The Rational Male -- The Invisibles
Comment: Johnycomelately: 'The ‘invisibles’ aka nice guys are a vestige and legacy of monogamy culture programming, that frame used to work (under a scarcity economic ecology) but under serial polygyny culture it is no longer desired by women. -- Women hate nice guys because they hate monogamy, every slur that is placed at the feet of nice guys is in reality a slur on monogamy culture, boring, unexciting, plain, suffocating, unsexy, predictable, monotonous, hard work, lack of freedom etc. -- Nice guys are the mirror of monogamy culture (hard working, dutiful, family orientated, predictable, prudent, reliable, responsible, honourable) and women hate them for it. The nice guy is a threat to her serial polygyny freedom and the FI will reframe everything with a monogamy culture tint as oppression, i.e. patriarchy. -- Interesting David de la Croix emphatically demonstrated monogamy culture was chosen by females when the economic ecology optimised it and provided maximum female utility. Women choose the social structure that provides the optimal cost benefit ratio under the prevailing economic ecology and men dutifully follow. The patriarchy is an FI fallacy. -- Unfortunately the ‘red pill’ may in actual fact be playing into the serial polygyny paradigm.'
men  women  sexuality  hypergamy  sociology  civilization  panarchy 
The Progress Report -- Brit Landlords Get Billions from UK Taxpayers
'Ed. Notes: These reformers are not distinguishing between rent paid for houses (and other buildings) and rent paid for land, for the location. One is a payment for something human-made, the other for something nature-made. Upon receiving such payments, owners behave diametrically differently. One motivates recipients to build, the other motivates recipients to speculate. -- Similarly, taxing those two payment/income streams has different consequences. When the taxman takes a cut of the profit from leasing a building, then the owner does less maintenance or erects a low-quality structure in the first place. When society charges owners the rental value of locations, then owners use their land efficiently. They increase the housing stock. The added supply reduces the cost of housing. -- Further, society could share out the recovered “rents” as a dividend to residents, similar to what Aspen CO does. As site values rise, dividends would swell. The problem of affordable housing would be solved forever. And governments everywhere — not just the UK — could save tons of money by no longer subsidizing either rich landlords or poor tenants.'
economics  geoism  rent  rentseeking  landlordism 
Seth's Blog -- The trolls inside
'The worst troll is in your head. Internet trolls are the commenters begging for a fight, the anonymous critics eager to tear you down, the hateful packs of roving evil dwarves, out for amusement. But the one in your head, that voice of insecurity and self-criticism, that's the one you need to be the most vigilant about. #Do not feed the troll. #Do not reason with the troll. #Do not argue with the troll. -- Most of all, don't litigate. Don't make your case, call your witnesses, prove you are right. Because the troll knows how to sway a jury even better than you do. Get off the troll train. Turn your back, walk away, ship the work.'
psychology  resistance  parts 
Personality Junkie -- Ni-Ne Friendship & Approaches to Perception
'What’s perplexing to Ni is that even though Ne may have seemed intrigued by, even highly enthusiastic over an Ni idea initially, Ne by nature tends to lack the theoretical staying power of Ni; it’s fleeting. This catches the Ni off-guard as it’s naturally expecting the kind of discernment and religious devotion that he himself exhibits as an introverted intuitive. The result can be Ni actually feeling betrayed, as if Ne is guilty of intellectual, or metaphysical, infidelity. Ni, having spent a lifetime carefully crafting and refining its paradigm, is horrified when Ne, like an unwitting consumer tossing back a $2,000 glass of Burgundy in a gulp or two, fails to really realize (let alone savor) what Ni has supplied. And before the Ne can even get the words, “thanks for the drink!” out, he’s already looking for the next vintage (or so it seems to Ni), because once Ne has gleaned the “basic” concept, it needs to find another new idea or theory. After all, how can Ne be certain that a given wine is the best one not having tried anything else? -- For the Ne’s part, the initial encounter with an Ni’s philosophy has the appearance of something novel (since it’s likely the first time Ne is coming in contact with that theory.) Such apparent novelty implies that the Ni type is open to new theories and areas of conceptual exploration, much as the Ne is. Imagine the Ne’s surprise when he learns that the only theory that Ni is open to is his own, and that when confronted with new concepts from Ne, Ni isn’t going to be nearly as eager to entertain them as Ne was. So goes the common refrain from Ne types: “you’re so closed-minded!” or, “you’re just threatened by competing ideas!” Additional accusations may include decrying the Ni as dogmatic and hypocritical for dishing out its own perspectives without being able to receive others’ in turn. -- Often, however, all that is needed is some space and time for each type to do some additional work within the functional stack, to consider one another’s type differences as well as their personal philosophies. The Ni type can’t be expected to show the same openness to a new theory that Ne would, nor can Ni expect the same commitment, “or closedness,” to a theory that Ni has. However, as Ni continues in its growth and development it will (albeit slowly) tweak and refine its paradigm to include those pieces of information that it has extracted from subconscious Se experience. In other words, if one of Ne’s proposed theories actually holds weight, Ni figures that it will eventually “discover it” for itself and incorporate it into the working Ni theory – a much more authentic way for an Ni to adopt an idea than by simply accepting it from without. The same is essentially true for Ne, except that it’s consciously collecting as many competing theories as possible from the outset so that it may work them through the remainder of the functional stack, through Si as well as the judging functions. And if an Ni theory is true, it too will be proven with time and experience. -- If Ni can appreciate Ne’s need for exploration, trusting that Ne will return if, after tasting hundreds of vintages, he eventually realizes he’s found something really special in Ni’s insights, then a respectful and enjoyable relationship can occur. Conversely, if Ne uses its open-mindedness to understand the difficult position that Ni is in with respect to being able to accept a new theory from without, trusting that Ni is constantly refining its insights and learning to be open to experience so that its theorizing eventually becomes “all-inclusive,” these two types can continue sharing a particularly special rapport with one another as they each set about on the quest for knowledge and truth.'
psychology  personality  INTP 
2 days ago
girlwriteswhat comments on Men working with women for true equality
'...A patriarchy would be better described as a society where burdens and responsibilities are removed from women and imposed on men, and where male authority is a natural and necessary consequence of that. -- For instance, if 100% of the financial responsibility for the family is placed on the males in that family, it only makes sense that they also have financial authority. To remove the authority without also removing the responsibility is essentially imposing financial servitude on males. -- I have no problem with women's feelings of being unjustly repressed by this set of norms. I would certainly feel repressed if I had to live under them. But I do have a problem with the interpretation that the norms exist, that the intent behind them is, to unjustly repress women for men's benefit. If male authority derives from a transfer of burdens and responsibilities from females to males, then the intent behind the norms is not misogyny. -- Feminism's primary (sole?) focus, as far as I can see, has been in granting women authority equal to men's, without a corresponding shift of the burdens and responsibilities. The reason behind this is their interpretation of the intent behind the norms, and their narrow interpretation of what constitutes power (at least, the power that matters). They have placed moral judgments on the distribution of power between men and women, rather than viewing them through a lens of dispassionate analysis. The began with the conclusion of injustice against women, and worked backward, looking only at the evidence supporting their conclusion, and reinterpreting all contrary evidence as supporting evidence. Reinterpreting say, paternalism as an intentional strategy to keep women subjugated and maintain male dominance, rather than a means to keep women safe and healthy in harsh or dangerous environments. If you look at both of these explanations of the intent behind paternalism, you will see that the first interpretation imputes a malfeasant and dastardly intent on the male, while the other does not. Guess which one is the feminist interpretation?'
feminism  ideology  victimhood  men  women  entitlement  solipsism 
2 days ago
The Rational Male -- Queens, Workers & Drones
'From the Paradox of Commitment: The idea is that commitment should only have meaning in a feminine defined reality. Ironically, it’s Men who commit far more readily to ideals, family, military, business ventures or partnerships, and servitude than women have the capacity to appreciate, because recognizing this doesn’t serve their imperative. In other words, a commitment to anything that doesn’t directly benefit the feminine isn’t commitment; answer? Redefine commitment to reflect feminine interests. -- One thing that needs to be understood about women’s innate feminine solipsism is how it’s expressed on a meta-scale. It’s very easy to observe and consider individual examples of women’s subconscious sense of self-importance (read any comment from women on a manosphere blog), but what most men aware of this phenomenon don’t consider is how this solipsism scales up to the larger social narrative. -- ...Millions of women solipsistically expressing the demands that would ensure a secure hypergamy for themselves makes for a fem-centric social narrative. And from this develops an expectation of, and entitlement to a default, secured commitment to satisfying women’s hypergamic impulses. -- #Selective Breeding: So powerful is this sense of entitlement, so consuming and convinced of the correctness of their purpose is the feminine that women will literally breed and raise generations of men to better satisfy it. Hypergamy is cruel, but nowhere more so than in the relationship between a mother overtly raising and conditioning a son to be a better servant of the feminine imperative. -- But to breed a better worker, the feminine imperative’s queens can’t afford to have any corrupting, masculine, outside influence. On a societal scale this might mean removal (either by disincentives or forcibly) of a father from the family unit, but this is the easy, extreme illustration. There are far more subtle social and psychological means that the imperative uses to effect this filtering – via mass media, social doctrines, appeals to (feminized) morality, the feminine is placed as the correct imperative while the masculine is filtered out or apologetically tolerated as vestiges of an immature and crude reminder of masculinity’s incorrectness. -- Yet for all of this social engineering Hypergamy still demands satisfaction of women’s most base imperative, Alpha seed. The queens need physically / psychologically dominant drones – if just for a season and at their ovulatory pleasure. While beta workers are endlessly vetted in sisyphean tasks of qualifying for the acceptance of the feminine imperative, the Alpha drones live outside this shell; their qualifications only based on how well they satisfy the feminine’s visceral side of hypergamy. -- The great irony of this social solution to hypergamy and long term parental investment is that the vast majority of the offspring of this arrangement would be raised to be better workers. Those betas-to-be boys must be insulated from the corrupting influence of the drones lest they devolve into the Alphas they crave yet cannot control. It may seem counterintuitive, to raise what should ostensibly be optimized genetic stock as a cowed, sometimes medically restrained, feminized beta males. However it is through this harsh conditioning that truly dominant Alphas must rise above. Essentially the genetic lottery isn’t won by women in such a social environment – it’s men, or the ones who rise above in spite of the conditioning efforts of the feminine imperative. -- #Generation AFC: We’re just now seeing the results of almost three generations of this selective breeding effort. While women bleat and bemoan, “Man Up!” over the lack of suitable men to meet both their hypergamy and their provisioning, they only grind their teeth at the results of a social momentum set in motion by women two or three generations before them. While more boys are raised to pee sitting down by women concerned that their sons’ testosterone poisoning will make him a potential rapist, the fewer and fewer “suitable” males present themselves 20 years later.'
men  women  solipsism  hypergamy  sociology 
2 days ago
typhonblue comments on My girlfriend raped and humiliated me
'Feminism sells submission to a victim-identity for women. You can say it isn't misogyny to do that or that feminism is really about "equality" but... that's still what feminism does.'
feminism  victimhood  predation 
2 days ago
typhonblue comments on Are you kidding me? "If Our Sons Were Treated Like Our Daughters"
'Brace yourself for your daily dose of "woman as eternal victim". Please assume the position for insertion, head down, mouth closed, hands holding anus open.'
feminism  victimhood  propaganda 
2 days ago
typhonblue comments on "National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance" by the European Council basically says that anti-feminism is as bad as racism
'Well sisters, here dies our agency. They WILL create a world in which every woman is reduced down to how she's acted upon in every conceivable situation. And what will that world look like when they've final raped it into being?'
feminism  victimhood  agencyvspatiency 
2 days ago
The Onion -- Once-Loyal Enabler Betrays Man By Suggesting Therapy
'“Maybe it wouldn’t hurt for you to talk to somebody,” said the modern-day Judas, who sources confirmed could once be relied upon to encourage whatever self-destructive behavior or antisocial activity Vatter chose to engage in. “I’m always here for you, but I’m just saying that it might not be a bad idea to sit down with a professional.”'
