Dear Abby is funny to me. People come to her with some of the most inane non-problems I’ve ever heard anyone complain about, and sometimes they ask for help with very serious problems, but whatever the case, every question is worded in the most gentle of tones as if everything were a question about etiquette.
DEAR ABBY: The other day I asked my husband a question and told him to be honest. If given a choice between giving up wine or giving up sex with me, which would he choose?
You guessed it. He said, “Giving up sex with you.” I think I knew the answer before I asked the question, but hearing it out loud devastated me.
I know every woman wants to be No. 1 in her husband’s life. Am I wrong to feel so heartbroken? — LOST THE BATTLE TO CHARDONNAY
Oh, that’s funny. But seriously, Ugly Wife, your letter is lacking on details. We don’t know how much he drinks, how old either of you are, how long you’ve been married, or what you look like. It may be that your husband’s a serious alcoholic and knows he can’t live without his wine. It could be that you husband’s sex drive has fallen to zero for some medical reason. It might be that he doesn’t find you sexually attractive. If you’re writing to Dear Abby, you’re probably old and overweight. So it’s probably mostly that one. To answer your question, yes, it is wrong to feel so heartbroken.
DEAR ABBY: My wife is constantly passing gas. She does not care where she is or who is around. I have worked in the trucking industry for almost 30 years and never ran across anyone as flatulent as she is.She is young and attractive, but there is nothing less appealing than feeling “frisky,” getting into bed and hearing the trumpet sounds. I have recommended she see a doctor, but she laughs it off and says, “Everyone does it.”
I can’t believe I’m the only one with this problem. I could really use some “sound” advice, Abby. — BLOWN AWAY IN ALLIANCE, OHIO
This is clearly a joke. Girls don’t fart.
DEAR ABBY: My girlfriend is very sweet. The problem is, she wants to have sex with me. I don’t think I am ready for that. I also don’t know how to approach my parents about this. I really need some help — fast! — NOT READY IN PENNSYLVANIA
Poor kid. What should he do?
DEAR ABBY: My mother recently passed away. She and Dad were married 52 happy years. Over the years, Mom received a few Christmas cards from “Linda,” my brother’s girlfriend 30 years ago.Dad found Linda’s address and let her know about Mom’s passing. Now he says he and Linda have become good friends. Dad says they’re “only friends” and Linda is someone he can talk to. We are very upset about whatever relationship they have. My brother and I and our children want to be the ones to comfort Dad and be comforted by him. It has been only two months since Mom’s death.
He talks to Linda about everything. They have even discussed the details of Mom’s grave marker. Linda says Dad is the father she never had. (Her father is still living.) I confronted Dad about it, and we had a huge argument. Are we wrong and insensitive for disapproving of his closeness with this woman? — FALLING APART IN TEXAS
Yes and yes. Be happy that he apparently waited for your mom to die before he got close to another woman.
DEAR ABBY: My husband and I have been married 13 years and have two children, 7 and 9. About a year ago, my 41-year-old husband befriended an 11-year-old neighbor girl, “Lacey.” Lacey is charming, friendly and plays with my children.
They did this on “Curb Your Enthusiasm”
I have told my husband I am concerned and that it may be an unhealthy relationship, but he becomes angry and insulted and says it’s an innocent friendship. Others have also voiced their concerns to him because they see the same things I do. On the other hand, her parents think the friendship is innocent.
Abby, am I overreacting? Should I view it as an innocent friendship, or could there really be a problem? — WORRIED WIFE DOWN SOUTH
It scares the crap out of people when adults are friends with children they aren’t related to, especially male adults and female children. It probably should, but people who have “neighborhood socials” are likely prone to overreact to shit that doesn’t matter. I wonder if this guy will start an adult relationship with Lacey 30 years from now when his current wife dies. I further if he’s considered this. I have no advice for the woman. I just wanted to share this. Depending on the details, this could be pretty bad.
EDIT: I don’t know what happened, but the first part of the last letter got cut out. I put it back now.
In Part 1, we got halfway through this article that was written by Charlotte Allen and published in the Weekly Standard. We left off with the speculation that by evolutionary psychologists that monogamy is not natural for men or women.
All of this is obviously pure speculation, if imaginatively rendered and bolstered by anthropological observations of hunter-gatherer societies today.
…evolutionary psychology offers a persuasive explanation for many things that we are supposed to pretend are culturally conditioned: that the natures of men and women are fundamentally different and that, pace Naomi Wolf and the cougar-empowerment movement, women don’t get sexier as they get older, at least not in the eyes of the man sitting on the next barstool. Youth and beauty are markers of fertility.
Evolutionary psychology also provides support for a truth universally denied: Women crave dominant men. And it seems that where men are forbidden to dominate in a socially beneficial way—as husbands and fathers, for example—women will seek out assertive, self-confident men whose displays of power aren’t so socially beneficial. This game of sexual Whack-a-Mole is played regularly these days in a culture that, starting with children’s schoolbooks and moving up through films and television, targets as oppressors and mocks as bumblers the entire male
I think the fact that his truth is universally denied causes a great deal of suffering, mostly in men. When a wife stops finding her husbands sexually attractive, the common reaction for the husband is to become even less attractive by attempting to satisfy the increasing demands of his wife. In a futile attempt to make her happy, he attempts to do what she says would actually make her happy, allowing her to completely dominate him. The wife need not understand what’s happening at all. She may well fixate on issues that really don’t matter unaware of what truly motivates her to feel as she does, or she may be highly aware that the real problem is that her husband’s a pussy.
This is probably good marketing, but submissive husbands need to understand that a car will not solve their problem.
It’s increasingly common for women to air their husbands’ perceived faults to both their friends and the general public. There is now an entire blog, My Husband Is Annoying, in which an anonymous wife and her guests post pictures of the schlubs they married and freely criticize their beards, sleeping habits, irritating questions, and dopey poses in photos. Slate’s Hanna Rosin called her husband a “kitchen bitch” because he had dared to cook dinner from a recipe that she wanted to try herself. The Atlantic’s Sandra Tsing Loh, going through a divorce because she found her husband less romantic than her adulterous lover, detailed the personal and sexual failings of her friends’ spouses—in print.
Wives who look down at their husbands are going to leave them for men who “make them feel like women” or some such language that their victims won’t be able to make sense of. Decades ago, the social and material costs of divorce were much greater, and simple dissatisfaction was not a legally sufficient cause for divorce. Unsatisfied women were much less likely to leave, but with men being men and all, they were probably less likely to be unsatisfied.
