T: Phantom Soapbox, Rex, CC, Foseti, Instapundit)


Omega’s Guide – Women

We come to the last part of our guide, learning basic interaction with women. I left this for last on purpose; being attractive to women is primarily about demonstrating value to them and the prior advice will turn you into a (more) valuable man. (Game, or at least outer game, succeeds by mimicking the traits that demonstrate value; better to be than to mimic). If you’ve been implementing the previous parts of the guide, your value will already have increased, and you may have already noticed more success (or at least less failure) with women.

Before I begin, I’m going to be honest with you, as I’ve been rather uncomfortable about writing this part. I am mostly a failure in this area; I’m not sure if I’m even qualified to write this, but I have to, because this part is essential to any self-improvement guide for awkward males.

So, you should know that I’m not a player, a master of seduction, or any such thing. I’m not even all that successful with women. In fact, my romantic efforts have proven mostly fruitless in finding myself a wife and I haven’t been in a relationship in about four years. Everything I write here is stuff I’m still working on implementing (theory is a lot easier than practice).

What I do have is experience from being a total loser who wasn’t even in the dating game to having some success. I went from, literally, not being to speak with most women to, a couple of years later, having a couple short relationships. Now, I get occasional dates (one every few months) with moderately attractive women (6-8s). A vast improvement over the nothing I had prior.

So, the advice given here is not about game, it is not about becoming an alpha male, and it’s not about becoming king of the club. This advice will not help you find a smoking-hot 9 for a girlfriend or keep a rotating harem of 8s. I do not have the knowledge or experience to help you with that. If you’re looking for something like that try Roosh or Greene.

What this advice will help you accomplish is to go from being the loser who hasn’t had a date in three years (or ever for that matter) or is forced to date fat or unattractive girls to being a normal, socially well-adjusted man who can get the occasional date with a cute girl and, maybe, a moderately attractive girlfriend. If you’re the kind of person I’m making this guide for, that will be a large improvement over whatever you had (or more likely didn’t have) previously. Even if you’re not as total a loser as I was, some of the advice still might be useful to you.

This advice will not get into game in the sense of gimmicks, tricks, or “mind-games. It is simply about building yourself the social skills to be the kind of man a women of decent value might like to be with.

It will take a lot of work, and it will be a slow, grinding process. Don’t give up, keep trying. Simply remember how psyched you have been and will be in the future when you find yourself doing something you never thought you’d be able to do.

****

Before we being, we’ll talk on the friendzone, a trap many men near the bottom of the socio-sexual hierarchy fall into.

The friendzone is a self-inflicted misery; stay out of it. If you value a woman as a friend, and only as a friend, be her friend and expect and desire nothing else. If something happens, it happens, but do not work towards it, do not look for it, do not desire it, and do not expect it.

It is highly unlikely you will get a relationship out of a friendzone friendship and it is very costly in terms of time and emotional effort. It is simply not something any reasonable person would pursue.

So don’t.

If you are friends with a women because you want a romantic relationship with her, then be forthright. Next time you see her, tell her straight, “I desire a romantic relationship with you. I can not remain friends with you because of my romantic emotions towards you.”

Maybe you’ll get a romantic relationship, maybe you won’t, but it is far better for you (and her) if you are rejected and end the “friendship”

If you don’t get the relationship, simply cut off the “friendship”. Stop spending time, resources, or emotional energy on her. You have better things to do with all three than waste it on a forlorn and pointless hope. Do not try to change her mind (you won’t); simply accept the rejection and move on.

If she asks why you cut her off, tell her the truth. You want a romantic relationship with her, not a friendship.

You can be friends with a woman, but only if the friendship is the end in itself. If the friendship is a means to a romantic relationship, it’s not a friendship; end it.

****

The next little trouble many men who are are socially maladapted fall into is that of “nice guys finish last” while jerks get the girls.

The problem with this type of thinking is twofold: “nice” and “good” are not equivalent and the underlying factor is not jerkiness/niceness but rather a combination of manliness, charisma,and desperation.