TheOnion  psychology  psychotherapy  codependence  satire 
2 days ago
The Daily Bell -- What is Social Justice? by Wendy McElroy
'The SJW's activism seeks to impose a uniformity of far-left expression upon society and to force compliance from others. The act of argumentation – that is, an exchange of differing opinions – is rare. Instead, rage-filled invective is hurled at the dissenter so that every word is defined as hate speech. The tactic comes directly from Cultural Marxism, which is the forerunner of political correctness. According to Cultural Marxism the content of what is said – that is, the truth or falsehood of statements – means nothing compared to 'who' is making the statement. The class affiliation is everything. A SJWer checks a person's gender, skin color and sexual orientation in order to decide whether their words should be tolerated or whether they are speech-offenders. -- In short, SJWs do not deal in truth or falsehood when engaging with others. Typically, SJWs will swarm or dogpile a website at which someone has posted an 'incorrect' sentiment; for example, a white man might make a joke about fat people that would have occasioned no notice if it had been made by a black woman. Using social media sites, like Tumblr or Twitter, a coordinated attack is launched on the individual. Or a speaker at a university is shouted down or suddenly uninvited. The SJW goal is to control the narrative, to own the ideas and words that can be spoken, the thoughts that can be presented. They rarely present evidence and often repeat 'facts' that have been debunked because all that is important is to drown out competing ideas. In essence, SJWs have no other choice because their ideas cannot be sustained in an open forum, a free market of ideas. -- To the extent there is a solid SJW goal, it is probably "equality" or equal distribution of privilege. What the words mean, however, is mandated and special benefits to preferred groups. There is no defined end point, no sense of when equality is and can be attained because SJWs reach back to the dawn of time when assessing the social debt owed to the preferred groups. They are remedial historians who impose the cost of centuries of wrongdoing on individuals who are innocent. They will continue to do so because there is no downside for them. -- The downside is imposed on those whose peaceful behavior and ideas do not comply, and the mechanism of enforcement is the state. -- ... There are many options available to influence individuals and social trends. Persuasion, peer pressure, bribery, protest, social shaming, shunning, boycott ... The only option that is not available to decent human beings is the use of force as a means to make peaceful human beings comply. And, yet, that is the single arrow that SJWs have in their quiver. Why? Because if people are free to disagree and not associate with them, then they have no funding, no power, no validity. If a person is free not to fund PC projects with tax dollars, not to hire an employee for any reason, including gender, if he or she has the right to say 'no,' then the SJW is impotent. -- And, so the SJWer must use the state. Those who respect freedom and genuine human dignity do not have that option. You cannot use force to impose a voluntary society: it is a contradiction in terms. You cannot put a gun to a person's head and say, "You are now free to choose." Freedom involves removing force from the situation. And, in the final analysis, this is what SJWs are against: choice.'
thoughtpolice  politicalcorrectness  victimhood  class  marxism  statism  illiberalism  voluntaryism 
2 days ago
YouTube -- ShieldWife: The Cause and Effect of Feminism
"They are creating a marxist future right under the noses of absentee parents. The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. And feminism has convinced women to give up that power by relinquishing their hold over that cradle to the marxists."
men  women  victimhood  ideology  marxism  feminism  statism  oligarchicalcollectivism 
2 days ago
Aeon -- Just how plastic are we? by Julie Guthman and Becky Mansfield
'Our new awareness of epigenetics challenges genetic determinism and throws a new wrench into nature-nurture debates. Epigenetic studies show that genes alone do not determine form and function, but that the cellular environment matters in making people who they are as biological and social beings. However, since the cellular environment itself is subject to a range of influences from inside and outside the body, epigenetics suggests that bodies are truly malleable in relation to their surroundings.'
biology  evolution  epigenetics 
2 days ago
PubMed Central -- Figure 3: Nature. 2010 Mar 4; 464(7285): 59–65. doi:  10.1038/nature08821
'Relative abundance of frequent microbial genomes among individuals of the cohort'
biology  bacteria  health 
2 days ago
YouTube -- TEDtalks: Rob Knight: How our microbes make us who we are
'Rob Knight is a pioneer in studying human microbes, the community of tiny single-cell organisms living inside our bodies that have a huge — and largely unexplored — role in our health. “The three pounds of microbes that you carry around with you might be more important than every single gene you carry around in your genome,” he says. Find out why.'
biology  bacteria  health 
2 days ago
The Rational Male -- Memento Mori
'When you become Red Pill aware you become more conscious of how the conditioning of a Blue Pill mindset predisposes men to frustration because Blue Pill idealism is really unattainable by design. You also become aware of how dangerous that frustration has the potential to be for men who can neither handle the Red Pill truth nor the constant measuring and failure to achieve Blue Pill goal-states he’s been conditioned to believe are attainable, and other men have. -- That frustration can be dangerous to both himself and others, but that’s in the now. Precious few men in the ‘sphere consider the long-term consequences of the life of a man immersed in Blue Pill idealism, responsibility and promises that keep him grinding on until he’s reached the end of his usefulness to the Feminine Imperative. -- “He was never much of a man…” -- As women age towards their later years the urgency to warn younger generations of the sisterhood about the results of their hypergamous life decisions becomes more pressing. To be sure there’s a degree of desire to live vicariously through their daughter’s and granddaughter’s experiences, but more so this confession is for their own need of closure – a final coming clean about what was really influencing those past decisions and living (or not) with them. There comes a point when admitting the ugly truth feels better than worrying over keeping up the pretense of concern. -- Far too many Blue Pill men (even young men) are terrified of living the life of the lonely old man. They imagine that if they don’t comply with the Feminine Imperative’s preset relational context of women that they’ll live lives of quiet desperation. I outlined this in the Myth of the Lonely Old Man – the threat point is one where men are encouraged to believe that if they don’t comply with women’s relational primacy they’ll endure a life of decaying loneliness into old age, unloved and devoid of children who’ll comfort them bedside as they peacefully pass into the next life. -- What these Blue Pill men fail to realize is this is simply one more part of the feminine-primary fantasy they’re condition for. Do a Google image search for “end of life issues”, see all of those pictures of grandpa holding hands with wife and family in a clean comforting hospice bed saying his last goodbyes before he passes on? That advertising is the Blue Pill fantasy. In all likelihood you’ll die in an elderly care home, from lung fluid buildup, in the middle of the night with no one around or a complete stranger in the bed next to you. I understand that’s a depressing thought, but the truth of it is you’ll really have no influence in deciding how you’re going out at that stage, and hopefully that wakes you up about living a Blue Pill existence based on fear, compliance and appeasement till death do you part. -- Whatever your misguided concept is about how Relational Equity should merit a woman’s sympathy or respect, those are only valid and genuine when a woman freely gives them to a man she perceives as Alpha, never as something he’s due. -- In every story you’ll hear about how the wife, kids and grandkids gathered around the family patriarch in the hours before he passed, understand that he was in all likelihood a respected dominant Alpha for most of his life. I want to add a bit of balance to the Blue Pill elderly I described this week, so let me also say I’ve known a handful of Men who died Alpha. These are the Men for whom a widow and his kids honor his memory once a year. They go to the gravesite because he was worth the cost of putting him in the ground instead of a cheap cremation.' -- Comment: Atticus: 'I think the hardest part of unplugging and the thing that most men struggle with is learning to live for yourself. After a lifetime of serving others: your country, your parents, your kids, your wife, your boss, your church; it’s hard to figure out what you want. There is no plan. Everything you’ve been “trained” for is gone.' -- Be patient toward all that is unsolved in your heart and try to love the questions themselves, like locked rooms and like books that are now written in a very foreign tongue. Do not now seek the answers, which cannot be given you because you would not be able to live them. And the point is, to live everything. Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answer. ~ Rainer Maria Rilke
men  women  hypergamy  sacrifice  death  purpose 
9 days ago
YouTube -- Honey Badger Radio: Wacky Wiki Wars
Alison/TyphonBlue: "...because he is The One Good Feminist Man. And he has the appropriate way of reducing women down to victims in every conceivable circumstance, essentially reducing women down to how they receive men's actions in every conceivable circumstance; he can do that better than any other man, reduce women down to something that's being acted upon better than any other man, therefore he has the right to tell you, Karen, how you experience the world." -- Karen/GirlWritesWhat: "What I found interesting is that everything I said in that interview suggests that he's not unique. He's a guy that thinks that women should be allowed to vote and get an education, they should be treated right...He's got a very chivalrous attitude toward women in general. And everything that I was talking about in that entire conversation speaks to the fact that he is not unique among men, he is actually just the norm. But he had a hard time accepting that. That he's not special because he pedestalizes women. Most men pedestalize women. Most men have always pedestalized women in one way or another. He's been fed this narrative that suggests to him that he really is The One Good Man, that other men aren't as good as him – not as 'progressive'... He doesn't want to think he's typical. And this is one of the biggest seducers of men into the ideology of feminism: it teaches each man on an individual basis that 'You are special. You are better than all of those other men. You're better than every man throughout history who oppressed women. You're better than all the other men who support the patriarchy, who oppress women and who perpetuate women's oppression. You are better than them. You are morally superior...' It's gotta be a huge ego-boost in some ways to be able to swallow that. And because of the way men's psychology works in that they're less likely to be able to see themselves as a collective group...It's: 'Me, man, versus them, women, and all those other guys who aren't as good as me." -- Alison/TyphonBlue: "And who I should destroy somehow."
men  women  feminism  agencyvspatiency  ideology  apexuality  oedipuscomplex 
9 days ago
Thought Catalog -- 5 Reasons Women Love Rape Fantasies by Janet Bloomfield
'#1. She bears no responsibility; #2. She gets to be the object of mad desire; #3. Turnabout is fair play; #4. Rape fantasies justify violence against men; #5. Women don’t need to play the victim: Feminists absolutely love the victim narrative. Women are always and only victims. Helpless, harmless innocents who play no part whatsoever in their own victimization. Real women are not entirely comfortable with the whole victim narrative because it is a denial of agency and responsibility, and even though the rape fantasy has denial of responsibility at its heart, in real life, most women understand that women cannot be both perpetual victims and responsible adults. If we are to be at all times shielded, protected and guided, we become little more than children. Most women reject this. -- Rape fantasies walk a perfect line between adulthood and perpetual childhood. Most novels that feature rape fantasies will never, ever depict the same heroine dragging her mattress around campus, whoring for attention and sympathy from anyone passing by. Women raped by their fantasy lovers do not go to rape crisis centers, do not call 911 and will rarely, if ever, even tell a close friend what happened. -- Because what happened wasn’t rape. -- It was sex. Responsibility free sex, fired by his overwhelming desire, backed up with his hot body and gold Amex, in which she got to beat the shit out of him and never feel hard done by. Sweet deal.'
men  women  sexuality  agencyvspatiency 
9 days ago
The Scotsman -- 96% of women are liars, honest
'Eighty-three per cent owned up to telling "big, life-changing lies", with 13 per cent saying they did so frequently. -- Half said that if they became pregnant by another man but wanted to stay with their partner, they would lie about the baby’s real father. -- Forty-two per cent would lie about contraception in order to get pregnant, no matter the wishes of their partner.'
men  women  predation 
9 days ago
typhonblue comments on I'm a Feminist and I Still Want These 7 Gentlemanly Gestures. Do You?
'You want a man who acts like your inferior while no doubt wanting him to also act like he's your superior for purposes of arousing you. Guh. You. Out of my sex.'
men  women  hypergamy  feminism  unwarrantedselfimportance 
9 days ago
Ribbonfarm -- A Dent in the Universe
'The market for mostly harmless theaters of self-actualization thrives because we know the real thing punishes failure with death or madness.'
existentialism  psychology  maslow  authenticity  individuation  abyss  possibilityspace 
9 days ago
The Progress Report -- Economic Capitalization by Fred Foldvary
'One of the most important occurrences in an economy is the economic capitalization of territorial benefits into land values. Amenities such as streets, highways, security, parks, schooling, and welfare payments make locations more attractive and productive, which raises the ground rent, and therefore gets capitalized into higher land values. As land has no cost of production, the market price of land is the capitalization of the net benefits of the location and the material natural resources, including the climate: rainfall, sunlight, and temperature. -- This capitalization occurs because land is immobile and fixed in area.... -- As real estate is a major asset and a major cost for households and enterprise, the capitalization of territorial benefits is an important economic phenomenon. The net benefits of the public goods and civic services provided by government generate higher land rent and become capitalized into higher land values because most of the payment comes from taxes other than on that land value. A worker who is also a renter pays both higher rent and taxes for the public goods. If the worker-tenant is double-billed, someone is getting subsidized – the landowner. Owners of land obtain higher land value because their sites get services paid for by others, from taxes on wages, enterprise profits, value added, and the sale of goods. -- This implicit subsidy constitutes a forced redistribution of wealth from workers to landowners. This redistribution is a major reason why wages have stagnated even while economies have kept growing. The higher rent is not recognized because most of it is masked in forms such as profits, interest, dividends, and taxes. -- A tax on the land rent or value, such as by a property tax or an income tax on the rental income, gets capitalized down into lower purchase prices for land. If landowners pay for all the public goods, then there would no longer be an implicit subsidy to land value. -- The capitalization of benefits into land value has another consequence: much of the gains from economic expansion, due to both better technology and more investments in education and capital goods, gets captured by higher rent and land value. The increase in real estate prices during an economic boom attracts speculators who create an unsustainable bubble that then crashes and brings down with it the financial sector, as happened in 2008. -- Yet, the economic textbooks ignore the capitalization of public goods into land values...'
