« John Rawls, human biodiversity, and redistribution of wealth | Main | NY Times article about teachers »

January 20, 2008

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bf6ae53ef00e54ffcb4708834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference John McCain's daughter is hot:

Comments

Is this posting a record for Half Sigma? Nearly 100 comments in eight hours. He's had postings with more comments, for example his famous one on why a career in computer programming sucks, but they took longer to attract so many comments.

"It cracks me up because it's always women (including you as I've seen) who complain about unreasonable beauty standards, chide men who judge them on how they look & make rude comments about them"

-----
hehehe, good point.

And really, this is how you know Meghan is really "hot" and not just "attractive". I love ya Spungen, but women ALWAYS react like you do when presented with a sexually attractive women like Meghan. THIS is the true litmus test for whether a woman is hot. Does she inspire instinctual female-female hate? In this case the answer is yes.

Guys do it too to a large extent.

Comments on Pierce Brosnan's wife if people think McCain's daughter is a chunkette?

What the hell, I can afford to eat that leftover pizza. Maybe I'll top it off with some ice cream.

David Alexander says:

"As I've said, I've personally referred to it as "Wellesley Queen" or "Career" blonde. It's fashionable blonde for career women. Madameoiselle McCain has what I call "California blonde" or "Porn blonde"."

It's not the blonde hair so much as the body and the look. I know what you mean by the "career" blonde - this is a woman who qualifies as attractive (no obvious physical flaws), but who fails to turn the corner to legitimately hot (not only lacks bad physical flaws, but exudes sexuality). Meghan exudes sexuality.

Comments on Pierce Brosnan's wife if people think McCain's daughter is a chunkette?

What the hell, I can afford to eat that leftover pizza. Maybe I'll top it off with some ice cream.

Maybe Brosnan's gay? It would not be unheard of for an actor.

I just can't get over Meghan McCain's cheekbones. If she's chubby, the shape of her face is really consistent with implants. Most chubby people have chubby cheeks. Maybe she got the implants to give some form to her face.

Does having a shaved head fool women, or is it just an aesthetic thing?

I think this young woman is a spoiled, plastic, shallow twit. Her flaws deserve scrutiny.

In other words, she may have a future in politics!

THIS is the true litmus test for whether a woman is hot. Does she inspire instinctual female-female hate? In this case the answer is yes.

Don't forget Democrat-Republican hate. That's at least part of what I'm feeling. And poor girl-rich girl hate.

I agree with your general premise, but my animosity is usually directed toward the women that other women tend to adore. Like von Teese. Or Oprah. This is probably because in my youth I felt persecuted by other women. Especially ones with weight problems, and/or privileged ones. ;)

I think Meghan, just like Jenna Bush, is that type of woman. Like Ashlee Simpson -- how many male fans does she have? The blog is clearly directed toward women, not men. It's full of fashion talk and makeup tips.

I suspect HS linked to her site because of the politics, and because it was a way to get a blond on the front page real estate. HS also tends to like the voluptuous type, at least in theory.

David Alexander says:

"I repeat, Meghan does not have to lose weight. She's fine just the way she is. SHE IS NOT OBESE, NOR IS SHE FAT OR OVERWEIGHT. She's simply hot, and the fact that she isn't a skinny bitch with exposed ribs makes her even sexier to me."

Agreed! She's perfectly fine as she is. She's a voluptuous (NOT fat) siren. I'd like to think she has a pleasant personality to match, but she's probably a high maintenance headache. :)

I just can't get over Meghan McCain's cheekbones. If she's chubby, the shape of her face is really consistent with implants. Most chubby people have chubby cheeks. Maybe she got the implants to give some form to her face.

Does McCain or his wife have any known Indian ancestry?

P.S. Despite my rants, I do find it rather comforting that a woman can have such an effect just with certain makeup, hair color, and dress. It's equally true for the platinum hair-black-eyeliner look, or the black-bangs-red-lips look. When you have a certain look, men often overlook details such as the exact shape of your nose, chin, or forehead, or that your hips are a little fat. I maintain that features-wise, Meghan is, like myself, only moderately attractive. Not model or starlet material. Add status and an image, though, and such a woman can create a buzz.

"Don't forget Democrat-Republican hate. That's at least part of what I'm feeling. And poor girl-rich girl hate."
---

Oh no. In this thread, you've basically called Meghan a dumb, fat, disgusting pig who needs to go on a diet and/or plastic surgery and may have been abused as a child.

This is strictly girl-girl primeval instinctual hate looking to latch onto ANYTHING to undercut the "competition". I know it when I see it and you shouldn't be ashamed. It's completely natural. This doesn't happen if you were confronted with the brunette bush twin for example.

Razib is linking your site due to these last two posts. This is as big a deal as getting mentioned in the NYT! Maybe GC is reading, too!


i know for a fact he reads this site. so do i ; though i rarely read the comments ;-)

I cannot believe that so many people have posted so much about the idiot children of the rich. Does anyone believe that Meghan got into Columbia because she was a National Merit finalist or a stellar student at the elite private high school that she attended? My guess is that she was a "developmental" admission at Columbia and found a major that even an idiot could pass.

If anyone was betting would they take the over or under on 2.1 children for Meghan? (I would take the under). Would they take the over or under on 1.5 husbands (I would take the over given that her parents have been divorced).

I would also guess that she will have a very uneven work history (see Kareena Gore and out current President for the work history of the idiot children of politicians).

Why does anyone care how the idiot child of a hack politician looks. Meghan (like Karenna Gore, Alexandra Kerry, Chelsea Clinton, Cate Edwards,etc) demonstrates many of the things that is wrong with the U.S.

Readers, there are 2 people using a similar handle here: anonymouse and anonymous 1.

I may change my handle if this gets too confusing. I just want to try to make sure people get that straight.

Also, Blank, Meghan is a minor celebrity. If you are going to put yourself out there partly based on your looks, you should expect your looks to be judged more closely as a result. If she were just a normal girl, like her sister Bridget, it would be a different story. That said, this is why it is somewhat disturbing to hear anyone (myself included) critique Bridget, but, Blank, trust me. Bridget is, UNFORTUNATELY, going to have probably deal with a lot more crap by less decent guys/gals than that found in this thread the older she gets, just like Chelsea Clinton did/is.

Is this posting a record for Half Sigma? Nearly 100 comments in eight hours. He's had postings with more comments, for example his famous one on why a career in computer programming sucks, but they took longer to attract so many comments.

I think one of the fastest sprawling posts was related to Chelsea Clinton, and it turned into a ranking between Wellesley Queen and her friends that was subsequently sent into the memory hole due to Wellesley Queen calling up and screaming at me over the phone.

It's not the blonde hair so much as the body and the look. I know what you mean by the "career" blonde - this is a woman who qualifies as attractive (no obvious physical flaws), but who fails to turn the corner to legitimately hot (not only lacks bad physical flaws, but exudes sexuality). Meghan exudes sexuality.

I agree completely. I tend to separate sexual appeal and beauty from each other, and there have been many cases where a girl that I felt was beautiful was no sexually attractive in any form at all. I'm very lenient on beauty standards, but I'm very harsh in judging sexual appeal.

Despite her "weight issues", Meghan is very beautiful with a beautiful body, and her hair and make up scream "fuck me".

Agreed! She's perfectly fine as she is. She's a voluptuous (NOT fat) siren. I'd like to think she has a pleasant personality to match, but she's probably a high maintenance headache. :)

Thank you. :)

I'd love to find a girl like that, and I hate watching shows and weight loss commercials where women of her body type are told to lose weight. I claim that I can put up with the high maintenance since I'm the main beneficiary of her work to look great, but I wonder what would happen in the real world.

When you have a certain look, men often overlook details such as the exact shape of your nose, chin, or forehead, or that your hips are a little fat

Even super picky David Alexander isn't the kind of guy who obsesses over noses, chins, or foreheads. Just put on the make up and get your nails done, and you'll stand out, and I'll be your little submissive puppy. :)

maintain that features-wise, Meghan is, like myself, only moderately attractive. Not model or starlet material. Add status and an image, though, and such a woman can create a buzz.