Whatever their other flaws, the jerks who get women exude masculinity, which attracts women and often charisma (of a sort); they also rarely exude desperation. “Nice guys” are generally deficient in both, as rather than assert their own purposes, they defer to other’s, particularly women’s, purposes. This is decidedly unmasculine. Nice guys often also lack charisma, it’s boring to have someone who is always nice and agreeable with you and never challenges you.  Being nice often gives of a vibe of desperation as well. As with the friendzone predicament, if you’re willing to do many nice things for a woman, she will see you as trying to “buy” her affections because you are desperate for his attention.

You want to avoid that, but that does not mean you have to become a “jerk”. Simply, try to be a man with your own purposes and make those purposes good ones.

Be a good man dedicated to good causes; don’t be a nice guy willing to defer to everyone else.

****

With that friendzone and nice guys nonsense out of the way, we’ll get to the actual meat of the issue.

The first thing you need to do is decide, “what kind of woman do I want?” and “for what purposes?” What kind of woman or women do you want to invite into your ideal life?

“I’ll take whatever I can get” is the wrong answer. It shows both that you are low value and that you are desperate for female attention, both of which are inner failings on your part which will repel women.

Women want a man of high value; what type of high value each woman will care for will depend on her particularity, but all women want a man of high value. The type of women you want to date will likely be of high enough value to be able to demand that.

Also, every women wants to feel like she was chosen because she’s “special.” If she thinks you stuck with her because she’s the only one you could get, she’ll reject you (unless she’s such low value herself that she thinks you’re the best she can get).

So, now be honest with yourself, what kind of woman do you want in your life? What kind of relationship(s) would you like to have?

Think on it a bit.

****

Now that you have an idea of what you want, picture the type of man who has what you want. Look around at your friends, your church, your neighbourhood, your social group, etc. What type of men have the kind of woman you want?

Be that type of man.

Success with women starts well before you even say hi to any women.

It starts by being the type of man the type of woman you desire would desire.

This is nowhere near as easy as the little phrase makes it sound, but it’s the goal. You may never reach it, but work towards it.

I’ll repeat it, because I can not stress this enough:

To be successful with women, you should first be successful with the other areas of your life. Success is attractive to women.

There is no secret to attracting women, there is no shortcut, there is no magic technique; to attract a women simply requires

So keep on improving in all the other areas I’ve already written about.

****

One last piece of theory before we get to practice.

Know your value on the dating market and act accordingly. If you are a short, ugly man, you will likely never get a “9” (barring becoming a billionaire). On the other hand, with enough self-improvement, social skills, and value-building you might get a nice “7”.

If you spend all your time pursuing those 9s who will always reject you, but ignore that sweet little 7 with a crush on you, you will die alone.

Shoot for something attainable, but don’t settle. You want to work on finding a women on the upper edge of what you are able to obtain.

Look for a winning hand, not a perfect hand. If you hold out for a royal flush, you’ll almost surely lose, but that three of a kind will let you take the pot.

****

Theory is over, now for more practical advice.

The first thing you need to do is to talk with women. You’ll never get any romantic success if you don’t start talking with women.

Start with that girl you’ve been mooning over for the past 6 months, but have been unable to talk to (you know full well who I’m talking about). Next time you see her, go up to her, say “Hi, how’s your week been?” Then simply follow along, nod your head where appropriate, and ask questions or interject with your own stories (if you can). Let her carry most of the burden of conversation.

Your first time will probably be pathetic and you’ll probably be scared the whole time.

Good; face the fear.

Next time you see her, do the exact same thing, but a little better. The next time, do the same thing. From now on every time you see that girl, go up to her, ask her how her week (or day, or month, or whatever) has been, and try your best to talk along. (Remember your Dale Carnegie).

After a few weeks have gone by and you’ve talked with her a few times, ask her out. It’s simple: “Would you like to go for coffee (or in summer, ice cream) with me this Friday at 7?

She’ll probably say no because you didn’t interest her enough with your pathetic attempts at conversation. Accept that she’s going to reject you before you ask and don’t worry about it.

She’s rejected you: that’s great. I know it hurts, but what is far more important is that you tried, you asked her out.

Accept her answer, accept that she doesn’t like you, hurt for a few days or a week or two. Then get over it.

One woman rejected you and there are millions of cute girls out there. Go find another one.

If there is a women you moon over, who you already talk with regularly, just ask her out. A simple, “Wanna go for coffee with me Tuesday night at 6?” will do. See my advice in the friend zone section above.

****

So now we’re at the point where you don’t really have any girl you particularly like, because “she” rejected you.