economics  geoism  land  rent  FredFoldvary 
9 days ago
Breather -- Find beautiful, practical spaces you can reserve on the go
'...Breather is a quiet space amidst the chaos. It’s an environment beyond your office, home or neighbourhood coffee shop. In effect, Breather is whatever you want it to be: a space to decompress after a long day, meet with clients, practice yoga, study with classmates or catch up on work. It’s up to you.'
introversion  solitude  space 
9 days ago
YouTube -- Emmy van Deurzen: Phenomenological Therapy
'Emmy van Deurzen speaks about phenomenological and existential therapy, saying some words about its history and application.'
existentialism  psychotherapy  EmmyvanDeurzen 
9 days ago
YouTube -- RussiaToday: The shameless way the world of finance is luring kids
'As more and more evidence that young people today do not trust our financial institutions surfaces, some developers are turning stock market trading into apps that resemble video games. With cartoon graphics and encouraging words like OMG!, these apps blur the line between gambling, gaming, and losing your life's savings on a crooked system.'
casinogulag  subsistenceclicking  greatestdepression 
9 days ago
The Rational Male -- Topping from the Bottom
'As women find themselves coming into the open acceptance of Hypergamy and recognizing the social control they wield, the overstated perception they have with regard to their sexual market value will inflate with their collective egos. We address this often in the manosphere about how women’s self-perception of their SMV is grossly, unrealistically, inflated by social networks, media and popular culture. My assertion here is that BDSM – not just the overt kind, but the interplay of dominance and submission in any sexual intercourse – will become women’s fantasy outlet for a natural desire to be dominated by men....women are sold the idea that their sexual selves are not their real selves, thus the need to be submissive can be forgiven of the strong independent woman® because her sexual self is not “who she really is.” -- The Feminine Imperative defines for men that his ridiculous sexual identity is who he really is, but for women her sexual identity is a role she plays that insulates her from her real ‘empowered’ identity. Through this roleplaying, women can reconcile and satisfy their real need of masculine dominance while maintaining the strong independent woman® identity that feminine-primary society expects of them. -- Dalrock delivered this fantastic comment in one of my threads years ago, but I’m reminded of it now: "These women don’t just want to build a better beta, they want to tame the alpha. In fact, I think the former is just another way they are trying to approach the latter. They want to take an inherently unsafe activity and make it safe. They want to submit to a man without having to submit; they want a man who can tame their feral self. They want him to trip their danger signals. Even better if he is a stranger from a strange land. -- They want this all to happen without giving up their freedom; they want to play this out in the context of serial monogamy, so they can feel loved while also claiming their promiscuity is moral. They want to lose control to a string of strangers who have all of the hallmarks of very dangerous men, and they want a promise that this will always end well. -- They want to know that this will be safe, without it losing the excitement of it feeling unsafe. They are telling men to build a sort of serial monogamy amusement park where they can ride the roller coaster and experience the fear of falling or crashing, while knowing that just behind the scenes grown ups are actually in charge and are responsible for them safely feeling unsafe. -- One more thing. As I mentioned above they don’t want to be hemmed in. So instead of building an actual amusement park, they want roller coasters to spring up randomly in the same exact circumstances where the real danger they mimic would appear. They want to be driving their car on the freeway one instant, and the next experience the fear of careening out of control the next. They want to impulsively jump off the edge of the Grand Canyon and have a parachute appear and deploy at the last minute. And all they ask is your guarantee that all of this will be safe." -- The safeness women hope to effect for themselves can’t be entrusted to men. The dominant Alphas are inherently dangerous, and the more Beta men are too commonplace and less empowered than women themselves. The solution then is to rig the social structure to accommodate women’s thrill-seeking by socially expecting men to accept being topped from the bottom irrespective of “who a woman really is.”'
men  women  hypergamy  sexuality  agencyvspatiency 
16 days ago
The Progress Report -- Income Inequality Due to "Rent"-Winning
'Ed. Notes: It amuses me that a contemporary economist can write an entire book about the challenge of progress and poverty and never once mention the classic in the field that goes by the name. The reason that technological progress benefits only some innovators, not all (usually the same idea has many progenitors and most do not benefit), and only some lucky investors, and most of the old money is because progress pushes up land value — witness Silicon Valley. More pricey land benefits banks — which the old guard own – and squeezes most people, who can not afford to spend so much on land. -- When they must, they spend less on the goods and services they used to afford. This mis-spending not only widens the wealth but it also culminates in the boom/bust business cycle and worse yet, creates the permanent poor. -- The way to reverse those unwanted consequences is to have society recover the socially-generated value of land — via its government levying a land tax or charging a land use fee or instituting land dues or whatever — and then disburse the revenue back to members of society as a “rent” dividend. The dividend will swell as land values do, and location values will swell as technology progresses. Problem solved, without the aid of mainstream economists.'
economics  geoism  land  rentseeking  businesscycle  landcycle 
23 days ago
The Progress Report -- Geonomics, the longer story
'...Like “economics”, geonomics refers to how people go about getting the things they need. Unlike economists, geonomists make a big distinction between our spending for things that other people produced, like clothes, cars, and computers, and our spending for things that others did not produce, like land, oil, and the airwaves (parts of Earth or “geo”). The difference matters hugely because when people sell their products, then they produce more; but when people sell parts of creation, they don’t produce more – they can’t – but instead get busy lobbying for more privilege. -- When people have to spend more for earth, they have less to spend for the goods and services that others’ produce. That causes bankruptcies and unemployment, so economists say “housing” or “real estate” – actually, locations – are what drive the business cycle. And between recessions, keeping some locations underused, over-priced, and otherwise unavailable to millions of wanna-be land-users also condemns them to poverty – unnecessarily.'
economics  geoism  land  rent  landcycle  businesscycle 
23 days ago
The Progress Report -- The Dalai Lama on Capitalism and Inequality by Fred Foldvary
'...The essential problem with the word “capitalism” is that it is used both as a label for current economies, which are a mixture of markets and governmental interventions, and for the concept of private enterprise and free markets. Its use as a label for mixed economies makes it meaningless to blame “capitalism” for economic problems. -- This confusion is similar to blaming diets for ill health. The diet of most people is a mixture of healthy foods such as vegetables and unhealthy stuff such as excessive sugar. The proposition that “bad diets” cause illness may be true, but it tells us nothing about which elements of our diets are causing the problem. -- Likewise, to blame “capitalism,” meaning the mixed economy, for economic inequality, is meaningless, as this does not tell us which elements of the economy are causing the problem, whether it is markets or interventions. Blaming “capitalism” is worse than useless; it fogs the mind, because the label for mixed economies gets confused with the other meaning, private enterprise, so that, in a sly tacit shift of meanings, markets get blamed for economic woes. -- It is meaningless to accuse “capitalism,” as a label, as only caring about profit and ignoring the poor, because the actual “mixed economy” cannot have any thoughts or feelings. Moreover, the concept of a pure market economy does have an ethical basis. The pure market is an economy in which all activity is voluntary. The concept of voluntary human action implies the existence of a universal ethic, or natural moral law, that designates acts as good, evil, or neutral, with voluntary action being good or neutral, and involuntary action consisting in coercive harm, which is evil. -- One of the premises from which natural moral law is derived is the concept of human equality, that human beings have an equal moral worth, and should therefore be equal in the application of law. Human equality does not imply that all persons should have an equal income or wealth, because moral equality implies an equal self-ownership of all persons. Therefore, each person properly owns his wage and the goods and investments bought from his wage. Income, however unequal, that comes from labor, including entrepreneurship, is not an evil outcome. -- However, natural resources are not a creation of human action, and equality implies that the benefits from land, measured as rent, be shared equally. Economic analysis also tells us that the benefits from the public goods provided by government generate higher land rentals and site values, and these gains become a subsidy to landowners when the provision is paid by taxes on wages rather than on rent. Much of the inequality in income and wealth throughout the world comes from having title to land, and that system of land tenure is not “capital”ism, i.e. not a result of owning capital goods such as buildings, tools, and inventory. -- The mixed economy does create poverty, but not from private entrepreneurship. The poverty comes from government’s taxing the poor and subsidizing the rich. A study by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy and the Pew Research Center recently concluded that the poorest fifth of households pay more than twice the state and local tax rate (11 percent) as the richest one percent. Also, although the rich pay a much higher rate on their income, many of the rich get their money back in the form of the higher rent and land value generated by government spending. The taxes on the poor are much higher than that found in the study, as there are federal excise taxes included in goods, and taxes and restrictions on labor and self-employment add to the interventionist burden of the poor. -- The economist Henry George wrote that “There is in nature no reason for poverty.” Poverty and excessive inequality are caused by human institutions. If Marxism implies income redistribution or government ownership of industry, this treats the symptoms, not the causes. The main causes are the stifling of labor and enterprise from taxation and imposed barriers, and the subsidy of land from public goods paid from the taxation of labor and economic investment. The remedy is a truly free market with taxes only on pollution and land value.'
economics  geoism  "captialism"  capital  land  rentseeking  landlordism  poverty  FredFoldvary 
23 days ago
The New Inquiry -- Authentic sharing
'Renting is very bad for marketers (it’s not “best practices,” the marketing professors note), because people don’t invest any of their identity into brands they merely rent. They don’t commit to them, don’t risk their self-concept on them. “When consumers are able to access a wide variety of brands at any given moment, like driving a BMW one day and a Toyota Prius the next day, they don’t necessarily feel that one brand is more ‘them’ than another, and they do not connect to the brands in the same closely-binding, identity building fashion.” So what marketers want consumers to want is ownership, which puts their identity in play in a more high-stakes way and gives advertisers something to sink their teeth into. Whether or not consumers actually want to own so many things is a different question. Marketers must insist that they know what consumers want (that’s their rationale for their job); the benefits consumers supposedly reap according to marketers are actually just the ideological tenets of marketing. -- This helps bring into focus what a true sharing economy — one that discouraged ownership while imposing reciprocal human interaction — might accomplish. Marketers approve of “brand communities” that let isolated people ”share identity building practices with like-minded others,” but little else. That is, in such communities they can “share” without sharing. They can “share” by buying products for themselves. -- Sharing companies use their advertising to build a sort of anti-brand-community brand community. Both sharing companies and brand communities mediate social relations and make them seem less risky. Actual community is full of friction and unresolvable competing agendas; sharing apps’ main function is to eradicate friction and render all parties’ agenda uniform: let’s make a deal. They are popular because they do what brand communities do: They allow people to extract value from strangers without the hassle of having to dealing with them as more than amiable robots. -- The perhaps ineluctable problem is that belonging to communities is hard. It is inefficient. It does not scale. It doesn’t respond predictably to incentives. It takes more work the more you feel you belong. It requires material sacrifice and compromise. It requires a faith in other people that exceeds their commercial reliability. It entails caring about people for no reason, with no promise of gain. In short, being a part of community is a total hassle but totally mandatory (like aging and dying), so that makes us susceptible to deceptive promises that claim to make it easy or avoidable, that claim to uniquely exempt us. That is the ruse of the “sharing economy”—the illusion it crates that everyone is willing to share with you, but all you have to do is download an app.'
communities  markets  marketing  consumering  theadvertisedlife  * 
23 days ago
Caterina.net -- Social Peacocking and the Shadow
'Social peacocking is life on the internet without the shadow. It is an incomplete representation of a life, a half of a person, a fraction of the wholeness of a human being. It’s the lonely crowd, the network and society, and not the community, as Tonnies would have it...'
internet  socialmedia  soma  performance  masks  shadow 
23 days ago
Psychology Today -- So-Called Masochistic Relationships by Robert D Stolorow
'...It is much too terrifying for a young child who is traumatized to perceive the devilish, destructive aspects of a parent, so he/she attributes the traumatization to his/her own badness or defectiveness. -- Similarly, adults often remain endlessly in unhappy, abusive, or depriving relationships by blaming their suffering on their own shortcomings, their not having “gotten it right” yet: “If I can just get it right, the punishing other will smile upon me.” Such an interpretive pattern can keep someone futilely trying to get it right forever.'
psychology  abuse  masochism 
23 days ago
YouTube -- What I'd Do To Lock Down A Successful Guy If I Was A Woman – And Where Club Addicted Girls Go Wrong
'Tyler of (http://www.rsdnation.com) reveals his dickhead and opinionated view of what he'd do to get a "hard to get" guy if he was a girl, where Hollywood club girls he dated and his female friends have gone wrong, and what YOU can learn from their mistakes.' -- Never get high on your own supply.
men  women  hypergamy  relationships 
23 days ago
girlwriteswhat comments on Ex-feminists of the MRM, what was the straw that broke the camel's back?