I think Spungen and Meghan are both prettier than any model or starlet. :)

Spungen:
It's pretty easy to emulate the retro-punk Bettie Page look...

It's never been entirely clear to me exactly what "punk" was, but I was under the impression that it was something in the late '70s and early '80s that involved bizarre hair styles and colors. Why do you refer to the Bettie Page look as "retro-punk"?

Also, Dita von Teese (and no, I'd never heard of her until today, but I watch about two hours of TV per month) is much better-looking than Bettie Page. Which isn't really a very high bar--were men in the '50s really that hard up (no pun intended) for women willing to be photographed topless?

IMO, clothing and hairstyle really can make a significant difference. Nothing's going to push a 4 up to an 8, but if a girl's just a bit plain, things like growing her hair long, wearing nicer clothes, and (I assume, though I don't know much about it) judicious use of makeup can push her up by as much as 2-3 points on a 10-point scale.

Meghan (like Karenna Gore, Alexandra Kerry, Chelsea Clinton, Cate Edwards,etc) demonstrates many of the things that is wrong with the U.S.

What do you mean? A lot of these people seem unobjectionable to me. Karenna Gore & Chelsea Clinton, for example, were both good students who completed graduate education at challenging schools & have worked throughout their adult lives. They don't engage in scandalous or trashy behavior as far as I know. If more of today's youth behaved this way, we'd all be better off.

Meghan is a minor celebrity. If you are going to put yourself out there partly based on your looks, you should expect your looks to be judged more closely as a result.

Exactly. Meghan chose to talk about her makeup preferences on her blog. By doing so, she made her appearance fair game for discussion.

Bridget is, UNFORTUNATELY, going to have probably deal with a lot more crap by less decent guys/gals than that found in this thread the older she gets, just like Chelsea Clinton did/is.

Chelsea Clinton gets pretty good-looking guys of "proper" breeding and status, so this isn't a very good comparison. Here's two of them:

http://www.observer.com/files/imagecache/article/files/Bryan-IanKlaus1V.jpg

http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2005/news/051128/cclinton.jpg

Excellent example of how prestige can help less attractive people get people who are out of their league. Of course, she is better looking than Bridget.

Blank, I suspect Chelsea gets the better looking guys because she is also thin, white and (now) she might have significantly improved her looks with facial plastic surgery.

http://www.goodplasticsurgery.com/archives/004880.html

In this thread, you've basically called Meghan a dumb, fat, disgusting pig who needs to go on a diet and/or plastic surgery and may have been abused as a child.

You are confused. It was Bridget I suggested may have either been overlooked or mistreated such that she rebelled via her appearance.

I never called anyone either disgusting or a pig. Meghan is a twit, which I guess is roughly equivalent to dumb.

I do get riled up when I feel high-status women are held to lower standards than are low-status women. Meghan doesn't deserve any underdog sympathy. She's attempting to compete in a world -- entertainment, basically -- where weight such as ours is unacceptable. She is using her father's campaign to try to launch a career in entertainment. She has managed to conceal her excessive weight with carefully chosen clothing and camera angles. I am calling her out.

If she were a proud paragon of voluptuousness, she'd skip the black untucked shirts, big coats, and black pants. But she presents herself as the perfect Republican Barbie doll. I suspect certain men are far kinder due to the fact she is a Republican than they would be otherwise.

You all know it wasn't jealousy due to her hotness. It was because HS was drooling over her. I naturally took it as a challenge. You guys do the same thing. Any time someone effusively praises the desirability of someone of the opposite sex around another member of the opposite sex -- even a relative -- they'll grumble and challenge it.

Why do you refer to the Bettie Page look as "retro-punk"?

OK, I see where that's misleading. Maybe retro/punk would be better. It's the retro 40s-50s look, but punked up a little bit. Not serious punk, which I respect (if also find unattractive). The women who tend to wear this look all come from a certain upper-middle-class pseudo-rebel culture, which has substantial overlap with goth and certain political views you guys tend to dislike.

Trumwill's goth-pagan-bisexuals probably look a lot like this.

Spungen: "It was because HS was drooling over her."

I thought I was being satirical and not "drooling."

I do think she's cute. I admit to being fascinated by voluptuous blondes (such as Katherine Heigl), but they don't seem to like me back.

Chelsea Clinton gets pretty good-looking guys of "proper" breeding and status

define "gets".

Blank, I suspect Chelsea gets the better looking guys because she is also thin, white and (now) she might have significantly improved her looks with facial plastic surgery.

meghan mccain is far more attractive than chelsea, pre- or putatively post-op.

I'd rather read half's ass-kissing of his new favorite neocon warlord's daughter than endless "ZOMG Ron Paul is HITLER" posts.

Chelsea Clinton gets pretty good-looking guys of "proper" breeding and status

define "gets".

Is involved in long term relationships with high status men. Her social life is lovingly detailed by the society press & it seems pretty good. Not surprising - at least here in NYC, ordinary looking (but always thin) girls from elite families like Chelsea's date & marry men from equally elite families all the time. It's their birthright.

I thought I was being satirical and not "drooling."

My sense of vanity sometimes overrides my sense of irony.

Spungen says:

"She's attempting to compete in a world -- entertainment, basically -- where weight such as ours is unacceptable. She is using her father's campaign to try to launch a career in entertainment. She has managed to conceal her excessive weight with carefully chosen clothing and camera angles."

Wow, you REALLY hate this girl... :)

Blank:
"...ordinary looking (but always thin) girls from elite families like Chelsea's date & marry men from equally elite families..."

Case in point:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E01E5DA1138F931A25755C0A9639C8B63

http://www.jsvphoto.com/home.html

She's not ugly, but she's thin and white; the groom's dad is a successful businessman and both the bride and groom met at Princeton University.

Is involved in long term relationships with high status men.

call me when one of these "high status" men chooses her as his wife.

and if that happens, demonstrate that the guy isn't getting his true needs met with more attractive mistresses.

ps: you hear that? tick tock goes chelsea's clock. she'd better hurry!

Not surprising - at least here in NYC, ordinary looking (but always thin) girls from elite families like Chelsea's date & marry men from equally elite families all the time.

your idea of elite seems pinched. i know a lot of guys from upper class backgrounds and many of them are lacking in certain... character traits... which lowers their sexual market value below that which would be expected of them based solely on their economic and high society status. hence, they settle for ordinary looking girls.
authentic alphas from the upper classes usually wind up marrying very attractive women, and it is obvious to anyone without a self-blinding personal agenda that in general upper class women are hotter than women from lower classes.

I do think she's cute. I admit to being fascinated by voluptuous blondes (such as Katherine Heigl), but they don't seem to like me back.

Don't worry, they don't like me either.

She's not ugly, but she's thin and white; the groom's dad is a successful businessman and both the bride and groom met at Princeton University.

Yeah, I would definitely stay single than marry a girl like Bloomberg's daughter. I wonder if cheating is common in these types of marriages...

Wow, you REALLY hate this girl.;)

DML, what's so hateful about the truth? There's plenty of scorn here that didn't come from me.

I'm not the one who brought up the prospect of her having cheek implants, but I think it's fair game for discussion. It's always interesting whether people have altered their appearance.

As long as we're talking about gender behavior: It's typical for men to deride a woman as hateful and jealous when she criticizes a woman they like, no matter how valid the criticism. Yet they don't do the same to a man who criticizes.

I brought up cheek implants. But I don't really care one way or the other. I don't know her, and don't really care to learn more about her. But her face looks distorted. If the oddity is self-chosen, it's totally ok to comment on it.

Maybe cheek implants can be my versions of Peter's anti-fetish.

DA:
"Yeah, I would definitely stay single than marry a girl like Bloomberg's daughter."

So, what you are saying is you would theoretically pass up being part of a 10 billion dollar fortune to get someone more attractive. If Emma B. was nice, I might go for the hypothetical relationship and take it seriously.