Good. Time to meet some women.

If you’ve been following along in the guide so far, you’ve probably been meeting lots of new people at your new social activities; I’m sure at least a few of them are pretty girls. Talk to them.

Do exactly what you did with the first girl. “Hi? How has your week been?” Nod where appropriate, ask questions about her (remember your Dale Carnegie), and talk when you can.

Your conversations with women will be awkward and painful at first. Don’t expect success right away. Simply talk as best you can. Every conversation you have will make you slightly better at it. Over time, without even really realizing it, you’ll become proficient. Just keep at it.

Talk with as many girls as you can. The more practice the better.

If you develop a particular fondness for a girl after a few conversations, simply ask her out. Same as above: “Let’s go for coffee for Sunday afternoon.”

You’ll probably get rejected a number of times before you get success. That’s fine, simply accept it and move on.

Don’t get too attached to any particular girl. If you find yourself getting attached to a girl, ask her out. From personal experience I know it is far less painful to be rejected immediately then to drag it out.

Keep talking to the girls in your social circles and keep asking out the ones you like; keep getting rejected.

As you do this, remember what you learned about body language and try (as best you can) to observe the body language of the girls you talk to. It can be a great help to pick up on her tells of whether she’s attracted to you or not.

Then, at some point one will accept your offer of a date.

****

So, now you have a date. Here’s how to go about a first date.

Depending on where you and her live and your transportation systems, you can either pick her up or meet her. Either works, but if she doesn’t have a car and you do either pick her up or meet near her. She will not appreciate having to bus or walk long distances to meet you.

Arrive on time, but do not arrive more than a minute or two early (wait in the car or around the corner if you have to). Arriving early makes you seem desperate and is rather awkward for her. If you’re picking her up, get out of your car and get her; don’t just sit outside and honk.

A good general idea for first dates is gelati/ice cream in the summer or hot chocolate/coffee in the winter for a few reasons:

  • They’re cheap, this avoids the “who pays?” awkwardness. $4 coffee won’t cause you much fiscal pain and she won’t feel bad about it. Simply pay for both of you; don’t ask her, don’t consult her. Simply tell the clerk you’re paying for both of you and ignore her “objections”.  Pay in cash if possible; little will be more embarrassing than your debit not working because the bank is undergoing maintenance.
  • The atmosphere around these is relaxed, unlike dinner dates which are more formal, and ideal for talking, unlike movies.
  • Girls love ice cream; I’ve never met a girl who didn’t like ice cream (or a vegan alternative). Go for gelato if you can though. It’s enough like ice cream that everybody loves it and it won’t be off-putting, but just foreign enough that a lot of girls haven’t tried it, giving you a tiny amount of “worldly man” edge.
  • Everybody loves hot chocolate on a cold day; it just feels right. Most places that serve coffee serve hot chocolate and vice versa. Order the hot chocolate, and let her choose whatever drink she wants.

When choosing an ice cream/coffee place choose one that is either near a larger park or is in a “walkable”, attractive neighbourhood, preferably a place you’ve been around before.

Once you have your beverages, don’t sit down, instead, go for a walk through the park/ neighbourhood. This has a few advantages:

  • You’re doing something. Awkward pauses in conversation are far less awkward when you can both simply walk and admire the scenery.
  • Walking lends itself far easier and more naturally to playfulness and energy than sitting at a table or on a couch.
  • The scenery lends itself to creating conversation topics. Point out the cool looking dog, laugh at the garish colours of that odd house, remark upon that beautiful tree; whatever. There’s a lot more to talk about when walking around then when sitting down.
  • If you know the area, if lends itself well to telling stories showing you have a full life (which is attractive to women). You can talk about the great pizza you had with your friends at Luigi’s, about the soccer game you won at the field over there, about that amusing story with your friends at that pub, or whatever other experiences you’ve had.

Note: If it’s winter or a blustery day, make sure to mention to her that you plan on going for a walk either when you ask her out or when you pick her up so she can dress appropriately. The walk will not happen if she’s not dressed for it.