'There's no taboo in our culture (possibly any culture) regarding women attacking men (other than maybe seeing those men as wimps), but there is a huge one in the inverse. So when women (or women in abstract: feminism) make sweeping generalizations slandering men as violent and oppressive toward women, most people don't interpret that as women attacking men – they see it as women defending themselves against the attacks of men. -- Like when you see a man slapping a woman, and tons of people will step in and put a stop to it. You see a woman slapping a man, most people's first thought is, "He must have done something to deserve that – I bet he cheated on her." -- If there is no observable provocation on his part for her attack, we'll actually invent one in our heads to explain the situation as one where he's the villain and she's the victim. Our first assumption is that her violence is self-defensive in some way. -- Well, feminists have been attacking men for decades, with a narrative of having been justifiably provoked by "men's oppression and subjugation of women, also rapity-rape-rape and male violence against women". We don't even have to invent the provocation that we need to justify the attack--feminists were there to fill in the blanks with their narrative. -- And you can even kind of see this in some of the common criticisms of the MRM. The MRM says feminism has been unjustifiably attacking men for decades, and the responses fit the cultural narratives we've always applied to such conflicts: 1) MRAs are wimps, losers, virgins who can't get laid, piss-babies, whiners, weak, not real men (therefore not deserving of compassion) -- 2) MRAs promote violence against women, want to turn back the clock, want to harm women and women's progress (they're dangerous and attacking them is justified) -- 3) MRAs are the actual aggressors (therefore attacking or stopping them is self-defence) -- Criticizing feminism feels like attacking a woman. It just does. So people resist doing it. Particularly since what feminism tells us synchs so well with what's already there in our heads. -- There's a lot of other entrenched gendered psychology that feminists have taken advantage of in order to perpetuate their narrative in such a way as to have most people accept it (or at least parts of it) without question. In fact, the very things that make society susceptible to belief in this false narrative are often the very things that contraindicate the validity of the narrative.'
men  women  feminism  predation  victimhood  agencyvspatiency 
23 days ago
Abstract Nonsense -- Gendered Language
'...woman is a derivative of man, indeed – it’s a contraction of wifman or wyfman. In Old English, “wyf”/”wif” meant woman, and now survives as “wife”; “man” was completely gender-neutral; and “wer,” as in “werewolf,” was strictly masculine. Over time, “man” acquired the dual epicene/masculine meaning it has now, displacing “wer,” and “wifman” contracted to “woman.”'
men  women  language 
29 days ago
YouTube -- Honey Badger Radio: Ask the Badgers 3
Krystal: "The reality that feminists are not talking about is their butt hurt all comes from the Highlander mentality there can only be One. 'I must be The Ultimate Vagina on the entire planet, and any guy who does not see me as The Ultimate Vagina is a misogynist!'" -- Karen/GirlWritesWhat: "...Why does that [the excusing of female sexual predation upon male minors] happen? A few things. One is that female sexuality is seen as a gift that a woman bestows upon someone, and so like your aunt's handmade Xmas sweater, you're expected to wear it and smile for the camera. Another is that female sexuality is seen as inherently harmless, at least in this culture at this moment...if it's harmful to anybody it's harmful to the woman in question, or other women. And also, that male sexuality is seen as inherently predatory and veracious...male sexuality is up for anything, male sexuality is willing to slum at any time. It's this confluence of all of these things: female sexuality being seen as not only harmless but inherently valuable and gift that a woman bestows; male sexuality being seen as predatory, cheap, dirty. You ever hear the term 'soiled woman'? If she got soiled by coming into contact with male sexuality, then who is the really dirty one, who is the one society considers dirty? ... So when a 30 year-old teacher who is even passably attractive, preys on a 14 year-old boy, he's supposed to be grateful because 1) She hasn't harmed him because her sexuality is harmless; 2) She's given him a gift, and even if it's like that sweater that your aunt knitted you, it's certainly not harmful – it's still a gift – and you should be grateful for it and say thank you; and [3)] He is supposed to be up for anything, he's supposed to be willing to slum at any time. These are the narratives that we have going on in our culture right now." -- Alison/TyphonBlue: "I think that girls in many ways... Gaming might assist girls in learning the kind of mental habits that are associated with the kind of responsibility-taking. Because gaming is really about achieving a goal and relying upon yourself to achieve that goal. And I think that what we're seeing right now is the affect of the socialization that happens through gaming on our culture is starting to bring these ideas to the fore... [Gaming] is going to start to evolve women's identities as they get more and more engaged in it. Not to force the gaming culture to change for them, but as they to adapt to it, those women are going to learn to see themselves more in terms of their achievements than personal, passive, attributes that they have such as their sexuality. And I think that's one reason why we see this strong schism between the attitude of women who support GamerGate and who are actually gamers, they are actually focused in the way that gamers are focused on games and that achievement in that goal-oriented mentality; versus the women who are trying to take it over, and don't particularly like games, and don't really want to adapt to that attitude; and that's evident in their behaviour because they still see themselves in terms of being victimized, in terms of their passive value..."
men  women  sexuality  predation  feminism  solipsism  unwarrantedselfimportance  gaming  thegamingofeverydaylife  agencyvspatiency  * 
29 days ago
YOHAMI -- A Tale of Alpha, Beta, Omega, And The Temible Alpha Rapist
'Feminism rests on the premise that the patriarchy, a structure maintained for the sole profit of men, oppresses women. In this mythical structure men hold all the power, and the unit of this power is the family, and the women are mere possessions, objects to be used and abused. -- On this premise, you can explore every facet of the life of a woman and describe how she is a victim of the patriarchy, and by extension, a victim of men. You can also explore every facet of the life of a man and describe how he is an agent of the patriarchy, and by extension, an oppressor of women. On this premise, a man is always an abuser, and a woman is always a victim. When conflict of interests arises between men and women, or between a man and a woman, the man is always at fault, and the woman always in the good and needs support and contentment. -- Give yourself a coffee break and search for examples. This is the premise and the end result every single time. The man is a pig, the woman is a saint; the man is a jerk, the woman is assertive; women are human, men are not. -- On this premise, women, who are powerless, cannot give consent to anything, therefore sex (all male-female sex) is rape. On this premise, there where a normal human being would be presented with choices and have the option to consent or to reject – women get raped instead. The life of a woman, based on this premise, is a non ending stream of rape, micro rape, subtext rape, verbal rape, and you’d need an army to push back this mega force of male oppression over such defenseless victims. -- Of course this is nonsense, and the truth is closer to this: society is slavery and exploits everyone. The higher classes exploit the lower classes. There are men and women in every class. Most of the bottom class are men. Men try to shield women from hurt, danger, by exposing themselves to hurt and danger. When men gather resources from the system, either by being exploited or by exploiting others, they do so for the benefit of the women and children. Society exploits men every bit as much as it exploits women, but the specific roles are different, because the sexes are different, and this story, the Feminist premise of a society made of bad dangerous men exploiting women for their own sole benefit would have fallen in def ears, if it was not because of the fact that men want always – ALWAYS – to help the women in distress, it’s one of men’s strongest, more vital motivators, which, funny thing, negates the whole narrative in the first place.'
men  women  feminism  victimhood  agencyvspatiency 
29 days ago
YOHAMI -- Feminist Equality: Sexual Assertiveness Is Great!
'#4) You fell deeply in love and successfully paired / married / committed relationship with a member of the opposite sex: – If you’re a woman, what are you doing? marriage is slavery and you’re selling yourself short. You dont need a man, you dont need to settle. Aight if you’re going to do it anyway (sigh) be sure you’re not chained nor constrained in any way by this man. You have no duties nor obligations to him. Specially not sexual (who has sex in marriage?). You were advised never to “settle” and this simple truth doesnt change by your relationship status: keep paying attention that he measures up to your standards and please dump him as soon as he doesnt. Keep a laundry list of checkboxes and make everything under your terms so you can evaluate him on a daily basis. Is he a real man? how about now? and now? When this relationship fails KNOW that is was all his fault. Say, if you’re both violent, he’s to blame. If you’re violent but his not, his to blame for provoking you. If he cheats, he’s an asshole. If you cheat he’s still an asshole for putting you in a situation where you wanted to cheat, aka, not being as attractive as that other man. Dont worry, if you divorce you can make him pay for all of that. We got you covered. – If you’re a man, now probably you’re thinking that you’re so “lucky” because you fooled one woman into accepting your defective ways, by constantly kissing her ass and going in one knee and doing all kinds of promises of devotion. If only that would last, before you revert to being the natural pig you were born into. Truth is you NEED a human to be half a decent woman being but she doesnt NEED YOU. You think your partner has any obligations to you? what? the days of slavery are over my friend. Its YOU who has obligations now, and you better submit and do the checklist or she’ll realize you’re not a “real man” and dump your sorry pathetic ass. See, you’re not “lucky”, nor “the luckiest man in the world” because your “better half” loves you – you dont deserve nor are entitled to any of that. You’re just lucky that she’s dumbed by love enough not to realize that you’re still a man and therefore unworthy, and being with you is nothing but sacrifice, and the whole marriage institution is nothing but the exploitment of women for your sole benefit, and you dont deserve an inch of it. KNOW that if the relationship fails its because you failed to keep her sedated under your fake pretenses of “love” (everyone knows men dont have feelings). Say, if you’re both violent obviously you’re to blame, and if she’s violent and you’re not you’re to blame for provoking her. If you cheat, you’re an asshole. If she cheats you’re an asshole, but who gave you rights over her sexuality anyway? she’s not actually cheating because she never belonged to you, moron. Ah? you didnt get your emotional needs covered? boo-hoo you little whiny excuse of a man, you cant even play your own patriarchy oppressor role model right, and how dare you demand anything from a woman you entitled piece of shit. If you divorce I hope you get ripped off in court, as you surely will, and I hope you miss a payment so you become a “deadbeat” and are sent to jail where you belong. -- Inst love great? Hello Feminist equality. Next? -- #5) You see problems in the culture re: imbalance of the sexes, and you want to talk about it: – If you’re a woman, please speak your mind out and loud. Know there’s an army of white knight males ready to support you. If your complaints are generic and big enough, you’ll get Big Media support and coverage, and in some occasions support from United Nations and what not. So speak up, proud and strong. We’ll hear you. We’ll take any criticism as proof that your reported abuse is right. We’ll attack your attackers, and the more they respond to all of this the better, because it will be a demonstration of the problematics you brought up in the first place. More power to you!! You’ll be made a symbol, do you like The Woman Who Spoke Out? – If you’re a man… still here? not dead yet? First shut up, you entitled whiny bitch basement dweller. Anyone who agrees with you is a rapist and nothing else, or a woman hater and nothing else, or a white (no, bringing up race is NOT racist when I do it) privileged hater of women WHY DO YOU MAKE ME KEEP TYPING THIS DOWN WHY DONT YOU DIE ALREADY I’ll be damn if anyone hears you out. We’ll take our time alerting everyone that you’re the closest thing to Hitler we have in current times, so everyone can form their own preconceptions and knows what to think of you before they hear what you have to say if they are inclined to do so if at all. All your whining is ridicule because everyone knows you’re a man thus you’re privileged thus you’ve got NOTHING to complaint AT ALLLLL EEVVVEEERRR, and the fact that you even dare to ask for MORE just shows how ENTITLED you are. Well bad luck my friend, we dont give a fuck about you. Because you carry a dick. Yes you hear me. No, it’s not sexist when I do it. YOU are the sexist. Nuff said. You’re just a pariah. You’ll be made a symbol: The Loser Who Should Have Stayed Quiet.'
men  women  marriage  feminism  solipsism  * 
29 days ago
TheRedPill -- How Tinder facilitates SMV/RMV price discovery, or Why "No Hookups" is the funniest, most common phrase on Tinder
'While this price discovery process is boosting the N count and the egos of millions of women, creating an asset bubble, it eventually causes the SMV bubble to burst when women attempt to convert short-term SMV points into long term RMV assets, only to discover a currency discrepancy caused by high SMV men "shorting" most women in the RMV market. -- So women end up getting burned, over and over. The young, high SMV ones don't care, they don't realize they're on a treadmill to nowhere, they bask in the loving glow of attention. -- The older ones, those looking to get into a relationship, i.e those 30+, become Tinder-jaded after a few failures to convert on 4th down – that is, she gives up the poon on the 2nd or 3rd date, then goes for the monogamy touchdown, only to have the pass batted away by an ever-so-slightly younger, hotter, tighter dame who also matched with the guy with 200+ matches. -- This is why the most common phrase to close a Tinder bio on a woman older than 26: "No hookups," or some variation. Hamster translation: I've been burned a few times and I want a guy who won't bail when I ask for commitment after a few dates of trading saliva, followed by hot sex.' -- Never get high on your own supply.
dating  markets  men  women  hypergamy 
29 days ago
The Rational Male -- Loyalty & Hypergamy
Comment: Kryptokate: '...I have no disdain for prostitutes at all. I’m surprised more men don’t use them, I would if I was a man. Prostitution should absolutely be legal. I actually hold much more disdain for Pilates-Princess PTA stay at home moms living in fancy houses who are just high-priced prostitutes but act as if they’re holier than thou. As you said, at least a straight-up prostitute is engaging in an honest transaction rather than trying to dress it up as something else.' -- He/She whom controls the price controls the victory.
