Women like men who are spendthrifts

slwerner pointed me to this article.

Men who spent more (saved less) and who were more likely to shell out more than they earned reported having more sexual partners in the past five years and desired more future partners than other guys in the study.

Specifically, the 25 percent of men who were most conservative about spending had an average of three partners in the past five years and desired about one partner in the next five years. The 2 percent of men with the riskiest financial strategies had double those numbers.

For women, financial consumption wasn't significantly related to past or future mates.

Conventional wisdom, that you can get with more women by shelling out for an expensive car, seems to be proven true.

Also note that women don't have any better success with men when they spend more money. Men don't care if a woman is wearing $30 shoes or $300 shoes.

I often hear women complain about men who are "cheap," but never about men who spend too much. "Spendthrift" doesn't seem to be in the female vocabulary. The spendthrift man is described as "generous," especially if he spends his money on his girlfriend. The man who wisely saves for the future is looked down upon as a cheapskate not worth dating.

The declining of marriage is contributing to the overleveraged economy. Single men have to spend more to attract women, and single women don't have a husband to make them watch their budget.

Comments

[Richard H]

"Conventional wisdom, that you can get with more women by shelling out for an expensive car, seems to be proven true. "

No, the key here is impulsiveness. Saving is a nerd thing.

[Jonathan Q]

The declining of marriage is contributing to the overleveraged economy. Single men have to spend more to attract women, and single women don't have a husband to make them watch their budget.

Yes, women are influenced by superficial glitz if it seems to be backed up by money. But so are a lot of men.

You need to ask yourself why this generation of young men and women are so incredibly superficial, and so prone to discount the future? What is it about their upbringing, education, and cultural milieu that created this self-destructive, veneer-thick herd of lemmings?

Is it any wonder that Obama is their President?

[Peter]

I can't tell from the article, did the survey include only single men, or both single and married men? It stands to reason that married men are usually more conservative about spending, and will have fewer sex partners (in most cases, one) than their single counterparts.

[rightsaidfred]

Women figure that they can control a guy after marriage. So what if he spends big, after marriage, the woman will control the spending.

Obversely, women worry that the cheapskate may never put out.

[rightsaidfred]

>>>>You need to ask yourself why this generation of young men and women are so incredibly superficial, and so prone to discount the future?

I wonder if it might be moral hazard from modern society's safety net. Everyone seems entitled: to an insurance payout, a lawsuit, a guarantee, a warranty, a government program if things don't work out.

Why not live for today if it is always going to be there.

[sabril]

I can think of a confound:

It seems to me that the type of guy who is interested in spending a lot is also the type of guy who would be interested in sleeping around.

[Half Sigma]

"It seems to me that the type of guy who is interested in spending a lot is also the type of guy who would be interested in sleeping around."

That's probably a factor.

[a_c]

More likely, HS, they just both correlate with impulsiveness. People who are conservative with their financial affairs are likely more cautious in romantic affairs as well.

[slwerner]

a_c - "More likely, HS, they just both correlate with impulsiveness. People who are conservative with their financial affairs are likely more cautious in romantic affairs as well."

It’s not unreasonable to suggest that it is merely their level of personal recklessness showing up as increasing numbers of sex partners. However, the thing to consider is, if this were true, wouldn't it affect women and men equally? Yet, women show no increase in numbers of partners based on their spending habits.

It seems to me that women who act impulsively, and recklessly, are the ones who have a lot of sex – jumping into bed without much consideration. So, if reckless spending correlated with reckless sexuality, we’d expect to see the reckless female spenders having more partners. But…” For women, financial consumption wasn't significantly related to past or future mates.”

As HS suggests, this is because men are much less impressed by how much a woman spends than is a woman by a man’s (visible*) indulgences. I doubt it’s any great secret that women consider what a man can provide to them when “sizing” him up. Even if it’s only at a subconscious level, a man who exhibits the willingness and ability to spend lots of money (be it recklessly, or well within his budget) IS much more attractive to the typical woman than is a man who appears unable/unwilling to do so.

Thus, a pudgy little middle-aged man who shows up driving an expensive car will garner far more female attention than will a younger man of average looks who drives up in a more average car. You’ve no doubt witnessed it time and time again yourself.

Recklessness, as it regards sexual activities, is probably better observed in terms of not practicing safe sex, or as questionable choices of who they chose to have sex with – perhaps even where they chose to do so. But, as the article implies, I do believe that when it comes to men attracting potential sex-partners, an ostentatious show is definitely the way to go.

*A man who overspends on things a potential partner will not see, may still be a reckless, impulsive spender (and reckless in other ways), but a woman has to SEE evidence of a man’s spending to be impressed.

[sabril]

"That's probably a factor"

Thank you. Not only that, the kind of guy who throws a lot of money around might be more likely to exaggerate the number of sex partners he's had.

The fact is that many people lie about their sex lives for a lot of reasons. One needs to take all of these studies with a huge grain of salt.

That said, I think a lot of guys do a lot of silly things in order to get laid. For example, pretending to care about global warming, or animal rights, or ending apartheid.

[Sally Go Round the Roses]

What I look for in a man:

1. sense of humor/confidence
2. high energy level
3. good appearance--that includes teeth, ass, haircut
4. decent job
5. good conversationalist
6. not needy

And I'm yours.

[slwerner]

Sally Go Round the Roses - “What I look for in a man: 1. sense of humor/confidence”

Sally,

While I’ll give you that women definitely appreciate a good sense of humor and confidence (I wouldn’t have paired them up, since a man can have one without the other), I do think you’re underemphasizing that “appearance” thing (seriously? A high energy level beats out good looks? I know some high energy dorks you might like to meet).

While you don’t include it in your list, most women’s appraisal of a man’s appearance is highly influenced by what he is wearing (“the clothes make the man”, as you might have heard).

Expensive (looking) clothing is typically preferred by women – I suspect as an indicator of a man’s overall financial fitness.

And, while what a man drives probably isn’t one of the first things you’d consider if looking for men, say, at a bar or club; I’d still bet that if the good looking, funny, confident, energetic man with the good teeth, good hair, and good ass took you out to his “beater” car to take you home, that alone would become a “deal breaker”. Come on now, be honest?

I’m not the best indicator of this overall trend, being happily married and not looking (just one partner in the last 5+ years, and looking for just that same one for the future) but I can tell you that I get substantially more female attention when I’m driving my Corvette than when I’m driving my Grand Vitara. My wife tells me that some of her friends have indicated to her that she should not let me drive to social functions alone in my Vette. Apparently some of them have also noticed what I’ve perceived to be increased attention from women, which seems to be directly attributable to that car alone.

[chic noir]

Women like men who are spendthrifts>>> but not for marriage.

Women like men who are spendthrifts for boyfriends, the gold diggers like them as tricks. Note the number of young guys who worked at Lehman's and the like and now don't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out because the "tricked" it all on gold digging 9s& 10s.

[McGraw]

Well I would imagine that spendthrifts might tend to spend big on prostitution as well. A man with less impulse control might be more willing to solicit in the redlight district than a typical nerd.

[Jim Beam]

What kind of women are we talking about here? The ones who were allowed to smoke and drink in front of their parents when they were only 16? Or nice, people from working-class, modest or even upper class backgrounds who aren't out of control and who weren't spoiled children?

So, boo hoo...I won't be able to attract psycho bitches from hell because I choose to save my money.

[Tom]

The study doesn't appear to control for the incomes of the men in question. Maybe men who make a lot of money are more likely to be big spenders than are men who make an average income. If that were true, then maybe we're just seeing women's preference for rich men instead of any preference to spend.

Put it this way: Would women go for a man who makes $30,000 a year who spends like there's no tomorrow? The overextended credit market helped guys like that; you could get a loan for a nice car on such a salary.

Would women go for a man who makes $200,000 a year and stashes away 20 percent of his paycheck? Even if he's stashing away 20 percent, that's still at least $100,000 a year after taxes.

[Kurto]

"Conventional wisdom, that you can get with more women by shelling out for an expensive car, seems to be proven true."

That's probably part of it. I would guess that the majority of the dynamic is explained by men who are impulsive (i.e. time preferential and hedonistic) like both spending stuff and sex more than men who are less impulsive.

[ResidentCynic]

Half Sigma:

"The declining of marriage is contributing to the overleveraged economy."

I personally blame the liberal Jewish media.

Seriously, I'm guessing married people buying houses they can't afford has far more to do with it.

Why are you and roissy trying so hard to blame the downfall of American society on single women?

[ds]

"Also note that women don't have any better success with men when they spend more money. Men don't care if a woman is wearing $30 shoes or $300 shoes"

But do women who spend money on creating/maintaining a beautiful head of hair, make-up, general "beauty" upkeep (most women are not natural beauties), flattering clothing, etc. do better with men? Absolutely, because they look better.

[roissy]

"Why are you and roissy trying so hard to blame the downfall of American society on single women?"

there are a few false premises here.
one, i'm not trying hard. documenting the implosion of the west is a fun hobby for me.
two, ive never said single women are to blame.
three, ive never said it was one factor to blame for the downfall in progress.

now that we've gotten that out of the way, we can proceed on terms more agreeable to the truth. we can start here:
http://roissy.wordpress.com/2008/04/08/state-of-nature/

[Bruno Brazil]

Women like men who are spendthrifts

And in other breaking news, Sigma, scientists discovered that the sky is blue and water is wet.

[sabril]

"now that we've gotten that out of the way, we can proceed on terms more agreeable to the truth. we can start here:"

I agree that technology has changed the game, but it seems to me your metric may be a bit off.

Yes, an alpha can sleep around widely without having to worry so much about a paternity suit. At the same time, a beta can get married, have a few kids, and know they are his with a $30 paternity test from the drugstore.

From a Darwinian perspective, who is more succesful here? Sure you are satisfying your instincts, but are you satisfying the underlying reason for those instincts? Fundamentally, how are you any different from some Omega who jacks off all day long in his mother's basement?

[Vim]

Bruno Brazil:

"And in other breaking news, Sigma, scientists discovered that the sky is blue and water is wet."

There are two reasons to study what is obvious (that I've thought of so far).

1. A 'fact' isn't a scientific fact until it is proven scientifically. There is always the potential that something everybody knows like 'the world is flat' or the 'sun goes around the earth' is in fact false.

2. It gets you a quantification of the fact. It's not enough to know that women like men that spend a lot of money, that's very vague information. From a scientific perspective you want to know how large the effect is relative to other effects and how it changes under different circumstances. There is a big difference between knowing an effect is 'kind of big' and that it contributes, say, 11% to the probability that a woman will choose one man over another.

[Tom]

I still think we're reaching the wrong conclusion. Women like men who have a lot of money. Of course, without obvious displays of money, a woman won't know that a man has money. Having half a million dollars invested in stocks and bonds won't show other people that you have a lot of money. Driving a Porsche will.

Does that mean that some guys can fool women into thinking they have a lot of money? Sure, since in the context of a short-term relationship, a woman isn't going to go diving into your financial statements. She's not going to find out that you're spending half your monthly income to drive that expensive car, or that all your credit cards are maxed out so that you could buy your bling.

I think that's what is really going on.

[Vim]

sabril:

This alpha, beta, omega stuff is not very scientific so I'm not sure you can apply Darwin to it ... it would be like applying evolution to a sesame street puppets.

Assuming these alpha, beta, omega men actually exist as a real biological concept:

1. If alphas are dominant and have all the sex, why don't they numerically dominate? Why don't they completely outbreed betas?

2. If we project back to what families used to look like. There was no birth control. Most women were pregnant all the time. For an alpha male sneaking around trying to have sex with as many women as possible but not have families, it would have been pretty hard because there wouldn't be that many women who were receptive to being pregnant.

3. Alpha males would have much, much higher death rates than beta males. They would also be injured a higher percentage of the time. The beta male would have children (some male and ready to defend the homestead from about 15) and a family unit. He would have lots of support. What would the alpha male have?

[bbartlog]

If alphas are dominant and have all the sex, why don't they numerically dominate

It's possible that alpha males *do* dominate in a given generation (in terms of number of children produced), but that the genes that make men alpha are sufficiently detrimental to *women's* reproductive success that balancing selection is at work. In any case, the 'alpha male' you are describing is some sort of traveling Lothario or cad, where someone else might prefer a definition of 'alpha' that requires someone in a leadership position.

Anyway, the whole alpha/beta/omega thing is at its most useful if you're looking for a framework for describing what impresses women and how to be successful with them. If you want serious analysis of evolutionary psychology you probably need something more quantitative anyway.

Broadly though I agree with your point - I kind of like Neal Stephenson's take on things, here: http://kaedrin.com/weblog/archive/000895.html

[Thursday]

Women are not impressed with spendthriftiness per se. In fact, they are probably either indifferent to it or find it unattractive.

However, women _are_ impressed by men who take risks. The same character traits that make you more likely to be a spendthrift are also the character traits that make you more likely to do the kind of things that do impress women. Savers do tend to be boring, risk averse types, and they are not the kind of people to put their ass out there in the way necessary to bed women.

[The Griffyn]

Correlation is not causation.

Impulsive people spend more and have more sex partners. Big shock there.

Half Sigma, for someone who is so intellectually superior, you make some poor arguments when it comes to sex.

[slwerner]

The Griffyn – “Correlation is not causation. Impulsive people spend more and have more sex partners.”

You’re absolutely correct that correlation does not equal causation. It does, however, suggest a connection. Personally, I don’t believe that the “connection” is actually between male spending and sexual success, but rather between a man giving the appearance of having money to spend and his ability to meet women (as in, not be rejected when approaching them). After all, the first stepping in getting them is meeting them (as Cat Stevens sang about it…” I got in town a month ago, I seen a lot of girls since then, If I could meet 'em I could get 'em, But as yet I haven't met 'em, That's how I'm in the state I'm in”)

Now, as others have been pointing out, this “study” has a lot of problems in trying to reach meaningful, quantifiable conclusions. It asks too few questions, it fails to control for marital status, income level, the level of personal indebtedness, age, and even for what expenditures are being made for. It’s entirely oversimplified to be truly useful.

Still, it can provide an empirical demonstration of the reality that most (if they are to be honest with themselves) people are quite well aware of – men who spend money appear to women to be better off financially, and will thus hold more appeal for those woman who have the luxury to be picky about choosing men.

Again, the key thing to note is that a distinct correlation (flawed as it is) can only be draw between MEN and spending habits. Women’s spending had little or no measurable effect. That alone indicates that it is not just a measure of either financial recklessness as a proxy for general recklessness being manifest as reckless sex. Reckless women DO have more sex partners – because they are not choosy, but they needn’t spend money to attract male attention.

Reckless man, would certainly desire as much reckless sex as possible; yet, they have to gain the attention of women first. To be a bit crass, a woman of even modest “looks” could walk into a bar, announce that she wanted to get laid, and she would almost certainly be guaranteed to be successful in that goal. This just won’t work for a similarly average-looking man (it might, but just signaling a desire will not evoke the same level of response in women as it would men). Women, even in this more sexually “open” culture, still act as gatekeepers. They will likely go through a more involved mental checklist before agreeing to sex than would a man.

Whether they can bring themselves to accept it (or, admit it), women’s appraisal of potential partners is still governed by the genetic expression of traits, selectively laid down over the millions of years that drive “MATE” selection for them. Like men, they cannot fully escape their genes. The appearance of being a good provider is one of the “keys” women (who’ve had the luxury of choice) have always looked for. In this day-and-age, where “provision” is intrinsically linked to money, it is precisely the appearance of wealth that strikes women’s interests – even if they do not understand or acknowledge that it does.

The “study” being discussed gives us nothing more than a “rough” way of demonstrating that men, and only men, can influence their chances of sexual success by demonstrating the willingness/ability to spend money.

[Turambar]

Hey HS,

Jessica Cutler has completed her transformation from Ho to Hausfrau.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-12-10/the-dc-sex-blogger-on-how-she-went-from-slut-to-housewife/

Looks like she married some beta looking lawyer.

[slwerner]

In the end, there is so much about human sexuality (especially the Prole stuff) that will likely never be explained:

"Louisiana man gets fat lip for refusing to have sex with girlfriend" http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1210081love1.html

[roissy]

"In the end, there is so much about human sexuality (especially the Prole stuff) that will likely never be explained:"

actually, this is quite easily explained:

"But Todd Stewart, 35, was apparently not in the mood. In fact, he tried to push Phillips off of him in the bedroom of the pair's West Monroe home."

chicks thrive on rejection.

[Tom]

"In the end, there is so much about human sexuality (especially the Prole stuff) that will likely never be explained:"

The girl looks like she's on drugs.

[slwerner]

Roissy - "actually, this is quite easily explained"

I was merely being tongue-in-cheek in suggesting that it couldn’t be explained.

But, since you giving it a shot anyway, what sort of “laws” govern assertive mating amongst the ugly, poor, and generally misfit?

[whiskey]

Cynic and others --

What this and other data points show is that the nuclear family is in fact dead. About 41% of US White births in 2006 were illegitimate, and the rate in Britain is over 50% (nationally, all ethnic groups). The idea of marriage and children is dead, and technology (pill and condom) plus rising income/status for women, and cultural changes killed it.

Future Time orientation is dead, saving for a family and so on is a loser -- if men want to have sex they must spend, spend, and spend some more. Since few have lots of money or high incomes, this means going into debt.

Moreover marriage is a loser for men, since there is little cultural pressure to be monogamous, you might as a beta male know your kid is yours or not, but if your kid is not yours, you will be on the hook anyway for child support. That's the law.

The collapse of the West is because of the collapse of the nuclear family. We are looking at what is becoming a raw competition for women with few boundaries.

[roissy]

"But, since you giving it a shot anyway, what sort of “laws” govern assertive mating amongst the ugly, poor, and generally misfit?"

the same that govern the rich and gifted. chicks dig power, guys dig beauty.

btw, what's interesting about that smoking gun story is the age difference. she's 19, he's 35. whatever else they don't have going for them, you have to give credit to a dude who can score a non-obese teen girl half his age. a big part of that is his push-pull technique -- denying a girl sex will absolutely drive her insane with lust for you. it's a tactic good seducers use in the field. a girl you've been gaming starts coming onto you and you tell her "not so fast, quick draw! i'm not that kind fo guy" while literally pushing her away form you.

works like a drug.

[slwerner]

Roissy - "the same that govern the rich and gifted. chicks dig power, guys dig beauty."

Um, Roissy, is was kind of referring to the two from the Smoking Gun story. Power? Beauty?

Maybe I've gotten things backwards. I always thought that I had somewhat lower standards for both than you seemed to hold. But, if you see power and beauty in either of those two, perhaps your standards are not near so high as I had imagined:)

[Sally Go Round the Roses]

Men like women who are spendthrifts

[slwerner]

Sally Go Round the Roses - "Men like women who are spendthrifts"

Only if they're not married to them, I'd suspect.

[McGraw]

Roissy. She's ugly, dude. Not to mention mentally disturbed.

[roissy]

"Um, Roissy, is was kind of referring to the two from the Smoking Gun story. Power? Beauty?"

you've gotta remember to adjust for the baseline sexual market value of the couple in question.

"But, if you see power and beauty in either of those two, perhaps your standards are not near so high as I had imagined:)"

neither one in the smoking gun story is attractive (in fact, the guy looks tardish) but relative to their standing in the social matrix, the dude has punched above his weight by snagging a non-hideous teen girl half his age. despite the knifing he took from her, he has demonstrated some alpha traits that likely attracted her to him -- namely, his aloof, take her or leave her attitude.

"Men like women who are spendthrifts"

yes. we call these men gay boyfriends.
or male escorts.

[roissy]

"Roissy. She's ugly, dude."

i'd rate her a 3. and him a 2 based on physical characteristics alone. for real hideousness, you'll want to check out my post on omegas.

keep in mind that her relatively normal-sized body (from what i can judge by the photo) puts her ahead of 25% of her fatass peers right out of the gate, as most men without the option to shoot for the quality girls would rather bang a plain looking or even unattractive woman with a decent body than an obese whale with a pretty face*.

*"she has a pretty face" is the fat chick equivalent to "you're a nice guy. let's just be friends".

"Not to mention mentally disturbed."

probably, if by mentally disturbed you mean low IQ. and if that's the standard, then you can pretty much write off 30-40% of the population as insane.

[sabril]

"1. If alphas are dominant and have all the sex, why don't they numerically dominate? Why don't they completely outbreed betas?"

Who said that alphas have all the sex? Betas get plenty of sex with 1 long term wife or girlfriend. Usually enough to impregnate them, anyway.

Besides, back in the day, having a man around to help feed the kids may very well have meant the difference between life and death.

[Peter]

"i'd rate her a 3. and him a 2 based on physical characteristics alone"

The chick isn't that bad, she has some potential. As for the man, he may be 35 but doesn't look a day over 60.

[ResidentCynic]

roissy: (http://roissy.wordpress.com/2008/11/06/bitter-unmarried-women-win-it-for-obama/)

"Solution for a stronger America: Distract single women with game and shiny things so they forget to vote."

Sounds like someone who thinks single women voting is leading to a weaker America to me. Maybe we should dress chicks in burkas and make them walk behind us like in other countries with who's ideas of a woman's true place are more similar to your own.

I'm all about game for getting laid, but I think you may have crossed into the land of actually kind of hating women a little bit (women think ALL guys who believe in game hate women, and this is simply not true).

I'm sure if you lobby enough, we can get a few Constitutional Amendments repealed.

[Vim]

sabrils:

The betas only get grudging sex which they have to beg from their wifes who fuck muscular, dominating, large-cocked alphas behind their backs by a factor of ten more often than their unsatisfying small-dicked meal ticket. This is in addition to fucking alphas nonstop in her youth and quite often showing up to the marriage with two or three kids. This must be true. This is what I read on Half sigma.

Now, it's easy to do the math on the relative numbers of the males of type B that are putting 50% or more of their effort into raising the children of males of type A. The equilbrium should be strongly in the direction of males of type A.

[Asher]

What I look for in a man:

1. sense of humor/confidence
2. high energy level
3. good appearance

...

And I'm yours.

Posted by: Sally Go Round the Roses

--------------------------------------

I've heard rumors of a coked up Andy Dick stealing chicks from Hugh Jackman, but this confirms those rumors.

[whiskey]

Resident Cynic --

Single Women went for Obama 70-29. Women are ground zero for PC, Multiculturalism, unbridled immigration, pacifism, appeasement, and so on. Women led the "Peace Movements" in the 1930's to appease both Italy and Germany.

Women have profoundly different political, social, and cultural motivations than men. This is not "hating women" which is PC nonsense, this is reality.

EVEN in Iran, with burqas in fact and hanging 16 year old girls for "adultery" female behavior is radically different from what the Mullahs want, leading to the 70-30 rule (70% of women monopolized by 30% of men).

The problem is two-fold. Women, when single particularly, vote for their own interests: appeasement abroad of threats, multiculturalism, PC, overt replacement of White Males in society by non-Whites and gays (and importantly, women). Women vote for the "Big Man" who offers whatever can look like a dynasty and provide a static, stasis driven society.

Meanwhile, men are un-connected to women, unmarried with few hopes of realistically being so, and will NOT politically support anything for women or children (who are the Big Man's). This is the social pattern found in West Africa, the British White Underclass, and other places.

It reduces male cooperation, leaves society vulnerable to men who come in as conquerors (men do not die defending the Big Man's harem, when they have a choice and chance). Or even raiders.

You may not like the un-PC implications of reality, but without a solid investment by MOST men in society, it falls apart or degenerates into some form of a Big Man society.

We are going to have to live with it -- women's votes/rights are not going away, unless run by Islam (predicted by European LEFTISTS in many places in Europe in less than twenty years, as a good thing mind you). The West WILL get long term a lot more violent, looking somewhat like South Central or East London all over the world as men turn to violence to compete for women.

[Tired of Smoke Rings]

"The West WILL get long term a lot more violent, looking somewhat like South Central or East London all over the world as men turn to violence to compete for women."

I'm sure this is a cherished dream of yours, EvilNeocon. How about another spin on this? I'll try, it looks like fun!!!

The common man bands together and kicks the shit out of bloviating wise-asses, like Testing99 and all the stalking horse clients they promote, sometimes as "leftists" sometimes as "rightists" but, always, always as self serving, lying, false friends. And yes, Whiskey, that includes, your newist designer problem, the oh-so-scary Ragheads. They then implement a gradualist reactionary program in the social and econoimic spheres of life and make babies with their new wives. Any remaining pockets of "Big Man" disfunctionality are either reduced by force or caused to wither by removing the current stream of subsidies bloating them.

Cue archival footage of Reagan's "Morning in America" speech and segue into a montage of large families exiting simple yet charming churches, mothers beaming as they watch their kids play and dads being greeted by adoring spouse and little ones on coming home from work.

Cross fade to fluttering flag and jet fighter overflight.

The End.

Coming to a country near you! You know who the losers are here, Mr. The West is Dieing, Death to the West! Why not ask Akbar for a ride out of hell on his speedboat now and beat the rush?

[Jack]

Whiskey has some good points, although as usual he embellishes a bit. It is true that single women went overwhelmingly for Obama, and the ones I know here in my big city were closed minded and crazed about their hero Obama. Anyone who supported McCain was scowled at and scorned by these women. (It is a conservative man's duty to lie about his affiliation to bang these types of women.) I don't see the same evil motives as Whiskey - I just think women are not designed to be politically minded. They have an inability to think long-term. think about it - abortion, I understand why they support that. But illegal immigration? Appeasement of terrorists? Women don't support those things - they just don't care. They cannot see the terrible consequences, in many cases, ESPECIALLY for themselves. Arab culture doesn't exactly treat women well.

The real problem is that young males, most of whom are seriously hurt by the leftist agenda, do not realize this. Many support it as well. Sure, they want to get laid, but why do they need to even discuss politics? Women aren't gonna quiz you on who you voted for before you fuck her. Young men need to organize and understand that it is necessary to oppose the interests of single women at all costs. But it likely will not happen. And these same single women will eventually be the ones hurt the most. Karma is a bitch.

[Underachiever]

Vim,

I agree. I think Roissy is onto something, but he dramatically exaggerates his case sometimes.

[sabril]

"The betas only get grudging sex which they have to beg from their wifes who fuck muscular, dominating, large-cocked alphas behind their backs by a factor of ten more often than their unsatisfying small-dicked meal ticket."

That's just not true. If the relationship is decent, most women will not cheat their man even if he wants her to. That's among western women, by the way.

The actual rate of cuckoldry is probably less than 5%, according to the most reputable study by Kermyt Anderson. Again, that looked at studies in the developed world.

Probably in places like Haiti, Nigeria, and Detroit, the rate of cuckoldry is a lot higher. Unsurprisingly, a much higher percentage of men in those places lead (or attempt to lead) an alpha lifestyle. i.e. impregnating women and then disappearing.

[roissy]

resident fanboy:
"Solution for a stronger America: Distract single women with game and shiny things so they forget to vote."

that's a good line. *preen*

"Sounds like someone who thinks single women voting is leading to a weaker America to me."

it's one factor among many. i think it's indisputable that as the single woman voting bloc has become a force to reckon with, the country has moved inexorably to the left, with all its attendent social ills. if single women were denied the vote, there would be less multiculti cult, mass 3rd world immigration, misandrist divorce laws, welfare statism, quota mongering, ivory tower deconstructionist fervor, etc etc. the numbers don't lie. by nature, women vote themselves more security and largesse in the form of nanny state intrusion. generally speaking, a woman's prime directive is security; a man's is freedom. a woman's touch is good for taming a wild society, but taken to extremes we have what is currently destroying america -- a navel-gazing gimme my slice of pie self-loathing apologetic ankle-grabbing stunted culture.

in short, women view government as essentially a substitute for the beta provider males they are no longer marrying during their prime years. obama is the endgame we see (70-29 in favor) when aging single women are without level-headed men in their lives to corral their worst political instincts.
other factors include the pill, condom, the disfiguring obesity plague, and female economic parity. i think people have seriously underestimated just what a powerful blowback widespread use of effective contraceptives has had on the West. the threat of pregnancy and destitution has always acted as a mitigator of raw female nature; without it, their natural hypergamous drive goes supersonic.

the marginalization of beta males, particularly euro-ancestry beta males, and hence the implosion of the US empire, has been breathtaking as a cultural phenomenon and is continuing apace. like i have written, this is a golden age of low-hanging pussy for guys like me who believe variety is the spice of life, but for society it's been rather less positive sum. it's really necessary to view all that is happening through the prism of the sexual market. it's the most important market in operation, and thus the best way to get at the underlying truth of proximate trends.

"Maybe we should dress chicks in burkas and make them walk behind us like in other countries with who's ideas of a woman's true place are more similar to your own."

now you're being silly.

"I'm all about game for getting laid, but I think you may have crossed into the land of actually kind of hating women a little bit (women think ALL guys who believe in game hate women, and this is simply not true)."

i enjoy mixing my uplifting game advice with a healthy dose of corrective reality. i find that uttering such truths often strikes those who are are constitutionally repelled by them as hateful.

"I'm sure if you lobby enough, we can get a few Constitutional Amendments repealed."

i'd rather be poolside.

"I think Roissy is onto something, but he dramatically exaggerates his case sometimes."

it's my only weakness.

[Vim]

roissy:

"this is a golden age of low-hanging pussy for guys like me who believe variety is the spice of life"

You remind me of a guy I used to know in undergraduate. He lived for these bullshit statements. And woe be unto the unlucky soul that took him seriously enough to debate these points with him. You don't write for Slate do you? If you polished this stuff up little, you might aim for GQ. And if you toned down the misogyny and spoke to what women wanted, I bet you'd have a shot at Cosmo. I guess what I'm saying is there is always an audience of people who are insecure enough in their sexuality that they what to read the millionth article on '10 secrets to keep him wanting more!' so I see you eating off of this schtick for a long time.

"the marginalization of beta males, particularly euro-ancestry beta males, and hence the implosion of the US empire, has been breathtaking as a cultural phenomenon and is continuing apace."

Huge oversell.

[Peter]

"other factors include the pill, condom, the disfiguring obesity plague, and female economic parity"

As I've said about 5,000 times, not that anyone pays attention, the obesity plague runs both ways: MEN GET FAT TOO.

[roissy.wordpress.com]

"As I've said about 5,000 times, not that anyone pays attention, the obesity plague runs both ways: MEN GET FAT TOO."

and as i've corrected you about 5,000 times, fatness is less of a hit to a man's sexual market value than it is to a woman's.

ps: GNPs are sloppy.

[slwerner]

Peter - "As I've said about 5,000 times, not that anyone pays attention, the obesity plague runs both ways: MEN GET FAT TOO."

Roissy – “and as i've corrected you about 5,000 times, fatness is less of a hit to a man's sexual market value than it is to a woman's.”

Roissy,

That men are less adversely affected quite possibly ties in nicely with the original topic – men can compensate for their lack of physical sexual market value by being able to spend money to attract women. I suppose they could also rely on power and fame – it seems like fat-assed politicians get some pretty hot chicks, for instance. Looks and money seem to carry nearly equal value to women.

The just isn’t the same possibility for fat women, because men seek beauty over money by at least a ten-fold factor (probably much more).

[slwerner]

Sorry, I just couldn’t resist yet another chance to muddy the waters:

“Fertile women more open to corny chat-up lines”
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16262-fertile-women-more-open-to-corny-chatup-lines.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

[Peter]

"and as i've corrected you about 5,000 times, fatness is less of a hit to a man's sexual market value than it is to a woman's.

ps: GNPs are sloppy."

And as I've re-corrected you about 5,000 times, even if fatness has less of an effect on a man's sexual market value it's often irrelevant because fatness (especially belly fat) has this pesky habit of putting men in coffins. Dead men don't much care about sexual market values.

pps: GNP's are wonderful. Far, far better than the hideous pedophilic Bald Eagle

[roissy]

And as I've re-corrected you about 5,000 times, even if fatness has less of an effect on a man's sexual market value it's often irrelevant because fatness (especially belly fat) has this pesky habit of putting men in coffins.

so what? most of those early deaths due to obesity are to people in their 40s and 50s, long after they have absconded from the competition for mates. in the context of this discussion, what's relevant is the differential between men and women in how the sexual market reacts to fatness. and the evidence is clear; women suffer a bigger hit to their attractiveness for every extra pound they pack on. the evo psych explanation for this is very convincing.

pps: GNP's are wonderful. Far, far better than the hideous pedophilic Bald Eagle

no. untamed GNPs are sloppy looking, and inconvenient when going down on a girl. they are also found disporportionately on ugly middle-aged women who have given up trying to look good.
cf: those voyeurweb links to flabby unattractive hausfraus you keep posting in my comments.

ps: if i presented you a consequence-free romp in the sack with two willing women, one of whom was a hot sexually mature 15 year old with a bald eagle and the other a dowdy flabby 38 year old with a GNP, i predict you would jump at the chance to bang the cute shaved teen, thus putting the lie to your professed belief in the singular glory of your insipid GNP running gag.
pps: gannon laughed.

[slwerner]

Peter - "GNP's are wonderful. Far, far better than the hideous pedophilic Bald Eagle"

Peter, Given your well-known propensity, I think I can gather what you mean by "Bald Eagle", but I'm uncertain if "GNP" has something to do with weight rather than hair, or vice-versa. Perhaps you could define your acronym?

[slwerner]

Peter,

Never mind - Glorious Natural Pelt!

It just took me a moment to recall your slogan.

[Peter]

"if i presented you a consequence-free romp in the sack with two willing women, one of whom was a hot sexually mature 15 year old with a bald eagle and the other a dowdy flabby 38 year old with a GNP, i predict you would jump at the chance to bang the cute shaved teen, thus putting the lie to your professed belief in the singular glory of your insipid GNP running gag"

Other considerations aside, nailing a 15-year-old is a crime in most places, so your comparison is flawed.

In any event, I'd still take the 38-y.o. with the GNP. Shaved women are foul.

[ft]

"generally speaking, a woman's prime directive is security; a man's is freedom. "

Security is the prime directive of most humans, who are usually willing to trade freedom for more of it. At the end of the day, most people are security-seeking squares. It's just that among the few for whom freedom is the primary directive, men are overrepresented.

[ResidentCynic]

roissy:

My eyeballs are in whiplash right now. You went from: "ive never said single women are to blame." (on the downfall of the West) to "it's one factor among many."

Try to keep your bullshit straight. :)

"in short, women view government as essentially a substitute for the beta provider males they are no longer marrying during their prime years. obama is the endgame we see (70-29 in favor) when aging single women are without level-headed men in their lives to corral their worst political instincts."

Wait a minute. Obama destroyed McCain with the help of many (smart) Republicans who jumped that sinking ship. And you still blame it on single women?

Like I said, you need to get your bullshit in order. :)

[roissy]

"My eyeballs are in whiplash right now. You went from: "ive never said single women are to blame." (on the downfall of the West) to "it's one factor among many.""

single women per se are not to blame. they are only following their hindbrain instincts. what is to blame are the tech and culture changes that removed the brakes from reining single women's sexual and political choices. politically speaking, though, they are to blame in a big way for helping elect leftwing leaders.

"Wait a minute. Obama destroyed McCain with the help of many (smart) Republicans who jumped that sinking ship. And you still blame it on single women?"

what about "single women voted 70-29 in favor of the leftist candidate" don't you understand?