Now that you’re out walking, what to talk about:

  • Do not talk about politics, economics, religion, or other controversial issues unless she brings it up first or you know (for certain) that she’s really interested in them. If you both share the same core religious beliefs, you can talk about that, but avoid deep theology, unless, of course, she brings it up.
  • Do not talk about your hobbies that women find boring (ex. video games, science fiction, Warhammer), unless you know she shares those interests. You can mention them if she asks what you like to do, but don’t spend any time on them. Nobody cares about your lvl 17 Orc Paladin.
  • Avoid talking about your job, unless it’s very interesting. If she asks mention it, but most of use have relatively uninteresting jobs; don’t bore her by dwelling on them.
  • Do ask questions. Ask about her about herself, her family, her hopes, her dreams, her hobbies, etc. (remember your Dale Carnegie), but avoid it being an interrogation. After you ask about her family, tell her a bit about yours or remark about . If you find yourself asking two questions in a row you’re probably doing it wrong.
  • Talk about yourself. Let her get to know you. Talk about your (interesting) hobbies, your sports, your family, your recent trip, what you read recently, your friends, etc. But make sure to include her in the conversation; if you’ve been talking for more than few minutes without her saying anything (unless it’s a long, but good story) you’re doing it wrong.
  • Talk about stuff you see or stuff going on around you.

All these conversation “rules” are solely to help you get conversation started (or restarted after an awkward pause). Once it’s started, let the conversation flow naturally. If you’ve got a good conversation going don’t ruin it by trying to hard or trying to stick to a set of rules. Simply go with the flow.

End the date at the right time. If things are going well and conversation is flowing, keep going, let the date continue, don’t cut it off when things are going well. On the other hand, if there’s a natural end point and you’re running out of things to say, end the date. (Ex: “There’s my car” or after a longer pause “I have things to do, we should head back”)

Don’t try to awkwardly prolong the date; end it a bit before it becomes awkward, and try to end it naturally.

Finally we get to parting. If you’re dropping her off, get out of the car and walk her to her door. If you met up, walk her to her car or bike. If you both walked, don’t just awkwardly walk away; make a definite part.

So how do you part?

That depends on a large number of factors such as how well the date went, your comfort level, her apparent comfort level, how much you like her, her apparent like for you, and your (and her) views regarding physical intimacy.

Whatever it is do not draw it out. Once you are at the parting point, make it short, a few sentences and a parting hug/kiss. Do not keep blathering away like an idiot; it makes things awkward.

If you don’t want to see her again, a hug or handshake, and a thanks for the date will suffice. Do not tell you’ll call her if you won’t. Thank her for the date and tell her you enjoyed meeting her.

If you do want another date, then tell her you enjoyed the date. Then either tell her when and how you’ll contact her again (something like, “I’ll call you in the next couple days) or if you know your schedule, lock down the next date (“I’d like to see you again, how about next Friday night?”).

Follow this with some physical contact, depending on how the date went and your comfort level. A few types of contact are always bad, such as a parting handshake or a side hug (the way I too often end a date). Here’s some good types of physical contact to end a date with:

  • A full kiss. This is high risk. If you go for this and get it, you can be sure the date went well, but not all girls are comfortable with it and there’s a good chance it could flame out. As well, some, such as myself, may think it is too high a physical ecalation for such an early time. Go for this if you’re both really digging each other and you’re comofrtable with it. If she turns her cheek, that’s fine; if she pushes away you’ve blown it.
  • A full hug. This is the safe move; it’s neutral and won’t win you any points but its positive, will rarely be rejected, and won’t lose you points (except among the most licentious of women). Make sure you lead and make it a confident chest to chest press with both your arms around her. Don’t lean over, don’t fumble awkwardly trying to avoid her breasts, don’t do a side hug, don’t make it awkward, and don’t be tenative about it. Commit to it fully and just go for it. Hold it for two or three seconds, but no longer.
  • A light kiss on the forehead or top of the head. This has some intimacy to it and can be positive, but it has a sort of paternalism to it, which may backfire on you.
  • Take her hand and give a light kiss the back of her hand, like an old school gentleman. This is usually positive, as it harkens back to chivalry and most women get a little giddy from that, but the traditionalness of it can occasionally backfire, especially with more feminist women.
  • A peck on the cheek. Fairly safe for a date that has gone well. It shows a bit of intimacy, but is not as forward as the full kiss. It can possibly end awkwardly depending on how conservative she is or if she’s not as in to you.

Then tell her “See you later” and part. Don’t wait around after the goodbye contact; it makes things awkward.

****

Now you have a second date (or third or fourth, your first few dates should all be similarly casual and give you the chance to get to know each other).

Choose something else relaxed, fun, and inexpensive, preferably something you know she likes. In a pinch, ice cream can work again, but may look a little stale.

  • If you share a hobby, doing that together would be a great idea.
  • Minigolf is good. It’s fun and relaxed. So is bowling.
  • A hike in the woods, a stroll in a large park, or a walk at the zoo or aquarium can be a good adventure. It’s relaxing, fun, and there’s plenty of interesting stuff to see, talk about.
  • Ice skating is great for the winter; it allows a great interplay between playfulness and getting to know each other.
  • Museums, art galleries, etc. can be a good trip. Make sure to choose something she might be interested in.
  • If you have a local touristy area, checking that out can be a good idea. You can walk around, admire the sites, check out the stalls, and have some casual snacks.

All of these can also work well as first date ideas.

After the first few dates, you can try dinner and a movie or, even better, cook her a meal and watch movies at your place.

After that, you’re on your own. You should know enough about her by this point to be able to figure out how to spend time together. Let things work from there.

****

Lastly, cold approaches.

This is not something you’ll be able to do right away and will always be troublesome. You’ll probably need to build up to it. I still have difficulties with it. But here’s some exercises to help you build up to it.

Start by simply looking girls in the eye and smiling (make it a confident smile), as you pass them in the streets. In fact, try to make it a habit. Do this for every girl you see for two weeks.

The next two weeks, do the same, but say hi as well. Then keep walking (unless she makes a point to start a conversation with you; in which case talk to her).

The following two weeks, do the same, but if she smiles or says hi back, ask her how her day is going.

The following two weeks, if you see a girl you think is really pretty talk to her. If the clerk at Target is cute, as her about her day. Ask the gal on the bus what she’s reading or where she’s going. Ask the girl in line with you at the coffee shop how her day has been.

If any at any time, these turn into real conversations, and it seems like she might be interested, ask for her number.

If you get it, phone her two days later and set up a date. Then go to first date protocol.

Start small, and work your way up.

****

Random Tips

  • Remember your Dale Carnegie: smile. When interacting with women, be happy, be energetic, be positive. Nobody is attracted to the morose loser. (The brooding loner can be attractive if pulled off right; but if you need my help, you aren’t going to pull it off right).
  • Remember your body language. If you can’t be confident, at least look it. Also, look to women’s body language. I can not stress enough the importance of body language.
  • Take advantages of opportunities. If a girl says she really wants to go to a new restaurant, or see a new museum exhibit, or visit some place, or try some activity, she’s handing you an opening, use it. It’s a simple, “That does sound like fun, how about we go see that local play next week?” If she hands it to you, take it.
  • No movies or dinner for your first few dates. Save movies until after you’ve known each other a while, because they don’t let you to talk during them. Save dinner until you’re actually dating, as it costs a lot, is too stereotypical (and thus “boring’), and looks try-hard.
  • Don’t be desperate. Avoid phoning her more than once a day, and don’t phone her more than once between each date for your first half-dozen dates. Don’t text her twice in a row. After a date, wait a day or two before contacting her again. You can relax on these rules once you’re in a steady relationship.
  • On the other hand, don’t go too far the other way. If you wait to long, she’ll simply not respond.
  • Try to be natural. Don’t try too hard, don’t look like you’re trying to hard. Don’t try to put on a false persona. Act natural and confident.
  • Practice. Social skills are like any other skill; you need to practice.
  • Keep eye contact.

****

Your goal:

Your goal for the week is to look every girl you pass in the streets in the eyes and smile at her.

Also, if you see “her” this week who you’ve been unable to talk to, ask her how her day is going.

If “she” is a friend or acquaintance you have talked to, ask her out.


Sex – A Response to Scott Alexander

Scott over at Slate Star Codex has created the Anti-Reactionary FAQ, probably the first rational, comprehensive critique of neoreaction. (It also turns out he like Turisas. Huzzah!) Much respect goes to Scott for this; it was a comprehensive and fair work (unlike some pieces of drek), which, over time, (neo)reactionaries will have to respond to. Michael has already done a short, preliminary response, while Jim has critiqued one particular aspect of the FAQ.