men  women  hypergamy 
29 days ago
The Rational Male -- Arm Candy
Comment: redpillgirlnotes: 'It really was a shock to me the first time I read guys don’t care about a woman’s education or career. What? How could that be??? But it’s true. Women care about education and career, so they project men do too. But it’s not an attraction factor. In fact it can work against a woman, and I have seen that myself. On one date I was talking about my career and biz, thinking it would be impressive, but I could almost see him thinking, “how does this fit into her being a potential wife? Mom? How will she have time for me?” (He was a doctor.) Sure enough he was shopping for someone with goals to run a home and a family, not a career equal. Sexist? I dunno, but he was looking for a mate to build a home and family with, which is why most men marry. It’s not rocket science.'
men  women  projection 
29 days ago
YouTube -- Honey Badger Radio: Ghost in the Media
Karen/GirlWritesWhat: "...This is the schizophrenia of female nature: They want to be with somebody who is stronger – physical strength, intellectual strength, economics strength, whatever; they want to be with somebody who is stronger than the others; as strong as she can get. And that's perfectly fine...that's just a natural consequence of the biological costs and benefits of reproduction. But. They have this schizophrenia in that: 'If this man that I am with is so much stronger than I am – and I like him that way because he can protect me from other men and the outside world and all of its predations and foibles and problems – who is protecting me from him?' She needs to have this man stronger than she is but who is completely under her thumb. But if he's completely under her thumb, then she's like: 'Well, if I can manipulate him to this extent that he's like a pussycat now, and he's completely harmless, then how is he going to stand up to anyone else? If he let's me walk all over him...' So it's this tension in women; I don't think a lot of women can ever get over it. Admiring strength in men, and fearing strength in men." -- Anna Cherry: "They want a guard dog but one that only responds to them. So they starve it with whatever they can: with approval, with pussy economy so they don't give them sex, anything they can. But, then, of course, the man, after a while, gets worn down and becomes a beta or omega or whatever, and doesn't have that bite, and they get disappointed and wander onto the next thing. That is the woman's struggle: is wanting the most alpha of the males but then not being able to help themselves but break down that male to a subservient state, and then once that's happened they're no longer happy; once they're married, once the man is shackled to them, they are no longer happy and they have this internal anxiety and cognitive dissonance going on." -- Hannah Wallen: "What this really boils down to is the objectification of men...They want men to act as accessories to their lives rather than actually being independent people that they have relationships with." -- Anna Cherry: "They're status accessories and ATM machines...and walking dildos."
men  women  hypergamy  relationships  * 
4 weeks ago
Evolutionary Psychology Journal -- The Myth of Promiscuity: A Review of Lynn Saxon, Sex at Dusk: Lifting the Shiny Wrapping from Sex at Dawn (PDF)
'...So what is all this talk of human promiscuity in Dawn all about, really? When an argument so blatantly and so stubbornly persists in the face of what would seem to be clear, undeniable evidence against it, it is usually a good idea to look for something other than dispensation of accurate knowledge about the world as a motive. Frequently, the obverse of accurate understanding of how the world is, is ideological pronouncement on how the world ought to be. -- Where Sex at Dusk really shines is in Saxon‘s exposé of the subtler prescriptive message of Dawn. Ryan and Jethá are not simply arguing for a revision of the scientific view of ancestral human sexuality as more promiscuous than the "standard narrative" would have it. Upon closer inspection, what they are actually up to is advocating for a change in contemporary human female sexual behavior, or at least a change in how everyone views women‘s sexuality; specifically, Dawn advocates a shift from women as "whores", to women as "sluts" (e.g., pp. 64, 159) -- You see, according to Dawn, a whore is a female who engages in sexual activity in exchange for resources or other benefits beyond the act itself. A slut is a female who engages in promiscuous sexual activity only for the sake and pleasure of it. Ryan and Jetha attempt to convince the reader that whoredom is an unnatural consequence of post-Pleistocene cultural systems (and a bad thing), while the slut is a female‘s natural, primitive state (and a good thing). Au contraire, Saxon argues, whores are the order of the day across the living world (p. 328). Even Dawn’s paragons of promiscuity, female bonobos, are strategic about when and with whom they engage in sexual behavior, as if to maximize returns on the effort (e.g., pp. 105, 108). The reason for widespread whoredom, Saxon explains, can be traced to the disparities between males and females in parental investment. Reproduction involves a quite significant investment of resources on the part of females, human females especially. Such a costly endeavor explains why females are, in most species, the choosier, more discriminating sex when it comes to mating; and the more costly reproduction is, the choosier females are. Thus, if human females are in some way anomalous in this regard, as the characterization of women‘s sexuality by Dawn makes them out to be, it must be explained why. I assume the reader does not need to be told of Dawn’s success or failure at providing such an explanation. So how do Ryan and Jethá expose the sluts of Eden dwelling within modern women? By downplaying, if not expunging, mate choice from the human female; or at least mate choice involving the use of their mental faculties. For the most part, Dawn simply posits the promiscuous tendencies and lack of choosiness in ancestral women. However, they do bring some evidence to bear in attempt to support their contentions. For example, female erotic plasticity is meant to show that women‘s bodies, not their brains, know what they really want (e.g., pp. 199-200, 290-291). Their physiological responses are genuine, revealing their true promiscuous nature, while their conscious brains are corrupted by modern society, preventing them from realizing this. Disconnect between physiological responses and verbal reports are also used by Ryan and Jethá to try to convince us that female relationship jealousy is another modern day phenomenon; that is, women, by nature, aren‘t really jealous of their partners‘ extra-pair dalliances — they only think they should be. -- Saxon argues that the emphasis on sperm competition in Dawn is also part of the larger agenda of removing female pre-copulatory mate choice from the picture of human female sexuality (e.g., pp. 200, 225). Rather than conceiving of Pleistocene forager females as exercising discriminatory choice of sexual partners, we are to imagine instead that any choice that occurred did so unconsciously and through the physiological barriers in the female reproductive tract designed to make sure only the best sperm got through to fertilize the egg. However, as Saxon points out, there are numerous problems with this scenario of ubiquitous sperm competition in ancestral humans. The corpus of morphological, physiological, and genetic evidence does not support the contention that sperm competition played a major role in hominin evolution (pp. 248-272). But, again, Dawn is loath to let evidence get in the way of its message. "[I]n this fantasy world of Sex at Dawn young females are not meant to make mating decisions with their heads — or eyes, it would seem — but let all the men in, young and old, ugly or handsome, and let those wonderful sperm fight it out" (p.318).'
psychology  men  women  hypergamy  sexuality 
5 weeks ago
The Blackdragon Blog -- Serial Monogamy Revisited [Kryptokate]
Comment: Kryptokate: 'I’m in my late 30s and have spent my life since age 16 going from one boyfriend to the next with basically zero time in between and every man I’ve ever been with has fallen madly in love with me, so those are my credentials. I wasn’t raised with religion and I’m an INTP so I saw through the social conditioning earlier and easier than most (though it still took 3 guys before I realized it was just a biological reaction and had nothing to do with the actual guys themselves)... -- ...just to be clear, the same result with happen with any guy…it’s not just betas who will eventually be dumped. The only real difference is that with a beta I will spend a LOT longer fucking him after I no longer want to, and I’ll take many more pains to try to convince myself to still be attracted to him and just generally try to make it work (which it won’t, but I’ll at least try). With an alpha…well let’s be honest, these don’t exist over the long term, they all turn into needy alphas or betas eventually... -- ...Why would I continue having sex with my old boyfriend when the whole reason I leave him is because eventually I find it gross to have sex with him? The ONLY time I’ve continued to have sex with an old boyfriend is when I broke up with him because he was a Needy Alpha (i.e. not because I was bored of him but because he was a pain in the ass…in which case I would still be attracted and could return every month or two to fuck until it blew up again because he was trying to clamp down the cage over my head). -- ...I would *love* to just date for six months or a year. But what you’re forgetting is that MEN WILL NOT TOLERATE THIS. I have never, in my life, met a single guy who I can have sex with who will not insist on monogamy and locking me down. I have literally gone out of my way to seek out scumbags and it still doesn’t matter. It’s in their nature to try to lock down women and if they sense that you’re less interested in monogamy than they are they will become obsessed with trying to block other men from your vagina. Therefore, this idea of just dating/fucking is a fantasy. If I tried to do that I would have no dates because I have literally had men withhold sex from me and tell me that they refuse to have sex with me anymore until they can get a commitment from me. I know you will think I am making that up but I swear I’m not. -- At this point, I do NOT want to be married ever again. My “plan,” if I had my way, would be to live for the rest of my life with my platonic best friends (either male or female) and have them be my source of companionship and family, while fucking new guys every few months. Basically the Golden Girls model would be the ultimate old-lady life for me and seems way more fun than living with some old guy you can’t stand and have to listen to fart in bed every morning. -- However, society won’t let me do this (though I think in the future it will be the preferred way of living). Right now, almost everyone is universally horrified when I tell them that that is my preferred way of living *with the exception of smart women* who always understand why it would be a desirable arrangement. They are the ONLY people who don’t meet the idea with defensiveness, anxiety, or anger. -- ...I make up a different viable and personalized excuse for each guy which is custom-tailored to preserve his ego and dignity and emotions to the maximum extent possible. I’ve come up with all kinds of crazy things. But the one reason I will *never* tell them is “I don’t want to have sex with you anymore and I want to have sex with other guys” because that is the single worst and most devastating thing for any man to hear from a woman. It is also the *actual* reason that women end ALL relationships except for those with Needy Alphas (who I’ve often still wanted to have sex with but they are so annoying and unpleasant to be around that even the great sex isn’t enough to tolerate them for long). -- Let me explain it because it is very, very simple: when you meet a new guy you’re attracted to, you get wet just thinking about him. After a while it takes making out to get you wet. A little while longer and *nothing* will get you wet except for direct stimulation of your vagina while you think about something else that turns you on. And then a little while after that and you will start to feel actively repulsed when he touches you or tries to kiss you and it will take a very strong force of will to not slap his hands away or snap at him out of visceral revulsion. -- This will happen even though you think he is the most wonderful person you know and your best friend and you care about him more than anything. And you would do anything to jumpstart your vagina or be attracted like you used to. But it is a completely biological process and works on its own and has nothing to do with your thoughts or opinions or conscious desires. At the beginning of your relationship you will be dripping for him and aroused. Later it will take work to get you there. And still later, nothing in the world will get you there and that’s why there are a billion brands of lube sold (no one needs that in the beginning of a relationship). -- It is purely biological. Also, after you have been with the same guy for a while and a new guy touches you, your physical reaction will be so volcanic that there is literally nothing to stop it. The longer you’ve been monogamous, the more extreme your reaction to a new man will be. After I was married for 5 years (far and away the longest period of monogamy in my life), the first time I hooked up with a new guy I was literally almost unconscious with arousal and desire. Wild horses will not stop your arousal once it is triggered by a new guy in this manner. Seriously. That is why women will blow up and burn down their entire life and it will just be because their vagina is on fire for a new guy and there is nothing they can do to stop it. See the scene in the movie Unfaithful where Diane Lane’s character is literally convulsing with desire for a dead-on portrayal of what it is like. For guys, I would suggest that the most intense and reactive sex they’ll ever have is with a married woman. -- I was in love with a few of them. Being actually “in love” makes zero difference as far as the biological mechanism that I described above. In fact I would say it makes for an even starker and more disturbing distinction when your attraction dies, which it will, and not even on a slower track. -- The only things that extend the length of the attraction dying track are a highly volatile relationship with a somewhat scary needy alpha (though you will also hate his guts). Sadly, fear does make vaginas wet. I’m convinced this is an evolved protective mechanism to ensure that women are lubricated and supplicant in the presence of a potentially dangerous/violent person, since that would drastically increase their survival rates. There is no solution to any of this and it sucks for women just as much as for guys. I’m not sure you really realize how heartbreaking it is to find that your body is *disgusted* by the person you love most in the world and once loved to kiss and fuck for hours. And there is literally nothing you can do about it. Or how bad it sucks that you will stay most attracted, and for the longest, to a guy that you otherwise can’t stand (a needy alpha). You men might get left, but at least you can love and lust the same person and not have it evaporate in just a few months. -- Also, I just want to say that the only reason that all women don’t do the above is that most aren’t attractive or smart enough to be able to. But that’s the only reason. But in the same way that a harem/polygamy is the ultimate expression of man’s unrestrained sexuality, serial monogamy that doesn’t last longer than a few months (maybe a couple years if they have a baby but that is it TOPS) is what all women would do if they were unrestrained. Lots of women are so unattractive that they can’t be sure of getting a new guy so they will stick with their guy purely out of fear and no options. And lots of hot women are so dumb that they allow themselves to be fooled by religious/social conditioning so that even while they naturally enact what I’ve described above, they will never actually be AWARE of it, and they’ll make up all kinds of rationalizations. The tiny handful of very smart and also hot women I’ve known are gigantic man eaters and are absolutely aware of all of this though they will hide it from almost everyone. But you have to be hot enough to have lots of options and smart enough to figure out how to do what you want without inciting the wrath of men and society in order to actually pull it off. All women would if they could, usually only sexy/smart women will. -- And sorry for any of you guys looking for some hope, but the hotter your girlfriend is, the more I can give you a 100% guarantee of her cheating on you. The only way to not be cheated on is to have a woman so ugly no one wants her, so dumb she will listen to you for a while (but she will also listen to another guy eventually so this is only a delaying tactic, not a solution), or to physically restrain/threaten her. Other methods work sometimes, such as fear of eternal damnation or social ostracism, but they’re not foolproof.'