Advantages
1) Never have to work again in your life unless you want to
2) Travel anywhere and anytime you want
3) Live in the best places & buy the best things
4) Your kids with her get part of the inheritance and will get all the power/status that entails (including getting better looking partners, for example)
5) She graduated near the top of her class at Princeton so you know she's smart (good genes for IQ for potential progeny, btw)
6) She seems genuinely nice and is doing an MPH at Harvard (probably cares about the downtrodden and such...)
7) Your great- grandkids will never have to work unless they want to

Disadvantages
1) She's not ugly but is not super hot by any stretch either
2) You have to keep her happy or Papa Bloomberg isn't going to be happy

I'd probably go for the hypothetical scenario. Seems like even guys have a price. Again, this chick seems genuinely nice, and that helps matters a lot if it's really true. If I thought she was a high class bitch, I probably wouldn't consider this.

So, what you are saying is you would theoretically pass up being part of a 10 billion dollar fortune to get someone more attractive. If Emma B. was nice, I might go for the hypothetical relationship and take it seriously.

I maintain a personal policy to never marry into a social class that's higher than mine regardless of race. Yes, there are various advantages, but leeching off a woman for her money is a shameful and ghetto behaviour, IMHO. I don't want a loveless marriage where I spend my days hiding in a locked dark room, jerking off the porn, and I don't want people looking down at as me, as if I'm some pathetic prole classless nigger who leeches off white women.

Spungen says:

"As long as we're talking about gender behavior: It's typical for men to deride a woman as hateful and jealous when she criticizes a woman they like, no matter how valid the criticism."

Remember that earlier point you brought up about safe "female hot" vs not-safe "hot hot"?

It's happening right now. :)

Your first clue is the fact that virtually every single heterosexual man in this thread sees Meghan's pictures (the same ones you see) and wants to bang her, no questions asked. It has virtually nothing to do with her makeup or earings or her hair. Yeah those help, but those alone don't make her "bangable". Many girls try these things but they fall FAR short of the raw sexuality that Meghan puts off. If I knew nothing about her and saw her walking down the street, I'd look twice. Her social status doesn't enter into my attraction to her. The girl is just hot, plain and simple.

And yet you focus and exaggerate fairly minor deficiencies. Look, I've been in this position many times. If you were my girlfriend, I'd just gently bow out and concede defeat at this point to avoid a potentially nasty argument. I'm just (badly) trying to articulate what the guys here are thinking. :)

BTW, cheating on my billionaire wife with some hot stripper is not an option, since only loser men cheat.

nonymous 1: You're not unique.

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=456&sid=1310420

Fully two-thirds of women and half of men say they are "very" or "extremely" willing to marry for money.

The survey polled 1,134 people nationwide with incomes ranging between $30,000 to $60,000 (squarely in the median range for nationwide incomes). The survey asked: "How willing are you to marry an average-looking person that you liked, if they had money?"


Another thing, DA, looks fade. Even if you got a chick like Spungen at 21yo, you'd have to deal with this eventually.

I truly believe that a huge part of why guys and girls are attracted to superficial attributes is consciously or unconsciously driven many times by a desire to pass along better genes (including those for behavior) to their potential progeny.

But, with a multi- billion dollar fortune, your potential progeny would be set to get great looking partners, rendering the above considerations more meaningless.

Another reason to marry an ultra- rich but ordinary nice girl if you are able.

And I'd say a good portion of the "No way, I will only marry for love & hotness" people are lying or would change their minds immediately if actually confronted with the possibility of marrying into wealth.

DA:
"I don't want people looking down at as me, as if I'm some pathetic prole classless nigger who leeches off white women."

I could possibly learn to love an ordinary looking, thin and nice girl like Emma B., esp. with the money factoring into it. It wouldn't necessarily be a loveless marriage. Finally, who's really in her socioeconomic class- almost no one. So, if you are an educated person and can please her and her Dad, you are as good as anyone else she'll eventually have to end up with. The education is the key. With that, people will respect you even if you aren't in her class, which everybody understands is a highly unique class. Looks fade, money can potentially last a lot longer.

Not trying to brag, but I've had enough sex to understand it all feels about the same with the lights out. But, yes, under normal circumstances I try to go for the good looks like every other guy.

Another thing, DA, looks fade. Even if you got a chick like Spungen at 21yo, you'd have to deal with this eventually.

The two options are to not get married at all and dump your female partner when you become bored with her, or get married, and eventually prepare for a divorce when she no longer meets your sexual needs.

But, with a multi- billion dollar fortune, your potential progeny would be set to get great looking partners, rendering the above considerations more meaningless.

Yes, I'll have billions at my access, and my children will be successful, but I'll have no sex life which partially defeats the purpose of being rich, the ability to have hot rich people sex. Cheating on my wife is not an option for me.

I could possibly learn to love an ordinary looking, thin and nice girl like Emma B., esp. with the money factoring into it. It wouldn't necessarily be a loveless marriage.

If I like her as a person, but not sexually, then it's really just a friendship, and it defeats the entire purpose of marrying somebody, unless you're a gold digger.

This is a highly theoretical argument, and I don't think a girl like that would touch me with a ten foot pole. Her money can at least get her a decent Jewish male of proper educational rank. Proles like myself need not apply, and I'm not interested in feeling like a pathetic idiot for not being the son of a rich person. As I've said, I'd rather be alone and not have any children than marry an ugly women, and I'd rather live off my own meager alone earnings than leech off a woman which is one of the least masculine and most low class (and niggerish) things one can do. I've seen way too many black men leech off their girlfriends, and I'm not going to involve myself in such actions irregardless of her wealth.

Not trying to brag, but I've had enough sex to understand it all feels about the same with the lights out. But, yes, under normal circumstances I try to go for the good looks like every other guy.

I'm starting to suspect that way too many men sacrifice their dignity and succumb to sexual urges and affiliate themselves with ugly women. It's rather shameful, and there's no way that it can be the same experience. One is much more likely to be more engaged in a sexual experience with a hot girl than with an ugly girl. Maybe if you kept the lights on, you'd realize that sex with an ugly girl is waste of everybody's time, and that doing it with the lights off with an ugly girl is no better than masturbating to crappy porn.

Fully two-thirds of women and half of men say they are "very" or "extremely" willing to marry for money.

The survey polled 1,134 people nationwide with incomes ranging between $30,000 to $60,000 (squarely in the median range for nationwide incomes). The survey asked: "How willing are you to marry an average-looking person that you liked, if they had money?"

More from that study:

Asked how much a potential spouse would need to have to be money-marriage material, women in their 20s said $2.5 million. The going rate fell to $1.1 million for women in their 30s, and rose again to $2.2 million for women in their 40s.

Men have cheaper requirements. In the Prince survey, their asking price overall was $1.2 million, with men in their 20s asking $1 million and men in their 40s asking $1.4 million.


Hmmm...why are these people becoming more demanding as they age?

David Alexander says:

"I'm starting to suspect that way too many men sacrifice their dignity and succumb to sexual urges and affiliate themselves with ugly women. It's rather shameful, and there's no way that it can be the same experience."

Dignity? You sound absurd. Men are horny and they need it, even if the chick isn't a porn star. Dignity has nothing to do with it. In fact, often times, less attractive chicks are better in bed. See Hugh Grant "dating" hooker Devine Brown when he was with Elizabeth Hurley. Looks are only part of the equation. But since you've barely any sexual experience to speak of, you think it's the whole equation.

"Maybe if you kept the lights on, you'd realize that sex with an ugly girl is waste of everybody's time, and that doing it with the lights off with an ugly girl is no better than masturbating to crappy porn."

You've only had sex with one girl and are too scared to talk to women you're attracted to, so you don't really know this, do you? :) Anyway, we were talking about average chicks like Emma, not ugly ones like Roseanne Bar. Besides, a girl who knows what she's doing, regardless of looks, can rock your world.

