30 10 2010

-You have great eyes.
-Thanks! Everyone says that!
-Probably because it’s true. They stand out, you know.
-Actually they’re quite awful and everyone says they’re nice because lies make the best compliments
-REALLY!?! (with a face that says ,”Oh no, are you serious?”)
-No, they’re actually fantastic.

I don’t know that lies are actually the best compliments, but that sounds about right, doesn’t it? Have you ever heard a girl say to another, “Oh my God! I love your hair!” and thought, “Really? There’s no way her hair looks better now than it did before she paid someone lunatic to butcher it like that.” These compliments come out automatically. The first girl doesn’t think about what she should say, she just knows that the other girl “needs” to feel good about the change she made, and the worse the change the greater the need. The second girl might understand that this is just a lie to make her feel good, but she doesn’t care because it still works. The intent is to make her feel good (positive) and not to deceive (negative). This is very alien to me and probably most males.

It’s a bit different when the lie-compliment comes from a heterosexual male because the intent is suspect, but I’ve witnessed success with this. However, I couldn’t lie about shit like this to save my life. I wander through life making factual statements that are either interpreted as compliments, insults, or confusion. This might not be the most effective game, but it’s a happy way to experience life, and it can work quite well if you handle the responses well, as above.

Double Standards

16 10 2010

I’ve said quite a bit about the slut/stud double standard before. Just type “double standard” into the little search box to the right to see for yourself.

I’ve noted that it makes sense biologically. There are multiple reproductive strategies that can be successful for humans (in the pre-historic world in which we developed), but one strategy that is doomed to fail would be for a man to commit to a promiscuous or already pregnant woman, so that is not in our nature. For women, however, committing to (or simply mating with) a promiscuous man may actually be more likely to lead to successful reproduction. The man in the tribe with the most women is probably the strongest and most able provider, and even if he doesn’t provide for all his offspring, the implication of his status is that he has the best genes.

I’ve also mentioned that there is a corollary to the slut/stud double standard, the pure/loser double standard. Men who make it into their twenties without having had sex are simply not attractive to young women. It’s not that they can’t get laid because they aren’t attractive, but that they aren’t attractive because they can’t get laid. When women insult men, as men, they accuse them of being gay, rapists, and virgins (usually not all at once). Male virgins are seen as losers, while female virgins are prized. No man has ever intentionally insulted a woman by calling her a virgins.

One thing I think I haven’t said is that promiscuity in men correlates with high self-esteem while promiscuity in women correlates with low self-esteem, at least according to Dr. Drew Pinsky of Loveline. I’ve tried to find other sources for this on the web, but I’ve only managed to find it in life. As someone who’s listened to that show and dealt with various women for several years, I think I’m pretty good identifying pathological behavior in women and I think promiscuous behavior is almost always pathological in women. It’s like a drug addiction in that it gets worse as it progresses. I wouldn’t say that this is never the case with men, but I don’t think it’s the norm. It seemed a bit silly to me when Tiger Woods was labelled a sex addict. Why? It’s normal for males (in almost all animal species) to seek variety, but is rather pointless in females since they’re incapable of having more than one successful pregnancy at a time.

My motivation for this post comes from Katherine, who asked:

I am confused about your ideas on the double standard. Why is a woman who sleeps around not a good candidate for a long-term relationship, at the same time that a man who sleeps around is not a problem?

A woman who sleeps around is a problem because she’s probably nuts, as I was saying above. I haven’t said that a man who sleeps around isn’t a problem. Maybe it’s less of a problem, but the difference is what is attractive to the opposite sex, and promiscuity in men does not negatively impact their value in the sexual marketplace, as it does for women. Certainly, some women make an effort to avoid players, but this is a relatively trivial matter. I’m writing from and for the male perspective, so it’s not really my thing to offer advice to women, but I would definitely advise them avoid aloof men who can’t be trusted if they want to be in good relationships.

I personally don’t think sleeping around is a good idea for anyone, because it’s empty and kind of upsetting (at least to me). However, I’m not going to hate on anyone who does it – man or woman.

It’s upsetting to you because you’re a woman. I don’t seek meaningless sex (because it’s better when it’s meaningful*), but it doesn’t make me feel bad. The only sex men ever feel bad about is the sex we’re not having.

Why do you think it’s ok for one and not the other?

Ok? I never said anything was or wasn’t ok. Perhaps your confusion is that you conflate the positive with the normative. I don’t think I ever said anything about what is or isn’t ok in some cosmic or moral sense. I’m stating the facts as I understand them to be. Saying that behavior A will result in X for men and Y for women is not the same as saying that behavior A is okay for men and bad for women. That’s all this is.

Roissy aka Chateau recently put things a bit more bluntly in his post about Karen Owen, the infamous Duke slut who made the fuck-list Powerpoint presentation:

Karen Owen has royally fucked up her chances to extract marriage from a good man thanks to her intemperate decision to write about, share and, consequently, archive for the masses for all eternity her insatiable hunger for a variety of lacrosse cock. Try to turn down the knobs on your psychologically-cemented female projection modules for a moment and put yourself in an alpha male’s shoes. What man worth his yarbles in character, money, career, looks, charm and/or social status is going to use Karen Owen for anything more than a hole in which to dump a perfunctory fuck? What high status man would marry a slut with a tap sheet a mile long, her every clitoral flutter registered in loving detail in ASCII, jpeg and png for his friends to read and laugh at?


The impolite fact is that a man who wrote an Owen-esque fuck list would not suffer much, if any, penalty in the dating market *or* in the more tightly regulated social market for his promiscuity. Sure, a few femtards would wail at the objectifying of women and the unfairness that ugly but SMRT broads are passed over for alpha bimbo sorostitutes, but in the crucible of real life most normal heterosexual women would be uncomfortably drawn to such a man, and would work for his affections. I’m sure the athletes who are a part of Owen’s fuck list are high-fiving their pounding of Owen’s sperm cavern when they’re not fucking a hundred other groupies scrambling for their attentions.

Bottom line: a male Karen Owen would actually see his sexual market value *rise*, while Owen’s value as a girlfriend and potential wife has undoubtedly fallen. This — plus the raw hypergamy on display by her choice of sexual partners and her ability to effortlessly fulfill that limbic impulse — is the underlying message of Owen’s cutesy confessional. And it’s the message that the legacy media, the middle-aged vicars of vicariousness, and the feminists are trying hard to miss.

* – My concept of meaningful sex might not be the same as yours.

Happy Boobs Month

1 10 2010

I’ve been told that it’s Breast Cancer Awareness month, and people are wearing pink ribbons to somehow raise awareness. Were you aware of breast cancer? Yes? Ok, good. I will not be wearing anything pink, and I would like to see NFL players also not wearing anything pink. I will also not be involved in any Race for the Cure or any such thing. I think that if people are interested in curing cancer they can research the cures for cancer that already exist. Conventional cancer treatments, even though I may not like them, sometimes work. Expecting to find some universal cure for all breast cancer or even all forms of cancer seems a bit ridiculous as cancer isn’t a genetic or infectious disease. It’s what we call it when a series of cell mutations results in tumor that threatens the organism. The mutations aren’t always the same, so what can starve or kill one tumor may not work on another.

However, hormone receptor mutations are probably nearly universal in most forms of cancer. I’ve been reading Gary Taubes’ book, Good Calories Bad Calories, which blames cancer (as well as every other “disease of civilization”) on high levels of dietary carbohydrates. The ingestion of carbohydrates induces the secretion of insulin which tells the fat cells of your body to convert sugar in the blood into fat, thereby preventing you from having a dangerous and potentially lethal amount of sugar in your blood. Eating lots of carbs results in high levels of insulin and something called insulin-like growth factor (IGF). Taubes starts his section on cancer by noting the very low rates of cancer observed in populations eating traditional hunter-gather diets. He then talks about mutation and holds that the answer to cancer lies not in mutations themselves (as in worrying about chemicals that cause mutations), but in the hormonal/metabolic environment in which mutations are likely to succeed. He says:

Since the min-1970s, reseachers have identified many of the molecules that play a role in regulating the strength of the groth and proliferation signals that IGF communicates to the cells themselves. There are several differeing insulin-like growth factors, for insance, and they bind to specific IGF receptors on the surfaces of cells. The more IGF receptors on a cell’s surface, the stronger the IGF signal to the cell. If insulin levels are high enough, insulin will stimulate the IGF receptors and send IGF signals into cells as well as insulin signals.

IGF and its receptors appear to play a critical role in cancer. In mice, functioning IGF receptors are a virtual necessity for cancer growth, a discovery that Renato Baserga of Thomas Jefferson University says he “stumbled” upon in the late 1980s, after nearly forty years spent styding the growth processes of normal and cancerous cells. Shutting down the IGF receptor in mice will lead to what Baserga calls “strong inhibition, if not total suppression of [tumor] growth.” It is particularly lethal to those tumors that have already metastasized from a primary site elsewhere in the body.


Insulin appears to depress the concentration of IGF-binding proteins, and so high levels of insulin mean more IGF itself is available to effect cell growth-including that of malignant cells. Anything that increases insulin levels will therefore increasse the availability of IGF to the cells, and so increase the strength of the IGF proliferation signals. (Insulin has been shown to affect estrogen this way, too, one way in which elevated levels of insulin may potentially cause breast cancer.)

The role of IGF in cancer appears to be fundamental, albeit still controversial. As is the case with insulin, IGF has been found in the laboratory to enhance the growth and formation of tumor cells dirrectly; IGF signals prompt cells to divide and multiply. (This effect seems to be particularly forceful with breast-cancer cells when IGF and estrogen are acting in concert.) IGF has an advantage over other growth factors that might play a role in cancer because it can reach tumors either throught the bloodstream–after being secreted by the liver–or as a result of production by nearby tissue. There’s even evidence that tumors can stimulate their own further growth and proliferation by secreting their own insulin-like growth factors. In the early 1980s, cancer researchers discovered that tumor cells also overexpress IGF receptors, just as they overexpress insulin receptors. The surfaces of tumor cells have two to three times as many IGF receptors as healthy cells, which makes them all that much more responsive to the IGF in their immediate environment.


IGF and insulin can be viewed as providing fuel to the incipient fire of cancer cells and the freedom to grow without limit. The critical factor is not that diet changes the nature of cells–the mutations that lead to cancer–but that it changes the nurturing of those cells; it changes the environment into one in which cancerous and precancerous cells can flourish. Simply by creating “an enviromnent that favored, even slight, survival (rather than programmed cell death),” says the McGill University oncologist Michael Pollak, insulin and IGF would increase the number of cells that accumlate some genetic damage, and that would increase the number of their progeny that were likely to incur more damage, and so on, until cancer is eventually achieved. “When applied simultaneously to large numbers of at-risk cells over the many years,” notes Pollak, “even a small influence in this direction would serve to accelerate carcinogenesis.”

The bold is mine. There’s more in the book, and it seems that keeping insulin levels low by restricting carbohydrates may prevent and even cure most forms of cancer. If you don’t understand how I arrived at that conclusion or think I’m missing something, let me know. I am not an expert in the subject, and Taubes “isn’t a real scientist”, so there may be more to the story. However, I’m highly motivated to remove most carbs from my diet, including beer, which is kind of a big deal for me. I highly recommend the book, but if it seems a bit too egg-headed for you, know that he’s got a much more accessible book due out in January called, Why We Get Fat and What To Do About It.

How’s that for raising awareness? Are you aware of something now that you weren’t 20 minutes ago?