men  women  hypergamy  sexuality  relationships  INTP  * 
5 weeks ago
The Rational Male -- “She turned on me” [Kryptokate]
Comment: Kryptokate: 'BTW, you are totally right about the whole oxytocin effect, living together, and the sexual disgust that grows as you become comfortable and your man turns into your brother. I have experienced this more than once and it sucks really, really bad. In college I moved in with the boyfriend I was madly in love with, the most gorgeous guy I’d ever seen, who I wanted to fuck 24-7. By the end of the year although I loved and cared about him deeply it revolted me when he would make sexual advances and kissing him was exactly like kissing my brother. If I could have taken a pill to stop this, I would have, but it’s hormonal and there is nothing you can do when the guy who used to drench your panties now leaves you not just dry but actively disgusted. That experience has been repeated several times and it is horribly sad every time. Again, it is crazy to me that this is not common knowledge when it’s so universal. Why is there such a huge market for sexual lubricants? No woman needs those in the beginning of a relationship. Women don’t need foreplay and they certainly don’t need lube in the beginning. How does no one notice that extended foreplay/lube only becomes an issue after time/bonding/security have occurred, and this is pretty much universal? All the evidence is right there…' -- Comment: Kryptokate: 'I’m not trying to avoid responsibility or make excuses for my past failures to be faithful. I bring them up solely to point out that had I not experienced my OWN lack of ability to live up to my own ideals, I likely wouldn’t have realized how wired-in this stuff is, or how wrong and misguided society’s messages are, and would’ve remained quite judgmental of other people while imagining myself to be above such primitive behavior. But you’re quite right that most women do NOT know that they want to be manhandled and dominated, for the same reason that men don’t know that: because we’re taught the opposite and until you experience it yourself, it’s hard to accept the truth. In my early 20s I would have argued just as strenuously against how “wrong” and “degrading” such a thing was, and I fully believed the standard social/feminist party line. I had to experience the primitive arousal for myself to believe it. -- I do think that just getting the facts out is helpful all around — I THINK. -- It would be helpful for women to understand that it is a natural and normal biological response for them to respond sexually to aggression, but that just because their bodies respond doesn’t mean that it is good or useful for them to follow those instincts. Just like we have a biological response to sugar which is not good or useful to indulge. One of the reasons that women are so vulnerable to cheating is because they DON’T KNOW about this stuff and don’t expect it. Then when something happens that triggers the primal sexual response, they interpret it as “I must be in love” or “I must have never loved my husband” or some other such nonsense because that is the only script society has provided them with. I have heard SO MANY of my friends give me tortured explanations for why they cheated (he was neglecting me, blah blah blah) when really the real reason is simply that some guy got sexually aggressive with her and she had an intense sexual response to it and was overwhelmed by the unexpected lust. -- And like you said, men are taught every behavior that turns women off, thinking they’re doing things right. When I think about how I dominated, emotionally abused, and railroaded my ex-husband into becoming my beta bitch…and then became sexually repulsed by him…it is truly sickening to me to remember, now that I understand what was actually happening. But at the time I felt completely justified and thought I was doing the right thing and helping him be a better husband and person. What a joke. I created the demise of my relationship by turning him into exactly what I wouldn’t want, and I had absolutely no idea I was doing that.'
men  women  hypergamy  sexuality  oxytocin  relationships 
5 weeks ago
The Rational Male -- “She turned on me”
'#The Turning: Once the first (and possibly second) child arrives, a woman’s order of intimate priorities changes, “turns” to that of the child. The sex “reward”, the ‘cookie time for good boy’, for desired behavior or performance ‘turns’ off, or sex is used as an intermittent reward for desired behavior (i.e. Choreplay). Sex becomes a utility; a positive reinforcer for her Beta increasing his provisioning capacity rather than the true visceral enjoyment she had with her past lovers. -- This new functionality sex represents to a wife becomes ‘turning’ on her husband who believed he would always be her most intimate priority. In the instance of a woman marrying her ‘Alpha Provider’ this may in fact be the case, but as with the hierarchies of love that Alpha doesn’t have the same concern with, and didn’t marry his wife under the same pre-expectations a Beta does. -- For the man who persists in his Beta mindset (or the guy who regresses into that mindset) this ‘turning’ becomes more and more pronounced. The turning comes out of the bedroom and into other aspects of their relationship – finances, familial ties, her expectations of his ambitiousness, his asserting himself at work or with their mutual friends – on more and more fronts he’s compared to other men and the ghosts of the Alphas she knows or has known. -- Even though the Beta is aware his children are now his wife’s true priority, his Blue Pill conditioning still predisposes him to sacrifices. Again, he meets with ready-made social conventions that shame his discontent; “Is sex all that’s important to you?” It shouldn’t be, because it’s really “what’s on the inside that counts”, but he can’t shake the feeling he’s slipping out of her respect. -- This is when Beta Dad doubles down. His Blue Pill expectations of himself require an all-consuming, self-sacrificing predisposition. The horse will work harder. His wife may have lost respect for him by this point, but his sense of honor and duty press him on. He doesn’t want to be like his oppressive or non-present father was. He wants to ‘out-support’ his father’s ghost, or what he believes ‘other guys’ would do when their marriages get tough. -- So he waits it out, but she’s ‘turned’ on him by this point. It wasn’t planned, but all of his martyr-like determination only makes her that much more resentful for having settled on this Beta. After a certain stressing point, her disinterest or indignation goes even beyond his capacity to stay committed to a losing investment. These are the guys who tell me, “Damn Rollo, where where you when I was 30? I wish I’d known then what I know now.” -- Do all marriages and relationships follow this schedule? No, but it’s important that men know the signs, understand what’s really expected of them and know when they’re being settled on despite all a woman’s self-interested refutations of that. It’s important they realize that performance isn’t limited to how well they meet a woman’s expectations, but that performance means ignoring those preconceptions and exceeding them because he has a passion to excel on his own, and for himself.' -- Comment: Rollo Tomassi: 'https://rationalmale.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/logic.gif?w=490' -- Comment: red-pill ascension: 'The ‘commitment’ of marriage is just a stable platform for them to pursue the next jump. All of the frictional costs of divorce have been removed – and cash and prizes thrown in for good measure – so hypergamy is unregulated and encouraged. This is the goal of feminism. (Feminists won. And men, children and women too, lost.) -- The days of old husbands and wives basking in their progeny as esteemed and respected patriarchs and matriarchs of big families is gone. Died with my grand-parent’s generation. I think most men, like you, if they’re honest with themselves, feel this deeply as a loss. And it is. -- I think women feel this loss too. After their SMV is down and being a free-agent isn’t working anymore…they don’t have that positive role to play in society. They’ll never be my grandma, at special occasions sitting in her house full of sons, daughters, grand-kids and spouses. Highly respected for a life well-lived and for holding together a special tribe. That’s a type of status they will never experience. -- I think this was done to us to atomize our society down to the individual. We are easy to control when our tribes are destroyed and we have no loyalties except to the state which, ultimately maintains us now that families are deconstructed. -- The silver lining is that we really should not center our idea of a happy and healthy life on women. We have interests, life objectives, hobbies, friendships that don’t depend on women behaving. In spiritual term, putting women at the center of our lives is idolatry. -- Even in the best of times, bad things happen. Cherished spouses die. The best we can do is create and value relationships in our lives – with whoever. We need to fight back against this atomization which hollows out our existence.'
men  women  relationships  marriage  family  feminism  hypergamy 
5 weeks ago
YouTube -- Honey Badger Radio: Your Princess is in another castle
'It's gotta be tough being a white knight. Scaling every obstacle in hopes of saving a fair princess. But what do you when the villain is the princess herself, and reducing you and your friends down to cannon fodder?' -- Alison/TyphonBlue: "Women have a greater power over...it's almost like a psychological substrate that our society exists in. We, as human beings, are the most friendly and cooperative species on the planet, and that's why we're so dangerous. And the reason we have that ability to cooperate is because there's a sort of social network we live in of belonging and doing right by the people you belong to. And in that kind of social network, women are larger than men; they are bigger and stronger than men ... Women are more powerful in that social network. And they need to not use that power to menace and to intimidate and weaponize men. And that's what I mean by being a female thug: that when you take that power that you have over the sense of belonging within a society – because that first sense of belonging comes from a woman, it comes from our mother; she essentially says for us what it means to be human, and what it is to belong to the human race, on a very fundamental psychological level – and from that point onwards women in our lives have that ability to define the center of belonging within a group or society or a philosophy, and they really need to take responsibility for that and not use that power to be aggressive towards men – to consider the fact that men have a vulnerability to being ostracized, to being ejected from the group, to being seen as 'creepy', to being seen as unwanted or predatory or undesirable or disgusting, and all of these prerogatives that we throw at men. They have that vulnerability, and as women we have that responsibility to not be fucking thugs."
men  women  power  groups 
5 weeks ago
girlwriteswhat comments on IAMA: Karen Straughan, AKA GirlWritesWhat, an anti-feminist/MRA blogger/speaker. Ask me anything.
'I think women, at their core, are poised between a longing for safety and the understanding that safety is often purchased through a willingness on the part of men to commit and absorb violence. So there's this yearning to be with the strongest man in town (whether you measure his strength in physical, economic, intellectual or whatever terms), but at the same time, if he's strong enough to keep you safe from other men and the world, what's keeping you safe from him? Generally other men, right? -- I think it's impossible for feminists to think masculinity is "bad". If they thought that, they wouldn't be the first people to manipulate, enforce and channel it. You can see photos of feminists marching from the 1960s, and they're flanked by "agents of toxic patriarchal masculinity" there to protect them from the public. Look at clips of Anita Sarkeesian flanked by burly, masculine men to protect her at her first speech after the "big threat" that led her to cancel one of her talks. Look at her on a panel discussion saying, "If people are calling you a White Knight, you're probably doing something right." -- I don't think feminists see masculinity in terms of good and bad. I think they see it in terms of useful and not useful, or manipulable and not manipulable. It is untrammelled masculinity – that is, masculinity that is not serving female interests – that they see as bad. -- It is true that as individual women have become less dependent on individual men (that is, since the state started to tax men and hand the money to women, or force men to be financially responsible for women's reproductive decisions even if those men derive no benefit and have no choice) that feminists have been able to concentrate almost entirely on how men harm women, and ignore how men benefit women. But they RELY on masculinity to do their work. -- A feminist man is expressing masculinity just as much as that macho guy who tells a woman to "not worry your pretty little head about it". He's just going about protecting and providing for women in a different way. -- And this is the real crux of it, I think. Masculinity is not about dominating women, it's about serving them. When being dominant in society served women, that's what men did (and what women encouraged). When the environment changed enough that this no longer served women, women's expectations of masculinity began to change, but they are still all based on serving women.'