Unfortunately for you, your entire sexual mental structure is based on 3rd party accounts, pornography, and mostly BS extrapolation. Thus you probably aren't in any mental state to be making judgments on what others should or should not be doing sexually or making too harsh a judgment on who men "affiliate" themselves with. If I were an arm chair psychologist, I'd say that this line of reasoning is more to excuse your own pathetic existence than a condemnation of their's. :)

That said, sex with hot girls can be boring too. And yes, men often marry unattractive women because they don't think they can do better. This IS bad. However, they haven't gone to your extreme and essentially dropped out of life sexually (i.e, dropped out of life, period). What you're doing is far more pathetic.

Stones and glass houses.

Your first clue is the fact that virtually every single heterosexual man in this thread sees Meghan's pictures (the same ones you see) and wants to bang her, no questions asked.

Perhaps I haven't read this thread carefully enough. I think your summary is 1) incorrect and 2) irrelevant. This isn't about whether she meets the low standard of bangable.

Calling her "only moderately attractive" is not the same as calling her a pig. The point is, she's a twit with nothing special except her father. She doesn't merit what she's apparently shooting for -- celebrityhood -- based upon her looks or talent.

Her Ashlee Simpson act is especially irritating given that she's not in Hollywood, but in national politics.

DML, is there any way a woman could criticize this woman that would not result in dismissive charges of jealousy from you?

David Alexander says:

"BTW, cheating on my billionaire wife with some hot stripper is not an option, since only loser men cheat."

I honestly don't mean to be picking on you, but I can't let this BS go unchallenged. Are you now saying you're NOT a loser? If so, I beg to differ. One could easily say only "loser men" sit around masturbating to porn without talking to women they like.

Stones and glass houses.

She can't be a babe, Half Sigma. You see, she's fat. And, if she is intelligent, I wouldn't know it by the way she speaks. Good job, Ivy League.

Spungen asks:
"Perhaps I haven't read this thread carefully enough. I think your summary is 1) incorrect and 2) irrelevant. "

I admit, I misread the post where you talked about the Bridget girl. But I stand by my assessment that you hate Meghan because she's hot. :)

"This isn't about whether she meets the low standard of bangable."

No, she's more than "bangable". She's legitimately hot AND she's bangable. She's not fat. She's very attractive. Not moderately attractive. VERY attractive.

"DML, is there any way a woman could criticize this woman that would not result in dismissive charges of jealousy from you? "

Not when the woman looks like Meghan McCain there isn't. :)

When a woman physically criticizes another female and that other female happens to look like Meghan McCain, it's purely territorialism. Period. It's no different from when a female mentions Tom Brady's attractiveness and then the guy she's with goes on about how he's overrated or can't really play. We both do it.

P.S. Generally I have nothing against women who are just about the "raw sexuality." I'm fine with Pam Anderson or Anna Nicole Smith, rest her poor soul. Or Katherine Heigl. :) The women who irk me are the dimwit bimbos who put themselves forth as intellectuals, such as Tea Leone or Brook Busey.

What irritates me about Meghan is her writing. If she posed for Playboy or Maxim I wouldn't care. But she will be shooting for a TV commentator job or a book deal, no doubt.

I think men often greatly underestimate the part status plays in their attraction. Or how much easier money and others' support makes it to project a desirable image. As a side note, anyone else notice "Lost" has *three* storylines going now about poor men whose girlfriends or wives have bigshot dads who own companies?

what, come on, she is fat. look carefully. she hides her very large torso by the way she dresses. and she has too much makeup on her big face.

DML, do you mind me asking where in the country do you live? I am guessing not in L.A. or Manhattan. I live in Southern California, and it seems to me that women who look like McCain are everywhere. Few women get anywhere just based on that look; it may be necessary, but not sufficient.

Anyway, we should at least be able to agree on the more important point of her idiocy. :)

Dignity? You sound absurd. Men are horny and they need it, even if the chick isn't a porn star. Dignity has nothing to do with it. In fact, often times, less attractive chicks are better in bed. See Hugh Grant "dating" hooker Devine Brown when he was with Elizabeth Hurley. Looks are only part of the equation. But since you've barely any sexual experience to speak of, you think it's the whole equation.

Elizabeth Hurley isn't sexually appealing to me, and I can't understand why Hugh Grant went after a prostitute who looks like a guy with a wig on. There may be other issues at work here...

I routinely see men with sexually unattractive women, and I wonder why they decided that these women were worth their time, effort, energy, and money. I almost think that there has to be something mentally wrong with them. I don't see why would a man stoop to lower his standards just to have sex when thanks to an explosion in pornographic content, women are no longer necessary to have a sexual experience. Why should I put up with an ugly girl who can't arouse me in the first place when I can simply watch some porn and feel aroused instantly? There's no way that these sexually unattractive women are arousing men, and there has to be some other function at work that's causing men to break down and accept such low standards.

Anyway, we were talking about average chicks like Emma

Except, she's below average. She's not ugly, but she certainly is not arousing, and even if she threw herself at me, I'd refuse her sexual advances.

Besides, a girl who knows what she's doing, regardless of looks, can rock your world.

A girl with skills is useless if I don't find her attractive enough to be aroused by her in the first place. No erection means no sex, and most women do not fulfill that qualification. In contrast, porn is delivers an instant erection.

If I were an arm chair psychologist, I'd say that this line of reasoning is more to excuse your own pathetic existence than a condemnation of their's.

Of course this line of reasoning supports my pathetic existence, since I'm responsible for myself and nobody else. If men want to waste their time with sexually unattractive women when better ones exist in porn, then that's their choice. I want a hot white woman who fits my ideals of sexual attractiveness, but that's not going to happen when these women have much better choices to deal with. I'm not going to waste my time to deal with women who can't arouse me, nor am I willing to waste my time trying to win over the kind of girl that I find attractive when there is a 0% percent chance of that happening. So instead of settling for a girl who won't turn me on, I'd rather spend my days jerking off to a hot woman and getting sexual pleasure that makes *me* feel good. I've written off women, and I'll only engage with them as friends, but nothing more. One can argue about the emotional benefits of a relationship, but I suspect that I can extract that from a friendship.

That said, sex with hot girls can be boring too. And yes, men often marry unattractive women because they don't think they can do better. This IS bad. However, they haven't gone to your extreme and essentially dropped out of life sexually (i.e, dropped out of life, period). What you're doing is far more pathetic.

Hot girls may be boring, but their hotness induces more effort and energy from my performance.

I've dropped out of life sexually (or well life) because it's just simply easier than trying to fight your way through and failing miserably at it. Why should I embarrass myself and waste my time when I can spend that time doing the things that make me happy and content with my life? For men like myself, courtship and dating is a waste of time, and sexual needs can be met and minimized with masturbation. Why spend hours per week in a failed attempt when one our each night alone does the same job just as effectively? Why put up with what will be boring, ugly sex when I can watch people do a much better job of it? Unless I get a hot girl, fucking a normal girls makes very little sense for me.

As I see it, it's not being pathetic, but it's being realistic about the fact that I'm not "normal", nor will ever be "normal". I'm much too weird for female consumption, and the women who tolerate that or like that have severe problems of their own.

Stones and glass houses.

I have nothing to lose, and nothing to gain, so I throw stones at my useless glass house. When I'm done, I throw stones at you next. :)

I honestly don't mean to be picking on you, but I can't let this BS go unchallenged. Are you now saying you're NOT a loser? If so, I beg to differ. One could easily say only "loser men" sit around masturbating to porn without talking to women they like.

I do not hide from the fact that I'm a loser. I'm very open and frank about this, and I have mentioned it on this blog on several occasions.

Spungen says:

"DML, do you mind me asking where in the country do you live? I am guessing not in L.A. or Manhattan. I live in Southern California, and it seems to me that women who look like McCain are everywhere. "

When you say "women who look like McCain", my internal balance gets thrown. I hear McCain and I think "John", not "Meghan". So from now on we have to refer to her as Meghan, not simply "McCain". :)

I need to sit down and regain my balance....OK, better.


I also live in Southern California (West LA) and yes, women who look like Meghan are everywhere. That's one of the things I love about living out here. :)

"Few women get anywhere just based on that look; it may be necessary, but not sufficient."