My humble blog was mentioned a couple of times. He mentioned my analysis of how the communists won, and quickly analyzes a Republican platform in response. I’ll provide a greater response to this in the future, when I have the time for a decent one.

For this post, I’ll concentrate on his section “5: Are modern ideas about race and gender wrongheaded and dangerous?” where my post, One More Condom in the Landfill, was referenced. I will be working on the gender aspect for this post and will respond by section number. So, my focus will be on 5.1-5.3, as 5.4 gets into stuff on social justice rather than sex itself. I should note Bryce has already made a post concerning this, but his is more theoretical in nature, so I will make my own.

****

5.1

Sexual surveys on lifetime partners are usually not fully reliable, as the number can vary significantly depending on estimation strategies. Women underestimate, men overestimate.

The data on lifetime partners is, as he points out, minimal. 6 for men in 1970 and 2006, 2 for women in 1970 and 4 in 2006. He ends up using French data instead, but the French are not English and have a different culture, so I’m not sure if this would hold.

Instead, let’s look at bastardy rates, a more easily measured proxy for promiscuity. As we can see on this graph of CDC data from the Heritage Foundation, bastardy has been on a steady increase since some time around 1960.

This steady increase has occurred despite the increasing availability of both the pill and abortion. It is obvious that sluttiness and promiscuity has increased.

If we look back to one of Scott’s sources we find this gem:

American illegitimacy ratios in the eighteenth century and after the Civil War seem to have been about one or two percent, well below the five or six percent found in England and Wales at the time(s) (Smith, 1980, p. 372; Wells, 1980, pp. 354-55; Laslett et al., 1980, p. 18) and very far below the 30-plus-percent ratios found in the U.S. in the 1990’s.

Imagine a bastardry rate of only 2%.

It is obvious sluttiness has increased drastically.

****

5.1.1

In this section, Scott ignores the religious argument, and I will too, for one argues with one’s (reasonable) opponents on grounds both can accept.

The decline of marriage would be the major argument, as he acknowledges. He posts this graph but misses the commentary on the graph.

The commentary states:

My own hypothesis is that a higher partner count (up to 5-9 or so partners) is correlated with age and maturity in dating experience. Older women, and women with more dating experience, are more likely to have learned which personal qualities will work best for them in a marriage partner. As a result, such women choose more wisely and tend to experience lower divorce rates. Now, it also happens to be the case that older women have had more time and occasion for pre-marital sex! Specifically, I suspect it’s not the 5-9 pre-marital sex partner count per se that drives the relative drop in the divorce rates, but rather it’s the maturity and experience that women have acquired while they’ve dated more men.

Scott does not take this confounding variable into effect in this piece.

This one chart comes from unpublished data from anonymous source. Sadly, it is the only source I know of where divorce risk is measured by number of premarital partners.

Most data either looks at either whether a person had premarital sex or not, or lifetime partners, which can be confounded by additional sex partners post-divorce.

If we look at data posted by the Social Pathologist elsewhere:

Only four nationally representative studies have examined whether premarital sexual experiences are linked to divorce (Heaton, 2002; Kahn & London, 1991; Laumann et al., 1994; Teachman, 2003). Nevertheless, the core finding—the association between premarital sex and increased risks of divorce—is robust[Ed]. Teachman (2003) found that women who had sex only with their future husbands did not have higher risks of marital dissolution, which suggests that the premarital-sex effect on divorce is related primarily to having sex with multiple partners

Each additional sexual partner increased the odds of infidelity by 7% while increasing years of education seem to decrease the risk by 10%.

The most salient finding from this analysis is that women whose intimate premarital relationships are limited to their husbands—either premarital sex alone or premarital cohabitation—do not experience an increased risk of divorce. It is only women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship who have an elevated risk of marital disruption. This effect is strongest for women who have multiple premarital coresidental unions.

Here’s some data showing adultery risk is higher for promiscuous women.

Here’s another chart showing that delaying sexual activity reduces divorce risk:

Here’s a chart, it counts all partners not just premarital ones:


Even beside divorce, there’s a large array of social and personal ills that come from promiscuity and higher numbers of sexual partners.

There is other information, but it all points to the same conclusion; the more sexual partners and the younger the woman is when first having sex, the more likely the risk of divorce.

By focusing only on that single chart, Scott misses a wide array of data which all tell the same story: a slutty women is a divorce risk and an adultery risk.

Even if we accept that one chart alone, Scott’s argument falls apart.

Being a virgin leads to a greatly lowered chance of divorce, a fact Scott just shrugs and dismisses it, accepting that premarital sex is an inescapable norm among the non-religious .

The whole point is that premarital sex should not be the norm. People (at least those intending to marry) should not be having premarital sex.

A doubling  (or tripling) of the divorce rate is not something we should just accept. It is damaging to the very fabric of society as parents’ divorce is associated with an increase in almost every socially non-desirable trait we measure (from poverty to crime to poor educational achievement).

[Edit: Removed two charts that did not fit with the main point and simply confused things. Moved a few things around, added a bit, and generally improved section 5.1.1. Thanks Ozymandias. 25/10/2013]

****

5.1.2

In a broad perspective the point is correct – empirically, men with more psychopathic traits, less agreeableness, and greater narcissism have more sexual partners.

He agrees on this point, but goes on to equivocate between men and women, then essentially shrug his shoulders (“I have no idea how to solve the object-level problems”).

The reactionary project (at least those that aren’t PUAs) is attempting to do more; we have a model we know works from history and we are trying to reimplement it.

Simply allowing the cads to run amuk and having the good men go without is a recipe for social disaster, I’ve outlined here, here, and here.

*****

5.2

He accepts that divorces have elevated, but doesn’t acknowledge there is a steady, long-term trend of increase since 1860 and divorce rates per married couple still remain almost double what they were at 1960.

Also, he says that progressivism has created a natural memetic “immunity” meme to divorce.

I would suggest instead the decline of divorce is instead linked to the decline in marriage rates; ie. those who are less committed to marriage and more likely to divorce are moving in together rather than marrying then divorcing, driving the divorce rate down.

You can see this easily in the chart Scott provided:

Divorces spike, then as marriage rates decline so to do divorce rates per married couple, but this rate remains almost double what it was in 1960. The decline in divorce rates per population is decreasing, simply because the family is disintegrating by not getting married.

He asks why progressives are less likely to divorce:

College-educated women have about half the divorce rate of the non-college-educated (source). More conservative states have higher divorce rates than more liberal states (source). Atheists have divorce rates below the national average (source). Some of these factors seem to remain even when controlling for wealth and the other usual confounders (source, source).

The education and atheist arguments are mistaking IQ and/or a low time preference for progressivism (atheists tend to be smarter on average than religious folks because most unintelligent people stick with their default philosophy, which, in the US, is religious). Conservative (ie. Southern) states would likely have high divorce rates due to high levels of blacks which have a much higher levels of divorce. (Nevada, likely has the highest divorce rate for what seems like a self-evident reason; Vegas).

Essentially what Scott has shown here but not noticed is a long-argued contention of reactionaries: smart upper-class folks can have progressive values and still function because they are smart upper-class folks, but when applied to the less intelligent lower classes these values are socially destructive, because poor, stupid people do not have the time-preferences to function despite the harm from these values.

****

5.3/5.3.1

Here he essentially argues that the depopulation of the US doesn’t matter because foreigners with foreign values are immigrating here and replacing native Americans. Also, you’re a racist if you think this is a problem.

I will just say that this is exactly the problem that reactionaries have with depopulation; he’s not actually refuting anything, he’s simply confirming our arguments. (Also, every reactionary is used to being called racist, so, that won’t really work).

If Scott can’t see the problem with foreign populations with different cultures and values replacing the current population, I don’t think I’m going to be able to convince him here.

I just hope he doesn’t mind losing his progressive values when non-progressive minorities start voting against progressive laws.

****

5.3.2

He’s probably right here on the effects of low-IQ fertility on intelligence, which is why I don’t (or at least try not to) espouse the idiocracy line. The effects of dysgenics through fertility are something that will not substantially effect us, in and of themselves, for a very long time, too long a timeline to worry about overmuch now.

Instead our focus would be on the mass importation of low-IQ immigrants, which will have a more immediate effect on society.

I would also focus on the effects of single-parent, low-IQ homes with many children on the national treasury through government welfare, education, and health programs. This problem will rear its ugly head far sooner than dysgenics due to fertility rates will.

****

So, there we have my first kick at the FAQ. I’m sure there will be others down the road.


Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started