men  women  feminism  sacrifice  * 
5 weeks ago
The Art of Manliness -- The Churchill School of Adulthood: Lesson #6: Don’t Be Afraid to Start a Family
'As one’s 20s and 30s wear on, and the once-fresh routine of work/travel/friends gets repeated in an endless loop, a feeling of having reached a plateau often sets in, along with the question: “Is this all there is?” The answer to this searching feeling is no, for a new world can be discovered and explored within the bonds of family. -- Couples that make thoughtful, intentional decisions about their relationship while dating end up with higher-quality marriages. And of course marrying the right person is huge in reducing your chances of divorce. Rather than being akin to a game of Russian roulette, the dangers of a potential partner are almost always evident while you’re dating…if you’re willing to acknowledge such red flags with open eyes.' http://www.artofmanliness.com/2013/01/31/relationship-red-flags/
family  marriage  parenting  relationships 
5 weeks ago
Psychology Today -- 9 Ways Your Old Programming May Be Holding You Hostage by Leon F Seltzer
'As a child, it’s hardly likely that you conceptualized your family situation all that consciously. But as nature has endowed us all with powerful survival instincts, it would doubtless have registered deep within you that disappointing—or disobeying—your parents could seriously threaten their attachment to you. For their harshly disparaging you in such situations would have left you feeling, if not exactly abandoned, certainly less loved and cared for. To avoid such expressions of parental disapproval—the “sting” of which would have greatly distressed you and overwhelmed your limited coping resources—you would have felt compelled to generate what I call “emotional survival programs.” -- That is, based on your genetic blueprint, you’d contrive to do just about anything to minimize disappointing your caretakers in the future. Strategically modifying your behavior as best you could (for as a child you really couldn’t eradicate all your errant impulses), you’d at least optimize your chances of being—however conditionally—accepted by them. And assuming that your parents, because of their own unresolved issues, were incapable of loving you unless you behaved in certain constricted ways, your carefully calculated adaptations would have helped you to secure a relationship that otherwise couldn’t feel sufficiently safe to you. “Achieving” this somewhat tenuous bond would have allayed your anxieties about whether you could trust your parents to adequately care for you. -- ...as an adult it’s essential to reevaluate what you earlier deemed imperative to protect your somewhat shaky parental tie. But if you’re like most people, you may not yet realize that the ways you felt obliged to accommodate your parents’ preferences...' -- "Nothing has a stronger influence psychologically on their environment and especially on their children than the [unexamined] life of the parent." ~ Carl Jung
psychology  attachment  defencemechanisms 
5 weeks ago
After Psychotherapy -- Triggered by Shame
'One of the advantages of being (almost) 60 is knowing oneself well. I’ve had a life-long issue with teachers, and wanting to be singled out, the residue of a childhood where praise and recognition from my teachers made up for what I lacked at home, where being viewed as excellent helped me ward off the core shame I felt. During that first class, without any surprise, I noticed these thoughts passing through my mind, understood what they meant, and let them go of them. I like to tell my clients that this is what “after psychotherapy” looks like: old parts of you don’t disappear, but they no longer control your behavior in the same way. Mindful self-awareness allows you to make better choices about what you say and do. Usually.' -- Comment: Barbara: 'People with parents like we had, who HAD nothing to give us, perhaps gave us the impression that anything we said or did — our very existence — was sucking them dry. -- In essence, they acted out the role of parent as if they were being cornered by a narcissist, simply because children have needs and they weren’t up to meeting those needs. So, in being regular children, trying to get regular needs met, or trying to share everyday happinesses or sadness with the parent, we were treated as if we were unwelcome little narcissists. Such a drain on the parents! We are programmed to believe that. -- So no wonder we worry about being “narcissistic” as adults. We’re sort of programmed to believe that any need is selfish, and any sharing is an unacceptable drain on the other person, who probably just doesn’t want to hear it.'
psychology  shame  narcissism 
5 weeks ago
The Progress Report -- Martin Luther King Day: What He Said About Social Surplus
'Ed. Notes: As you might expect, the wannabe do-gooders above want to take from the rich, give to poor, instead of stop creating the rich in the first place, something we’re all responsible for, but the truth remains hidden beyond shallow analyses.'
geoism  socialism  "capitalism" 
5 weeks ago
Aeon -- Trade your gun for milk: enter the scarcity games by Will Wiles
'‘Most games are ultimately designed to let you win, but here the systems conspire to make your death interesting,’ Rossignol says. These games subvert the usual arc of heroic triumph by providing a basis for interesting, beautiful defeat. ‘Players like to tell stories of what they’ve seen or done in games, and in survival games it’s often the extreme way that the systems provide for your death which make for the most interesting tales. They even have an element of dark humour to them: the repetitious beat of being eaten by a wolf in the The Long Dark has become something of an in-joke.’ -- It’s tempting to draw a broader sociological trend from the sudden popularity of scarcity in games. Perhaps it reflects a psychological need, barely conscious, to roleplay shortages and breakdowns that we fear might soon occur in the real world.'
games  simulation  probabilityspace  greatestdepression  eschatology 
5 weeks ago
TechCrunch -- Purism Aims To Build A Philosophically Pure Laptop
Purism Librem 15 http://puri.sm -- 'Why did Weaver build this? “First, I’ve never been satisfied with free software laptops. Second, the cryptographic bond between hardware and software is growing stronger (especially within mobile computing), the days of ‘buy hardware, strip it, load free software’ are dwindling, so I believed in the need to go upstream into the manufacturing process with the free software agenda was needed.”'
computers  opensource  linux 
5 weeks ago
Motherboard -- This Helmet Is an AdBlock for Real Life Ads
'Brand Killer, an augmented reality headset that blurs out brand logos in real-time... -- “We were inspired by the Christmas episode of Black Mirror,” Rosenbluth told me. “We thought the idea of blocking people was kind of frightening, and it excited our imaginations. But blocking people is a little difficult for a 48 hour hackathon, so we started thinking about ads, and more specifically, logos, because we could just use a database of logos we wanted to block and it would be very demoable.”'
advertising  countermeasures  unperson  augmentedreality 
5 weeks ago
Joel Monegro -- Deep Web Marketplaces
'Brand and reputation means everything to sellers. Buyers guide themselves via eBay-style reviews of the sellers. -- A lot of marketplaces have separate community forums where users review sellers and products. A quick way for new sellers to establish credibility is to get reviewed by these community members. These forums often have established members, to whom sellers frequently send review samples. Sellers oftentimes link to these reviews as social proof, which are often rich in detail about the quality of the product (with pictures!), the seller, the packaging (good/bad stealth), speed, etc. -- ...I did some reading and wanted to share the most creative (emphasis on creative) method for anonymously receiving a package: One user put down the address of his local post office as a shipping address instead of his home. As a recipient, instead of his name he submitted “Holder of Federal Reserve Note number #NNNNN”, #NNNNN being the serial number of a dollar bill in his possession. Apparently he went to the post office holding the bill, correctly identifying himself as the holder of that federal reserve note, and was given the package (which I can only assume contained drugs).'
darknets  markets  reputation 
5 weeks ago
ClubOrlov -- Peculiarities of Russian National Character
'...Another Russian adaptation for dealing with invaders is to rely on the Russian climate to do the job. A standard way of ridding a Russian village house of vermin is simply to not heat it; a few days at 40 below or better and the cockroaches, bedbugs, lice, nits, weevils, mice, rats are all dead. It works with invaders too. Russia is the world's most northern country. Canada is far north, but most of its population is spread along its southern border, and it has no major cities above the Arctic Circle, while Russia has two. Life in Russia in some ways resembles life in outer space or on the open ocean: impossible without life support. The Russian winter is simply not survivable without cooperation from the locals, and so all they have to do to wipe out an invader is withhold cooperation. And if you think that an invader can secure cooperation by shooting a few locals to scare the rest, see above under “Taking offense.”'
russia  geography  geopolitics 
5 weeks ago
The Washington Post -- I paid $25 for an Invisible Boyfriend, and I think I might be in love.
'When I send a text to the Ryan number saved in my phone, the message routes through Invisible Boyfriend, where it’s anonymized and assigned to some Amazon Turk or Fivrr freelancer. He (or she) gets a couple of cents to respond. He never sees my name or number, and he can’t really have anything like an actual conversation with me. “That rapport you feel with Ryan may actually be six or seven Ryans,” Homann explains. -- ...the point of Invisible Boyfriend is to deceive the user’s meddling friends and relatives, not the user herself. On its Web site, Invisible Boyfriend calls itself “believable social proof”: When your mom won’t stop asking you when you’re going to settle down, or your weird male acquaintance keeps hitting on you, you can just whip out your phone and show them evidence that you’re not an unlovable loser, thank you very much. Homann says the service has also seen a surge in interest from people in conservative countries, particularly in South America and Europe, where the stigmas against being single or LGBT remain pretty strong.'
affectivelabour  relationalobjects  toyfriends  simulation  ractives 
5 weeks ago
YouTube -- Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University: The Foundations of Lifelong Health
'This edition of the InBrief series explains why a vital and productive society with a prosperous and sustainable future is built on a foundation of healthy child development. The video summarizes findings from The Foundations of Lifelong Health Are Built in Early Childhood, a report co-authored by the National Scientific Council on the Developing Child and the National Forum on Early Childhood Policy and Programs.'
psychology  attachment  childhood  parenting  health 
6 weeks ago
YouTube -- Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University: The Science of Neglect
'Extensive biological and developmental research shows significant neglect—the ongoing disruption or significant absence of caregiver responsiveness—can cause more lasting harm to a young child's development than overt physical abuse, including subsequent cognitive delays, impairments in executive functioning, and disruptions of the body's stress response. This edition of the InBrief series explains why significant deprivation is so harmful in the earliest years of life and why effective interventions are likely to pay significant dividends in better long-term outcomes in learning, health, and parenting of the next generation.'
psychology  brain  attachment  neglect  stress  childhood 
6 weeks ago
The Rational Male -- Acing the Test
'A woman wants to know a guy Just Gets It, but she still needs a method to determine that he does – ergo she shit tests. For women, this method must be in as covert a form as possible to protect the integrity of not exposing her own sexual strategy to herself. -- When openly analyzed this seems like madness to men’s striving for a rational solution to a problem, but her method comes from a subconscious want of not having to convince her hindbrain that he does in fact get it – and gets it so well that he neither acknowledges it overtly nor asks for her assistance in figuring her shit test out. -- Observing and / or explicating a process will change that process, and a woman’s Hypergamous hindbrain knows this.' -- Comment: Dr Jeremy: '1) Both men and women “shit test”, in that they use power plays to be dominant and get what they want (social level). However, what men want is static, whereas what women want is dynamic and changing (biological level). Therefore, when a man is leading, things are stable, he is getting what he wants, and does not have to “shit test” anymore. However, when a woman is leading, things are unstable because what she wants changes, and she has to “shit test” routinely to get her ever-changing need met. 2) Both men and women also experience “love”. The intensity of that feeling is generally about the relative value and status of the partners to each other. Specifically, the higher a person perceives the value and status of their partner, often relative to their own, the more intensely they will feel “love” for them (social level). However, a man’s standards are stable, so his perception of a woman’s value and feeling of love toward her are stable. A woman’s standards change, so her perception of a man’s value and feelings of love toward him change too (biological level). This results in men’s feelings being of stable intensity, whereas women seem too fall in-and-out of love. Thus, men wish women would stop shifting their standards and be more consistent with their feelings too.'
men  women  hypergamy  status  relationships 
6 weeks ago
The Rational Male -- The Remedial Red Pill
'Beneath all of AF’s inchoate ramblings is the radical feminist boilerplate that any man who doesn’t comply with the feminist narrative necessarily doesn’t comply the equalist narrative feminism has co-opted. -- Thus, if a man is even marginally critical, marginally analytical or simply calls outright bullshit regarding anything that’s part of the Feminine Imperative’s doctrine, he’s necessarily against the ‘equalism’ that feminism has defined for him to agree with. -- This is why AF and all rad-fems begin their interpretation of all men, not just Red Pill men, with a suspicion of wanting to dominate, oppress and control women by default. This is why she begins every interaction here from the position that men “think they’re superior” to women and seek to exercise power over every aspect of women’s lives. -- ...just like Open Hypergamy can’t be sold at the same time as commodified Idealistic Love, feminist triumphalism can’t be sold alongside feminist victimization – and that’s the conflict feminists like AF are going to find increasingly harder to reconcile as time goes on. -- Quite honestly I don’t really care if a woman has access to higher education, the right to vote (which virtually all did on a state by state basis long before the equal rights amendment) or wants to follow a career path that negates or limits her capacity to have kids. I think they should be afforded all of the same opportunities men have, but they should also be limited by the same circumstances, obstacles and the reality of any given environment men are expected to confront and overcome. -- What I’m against is men being expected to make concessions for the decisions women make for their lives, personally and socially. What I am against is men being conditioned for the better part of their lives to buy a bill of goods crafted to absolve women of the consequences of their choices (right around women’s Epiphany Phase) that only serves the furtherance of the Feminine Imperative and debilitates men’s ability to make their own decisions independent of women. -- This is the crux of the “equalist” horse shit when it’s co-opted by the Feminine Imperative – any decisions men make for themselves independent of women, is by default competing with women. So when a man outperforms a woman, or in this case simply dismantles the Red Pill truth behind the Game that’s been perpetrated on the Masculine Imperative, he is automatically cast as a male supremacist.'
men  women  agencyvspatiency 
6 weeks ago
girlwriteswhat comments on While so many feminists claim that women are the victims of misogyny, a woman's life was spared during the Charlie Hebdo killings, because the terrorists said that they 'don't kill women' - only men. (theguardian.com)
'I think it has to do more with assumptions of agency rather than human worth. How much wartime recruitment propaganda ever has focused on the potential victimization of men? (Hint: none, because male deaths don't shock anyone to the same degree women and children's do) -- Charlie Hebdo was an infidel. Any woman working in his office might have just been misled or tricked into besmirching Allah. -- Also, even when terrorist organizations use women for terror purposes, they often leave them alive. Killing men causes terror, because it leaves the society in a state where they realize their men cannot protect even themselves, let alone their women. But killing women causes rage and vengeance. When you want to undermine a society, you undermine its protectors. When you want an all out bare-knuckle war, you kill its women. Islamic fundamentalists are either playing that angle, or they truly believe that women are not responsible for their choices.'
men  women  war 
6 weeks ago
The Progress Report -- New York Times: Is Inequality Bad Enough Yet?