Career-wise, yeah you need more than that. Attractive people are a dime a dozen out here. You need talent to actually have a career. Many women who look like her aren't necessarily looking for a career though. They simply look for well-off men who are looking for attractive women.

That said, I'm guessing Meghan will end up pursuing a career in journalism as some sort of anchor. She's more than attractive enough for that and, your criticisms of her intelligence aside, she's probably smart enough for it too...not that you have to be a rocket scientist to do it.

"Anyway, we should at least be able to agree on the more important point of her idiocy. :)"

I'm not saying she's an intellectual heavyweight, but I'd be surprised if she's a complete retard. I don't mind that she posted something about make-up in her blog. In fact, I view her blog as a not-so-subtle marketing campaign to reach young female voters; not exactly McCain's powerbase. So how do you reach these people? By talking about makeup and posting lots of pictures.

David Alexander wonders:

"I routinely see men with sexually unattractive women, and I wonder why they decided that these women were worth their time, effort, energy, and money."

These women probably don't take much time, effort, energy, or money. Or they were once attractive (like Pierce Brosnan's wife) and then they become unattractive.

"If men want to waste their time with sexually unattractive women when better ones exist in porn, then that's their choice. "

Again, let's start with the fact that you are extremely fucked up mentally. Let's never forget this. :)

That said, most guys will settle for an OK woman who gives them sex, assuming she isn't completely horrendous. But completely horrendous men (physically/financially/personality-wise/etc) will settle for completely horrendous women who will give them sex. Porn doesn't replace sex. Perhaps robots will, but porn and Jergen's lotion just isn't there. Ejaculating in a woman is NOT the same as ejaculating in your hand.

Anyway, assuming a woman doesn't give them too much trouble, men figure they may as well "settle down" with the one woman who decides to put out for them. It might be sad to say, but this is how most men end up in relationships.

This is due to a combination of many things:

1) Men want sex
2) Society expects men to settle down
3) They can't get anyone "better" and/or they can't consistently get a variety of women

If that plain pothead Canadian chick had asked you to marry her, you'd be one of the "settling" men. So, stones and glass houses. :)

"I have nothing to lose, and nothing to gain, so I throw stones at my useless glass house. When I'm done, I throw stones at you next. :)"

You are quick to point out "loser" behavior, but seem to forget your own. Just trying to keep you intellectually honest. :)

And I probably deserve to have stones thrown at me so toss away! :)

"I do not hide from the fact that I'm a loser. I'm very open and frank about this, and I have mentioned it on this blog on several occasions."

I only call you out when you seem to excuse your OWN loser behavior to point out someone else's. What makes their loser behavior somehow worse than yours?

Earlier you pointed out that the rich guy who cheats on his plain wife is a loser. OK, how is that worse than you sitting around masturbating to porn without trying to engage real women? (And yes, I know you'll say you're just "hurting yourself"...I'm just saying losers probably ought not be calling other people losers).

These women probably don't take much time, effort, energy, or money. Or they were once attractive (like Pierce Brosnan's wife) and then they become unattractive.

And yet men stick around. It bothers my mind to see such insanity to the point that it ruins my concentration and ability to enjoy an event sometimes. I sit and spend more time trying to figure out what's wrong with these men.

Again, let's start with the fact that you are extremely fucked up mentally. Let's never forget this. :)

Agreed.

That said, most guys will settle for an OK woman who gives them sex, assuming she isn't completely horrendous. But completely horrendous men (physically/financially/personality-wise/etc) will settle for completely horrendous women who will give them sex. Porn doesn't replace sex. Perhaps robots will, but porn and Jergen's lotion just isn't there. Ejaculating in a woman is NOT the same as ejaculating in your hand.

Except most women don't give sex, and when they do it, it's an awful pale comparison of the energetic frenzy seen in porn. After watching porn, I don't see how men can go back to their wives and girlfriends and enjoy the experience. Hell, after seeing what most men look like, I believe that most women fake 90% of their orgasms to simply make their husbands happy.

A proper mix of lotion and baby oil actually feels better than any vagina or mouth with enough practice and effort. Eventually, no woman's feeble attempts to arouse you will work, and she'll be forced to give up and realize her impotent sexual skills instead of being propped up by pathetic beta men who think she's good just because she bothered to allow the men to use her vagina as a cum bucket.

To simple settle down with a woman because she tolerates one's existence is a reminder of one's inferiority and irrelevance. I'd rather be alone than to have a wife who serves as a reminder of my own incompetence and lack of skill and talent. Hence the whole "dignity" bit.

This is due to a combination of many things:

The first situation is resolved with porn, and the second can be easily dealt with given increasing liberal attitudes in society. At this point, if polygamy came back with all the women marrying alpha males and everybody else resorting to porn, I wouldn't care, and I suspect the world would be a better place without men wasting their time to deal with women.

You are quick to point out "loser" behavior, but seem to forget your own. Just trying to keep you intellectually honest. :)

I've reiterated on several occasions that I'm a loser and that I have loser habits and traits. I only point out the other losers and hope that one day, they'll wise up, and stop putting up with a system designed only to reinforce their inferiority vis à vis the rest of society. They're no worse than me, but I am at a loss to explain why they continue to embarrass themselves by parading themselves around with ugly loser women.

OK, how is that worse than you sitting around masturbating to porn without trying to engage real women?

I stay at home and I don't bother anybody. I don't hit on women and annoy them with shitty pick-up lines, nor do I bore them with stories about my latest railfan trip to some commuter rail endpoint. I simply keep to myself and I deny them the misery of having to deal with my loser ass. The man who cheats on his wife breaks his promise to only love her, and if he felt the need to cheat, he should have left divorced his wife in order to pursue another relationship. The cheater makes women feel sad by breaking trust, I make women happy by avoiding them and leaving them alone.

DA:
"I've reiterated on several occasions that I'm a loser and that I have loser habits and traits. I only point out the other losers and hope that one day, they'll wise up, and stop putting up with a system designed only to reinforce their inferiority vis à vis the rest of society."

If you think your genes are so bad, why even consider having kids at all? If they get your genes, they may be forced to deal with a lot of the crap that you're dealing with or more of it, even if you get a porn quality chick. This is a serious question.

I have another serious question - how the hell did this 3 sentence post get over 150 comments? And do you people ever sleep?

What irritates me about Meghan is her writing. If she posed for Playboy or Maxim I wouldn't care. But she will be shooting for a TV commentator job or a book deal, no doubt.
Ah, I get it, Spungen. She's leveraging her beauty and connections to get to do something you always wanted to do.

Women always love to cut down other women, and I wouldn't judge you harshly for that any more than I judge Roissy for his sleeping around or a cat for eating a bird.

Men are too used to submitting to more powerful men, I think. (Except us lefties, who love to snipe at the rich.) I always said the work world was just a big nonconsensual S/M scene. Women don't spend much of their lives in big hierarchical pyramids of women. (Be grateful.)

And, yes, it is funny how every post that involves sex sprouts hundreds of comments. Maybe not surprising, but funny.

Wow, nobody else has a nerd fetish? Maybe it really is a fetish.

Just went to Ms. von Teese's website. Lots of pink, use of frilly script-writing, and focus on clothing, definitely more feminine. There's some nudity on the free gallery, but lots of Jenna looking fabulous, dahling, in period clothing. I think this mostly-female (or gay male?) fandom has something to it.

Compare Jenna Jameson's website: lots of black and red, moving pictures (men are born hunters and follow moving objects!), and pictures at not-very-revealing angles (you have to pay to see the full pics, of course) of Jenna wearing as little as possible.

Women always love to cut down other women

Which has been the case for a long time. In fact, it began with a couple of Neanderthal chix in their caves.

"Punkettes don't do tan. They cultivate the alabaster look, accentuated with heavy foundation, powder and dark eye makeup. Again, think of Ashlee Simpson or Avril Levigne. They are always from privileged families, but seek to appear streetwise.

How I hate them.

Posted by: Spungen"


I don't know anything about Ashley Simpson but Avril Lavigne grew up in a small town in Ontario, Canada and she is from a middle class family not some rich privileged family. Some girls by the way get their alabaster skin colour naturally. I certainly do. It is easy living in Canada to look pale with almost half the year being winter there. I am not even trying to look Goth but with a little dark eyeliner and dying my hair a shade darker, I would get there.

In fact, I view her blog as a not-so-subtle marketing campaign to reach young female voters; not exactly McCain's powerbase. So how do you reach these people? By talking about makeup and posting lots of pictures.

Hmmph. Maybe that's how you reach Republican females. Nah, she's trying to promote herself, not her dad.

What's unfair about your attack is that Half Sigma, not me, threw her blog and appearance up for discussion. Basically, you're saying a woman shouldn't participate. Yet most people don't find this type of discussion nearly as fun in single-sex company.

You guys (primarily DML) have conveniently overlooked the dynamic of your need to criticize me. It's pretty typical IRL for certain men to jump in and criticize, often viciously, a present woman for critiquing a privileged woman not present -- even a celebrity. It's not because they're such upstanding guys. It's because it's an easy way for them to undercut the present woman and gain the upper hand.

It also allows them to feel some connection with women who either don't know they exist or even actively avoid them. So don't overlook your own imprinted behavior here, DML. :)

I don't know anything about Ashley Simpson but Avril Lavigne grew up in a small town in Ontario, Canada and she is from a middle class family not some rich privileged family.

Sapphire, Avril was a child star from an entertainment family prior to the American "rock" thing. That's privileged in my book. Connections, promotion, and appearance got her where she is. I consider true middle-class a "privileged" 15-percent minority by the way -- not at all "average." Did a post about it, in fact.

Some girls by the way get their alabaster skin colour naturally. I certainly do. It is easy living in Canada to look pale with almost half the year being winter there. I am not even trying to look Goth but with a little dark eyeliner and dying my hair a shade darker, I would get there.

Sapphire, not suggesting it's not natural. It happens even in California. What makes it punkette is the dyed-black hair (or bright red or white), dark accentuating makeup, and thick paste of foundation and powder. And the boutique clothes, and the irritating pseudo-rebel attitude. ;)

Women always love to cut down other women

Which has been the case for a long time. In fact, it began with a couple of Neanderthal chix in their caves.

Says the dude who has made it his nonstop, all-consuming mission for at least two years to sow his resentment throughout the Internet for successful men and the women who date them.

Come on, guys. Yank the log out of your own eye before you point out the speck in mine.


It's pretty typical IRL for certain men to jump in and criticize, often viciously, a present woman for critiquing a privileged woman not present -- even a celebrity. It's not because they're such upstanding guys. It's because it's an easy way for them to undercut the present woman and gain the upper hand.

Wow, the number of ways you find of being a victim.

I know I said I'd avoid you because of my serious past transgressions (lol) but I feel the need to point out (ie "criticize, often viciously") that you are the flip side of David Alexander- and we all know that isnt healthy for him.


DA:

If I might offer an analysis and maybe this is known to you and maybe somebody else has already pointed this out but ...

It seems blindingly obvious to me that your interest in women is in general limited to how much they can affect your low self esteem. In this sense, you want women that will validate you and therefore only successful, powerful, intelligent, rich, WHITE women will do. The reason isn't that they are inherently desireable. The reason is you perceive this sort of female to be the alpha female and by extension that their acceptance of you could not possibly be a compromise as they have no need to compromise. I presume you think this is the only way you can feel love ie if all other possible explanations are ruled out then love is all that is left. Further, you think this will confer the status you crave.

"I routinely see men with sexually unattractive women, and I wonder why they decided that these women were worth their time, effort, energy, and money."

For me, this is clearly you projecting how you think other people see you onto how you think these men would necessarily have to view these women.

This jars with my ethics which I have previously mentioned are Kantian (ie these women are persons not property). But I'm not you and there is absolutely no need for you to follow my ethics.

However, I would say that it's unidimensional to think that physical beauty is only about whether a woman is attractive to David Alexander. Some men want:

1. somebody who can cook and clean, no questions asked.

2. somebody who is intelligent

3. somebody who is trustworthy

4. somebody who is good with money

5. somebody who earns more than they do

6. somebody with whom they work well

7. somebody who reminds them of their mother or some other early caretaker independent of whether that early caretaker was attractive or not

8. somebody they can curl up with at night

9. somebody who will be a good mother

10. somebody who is willing to do what ever type of sexual services they want no questions asked ... feathers, leather, whips, whatever ...

11. someone to grow old with

12. someone who will take care of them if they develop a major disability

... and so on. The model of women as product, something flashy you see in a store window is a big part of the consumerist culture but it's not very compatible with real life demands. Any one of the traits I mentioned previously are quite valuable in a companion.

If Meghan follows the normal template for the children of wealthy, elite politicians, she will campaign on the theme of "talking to young women" about their future. Of course, what is really meant is that she will be a fund raiser with 20 somethings and appear on college campuses where the student body is overwhelmingly white.

Meghan will end up having a book ghost written for her (see Kristin Gore), and become a television celebrity/screenwriter/movie producer (See Alexandra Kerry for the movie producer, Eleanor Jane Mondale for the television celebrity, John Dukakis for actor/producer).

DC is full of the children of privledge who seem to ant to spend their lives adding as little to the economy as possible. The last thing a prep school, Ivy educated child of privledge is going to do is go back to Arizona and start a business/company/foundation that may actually employee people and pay taxes.

That is why many people dislike the children of the elite.

Ah, I get it, Spungen. She's leveraging her beauty and connections to get to do something you always wanted to do.

It's the connections that get to me. I've got no problem with people getting things for being attractive, as long as it's acknowledged. I honestly don't think she's quite attractive enough to make it in a beauty career without connections, but then again I can't tell $145 men's shoes from $235 men's shoes.

IRL, I never care when men simply praise women's looks. The more flawed the subject of glory is, the better I feel about myself. If they're going on about something the subject has surgically altered, I might point that out. Just for accuracy. (Is it bad manners to discuss that?)

What will rile me up is if the man goes on to talk about how smart the woman is. (Perhaps they feel that makes them look as if they're impressed by the "whole person," rather than just her appearance.) At that point, I will challenge and critique. "Why do you think that? Do you think it's hard to get into that school? It's not. That's not a high GPA nowadays -- everyone gets As in liberal arts courses unless they screw up. (etc.)" HS may have exacerbated this by gushing about her Ivy League education.

I don't do this when guys are talking about women they are related to or dating.

And wait a second -- from what I've heard here, don't half Roissy's posts involve criticizing women for being plastic, phony, etc.? Didn't he do a whole post about women who smile too much?

Admit it. You guys all love to dish and I'm helping you do it.

Meghan will end up having a book ghost written for her (see Kristin Gore), and become a television celebrity/screenwriter/movie producer (See Alexandra Kerry for the movie producer, Eleanor Jane Mondale for the television celebrity, John Dukakis for actor/producer).

DC is full of the children of privledge who seem to ant to spend their lives adding as little to the economy as possible.

I wouldn't mind if they just lived off their trust funds, like in the old days. The problem is that they actually take jobs that real people want and might otherwise get. A few decades ago, you had a shot at a career in those fields without independent income and connections.

I find Marilyn vos Savant and Teresa Strasser attractive because of their intelligence.

It worked the opposite way for Geena Davis who was alleged to be smart but never gave any evidence of it. Her, I second guess.

And its not men driving women like Britney Spears to a nervous breakdown- its other women.

Vim:
"Any one of the traits I mentioned previously are quite valuable in a companion."

DA, has got it in his mind that there is absolutely no way he can get erect for a chick who is below his very high standards. If true, it obviates the rest of your detailed analysis.

Again, my prior question: If, DA, you think your genes are that bad, why even consider having kids at all?

Boy, I've got a visceral distaste for Miss McCain's appearance. Nothing to do with her figure but more the way that she carries herself. The comparisons to Ashlee Simpson are apt. She may be genuinely smart, but if so she dumbed herself down.

Cate Edwards is much more attractive in my opinion. She manages to carry "rich girl" with some class. Miss McCain's faux-downscale look is far less fetching.

don't half Roissy's posts involve criticizing women for being plastic, phony, etc.

For a guy who's always "scoring" with women, Roissy is rather bitter and spiteful towards them always for looking for sometype of flaw. Nothing they do can make him happy.

I think I may be the only one here who doesn't have a problem with Spungen's comments about Meghan. The only reason the men are complaining about Spungen's comments is because we find Meghan attractive. Otherwise, if she was ugly, the comments would be no different than those made towards Chelsea Clinton several weeks ago about how if she was not a Clinton, she wouldn't date members of the upper class, nor would she have work at a hedge fund.

The only reason the men are complaining about Spungen's comments is because we find Meghan attractive.

The question is why the guys around here find her attractive. She's right up your alley, David, but for the most part she doesn't meet the typical standards of beauty. There's reason to believe that if she wasn't a McCain, she wouldn't receive this sort of positive feedback. Granted, if she wasn't a McCain we wouldn't be evaluating her at all, but if we were a bunch of guys at a lunch table discussing her across the way and nobody knew who she was, I am inclined to believe that she wouldn't be receiving this kind of affirmation. If she were a feminist female blogger, I suspect that she would receive more derogatory comments about her appearance than positive.

That, I would speculate, is a key part of Spungen's complaint. Because Meghan is who she is, she's receiving positive feedback on things that have nothing to do with what is most notable about her. She commented earlier that rich girls get a free pass (or a lot more leeway) on looks and intelligence and to the extent that she is correct this would definitely be proof of that.

I think that she is more likely right than not. I'm reminded of discussions about Devin Grayson, a comic book writer, when she suddenly hit the comic book scene several years ago. A young woman comic book writer was something of a novelty. A lot of guys on the Usenet and whatnot kept commenting on how attractive she was. In truth she was cute but not-at-all remarkable. She just had a halo effect in being a young chick in a predominantly male environment. People wanted her to be attractive, so they considered her so.

Similarly, I suspect that right-leaning folks want to find the daughter of a right-leaning politician attractive. The only hole in this theory is that a lot of guys commenting are probably not big McCain fans, so I'm not sure about that. Maybe being the daughter of a politician that is not liberal is enough. Maybe it has to do with her wealth and presumably her potential influence in conservative politics. I'm stumped on that score.

Didn't he do a whole post about women who smile too much?

Admit it. You guys all love to dish and I'm helping you do it.

there's dish and then there's diss. meghan's cute girlyness seems to rub you the wrong way so out come the "twit" insults, which is the stock in trade putdown of women who find the flirty oversexed appeal of younger, less cerebral women like meghan a threat.

For a guy who's always "scoring" with women, Roissy is rather bitter and spiteful towards them always for looking for sometype of flaw.

as you are a self-professed omega who fishes for attention from women with the ol' white knight to the rescue routine, i'm not surprised you would see any criticism or trenchant observation of women to be tinged with bitterness.
or: projection, it's what's for dinner!

Nothing they do can make him happy.

only you are responsible for your happiness.

The only reason the men are complaining about Spungen's comments is because we find Meghan attractive.

no. the problem isn't spungen's shot at meghan, it's her aim. the fact that meghan might be of only slightly above-average intelligence and has a conformist tendency to ape skatergrrl fashion sensibility and wear too much makeup does nothing to diminish her raw sex appeal to the vast majority of men.
or: spungen is complaing about characteristics of meghan that only matter to her and a certain demographic of women. she speaks for no men that i know of.

Man. There's no scorn like the scorn of a gay man, eh David? ;)

Come on, Roissy. No genuine straight player would care what some mom and some young black dude have to say about some chick blogger. You're 100 times cattier than David and I put together.

she speaks for no men that i know of.

Stop it, you silly goose. HS on this very site is always complaining about how the wealthy, the connected, and the pretty, especially young women, are supposedly overestimated and overvalued for their talents.

And I didn't blow up this thread by myself, I had plenty of participation.

Let me just be clear about Meghan's weight: I think it's fine. I share it. But I don't think it would normally fly in Hollywood.

Similarly, I never disputed she was sexy or attractive. I just don't think she meets the very high appearance standards for Hollywood without the benefit of connections weighing in heavily. But there are a lot of other celebrities in the same boat.

As for a career in national media, it seems all but impossible to get nowadays without connections. As for her brains, she probably won't be seeking those journalism jobs that require them.

I just don't think she meets the very high appearance standards for Hollywood

I like Meghan better than Tori Spelling.

Hey, you know who else Ms. McCain reminds me of? Tori Spelling. Tori's not bad-looking, she's contorted herself into the blond boilerplate, and she's not a terrible actress -- but she never would have gotten anywhere if not for her father.

In this sense, you want women that will validate you and therefore only successful, powerful, intelligent, rich, WHITE women will do. The reason isn't that they are inherently desireable.

Admittedly, these women do give a certain sense of improving my social pouvoir d'achat, but the main reason for lusting after these women is primarily for the sexual benefits to me. Otherwise, I'd spend most of my time living in a paranoid state wondering if she's cheating on me, when she'll leave me for another man, and if she likes me, why is she with somebody as broken as me.

The hot woman doesn't give me status, but it simply reaffirms a higher status than the men who cannot get hot women.

somebody they can curl up with at night

I actually miss that the most along with being hugged. Those are very good features that you listed, but the vast majority of women with those features simply aren't attractive to me, and they don't arouse me sexually. Most women aren't going to tolerate being told that they're a great girlfriend, but their sexual function is being outsourced to porn. I'd imagine that they'd find it to be insulting. In effect, it just makes her a really good friend.

BTW, I find that white women are more attractive over most black women. I am not saying that all black women are ugly because there are a few black women (mostly Caribbean) that I have been interested in, but white women are more feminine and attractive, IMHO. The black women that I know personally tend to have this bitchy, miserable demeanor that white women just don't have. As other have noted, I'm not interested in most Asian and some Latina women as well.

Again, my prior question: If, DA, you think your genes are that bad, why even consider having kids at all?

There's an optimistic side of me that's slowly fading away that believes that I am a good and capable person, and that I'd be a good father to good children, and they'll life in a world that will not treat them like second class citizens. Otherwise, why should I spread my bastard genetic code in a race realist world?

I hear you, Spungen. I don't know why these things don't bother me more; I guess I find once you embrace cynicism as a philosphy of life things like talentless losers getting ahead on their connections bother you less. People are crooked, and the game is rigged. So what else is new? When you stop seeing man as a 'rational, moral being' like they told you in philosophy class and start seeing him (or her) as 'a monkey with a big brain who's capable of having sex all month' things surprise you a lot less. Isn't a BMW just the world's most expensive banana?

The question is why the guys around here find her attractive. She's right up your alley, David, but for the most part she doesn't meet the typical standards of beauty. There's reason to believe that if she wasn't a McCain, she wouldn't receive this sort of positive feedback.

She isn't ugly by any stretch of the imagination, but she is - for lack of a better term - common. You'll see any number of girls looking just like her in any shopping mall.

DA:
"I am a good and capable person, and that I'd be a good father to good children"

No one is saying you're not a good, capable person nor that you wouldn't make a good father. Whether or not your genes are going to help your kids is another issue altogether. Seriously, I feel that the best way we can help millions, or even billions, of beta men and women is to have voluntary eugenics to ameliorate the human species.

The question is why the guys around here find her attractive. She's right up your alley, David, but for the most part she doesn't meet the typical standards of beauty.

To me, despite her flaws, Meghan is hot. She comes across as sexually attractive in a way that doesn't in models or famous actresses. In my warped little mind, she's "perfect".

as you are a self-professed omega who fishes for attention from women with the ol' white knight to the rescue routine

Yes, I'm going to whore myself to a thirty-something mom for minimal attention and no real personal gain. Brilliant strategy on my part, right?

I'll give Spungen the credit here. We routinely bitch about how the rich use their connections to beat the system and get jobs that proles can only dream of. Meghan is hot and I think that's what's distracting the criticism. Otherwise, if she was of the average beauty profile for your elite daughter, she'd be called an ugly stupid pig who lucked out because of daddy's high status.

Man. There's no scorn like the scorn of a gay man, eh David? ;)

Shush, Roissy likes hiding in closet. :)

Tori Spelling. Tori's not bad-looking, she's contorted herself into the blond boilerplate

Tori Spelling is pretty if you're into Jewish women. She's not as hot as Meghan McCain, but she's still better looking than a lot of other women that I know...

Here's another question: What if McCain instead had a 23-year-old son? Assuming same level of attractiveness and ability, can we envision him promoting himself (or his father) in a similar way? I can't.

It's not that girls wouldn't like it. It's just that it would seem really undignified for a politician's son. Which is how it seems to me with a *woman* doing it, too.

Spungen says:

"You guys (primarily DML) have conveniently overlooked the dynamic of your need to criticize me. It's pretty typical IRL for certain men to jump in and criticize, often viciously, a present woman for critiquing a privileged woman not present -- even a celebrity. It's not because they're such upstanding guys. It's because it's an easy way for them to undercut the present woman and gain the upper hand."

Plausible. But absolutely false. :)

She's "not-safe hot" (as opposed to "safe hot"), she's got a blog, and she's going to be a superstar celeb simply because she hot, has a blog and is the spawn of a famous politician.

I admit, there's a lot to hate there. :)

And I still maintain this is the real reason you spent so much time criticizing her physical features. There is of course no way I can prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt and as I said, if we were dating, I wouldn't have argued this far - I'd have said "yes dear" a looooong time ago. :)

Granted, if she wasn't a McCain we wouldn't be evaluating her at all, but if we were a bunch of guys at a lunch table discussing her across the way and nobody knew who she was, I am inclined to believe that she wouldn't be receiving this kind of affirmation. If she were a feminist female blogger, I suspect that she would receive more derogatory comments about her appearance than positive.

That, I would speculate, is a key part of Spungen's complaint. Because Meghan is who she is, she's receiving positive feedback on things that have nothing to do with what is most notable about her.

So if she were a feminist blogger, and if there was a Half Sigma blog about her and if we had been talking about it, then you would suspect that she would be receiving more negative comments?

*That's* why there were 40 Spungen posts on this topic- just in case any dude was thinking of pointing out a feminist blogger being "at attention" when meeting Bill Clinton and needed to be put in his place.

a simpler explanation is that she has her hate and jealously on for the girl because she is part of that well known "right wing" McCain family. Pathetic. She has her own blog to do it on anyway.

DML: So why don't you have anything to say about all the men who criticized her? Why single me out for joining the party?

"Apositve's" comment doesn't make much sense but I can see the hostility. Didn't know there was a "well-known right-wing McCain family" until now.

Look how many comments this thread has. It appears some guys jumped at the opportunity to vent their hostility toward a woman in person, instead of just ranting about public figures who don't care what they think. The irony. Had I not shown up, there would have been a few guys saying "hot" and a few guys saying "not," and that would be it.

David, you know why Roissy's really being so catty. He's jealous of all the attention HS gets. He wants a black guy and a woman hanging around his blog. He had a big day when Dizzy showed up to argue, remember?

Really, I'm surprised I didn't get heat for the Bridget comments. I was on far shakier moral ground there.

Not seeing where I spent lots of time criticizing Meghan's physical features, although I did ridicule that stupid off-center hat.

So if she were a feminist blogger, and if there was a Half Sigma blog about her and if we had been talking about it, then you would suspect that she would be receiving more negative comments?

Well I obviously can't say with certainty because we don't have HS linking approvingly to the picture of a feminist.

She's got 40 comments in part because she's one of only a couple people offering an alternative point of view. I comment a lot more when I'm outnumbered. When I'm in the majority position I don't say much cause most of what I have to say has been said by someone else.

What precisely is so outrageous in disagreeing with Half Sigma's assessment about her attractiveness? Everything she said has been dismissed as cattiness and jealousy.

Meanwhile Gannon says that she's "nothing special" and I expressed agreement with Spungen and Gannon on their appraisal. Yet of the three of us, only Spungen has had all of this hostility dumped on her. And the justification for the collective hostility is that she doesn't just shut up and let y'all pile on?

Is it that nobody can disagree with the notion that she's hot or is it that no female can?

Spungen: "What if McCain instead had a 23-year-old son? Assuming same level of attractiveness and ability, can we envision him promoting himself (or his father) in a similar way?"

There's the Five Brothers Blog, very similar (soft posts, with lots of photos), but not as interesting to read.

Is it that nobody can disagree with the notion that she's hot or is it that no female can?

Ha. Nah, probably just no Democrat female. If I were the Republican and she were a feminist, I'd have the Army of Darkness behind me.

Just for the record, I never said she wasn't "hot," just that she wasn't attractive or talented enough to merit celebrity minus her family.

This kinda reminds me of the Imus debate, when men who normally didn't give a darn if rappers demeaned women suddenly started using it as ammunition. This corner of the Internet isn't known for its chivalry.

There's the Five Brothers Blog, very similar (soft posts, with lots of photos), but not as interesting to read.

Reminds me of the Osmonds, but without the raw sexual appeal. Unlike Ms. McCain, they don't appear to be promoting themselves, just their dad.

I really don't like this business of candidates using their children to promote their campaign.

"So if she were a feminist blogger, and if there was a Half Sigma blog about her and if we had been talking about it, then you would suspect that she would be receiving more negative comments?"

Well I obviously can't say with certainty because we don't have HS linking approvingly to the picture of a feminist.

She's got 40 comments in part because she's one of only a couple people offering an alternative point of view.

But you are saying that she is making an alternative to a point that isnt even being made! This is a hypothetical argument that exists only in her head.

Sigma said that Meghan is
-hot
-23 years old
- babelicious
- Ivy-League-educated
- and that there will be increased sightings based on McCains popularity.

All of this is true. You could argue the 'hot' I suppose but since its a matter of taste it would be like making 40 posts on chunky peanut butter vs smooth.

Spungen went catty on Meghan before any commenter had even praised her, and eventually the real reason comes out that this is all about her being a Republican. The hoop ear rings and the dye job was all a blind.

Is it that nobody can disagree with the notion that she's hot or is it that no female can?

Women have a very good idea of whats hot, so that would probably be for the best. Men can disagree, but not if you are doing so just to balance the scales in case halfsigma ever has a post with Cate Edwards choking down a burrito and we all make fun of it. Then you just look like a pathetic dickwad.

spungen and DA danced by the pale moonlight:
Man. There's no scorn like the scorn of a gay man, eh David? ;)

Shush, Roissy likes hiding in closet. :)

i had a feeling about you two.
so darn romantic!

DA:
Yes, I'm going to whore myself to a thirty-something mom for minimal attention and no real personal gain. Brilliant strategy on my part, right?

any port in a celibate storm.

spungen:
He had a big day when Dizzy showed up to argue, remember?

how would you know?

trumwill:
What precisely is so outrageous in disagreeing with Half Sigma's assessment about her attractiveness?

nothing, except that spungen disagreed with more than her attractiveness when she made the moral judgement of labeling her a "twit" based on very flimsy evidence. this shout out from spungen's id, combined with her off-the-mark editorializing of meghan's widely-acknowledged attractiveness and choice of clothing as if it mattered at all to men's preferences in a mate, reveals a less than unbiased critical examination of the subject.

i recommend asking only men for analysis of a woman's looks, as women are unlikely to give an accurate assessment.

for the record, i'd rate meghan a solid 7.5 based on the photo HS posted. as a comparison, i give chelsea clinton a 4.

if there are other photos that illuminate less attractive angles of meghan's face or betray a chunking out of her body, then i'll reevaluate my scoring as warranted.


Nevermind the daughter, how about her mother in that purple dress?

*sizzle sound*

for the record, i'd rate meghan a solid 7.5 based on the photo HS posted.

So after throwing all those hissy fits, Roissy finally admits he agrees with me about her looks. In fact, he's less charitable -- I'd give her an 8.5, or "B-plus." Good job, Roissy.

The comments to this entry are closed.