Wives have historically reported less satisfaction from their marriages than husbands, but according to the National Marriage Project’s latest report, their discontent is growing: fewer than 60 percent of wives report that they are “very happy” in their marriages, in contrast to more than 66 percent in 1973. “Women initiate two-thirds of divorces,” W. Bradford Wilcox, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Virginia and director of the National Marriage Project, told me.
That doesn’t seem a huge difference, although I’d like to see what that number would’ve been in 1957. She briefly mentions the reduced costs of divorce and how the percentage of children growing up in fatherless households has increased from 9 to 26 percent since 1960. Then, she explains her article’s title:
In The Mating Mind, Geoffrey Miller wrote:
Our ancestors probably had their first sexual experiences soon after reaching sexual maturity. They would pass through a sequence of relationships of varying durations over the course of a lifetime. Some relationships might have lasted no more than a few days. . . . Many Pleistocene mothers probably had boyfriends. But each woman’s boyfriend may not have been the father of any of her offspring. . . . Males may have given some food to females and their offspring, and may have defended them from other men, but . . . anthropologists now view much of this behavior more as courtship effort than paternal investment.
That’s a pretty fair description of mating life today in the urban underclass and the meth-lab culture of rural America. Take away the offspring, blocked by the Pill and ready abortion, and it’s also a pretty fair description of today’s prolonged singles scene. In other words, we have met the Stone Age, and it is us.
There are some fairly important differences in terms of economics, but I tend to agree with this. This is important because monogamy, an invention of man, seems to have played a major role in the development of Western civilization. It’s not exactly Lord of the Flies yet, but the social order is in a mild-to-moderate state of chaos.
Living in the New Paleolithic can be hard on women, many of whom party on merrily until they reach age 30 and then panic. “They’re at the peak of their beauty in their early 20s—they’re luscious—but the guys their age don’t look as good, so they say to themselves: ‘Why do I want to get married?,’ ” notes Kay Hymowitz, a contributing editor to the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal, who is writing a book about the singles crisis. “Then they get to age 28, 29, and their fertility goes down and they’re not quite so luscious. But the guys their age are starting to make money, they look better, they’ve got self-assurance, and they’ve also got the pick of the 23-year-olds.”
This is something I think the 23-year-olds need to realize. Go ahead, do what you want now, but know that your actions will have consequences.
Some argue, though, that it is actually beta men who are the greatest victims of the current mating chaos: the ones who work hard, act nice, and find themselves searching in vain for potential wives and girlfriends among the hordes of young women besotted by alphas. That is the underlying message of what is undoubtedly the most deftly written and also the darkest of the seduction-community websites, the blog Roissy in DC…
Do I have any readers who don’t like Roissy? I would expect so; though he writes well, the pictures he paints are uglier than what many people care to see. He has a tendency to exaggerate, generalize, and keep things simple. It’s an effective style that appeals at least as much to emotion as it does to reason.
His blog combines Darwinian analysis, harshly hilarious commentary about the current erotic landscape…, and a sense of impending social meltdown as the family crumbles and beta men are increasingly denied access to women.
Yes, there is a sense I’m getting from multiple sources that more violence is forthcoming from the undersexed and overtaxed.
Roissy’s blog is an unflinching look at female nature at its very worst: the acquisitiveness, the narcissism, the self-absorption, the selfishness, the superficiality, the brainlessness, the wayward lust as powerful as any man’s.
He holds women, especially young attractive women, accountable, something few others dare to do. For that, he’s been called “worse than Tucker Max.”
If Roissy has anything resembling a mentor, it is F. Roger Devlin. …Devlin deftly uses theories of evolutionary psychology to argue that the sexual revolution was essentially aimed at restoring primate-style hypergamy to human females and freeing women to try to capture the attention of and mate with the alpha males of their choosing instead of remaining chaste until their early marriage to a decent and hard-working beta.
And then she ties it all together:
…“Monogamy is a form of sexual optimization,” Devlin told me. “It allows as many people who want to get married to do so. Under monogamy, 90 percent of men find a mate at least once in their life.” This isn’t necessarily so anymore in today’s chaotic combination of polygamy for lucky alphas, hypergamy in varying degrees for females depending on their sex appeal, and, at least in theory, large numbers of betas left without mates at all—just as it is in baboon packs. The aim of Mystery-style game is to give those betas better odds.
It could also be argued that the growth of the pick-up community, particularly where “natural game” is concerned, is an attempt defeminize men, a rebellion against the new social order, a far more effective rebellion than a black Dodge with a great-sounding exhaust.
Devlin may be spot-on when he writes, “The female sexual revolution, as typified by Helen Gurley Brown of Cosmo, amounted to a program of getting women to follow all their worst instincts” or “Part of the folk wisdom of all ages and peoples has been that sexual attraction is an inadequate basis for matrimony.”
I think that’s a good rule. After this she touches on how underneath all this “misogyny” lies a significant amount of possibly justifiable of anger and resentment toward heartless ex-wives, absent and pussified fathers, irresponsible mothers, and the new social order.
Roissy often writes of a coming “apocalypse,” a thorough collapse of civilization thanks to the stalling of its reproductive matrix. Right now marriage as an institution is still reasonably intact—but mostly for the demographically shrinking educated classes. The decision to halt the advance of the New Paleolithic ultimately lies with women, the mate-choosing sex, just as it lay with women to bring the hypergamous sexual revolution into being. What are the chances of that? “Women have been told for so long that it doesn’t matter what they do [sexually],” one of Roissy’s regular commenters, an Ottawa historian who goes by the online name of Alias Clio, said in a telephone interview. “I don’t think [the female sexual free-for-all] has been good for women, but it’s what they’ve chosen. And it’s always hard for women to see beyond the personal level.”
I don’t entirely agree that the choice is up to women. Men who see the new way as a problem in need of fixing can do more than just sit around waiting to see what women decide. We can choose to hold women accountable. Men played a role in the sexual revolution. They went along with it because free sex sounded like a good idea. What we can do today is hold women accountable for their actions. We can tell them what to do (like Cosmo does now). Fathers can be present in their daughters’ lives and lock them up when they’re not in school. We can quit believing and quit telling them that we’re fine with whatever they choose to do. Expectant grandparents can refuse to financially support irresponsible single daughters who insist on poorly raising their own sex-trophies. Men can also refrain from sexually abusing young girls. I suppose most men already know not to do that and those who do aren’t going to stop because I said so, but as a long time follower of Dr. Drew Pinsky, I think few appreciate the abundance and significance of early childhood trauma.
The whole point of the sexual and feminist revolutions was to obliterate the sexual double standard that supposedly stood in the way of ultimate female freedom. The twin revolutions obliterated much more, but the double standard has reemerged in a harsher, crueler form: wreaking havoc on beta men and on beta women, too, who, as the declining marriage rate indicates, have trouble finding and securing long-term mates in a supply-saturated short-term sexual marketplace. Gorgeous alpha women fare fine—for a few years until the younger competition comes of age. But no woman, alpha or beta, seems able to escape the atavistic preference of men both alpha and beta for ladylike and virginal wives (the Darwinist explanation is that those traits are predictors of marital fidelity, assuring men that the offspring that their spouses bear are theirs, too). And every aspect of New Paleolithic mating culture discourages the sexual restraint once imposed on both sexes that constituted a firm foundation for both family life and civilization.
The double-standard existed for a reason, and because it is rooted in our differing genetic traits, it can only be modified and shifted around. I’ve mentioned before that there is a corollary to the slut/stud double-standard is the virgin double-standard. Virginity, while an attractive trait in women, is not an attractive trait in men. In modern times (now and prior to the sexual revolution), men of high status who get caught cheating on their wives are not heroes.
That’s about it for the article. I went through it all, but there’s a lot of detail I didn’t include here. One thought I have is that Ms. Allen may have tied everything together a bit too well. Social upheaval may well be on the horizon, but sexual frustration is not the only cause. We didn’t get to where we are today from feminism alone. We’ve had several generations partially raised by state-run schools, with each subsequent generation less prepared to raise their own children than the one prior. A significant portion of population also relies on the state for material support, negating the need for fathers. With more and more children in single-parent homes, I strongly suspect that child abuse, particularly of the sexual nature, has increased. Early childhood trauma changes the way the brain develops and leads to pathological behavior latter in life. Also, she never mentioned anything about mens’ rights activism or the MGTOW movement.
I remember my childhood more vividly than I remember last week.
I grew up in rural Minnesota, where all of my classmates in school were white. Racist views were common, but they were usually of little consequence. If you’re white, you may have heard other white people say things around you that they would probably never say around non-white people. That annoys me. My entire world was like that 20+ years ago. Most of the black people I saw were on TV. Racial slurs were tossed about flippantly by children. At some point in elementary school, third grade I think, we were politically indoctrinated on race relations. We already knew about the Civil War, but we didn’t really know much about the fate of former slaves after it ended. We learned about Jim Crow laws and how Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr, and the civil rights movement ended them in the 1960′s. This was in the 1980′s. It was when the terms “racism”, “prejudice”, and “discrimination” entered my vocabulary. We pondered the difference in meaning of these words. Lacking knowledge and critical-thinking skills, we arrived at stupid conclusions. Our teachers weren’t much help. They didn’t learn about the civil rights movement as children, as it hadn’t happened yet. I was thankful to not have grown up in a racist household as many other kids had. Stemming, I think, from my own sense of fairness, I held a view that everything should be colorblind. I remember taking offense to seeing racial statistical breakdowns on the TV news. I didn’t understand the point.
Today, I understand the point. There are two types of motivations for putting anything on TV news. One is to keep people watching until the next 4 minutes of commercials, and the other is to promote the political agenda of whoever has the power to determine content. Racial disparities in statistics accomplish the latter because they show evidence of racial discrimination. They are also used to make white people feel superior, accomplishing the former. Showing evidence of racial discrimination is necessary to convince people that it needs to be banned even more than it already is. Political movements don’t stop when they accomplish their goals.
Today, I also understood the actual meaning of the word “discrimination.” Some years after third grade, I was forced to reconsider what it meant when I heard the phrase “discriminating tastes” at the end of a Saturday Night Live broadcast. Discrimination means to differentiate. The loaded and overly-specific definition I had been taught is bullshit. It may well be in your dictionary, but it’s still bullshit. It was loaded with a negative connotation that it does not deserve out of context. If you ask someone, “do you discriminate?”, their answer will depend on their emotional connection to that word. I place a high value on consistency in language.
D. Lynn Thompson introduced me to the word “intersectionality.” Instead of pretending I knew what the word meant, I asked google, and, as I expected, Wikipedia offered the first answer. It’s a convoluted concept with a political agenda and I refuse to accept it as a valid concept, just as I refuse to accept the loaded version of discrimination. The following is from a Background Briefing on Intersectionality by Center for Women’s Global Leadership at Rutgers:
Central to the realization of the human rights of women is an understanding that women do not experience discrimination and other forms of human rights violations solely on the grounds of gender, but for a multiplicity of reasons, including ages, disability, health status, race, ethnicity, caste, class, national origin and sexual orientation.
This seems to be a completely pointless tautology. What about men? Do men experience discrimination and other forms of human rights violations solely on the grounds of gender? People all over the world are figuratively fucked every day. If you want to help them, good for you. If you want to help just the women, knock yourself out. If you want to concentrate only on people who fit a specific intersection of oppressed groups, I don’t really care. If you insist that intersectionality is useful as an abstract concept, you’re full of shit. It appears to be an attempt to make things that are not gender issues into gender issues, but only for women. Because this seems so completely pointless, I’m fearful for what the actual motivation for this nonsense might be.
And (while I try to remain respectful in my posts) I must say that, if you honestly think that a white, middle class, protestant woman in the US has the same social “disadvantages” (and yes, I say that with sarcasm) as say a black, poor woman in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, you are not quite as observant as I previously thought. Whether or not you think intersectionality is BS, it still exists. Rich white men and poor Latina women are not likely to have even remotely the same set of experiences, regardless of your opinion.
My refusal to acknowledge an abstract as a legitimate or useful idea does not constitute a denial of any actual occurence. In an apparent effort to be irrefutable, you’ve managed to make a completely noncontroversial tautological statement. No people anywhere have the same set of experiences. Everybody knows this and nobody cares. Having a worse set of experiences than someone else should not lead to a conclusion that there is any cause for concern. David Reimer had a rather shitty set of experiences, so has this guy.
Thanks to Ferdinand Bardamu at In Mala Fide, I just discovered a shockingly good article that was published in the Weekly Standard on February 15. For several years, I have understood the Weekly Standard to be the newsletter that defines the ideology of and apologizes for neoconservatives. I never expected to find anything in this rag that I would actually recommend to anyone to thoroughly read and take seriously. I had only expected stuff like this excerpt from “Bush’s Achievements: Ten Things Bush Got Right” by Fred Barnes:
[George W. Bush] deserves better. His presidency was far more successful than not. And there’s an aspect of his decision-making that merits special recognition: his courage. Time and time again, Bush did what other presidents, even Ronald Reagan, would not have done and for which he was vilified and abused. That–defiantly doing the right thing–is what distinguished his presidency.
Considering Bush’s extremely low popularity when he left office, I would expect this to sound ridiculous to even conservatives, at least to any self-described conservative that might read my blog. Although, I don’t actually disagree with all ten items in that list. Looking at the front page of the Weekly Standard’s website, I’m wondering if they might have become a somewhat more reasonable since the government became their enemy again.
The article that I am so impressed with is titled, “The New Dating Game: Back to the New Paleolithic Age“, and was written by Charlotte Allen. It is an extremely well-written look into how dating and mating has drastically changed in the United States and how the pick-up community and related blogs have emerged as a result. It is very detailed and says much of what I’ve been wanting and trying to say since I started this page. It also says a lot more that I didn’t already know. The author writes about Mystery, Tucker Max, F. Roger Devlin, and Roissy in DC. She even interviewed the last two, and displays an ability to tie everything together that I envy. She is so matter-of-fact and dispassionate, that it’s hard to believe this was published in a conservative journal or that it was written by a woman (considering the topic). I’ll dig into it a little, but you really should read the whole thing for yourself, even though it might take more than a few minutes. At 12 e-pages, it is lengthy, but it does not wander (as my writings do) or repeat itself.
She first talks about the feminist view that there should be no slut/stud double standard and that young women (and not so young women) are now behaving accordingly.
[Feminist writer, Naomi] Wolf devoted her 1997 book Promiscuities to trying to remove the stigma from . . . promiscuity. On the one hand, she decried the double-standard unfairness of labeling a girl who fools around with too many boys a “slut,” and, on the other, she lionized “the Slut” (her capitalization) as the enviable epitome of feminist freedom and feminist transgression against puritanical social norms. Wolf’s point of view is today mainstream.
[...]
Wolf’s op-ed in the Guardian praised the uninhibited sexual “self-expression” of the four female leads in Sex and the City, especially the 40-something Samantha (hitting 50 in the 2008 movie), who, during the six seasons that the series ran, racked up nearly as many sex partners (41) as her three coleads combined—and Carrie, Miranda, and Charlotte were no slouches themselves in the quickie department. “Did not thousands of young women . . . breathe a sigh of relief or even liberation watching Samantha down another tequila, unrepentantly ogle the sex god at the end of the bar, and get richer and more beautiful with age, with no STDs or furies pursuing her?,” Wolf gushed.
Urban life, furthermore, turns out to imitate Sex and the City. A survey reported in the New York Daily News around the time of the film’s release revealed that the typical female resident of Manhattan, who marries later on average than almost every other woman in the country, has 20 sex partners during her lifetime. By way of contrast, the median number of lifetime sex partners for all U.S. women ages 15 to 44 is just 3.3, according to the Census Bureau’s latest statistical abstract.
As might be expected, many males would like to help themselves at this overladen buffet. But there’s a problem: While it’s a truism that the main beneficiaries of the sexual revolution are men, it is only some men: the Tucker Maxes, with the good looks, self-confidence, and swagger that enable them to sidle up successfully to a gaggle of well turned-out females in a crowded and anonymous club where the short-statured, the homely, the paunchy, the balding, and the sweater-clad are, if not turned away outside by the bouncer, ignominiously ignored by the busy, beautiful people within.
One thing to note is that the changes in social dynamics over recent decades are apparently most pronounced in the most urban areas.
She continues:
Out of such anxiety was born the “seduction community,” part band of brothers, part nakedly commercial and ferociously competitive business enterprise.
[...]
A UCLA graduate and former comedy writer who calls himself Ross Jeffries devised a hypnosis-based technique he calls “neuro-linguistic programming” that formed the basis of his 1992 book, How to Get the Women You Desire Into Bed.
[...]
Jeffries’s most famous pupil is …Mystery. … Mystery’s identity transformation was the most thorough, successful, and influential. His 2007 book,The Mystery Method: How to Get Beautiful Women Into Bed, is probably the most widely read of the seduction manuals, and a Mystery-hosted reality series,The Pickup Artist, ran for two seasons on VH1 in 2007-08.
I didn’t realize this. For what it’s worth, I don’t actually know much about Mystery and have never seen his show, but I have noticed that his name is highly regarded. I didn’t know his adventures began when he read a book.
In the late 1990s, Mystery developed a precise and exacting “algorithm” of moves and routines—pre-scripted lines to be practiced in the field—that are virtually guaranteed (according to Mystery at least) to lure a female into your bed after just seven hours in her company from a cold turkey meeting in a public place. And an ultra-good-looking female to boot. …The fundamental strategy is to “demonstrate higher value”, to appear so fascinating that the woman will want to prove her worthiness to you, not the other way around. You don’t buy her a drink; you offer to let her buy you one. You don’t give her your phone number; you get her to give you hers, in what Mystery calls a “number closing.” If she asks you what you do for a living, you don’t mention the drone desk job that you actually hold down; you tell her you “repair disposable razors” (the choice of a Mystery disciple). You “peacock” (yet another Mystery coinage), which means donning outlandish, attention-grabbing attire. Mystery’s signature peacocking wardrobe includes a black fur bucket hat and matching black nail polish and eyeliner. On The Pickup Artist, he sported a seemingly inexhaustible supply of exotic headgear and man-baubles.
[...]
If it all sounds cheesy, tedious, manipulative, obvious, condescending to women, maybe kind of gay, it’s because it is. But here’s the rub: This stuff works. If you think men who peacock look ridiculous and unmanly, click onto the photo-website Hot Chicks With Douchebags, where spectacular-looking babes hang on the pecs of preening rednecks and “Jersey Shore”-style guidos sporting chest-baring shirts and product-stiffened fauxhawks.
Yes, this is true. If you want to enrage clueless “nice guys”, show them those pictures.
Maybe the top guy actually looks alpha in a male’s eyes, but most of these guys look like clowns. It used to bother me to see this, maybe it still does somewhat, but it’s part of life. Back to the article:
Pickup mentors are relying, consciously or sub, on the principles of evolutionary psychology, which uses Darwinian theory to account for human traits and practices. Robert Wright introduced the reading public to evolutionary psychology in his 1994 book, The Moral Animal: Why We Are the Way We Are. He summarized what biologists had observed in the field: that among animals—and especially among our closest relatives, the great apes—males often fight each other for females and so the most dominant, or “alpha,” male has access to the most desirable, and perhaps all, of the females. But it’s the female of the species who ultimately makes the choice as to which member of the pack she will deem the alpha male. “Females are choosy in all the great ape species,” Wright wrote. He also noted that, for example, a female gorilla will be faithful—forced into fidelity, actually—to a single dominant male, but she will willingly desert him for a rival male who impresses her with his superior dominance by fighting with her mate.
[...]
Evolutionary psychologists postulate that the same physical and psychological drives prevail among modern humans: Men, eager for replication, are naturally polygamous, while women are naturally monogamous—but only until a man they perceive as of higher status than their current mate comes along. Hypergamy—marrying up, or, in the absence of any constrained linkage between sex and marriage, mating up—is a more accurate description of women’s natural inclinations. Long-term monogamy—one spouse for one person at one time—may be the most desirable condition for ensuring personal happiness, accumulating property, and raising children, but it is an artifact of civilization, Western civilization in particular. In the view of many evolutionary psychologists, long-term monogamy is natural for neither men nor women.
I’m just about shocked that this is in the Weekly Standard. I think this is enough for now. I’m right at the halfway point and will finish up in a day or two with her assessment of Devlin.
I didn’t like the way my old theme was making certain things look. I think this one looks much much better. The first person to correctly tell me who that is in my header above gets 305 points.
My old theme is called Sapphire. This is called freshy.
D. Lynn Thompson, of The *F* Word, has made a number of comments here on this page. It is nice to have feedback that isn’t completely complimentary. In response to my previous post on feminism where I concentrated on feminism’s second wave, she informed me that feminism is currently in its third wave, which began in the 1980′s. I knew this; I just don’t think it’s nearly as important as the second wave. Much of what modern feminists have to say is largely ignored by the greater population. Most of what feminists argued 40+ years ago is accepted as common knowledge today. Opponents of modern feminists largely grant to them that early feminists were right. I don’t. I think we need to question everything. Having said that, let’s look at some of what Thompson is saying. The following is from a post titled “In Response to Alice Walker”, but there is no description of, quote of, or link to anything Alice Walker said, whoever she may be.
There is no externally valid scientific evidence that proves that women are any more capable of gentleness and nurturing than are men. On the contrary, there is no way to test these qualities before social construction has occurred. From the youngest ages, girls are taught to play with dolls, play in tiny pink, plastic kitchens, and solve their problems through words and not fists. Boys, on the other hand are taught to play with trucks and construction equipment, build forts and play war with plastic guns, and “stand up for themselves”. Boys are encouraged to fight; girls are encouraged take care of the children and the home.
My first inclination on the claim that there is no valid scientific evidence is to think, “that doesn’t sound right. It would probably take me less than 15 minutes to find such evidence.” But then she sets me straight by claiming that no such evidence is even possible. This way, no matter the methodology, any attempt at proving such a gender bias in natural tendencies is automatically disregarded. There is no point in searching for such evidence, since anything I find will be considered invalid.
For many, a belief in innate differences between the sexes does not stem from any rigorous scientific lab work, but from experiencing life. This is particularly true of parents raising both boys and girls. On the other hand, there is no basis that I can even imagine, other than wishful thinking, for believing that male and female humans are fundamentally identical. So, I think I can stop right there. Thompson makes a claim that most people simply experiencing life would find counter-intuitive and provides no evidence to support at all. She then hands the burden of proof to anyone who disagrees and preemtively dismisses any proof they might find.
Yuck. I will say that my understanding of the socialization of boys runs contrary to her claims. Boys are naturally violent and socialized to be civil. This is the role of fathers and boys who are raised without fathers are far more likely to act violently as men. Boys are almost never encouraged to fight, although I do think that children learn to be violent (or not to be non-violent) from violent parents. The statistics are out which show a rather strong link between fatherlessness and anti-social behavior. The most quoted statistic seems to be that fatherless boys are 20 times more likely to be in prison. My thoughts on this matter are hardly definitive, but I don’t think baseless claims deserve definitive refutations.
Something else Thompson said:
[The third wave of feminism] focuses on the intersectionality of social experiences.
I don’t know about you, but when I see a word like “intersectionality”, a word that my spell-checking Chrome™ browser doesn’t recognize, my BS-meter goes starts jumping. Let’s see what Wikipedia has to say about this word:
Intersectionality is a sociological theory suggesting that—and seeking to examine how—various socially and culturally constructed categories of discrimination interact on multiple and often simultaneous levels, contributing to systematic social inequality. Intersectionality holds that the classical models of oppression within society, such as those based on race/ethnicity,gender, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, class, or disability do not act independently of one another; instead, these forms of oppression interrelate creating a system of oppression that reflects the “intersection” of multiple forms of discrimination.[1]
Okay, now my BS-meter is broken. If there is a usefulness to such a concept it is to validate claims of oppression. Oh noes, you’re being oppressed. If this is what third wave feminism is, it seems perfectly reasonable to ignore it.
Last (and most importantly), I think you may be missing part of the point. It is not that motherhood is not important enough for a woman to feel significant, it is that she have a choice. Women can be in the workplace and/or at home with their children, but they don’t HAVE to be one or the other. If a woman wants to be a stay at home mother, more power to her. But she should CHOOSE to be.
Yeah, um, no. Let me reframe this. A number of things happened in the post-war period. First, fewer and fewer families were farming, and it was more common than ever for fathers to leave mothers at home with their children. Now, you have almost all children being largely raised by tax-funded state-run indoctrination institutions and technology has rendered domestic chores a trivial matter. The housewife is home alone and bored. She doesn’t feel useful or important. Men are now seen as having more and many women want what they appear have. Feminists told them the could have it and they went for it. For the record, a woman (nor a man) cannot be in the workplace and at home with their children. She can only split her attention between the two. For this, children suffer. Although, I don’t know that it really matters that much anymore. People today, having not been properly raised themselves, don’t really know how to raise their own children. Today there is social pressure on women to leave the house and not bejust a mother. If a woman can do whatever she wants, the system is unbalanced as men do not typically have that freedom. I do think that the bored-housewife situation was a problem in need of a solution, but feminism was the wrong answer.
It is as though it is my never-ending quest to make fat girls cry. Once again, I’ve found something to talk about on OkCupid’s forums. The other day, someone started a thread on titled “Fat people need their own site“, complaining that OkC shows him “matches” that he has no interest in, fat girls. On one level, I can sympathyze here as I’ve seen this myself. The site will try to introduce users to members they might be interested in based on their very interesting (but mostly nonsense) matchmaking pseudo-science. However, dealbreakers such as being fat are completely ignored. On the other hand, there are two problems with the site for fat people. First, fat people don’t necessarily need to be paired up with other fat people. Second, there already is such a thing.
Being insensitive to the heavyset crowd doesn’t go over well. Predictably:
emote_control: Men who aren’t interested in fat women don’t complain about them. They just look for women they’re interested in. Men who complain about fat women are trying to overcompensate for the shame they feel at being attracted to fat women. They make all sorts of noise so that nobody will suspect they’re all about buttering rolls. It’s tragic, really. They should be out and proud about their fat girl love. Otherwise they’re living a lie, and will wallow in misery.
First, I don’t like that he puts two spaces after each period, even though that’s what I was taught to do in elementary school on an Apple IIe. Second, this is complete nonsense. I have seen this kind of illogic before, but I don’t quite know how to address it. You may have heard that men who complain about homosexuals are themselves secretly gay. You may believe it. In many cases, it may well be true, but you must understand that you cannot logically conclude that someone has a secret love for anything simply because they claim to dislike it publicly. It seems to make sense regarding homosexuality as there can are high personal and social costs to accepting and declaring one’s homosexuality, and we understand the concept of protesting too much.
I hate mushrooms. I’m serious. I mean, I don’t just hate eating mushrooms. I hate seeing them or smelling them. I don’t like knowing that other people eat them. If you have just concluded that I secretly love mushrooms, I hate you too. Discerning someone’s secrets comes from the fairly non-scientific but very real and useful art of reading people, as in poker. I do not take anyone seriously who presumes to be able to employ this skill to any great effect through the internet, particularly on strangers. If police detectives suspect you may be involved in a serious crime, they will come to you or take you in and interrogate you in person. They will not e-mail you a list of questions. It is difficult enough to detect sarcasm. I assume, when I see people reading minds on the internet, that they’re projecting, but I don’t make that claim. I think this is a logical fallacy that needs a name. Someone help me.
Back to the thread…
After that, the first sympathetic reply mentioned how body type is not selectable as a match criterion, while a slew of other things are, such as zodiac sign. I must say that is rather curious. Here are all the things you can filter your search with:
Any combination of gender and sexual orientation (such as girls who like guys or bi girls only)
Minimum and Maximum age
Limit to within 25/50/100/250/500 miles of your zip code or any other zip code
How long ago they were last online
Exclude profiles without photos
Show only those who are single
Join Date
Keywords
Ethnicity
Height
What someone is looking for (such as long-term relationships, casual sex, etc.)
Smoking
Drinking
Drug Use
Religion
Zodiac Sign
Education
Job Income
Pets
Language
So, there’s all of that, but no way to exclude those who are too fat or too skinny. Why might this be?
Another mangina jumped and disagreed with emote_control above, introducing his own theory to explain why men complain about fat girls.
carlosisgod: Nah, it’s more along the lines of them being petty, spineless dicks who are looking for an easy scapegoat to pick on cause they’re overcompensating about how hopelessly mediocre and boring they really are in life. Oh my gosh, look at the brave man picking on overweight people. What a fucking hero.
I don’t know that this really needs to be replied to. Understand that nobody’s really said anything all that mean about fat people. Not yet anyway. Not until I had to go ahead and say this:
[...] I also think it’s valid to complain about the extremely fat people who take up more space than a human ever should. They gross me the fuck out, not just with how they look but also they’re public eating habits.
While I’m complaining, I’d like to complain about how every time a TV news show decides that obesity is news they show all these shots of fat people walking around from the neck down. I don’t want to see that shit. And then they almost never have any useful information for fat people who want to lose weight.
[...]
You’re not an “extremely fat person.” I’m talking about the tubs of goo who ride the scooters at Walmart when they’re buying their cookies and ice cream, people who wear sweatpants because that’s all they have that fits.
You might not see much of that, but I do and I can’t stand it.
In hind sight, none of this really needed to be said. It wasn’t even all that relevant here, but I really do feel this way and it just came out. Americans disgust me. It bothers me that so many people here are so fat. Does it make you a bad person? Not really, I suppose, but if I see your fat thighs because you’re wearing sweatshorts at a sit-down restaurant as you stuff your face with shit you don’t need to be eating, I’m going to be offended. If I see another fat fuck buying junk-food with food stamps, it will make me angry. My complaint about fat people taking up too much space refers specifically to taking up too much highly demanded space. If you are a woman over 300 lbs, it will bother me to see you in a crowded bar or club. Wherever you go, you’re in the fucking way, and I don’t see how you or anyone else benefits from your being in such a place. Fat guys who are in the way bother me too, but not much more than all guys who are in the way bother me. In the context of the thread, I suppose my words were uncalled for. Maybe I really do want to make fat girls cry. Or maybe I’m just angry and like to rant.
Thankfully, the fat people’s savior decided to set me straight.
carlosisgod: Oh no, you’re so fucking oppressed. What a sob story. Who the heck are you to judge and dehumanize other people? What have you contributed to the human race? Jack-shit. You’re just another lazy shithead with an over-inflated sense of entitlement who’s got a chip on his shoulder cause his Daddy didn’t buy him the car he wanted when he turned sweet sixteen. I know people who are obese who have accomplished more and contributed more to humanity in ten years than 99% of the people out there will ever accomplish or contribute in their entire fucking lives. The difference between them and you, is they wouldn’t begrudge you a damn thing. You’re an imbecile and a whiner and an ingrate. You got every advantage a person could have. You’re born in the richest country, you obviously got money and time cause you’re on the internet and look at you. Raging against people who have weight problems. Oh, my god. What a fucking hero. You’re a black hole, you suck so hard, that even with all the potential in the world, you’re still nothing. There are millions of people who would die to get a chance to live your life and have your opportunities, and all you can do is squander it, whining about people you don’t know from fucking atom, who are already facing legitimate problems of their own. And you talk about them being a waste of space? Take a good long look in the mirror before you judge other people you gutless coward.
This is amazing. I’m going to save it forever. I’ve never had anyone put this much effort into hating me on the internet. I don’t know how complaining about something in my life constitutes cries of oppression, but implying so is a great way to insult me and make me look stupid. Bravo. My dad actually did buy me a car when I was 17. It was a 1982 Chevy Citation that he paid $435 for. He bought it to drive while his vehicle being repaired. Then, he gave to me. The anecdote about fat bastards contributing to humanity is a fantastic non-sequitur. It’s as if I were arguing that fat people are subhumans who ought to be ground up and fed to the hungry, or at least that thoroughly suck at everything. Following that, he stands on the premise that people who live well have no right to complain about anything. This is clearly nonsense, though I understand not getting any sympathy from people who have bigger things to worry about. When Dennis Leary became rich and famous from being in movies, did he stop complaining about vegetarians, fruit-flavored beer, and not being allowed to smoke? Carlos speaks as if he knows a lot about me, but he doesn’t. He concludes that since I’m neither underfed in Africa nor overfed in America that I have no legitimate problems. The only assumption that I’ll make about him is that he has a fat significant other.
After that, we learn something interesting. We know that fat girls don’t like or want to accept that they’re weight makes them unattractive to men. It turns out that they also don’t like when they’re weight makes them attractive to men.
-I suggested a dating site for overweight people to my friend. She said she considered it, but found that most people messaged her just because being overweight was a turn on for them and they didn’t care about her personality.
-Yep. Been there, done that! It feels terrible to be objectified at any size. Being liked and being objectified and fetishized… not the same thing. I would always rather be liked for being me. I’m fabulous that way
Hot girls get attention “just for being hot” and they don’t seem to mind. I mean, it might be unwanted attention, but they certainly aren’t creeped out that their shape attracts such attention. This is where I decided that however fragile the fragile male ego might be, it’s got nothing on the ego of the fat girl. The angry men above are so valiant and heroic in their quest to protect the poor fat girl from truth and harsh words, like “fat.” If you want the truth, you can find it in this 2005 study(pdf). It is not written for the layperson, but it’s interesting.
From the summary:
…the centrally predictable fact from HurryDate events is that women’s desirability is dominated by their relative thinness, a finding consistent with data from personal ads (Lynn & Shurgot, 1984; Sitton & Blanchard, 1995). Such findings support both theoretical emphasis on men’s attention to physical attractiveness and lay intuitions that men care most deeply about women’s body size and shape.
They studied a large number of speed-dating sessions and found BMI to be the most significant factor in men’s preferences for women. They also found physical traits to dominate men’s desirability, which is somewhat inconsistent with my views, but I have some idea why. In the speed-dating events, participants had 3 minutes with each other opposite-sex participant, more than enough time to judge someone’s looks, but not nearly enough to judge their status. Yes, you can find out what someone does for a living in that time, but it’s not enough time to shit-test a man and find out if he’s a pussy.
Anyway, I like to share this ugly truth as much as I can so that larger women who are unsatisfied with the attention they get from men (or rather with the men they get attention from) will know the number one thing they can do to change that and that their sisters, girlfriends, gay guy friends, and heroic mangina nice guy friends are all full of shit.
So, I just popped onto OkCupid and found an awesome example of the problems caused by failing to understand the differences between men and women when it comes to sexual attraction. I found this thread in the Help forum, which I think is actually for tech support.
This is the orignal poster:
Patman846: so i been on this site for almost a year now. i lost count on how many women i’ve messaged since then. most of them just don’t reply. it’s like they look at my picture & dont even do anything. be straight up with me: am i really that freakin bad looking that women just just can’t give a chance to? seriously i know that im no johnny depp, robert pattinson, brad pitt etc. but i dont think i look as horrible as “fat basterd” or “freddie kruger.” in fact i think i look real good since i lost 70 lbs. this past year. lol u should have seen the “big boy” pix i started with on this site. is there actually any women out there who care more about personality than looks? im sure there is. correct me if im wrong but aren’t the more “hot musular skinny” lookin guys more likely to cheat on their girl than an average would? i mean no wonder women are always gettin broken hearts. see that what happens when you care more bout the looks than personality
Oh, dear God. You’re a mess. Your shift keys don’t work, and you mix plural and singular. These make you appear stupid, which isn’t very attractive to women. Plus, you think your think looks matter that much. Quit thinking that women are like men. “More likely to cheat” means that a guy is desirable, and must be better. Women are not wired to worry so much about infidelity because it is not necessary for them to pass on their genes, and the man who has many women is likely to be more able to protect a family (higher physical dominance/status) than one who has none. This is not to say that they don’t care, but they are wired quite differently when it comes to sexual attraction.
Then this less hopeless guy popped in:
freedom999: I would wager that looks are as important to a girl as they are to a guy.
Natural selection my friend.
At least you can lose weight to make yourself more desirable. I’ll always be 5’5 and considered “too short” for many to even consider; even though being tall enough to look over fields of grass for predators isn’t a vital element of our survival anymore.
You’re all kinds of wrong. Looks are not nearly as important to a girl as they are to you. Looks really only come into play if you’re considered hot, which most guys aren’t, but a man does not need to be hot to be successful with women. OkCupid researched this and noticed that women on the site are far more picky about which men they say they find physically attractive than they are about who they message and who they respond to.
Being too short means more than that. A taller man is more likely to be able to protect his family from wild animals and other humans. In the modern world it still comes into play as taller men still make better providers than shorter men, but that doesn’t really matter whether this trait is still useful as it’s a genetic trait, and your genes (and her genes) are in effect whether they’re useful or not.
Having said that, women here get a lot more attention here than men and can afford to be selective. Having little else to go on, your looks and height are going to come into play. I avoid women who are taller than me in their tallest shoes. Creepy or not, I prefer smaller women, but I have noticed many lopsided couples out there. FWIW, I’ve been told I’m hot enough times to believe it, and I got very little attention online when I did try.
…except from fat girls.
Also of interest (emphasis added):
Desi83 (an attractive 26 year-old woman): It says something about your lack of confidence that you automatically assume that you aren’t getting dates because you think women don’t find you attractive. Be proud of who you are, especially since you lost 70 lbs! Like someone said earlier, lose the glasses. Give us a big cocky smile in the outfit that you feel the most handsome. Confidence is sexy:)
Of course genders are different. Anyone who says otherwise is not too terribly observant. Gender is not something that can be removed. All people “do gender” in some fashion. To say that all members of any gender are the same, however would be misguided and equally unobservant.
Actually, part of my inspiration for the topic comes from a series of posts by someone who goes by 11minutes over at alpha status, titled “Women are all the same.” I highly recommend this for everyone, and I’ll link them all since they’re not all together. If you despise gender stereotyping and/or pick-up artistry, you might want to skip it.
He contends that within genders, we are very much alike in terms of what we are attracted to, that we all want the same thing. Men all want physically attractive young women, and women all want the alpha male. They more literally want the same thing, as there is only one best. Attracting women is the number one thing a man can do to attract other women. A complaint that men often have is that women are interested in them when they are seeing someone and ignore them when they are single. This is why “yes” might just be the best answer to the questi0n “is she your girlfriend?”
In Part IV, 11minutes links to an interesting study showing differences between the qualities in a mate that people report looking for, and their behavior. Within genders, the behavior is quite similar, with men going for physical beauty and women going for earning potential. Now, the actual subjects of the study are young college students, and we don’t know if people in their 30′s or 40′s behave the same way.
D. Lynn Thompson asked:
Why are women sluts and whores but not men? Men can be, of course, but the labels are not generally there.
Really? That old question? The basis of this double standard is, I’m sure, genetic. For a male to ensure that his genes pass on, he needs to make sure he’s the one who gets his woman pregnant. This is a problem that obviously doesn’t exist for females. Females, as in other mammals, are attracted to the alpha. Whether or not they like this fact or even understand it, as I was saying above, women are drawn to men that other women are drawn to. There is a flip-side to this double standard which is that female virgins are prized while male virgins are considered losers. “Nice guys” do complain about this, and their frustration seems to stem from expecting women to be like they are and value purity. Pure women do not complain about this.
Basically, the difference between the sexes are more significant than we prefer to believe and similarities within the sexes in terms of mate selection are stronger than we think. If we recognize that these traits are more than cultural inventions, we can direct less energy at protesting them and more toward dealing with things as they are. I do think that many or all traits that primarily belong to one gender are sometimes present in the other. There are alpha females sometimes.
Some time ago I wrote Inside-out Penis about how young men expect women to be like them. I think my thoughts were on, but I didn’t express them all that well. Lately, I’ve been wasting precious minutes on OkCupid’s Dating Advice forum. One prolific poster, WhigLite, seems to take offense anytime someone posts anything that isn’t gender-neutral. He started a thread complaining about this tendency where I saw this:
WhigLite:This has to do with the ubiquity of threads of late that only address themselves to one sex, as if everyone of one sex is a lil dee dee dee (“Listen boys”) or as if someone has advice about hetero relationships that for some reason has a ton to say about guys, but absolutely nothing to help gals in their relationships.
Even when the advice is different, hardly ever is advice to guys going to have no complement.
I don’t even get the nature of the complaint here. You’re dealing with a forum where romantically frustrated people complain and ask for help. Then, other people make fun of them and try to help them, in that order. Sometimes frustrated people blame the other gender for their troubles, as if they’re not the one doing anything wrong. Knowing this and knowing that boys and girls really are different, I can’t wrap my head around how someone could be offended by gender-specific threads or demand that gender-specific advice come in complementary pairs.
Dark_N_Romantic: Actually, if one can’t discuss relationships period with both genders, should one even be trying to be in a relationship?
WhigLite: That was a big part of my point. It’s symptomatic of seeing the other gender’s members as alien, and that perspective will impede lasting connections. When one has that disease, s/he ought to bench herself/himself long enough to rid herself/himself of it!
First, not everyone is all that concerned with “lasting connections.” OKCupid members are allowed to specify that they’re looking for any of the following: new friends, long-term dating, short term dating, activity partners (whatever that means), long-distance penpals, and everyones favorite – casual sex. Some folks are just there for the forums. I took issue with his use of the word “disease”, but his response implies that we’re not on completely different pages, as we are.
WhigLite: I find the bigger error – at least in terms of its prevalence here – is blowing up minor differences into huge ones, treating genders as not just slightly different but divided by a vast expanse that makes their members incomprehensible to those of the opposite camp, and then talking accordingly. That would seem the mindset – conscious or tacit – behind increasingly directing advice at only one gender, when either (1) it applies to both (with minor alterations), or (2) it applies to one, but has an obvious complement that could be included in an expanded discussion.
The sexes are far more different than modern popular culture tells us. We are not incomprehensible to each other. It is possible for men to understand women better than most women, and I’m sure the reverse is true. Let’s look at some of the gender-specific threads on the Dating Advice Forum.
First, I see “Why do nice guys lose?” These “Nice Guy” threads are so common that they inspire tons of parodies and assloads of insults. Perhaps Whig thinks there should be “Nice People” threads, but it is well understood by many that nice girls do not have the same problems finding mates that nice guys do. It is also understood that the complement to a “Nice Guy” thread is a “Fat Girl” thread, as these are the women that do have the same sort of trouble. Maybe it would be better to title a thread “Why do nice guys and fat girls lose?”, although I don’t see much point in that. Useful advice for a nice guy is not at all helpful to a fat girl and vice versa. For the record that advice is, “Quit whining and be a man, you fucking pussy!” and “Lay off the HFCS, fatty!” Interestingly, there is much more of a consensus on the former than the latter. Fat girls are often told that being fat is perfectly fine because there are plenty of men who prefer them, which is about the most disgusting pretty lie I’ve ever seen. Anyway, I’ve addressed this before.
Next, we have “Why do guys not look at inner beauty instead of outer?” This is almost a fat girl thread, except that the poster is a gay male. Still, it pretty much fits the bill as we’re dealing with someone who’s upset with how nature works, specifically that men are attracted to physical beauty. I don’t want to speak much for the gay male population, but they certainly are at least as much into looks as straight men. I’ve been propositioned by men who only had to see me to know they wanted me. My God, I wish women worked that way! The funny thing is that most of the people who responded to this post just assumed the poster was a girl. You can’t really tell from his picture. Making this thread gender-neutral would be stupid, but WhigLite actually popped in to point out stereotyping, which is apparently a bad thing.
Fourth, there’s a curious thread titled “Guys who date Homely girls.” The poster here feels that she’s better looking than the girls who are dating the guys she likes. This is interesting, because it’s an unusual complaint from a girl and because I have some experience with this . Once upon a time, I was with someone who I now consider insufficiently physically attractive, and we both got looks of disapproval from other women when out in public. It may be that this thread’s starter has a somewhat inflated self-image. She might well be described as homely.
I have more to say on this topic. Right now, I’m being out-shouted in the fat girl thread.
I would always rather be liked for being me. I’m fabulous that way 
Recent Comments