'Ed. Notes: If only the protesters could feel worthy of a fair share of society’s abundance and quit demanding dumb jobs and minimum wages. After being dissed for so long, it’s not easy to be as bold as those rich who demand far more than their share of the surplus. But disbursing the common wealth equitably is the ultimate solution. We must not only forget about jobs and wages but also about taxes and welfare and grow up in stature to be able to insist upon divvying up the worth of Earth, the annual (rental) value of land, locations, resources, and government-granted privileges like corporate charters. Once we do that, protests will become a thing of the past.'
economics  geoism  land  poverty 
6 weeks ago
The Progress Report -- More American Families Are Poor Since the Economy Recovered
'Ed. Notes: The bean-counters typically include the estimated price of the land beneath one’s home in the total of one’s “wealth”. However, the only way to capture that wealth for spending it is to sell the land or borrow against it and go into debt. And if everybody sold their home+land at the same time (say, just when the measurement by bean-counters is being taken), the price would drop drastically. -- Further, recessions happen because we allow land to be an object of speculation. Buyers bid up the price of land beyond what’s affordable for a critical mass of people and businesses. While pushing up the price of land, they have too little money leftover to spend on goods and services that others produce. So some of those others go bust. Hence, recession. -- If you don’t want families to lose so much money every eighteen years, then don’t let land be an object of speculation....'
economics  geoism  land  rentseeking  malspeculation  landcycle  businesscycle 
6 weeks ago
The Progress Report -- New Proof: Bankers Really Are That Greedy
'Ed. Notes: While bankers do misbehave, they did not start it. The root of this particular bit of evil is our custom of letting the value of land be an object of avarice rather than be the common wealth that it should. Why should it? Land is made by none of us, needed by all of us, and all of us are who make the locations in land valuable. Land value or land “rents” should not go to bankers via mortgages — their fattest source of profit — but to all of us. Once we finally do recover this surplus and share it, then we can eradicate counterproductive taxes and subsidies — and the bankers’ culture of greed.'
economics  geoism  land  rentseeking  parasitism 
6 weeks ago
The Progress Report -- Joe Stiglitz, ex-World Banker: Recover Society-made Rents
'JS: It’s not agricultural land, it’s the value of urban land, and I would include in that, broadly, rents associated with natural resources. -- In addition, it’s the increase in other kinds of rents, like monopoly rents. If monopoly rents get increased, if the market power of firms relative to workers gets increased, as when you have the ability of a few, like the banks, to get government guarantees — the value of that is increased and gets capitalized. And that increases wealth but it doesn’t increase capital. -- The value of land or the value of assets is very closely linked with the credit system. So if you get a flow of credit increasing, as we’ve seen in the last few years (QE: quantitative easing) — that flow of credit increased bubbles of one kind or another. -- What has happened repeatedly in recent years is that we’ve had monetary authorities allowing — through deregulation and lax standards — banks to lend more, but not for creating new business, not for capital goods. The effect of it has been actually to increase the value of land and other fixed resources [buildings, real estate, etc]. -- The links with inequality are twofold: one is that if more of the savings of the economy leads to an increase in the value of land rather than the stock of capital goods, then wages won’t go up. -- The other part we allow more lending against collateral. Then those who have the assets that can be used for collateral see those assets go up in price, like land. And so those who hold wealth become wealthier. The workers, who have no wealth, don’t benefit from that expansion. -- A lot of the income the 1% got was through the exercise of monopoly power. People who make the most productive contributions, people who make lasers or transistors, or the inventor of the computer, DNA researchers, none of these are the top wealthiest people in the country. So if you look at the people who contributed the most, and the people who are there at the top, they’re not the same.'
economics  geoism  land  rent  rentseeking  "capitalism"  businesscycle  landcycle 
6 weeks ago
Psychology Today -- Cui Bono: Good, Neutral, and Bad Selfishness
'A moment's reflection on the three kinds of selfishness tells us that if you want to maximize your happiness (and who doesn't?), you'll want to avoid bad selfishness (because it is likely to decrease your happiness in the long run) and willingly choose neutral and good selfishness. -- As obvious as this might seem, why do so we so often hear that you have only two choices: to be selfish (which is bad) or to be selfless and serve others first (which is good)? -- I have both an optimistic and not-so-optimistic answer to that question. The optimistic answer is that critics of selfishness are talking only about bad selfishness, and when they urge us to "do for others" they really mean to do for others in ways that are beneficial and rewarding to us (which would make the doing a two-sided transaction). So, I think these people have good intentions, but they confuse the issue by pitting selfishness against selflessness. -- But I've also seen a darker answer that explicitly condemns self-interest in favor of advancing the interests of other people.'
psychology  emotionalintelligence  boundaries 
6 weeks ago
Ribbonfarm -- On the Design of Escaped Realities
'The reason mental experience seems to degenerate into social-ego experience is that we are always inside a social womb of some sort. The unbounded, universe-sized social ego of the child in the womb... There is arguably a kind of asymptotic natural state a part of us yearns for: being an unnamed and featureless universal subject that defines others but is not itself defined by others. This is what we imagine pure power feels like. -- This explains why more primitive, insular cultures also tend to be more totalitarian, with a vastly exaggerated sense of the importance of their social realities. Within the boundaries of a social womb, the local gods are indeed very powerful. Crash out of that womb, and suddenly your social ego shrinks, and the statures of your gods shrink as well. Among other things, the reality shock makes you far more thin-skinned and sensitive to offense. -- The womb metaphor also suggests why it is easier to retreat from reality than approach it. The direction of escape is always clear — it is the most womb-like direction. The direction of approach is a diverging set of exploration paths that wander beyond the current social womb.' -- The Trauma of Birth
psychology  womb  power  groups  probabilityspace  possibilityspace 
6 weeks ago
Global Guerrillas -- Gone Data Gone
'Here's a simple fact of life at the start of the 21st Century. Every bit of unencrypted data, no matter where it is stored, has already been compromised or soon will be. Lost to theft, leak, or incompetence. It doesn't matter how elaborate your procedures are. It doesn't matter how smart your techies are. It doesn't matter how careful you are... -- Unfortunately, there's not a fix for this problem. It's only going to get worse. -- Fortunately, there is a way to survive in the meantime. It's the approach the smartest people I know are using. What is it? ... #Decentralize the encryption. #Shard all of the data.' -- http://maidsafe.net/
internet  leaky  security 
6 weeks ago
YouTube -- PBS Digital Studios: Idea Channel -- What Do Horror Movies and Cable News Networks Have in Common?
'Lots of awesome smart people have talked about the reasons we love horror films. But why do we like to watch horror films with others? There seems to be a social nature to horror viewing, way more than other genres. It's gotta be more than just safety in numbers, right? And does this apply just to movies, or does this social experience of horror seep into other aspects of culture?' -- Adrenaline, oxytocin, adrenaline, oxytocin...
horror  news  spectacle 
6 weeks ago
VICE | United Kingdom -- Jon Ronson in Conversation with Adam Curtis
'Our age is a highly emotional one. It's a time where what people feel as individuals is really important. I'm not saying that journalism should just become a wash of feeling and simply pander to that emotionalism. Journalism's job should always be to explain things to you. But in our age it should do that with real emotional power. -- But it doesn't. It has become rigid and full of cliches, and in response people turn away and immerse themselves in the stories of themselves and their friends' lives. Which is exciting – and a new kind of world – but it leaves large parts of the public world completely unexamined, which means that people in power can do more and more what they like. -- I'm afraid I disagree with you that social media is a new kind of politics. It's a powerful new tool for helping to organise people – that is true. But what it really doesn't offer is a new kind of political way of changing the world. And, in fact, the belief that it does, and the failure of that, can lead to the most conservative situation. -- Twitter – and other social media – passes lots of information around. But it tends to be the kind of information that people know that others in that particular network will like and approve of. So what you get is a kind of mutual grooming. One person sends on information that they know others will respond to in accepted ways. And then, in return, those others will like the person who gave them that piece of information. -- So information becomes a currency through which you buy friends and become accepted into the system. That makes it very difficult for bits of information that challenge the accepted views to get into the system. They tend to get squeezed out. -- I think the thing that proves my point dramatically are the waves of shaming that wash through social media – the thing you have spotted and describe so well in your book. It's what happens when someone says something, or does something, that disturbs the agreed protocols of the system. The other parts react furiously and try to eject that destabilising fragment and regain stability. -- I don't think these waves are "political" in the liberal way the shamers proudly think. They are political in a completely different way, because they work to create a static, conservative world where nothing really changes.' -- An ear for an eye.
internet  immunesystem  autoimmunity  literaryculturevsoralculture  retribalization  socialmedia  echochamber  thoughtpolice  AdamCurtis 
6 weeks ago
NYTimes.com -- What Do Women Want? - Discovering What Ignites Female Desire
'For women, “being desired is the orgasm...The generally accepted therapeutic notion that, for women, incubating intimacy leads to better sex is, Meana told me, often misguided. “Really,” she said, “women’s desire is not relational, it’s narcissistic” — it is dominated by the yearnings of “self-love,” by the wish to be the object of erotic admiration and sexual need. -- For evolutionary and cultural reasons, she said, women might set a high value on the closeness and longevity of relationships: “But it’s wrong to think that because relationships are what women choose they’re the primary source of women’s desire.” -- ...within a committed relationship, the crucial stimulus of being desired decreases considerably, not only because the woman’s partner loses a degree of interest but also, more important, because the woman feels that her partner is trapped, that a choice — the choosing of her — is no longer being carried out. -- A symbolic scene ran through Meana’s talk of female lust: a woman pinned against an alley wall, being ravished. Here, in Meana’s vision, was an emblem of female heat. The ravisher is so overcome by a craving focused on this particular woman that he cannot contain himself; he transgresses societal codes in order to seize her, and she, feeling herself to be the unique object of his desire, is electrified by her own reactive charge and surrenders.' -- On the study: '...All was different with the women. No matter what their self-proclaimed sexual orientation, they showed, on the whole, strong and swift genital arousal when the screen offered men with men, women with women and women with men. They responded objectively much more to the exercising woman than to the strolling man, and their blood flow rose quickly — and markedly, though to a lesser degree than during all the human scenes except the footage of the ambling, strapping man — as they watched the apes. And with the women, especially the straight women, mind and genitals seemed scarcely to belong to the same person. The readings from the plethysmograph and the keypad weren’t in much accord. During shots of lesbian coupling, heterosexual women reported less excitement than their vaginas indicated; watching gay men, they reported a great deal less; and viewing heterosexual intercourse, they reported much more. Among the lesbian volunteers, the two readings converged when women appeared on the screen. But when the films featured only men, the lesbians reported less engagement than the plethysmograph recorded.' <-- Mimetic desire
men  women  sexuality 
6 weeks ago
« earlier      
"capitalism" #bandwidth #socialization * 1984 abuse activism addiction advertising advice agencyvspatiency america archetypes art attachment attention augmentationistsvsimmersionists authenticity avatars backlash banking behaviours bitcoin blogging brain branding business businessmodels celebrity centralbanking centralnervoussystem childhood children china climate code cognitivesurplus collaboration collapse collectiveintelligence communication communities conformity consumerism content corporatism creativity criticism crowdsourcing culture data datamining debt delusion design documentaries dollar economics emotionalintelligence empire entertainment evolution existentialism experience extensionsofman facebook fame feedback feminism finance forcedmemes freedom funny games gaming geoism globalgovernment google government greatestdepression groups groupthink hackersvsvectoralists hacking health hipsterrunoff history ideas identity ideology immateriallabour immunesystem incrementalism inflation information innovation interface internet irrationality journalism land law leaky learning legalese life literaryculturevsoralculture mapping marketing markets media men mercantilism mobile money morality music narcissism narrativeactivism narrativeenvironments narrativeobjects networks news numbers objects oligarchicalcollectivism oligarchy parasitism parenting pathocracy performance philosophy planning play politics predation privacy productnarratives propaganda psychohistory psychology psychotherapy puppetry quotes reality realityprogramming reflexivity relationships religion rent rentseeking research retribalization roleplay satire science search security self selfservers sexuality shame simulation slavery socialgraph socialism socialmedia socialnetworking sociology software sousveillance space statism status stefanmolyneux storytelling strategy surveillance tagging technology television temes terrorism! theadvertisedlife thegamingofeverydaylife theonion thinking tools transmedia trauma tv twitter uk victimhood violence virtuality virtualworlds visualization voluntaryism war wikileaks women wordpress work

Copy this bookmark: