2010 August 14 Saturday
Roissy: America Then And Now
Roissy takes a look at how America is doing with a look at Americans then and now thru pictures. His "now" pictures are pathetic. Lots of obesity, ugly clothing, bad attitudes. I hear a song from the 1980s "We are Devo, D-E-V-O".
At the tail end of a post a post about Asian women and inter-racial attraction Audacious Epigone notes that in the CraigsList for Kansas City Women Seeking Men category (and I added an image requirement for that filter) attractive women are extremely rare. Go take a look.
From KC: Here's a 220 lb woman who wants a tall skinny boyfriend. Has she considered bariatric surgery? How can you spot a good mom? If she can't get a babysitter for her 2 kids should she invite over strange men for the weekend to "party" with her young kids there? This is America in 2010.
I got curious and repeated this by looking at a few hundred pictures for several cities across the United States. Audacious gets it right. What was most shocking: obviously very overweight and even obese women who claimed they were big but not obese. There's a whole lot of denial going on. For starters, check out Seattle, Las Vegas, Portland, Boise, Spokane, and Denver. Use a browser with fast tab support and you can very quickly take a look at the sorts of women trying to find a boyfriend on CraigsList.
Given that many of these women seeking men claim they want cute and muscular guys you might think they'd exert serious effort to at least control what they have control over: their weight, clothing, hairstyle. But no. They seem oblivious to how they will be seen.
Another observation: At about age 26 the women start saying they are tired of games and tired of lies. They've played with lots of alpha players and know they always get dumped in the end. Some still want a guy they consider alpha who will just commit. Others more clearly are ready to settle for less to get commitment. More of them have kids and want guys not to mind (good luck with that when you are unattractive, aging, fat, and with little education or skills). Also, some of the more honest ones reveal their promiscuous past either explicitly or via code phrases like "my party days are over" or by making noises about finally growing up and looking for an LTR (long term relationship).
What I want to know: Are ugliness and obesity getting selected for or against? Are ugly and fat people having fewer or more kids than pretty people?
BTW, in case it's useful to anyone, I advise folks on the dating market to get vaccinated against HPV. Condoms don't block it. I dated a non-promiscuous high-IQ woman who has it. It's common. People often don't know they have it.
Medical professionals advise that's it's "basically" not communicable after a certain period of time, but it seems like a bit of gamble. Don't end up with a higher rate of certain cancers.
For women in particular to not get vaccinated seems to be extremely unwise risk management.
I wish I were a mongoloid
Or are gross obesity and wild promiscuity both the results of poor impulse control and minimal external restraints? At 17, Crystal can drink half a dozen shooters and blow 2 guys in the back of the bar and have a box of Twinkies for lunch the next day. After ten years of a steady diet of shooters, stranger-semen and Twinkies, the results aren't pretty.
Here's a cut & paste from a comment to an earlier story:
A Group photo from 2010 contrasted with a group photo from 1930.
An alien observer would note the different body shapes and likely wonder whether the photographs were of the same species.
The conventional wisdom seems to be that middling to hideous women use online dating/relationship sites, while among men it is only the social bottom feeders who do. But I spent some time looking through some of the male postings on KC craiglist the other day and, while I'm not the best at gauging male overall desirability, it's now my impression that the craigslist men are actually, on average, a little higher up relative to men in general than craiglist women are to women in general. I assume this is in part because men have to make active time and energy commitments to get into a relationship they want to be in while many women (although very few on craigslist) can be totally passive about relationships and still have them fall into their laps.
Re: attractiveness and not just fecundity but a host of other measures, I wish the GSS asked interviewers to assess attractiveness. They've previously done it for weight. Obviously the same-sex interviewer/participant pairing up presents a problem, but even if it were only for male/female pairings, the data would be useful in quantitites as large as the GSS surveys.
You lost me there. Why's that?
At least she's getting vitamin C and zinc every time she swallows.
I wonder whether it is worth it for really hot women to advertise online. They certainly can get lots of approaches in real life. But I'd expect they could sort and filter thru much larger numbers of men if they also used online methods.
My own take is that nature selects for the obese to breed, if what I see around here on the fringe of rural Nevada is any indication. I think plus-sized women are more willing to breed first then look for a sugar daddy later--with expected consequences. More attractive women seem to be more likely to be more future-oriented and wait for Mr. Perfect (not Mr. Right), who all too often fails to materialize. Oh well, at least they have their advanced degrees in critical queer studies and their government jobs to get them along.
I watched this play out from the sidelines for all too long. It was always a source of amazement to be just how effortlessly prole penises found their way into prole vaginas, resulting in more prole offspring. Meanwhile, us men in the Outer Party had to jump through all kinds of hoops and not display even the most minute deviancy from current fashions in feminist ideology in order to get laid at all!
My bitterness is the result of not being able to get married until 46 and having a severely autistic son. He paid the price of feminism, which is why it must be destroyed.
"But I'd expect they could sort and filter thru much larger numbers of men if they also used online methods."
If women were choosing a mate rationally and consistently on some list of criteria, that'd make sense. But they aren't, mostly, and online dating itself may not have enough information. Specialized dating sites have had some success, because they do in fact attract people who are looking for something very particular in a mate that they may not find easily in real life. Eg, JDate, cupidtino, etc.
I had a female friend, who wasn't so attractive, tell me to shoot her if she ever signs up for an online dating service. Guys will do anything to get some strange, but girls, especially hot ones, wonder first and foremost if something is socially acceptable before doing something. Online dating is borderline.
Painful as it might be to realize, you'll actually have more success with women, even ones professing feminism, by being somewhat sexist and 'insensitive' with them. It's perverse really, they tingle far more for the man that puts them on the defensive and does all the things they claim to hate. Don't feel bad, took me 25 years to learn most of the perversities of the neurotypical mind, and over 30 to learn the particular perversities of the neurotypical female mind. One huge problem with what society/feminism says about male/female relationships is that it appears to make sense (e.g., be nice to her and do favors and she'll like you more and want to date you). Indeed, if the mind of man and woman were not desperately perverse, it WOULD make sense. Instead, you and I inhabit a world wherein doing a neurotypical person a favor, ESPECIALLY a big one, is not in fact a positive diplomatic action but rather a negative one in most cases. And getting a small favor from them makes THEM like you better. This in particular sucks when YOU yourself are wired in the opposite direction (i.e., favors given to you make you like the giver more, and the more favors are drawn from you the less you like the one you give them to). When that's the case, your projection mechanism (which is by far your best 'theory of mind' for predicting how someone else is going to react to something you might do, or how they feel about you) is going to work seriously against you. Your actions are backed by what society/feminism says you should do, and in accord with your projection onto the other person, but they consistently don't produce the desired outcome. Close to home? Your first step is to accept that you're not neurotypical. Your second step is to discard that theory of relationships that has failed to produce your desired outcomes. Or get really lucky and find a non-neurotypical woman (they do exist, but they're rarer considerably than non-neurotypical men).
Good God Randall,
You are rather harsh, and you don't pull your punches, but sadly what you say is true, and the whole post runs like a comedy sketch.Bring back those un-PC days of glory in which giants of comedy like Benny Hill used to run all oover the place taking mockery of women and mockery of man's eternal (and oft-frustrated quest)to its hilarious limit - or even Hustler magazine, when you got past the gyno shots, its editorial theme was much the same.
Anyhow, mosern American manhood now thanks to the micro-chip revolution now has unlimited, beef curtain, access to such wonders of the modern age as Brazzers.com and loads of the same, all for a dollar a day.
So the story is that modern technology plus a cash economy in which te babes can be persuaded to flash pink and do some rather unspeakable acts down a fiber-optic line for pecuniary reward, effectively makes the fat mares redundant.Male sexuality is and has always been vision-drien, and TFT screens and babes beat saggy flesh and hard faces everytimr - even for yer typical 19 year old horn-dog - and the same goes for your flagging semi-flaccid 40 year old barely capable horn-dog too.
Expect the Democratic Party to outlaw online porn soon.The excuse will be it demaens women - the truth is the that fat cows don't get regular pokings.
>>You lost me there. Why's that?
It's a reference to a DEVO song... About a mongoloid who was happier than everyone else because he didn't have to think about this crap.
>>I assume this is in part because men have to make active time and energy commitments to get into a relationship they want to be in while many women (although very few on craigslist) can be totally passive about relationships and still have them fall into their laps.
I'd assume it's because in order to find a male arousing, women have to have social context, while men only need to see boobs and ass. Also, men are more desperate because halfway attractive women can get high-status jerks to fuck them and they don't mind sharing with three other women. In fact, girls want guys with active sexual histories. It's a damn fact.
To clarify, Women almost always want a guy who doesn't want them. Whether it's because he's just not interested or he's got other women doesn't matter. Nothing says "I want someone and I don't care who!" louder than an ad on craigslist.
Jehu gets it exactly right. Men who listen to what women say they want and take it at face value are just setting themselves up for decades of confusion.
Fortunately, you can read people like Roissy to get a far more accurate appraisal of how the average female mind works. What you'll learn might seem bizarre. But it'll seem pretty normal once you get used to it.
I think highly attractive hypergamous women are blowing it by not using online services. I understand why their instincts drive them away from doing this. But they'd get seen by a lot more alphas if they put themselves in plain view for millions to see.
I wonder whether it is worth it for really hot women to advertise online.
Hot women DON'T advertise online. They don't need these contrived situations to attract men, like online matchmaking or speed dating. I was invited to a speed dating event by a friend recently and I very briefly considered going. But I declined the invitation after foreseeing there being maybe one decently attractive girl there whose hypergamous instincts would kick into overdrive. Turns out, a day or so before the scheduled event it was canceled because the guy/girl ratio was so skewed in favor of the former.
The very first bill Obama signed was a repeal of welfare reform. That is who is breeding.
I took a gander at that 220-lb hog's profile. That really is hysterical. Any non-disgustingly-ugly 6-4 guy with long hair ("so she can run her fingers through it") wouldn't give that pig the time of day.
The reason she probably thinks she can have a man like that is just a few years back (she's late 20's, think back to when she would have been early 20's), she was probably about 5-9 and 180 with big tits. She was probably just non-fugly enough that a handful of *drunk* big, fairly attractive men, were willing to take her home at last call at various bars. She never could get over it. In her mind, that made her attractive enough to be with these men. What she fails to realize is that those men used her like she uses her giant sagaro cactus vibrator night after night. She wouldn't marry the vibrator, but she will get off on it. Thats what these men were doing with the 180-lb version of her: getting off on it, and putting it back into the nightstand.
Getting to sleep with a handful of alphas is probably hard psychologically on the average female, becuase it makes it harder for the female "5" to accept a male "5" in later years, when she got to bed so many male 8's while she was in her early-mid 20's. The male 8s, 9's, and 10's cannot marry all of the female 4's-through 7's, so plenty of these women ask, "where are all the men?" when they get in their late 20's. Where they are usually at is married to female 8's-through 10's, and often younger (early 20's) females.
There is probably some selection for overweight going on, but it's basically via the faster expansion of the underclass. Keep in mind that if you just eyeball the situation there is a sort of selection effect. Two genetically identical women, one of whom has three kids and one of whom remains single, will probably look pretty different at age 30. Not only does pregnancy cause weight gain, but someone who's raising kids (and possibly married) is not going to be spending as much effort on looking good as someone childless. Observing these women without considering the alternate life paths might lead someone to think that being fat leads to more kids, when the causality runs at least partly the other way. Not saying the selection isn't there, just that it's very easy to overestimate if you're trying to evaluate anecdotally.
As for ugliness, much of it is too complicated to be easily selected for. Consider the opposite case: why isn't everyone really good looking? It's been selected for for a million years! Now part of this is just that people adjust their standards to reflect the range they're exposed to. But a bigger portion, IMO, is that attractive features in men and women are different (often opposite) so that most people have a grab bag of 'attractiveness' genes, of which sadly many will be appropriate to the other sex.
A corollary to this (or possible test, if you want to look at it that way) is that the children of two gorgeous parents will not be extremely attractive.
Interesting post. This begs the question, why have we gotten fat, stupid, and lethargic?
I think an important point needs to be made here.
Conventional wisdom has it that the problem is we eat too much and exercise too little. This idea is pernicious and cruel and far, far from the truth (there is no food shortage in most thin, healthier cultures). The truth is that one can understand the causes of the current physical degeneration and it is almost completely due to the quality of the food.
When you realize that health is simply a matter of balance in accordance with one's nature this becomes obvious. There are inherent imbalances in the modern diet. Almost nobody understands what a real balanced diet means and therefore cannot avoid said imbalances. They are adroitly explained in the following videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/lorax2013#p/u/37/WeoByDsP9Wo and http://www.youtube.com/user/lorax2013#p/u/2/iQ8jqHoyMgU. Anytime you cut yourself off from your nature, pathology results. Hence obesity is the pathological result of living out of accord with human nature, it is emphatically not a matter of weak will.
This exposes what a subtle horror American agricultural policy is. I mean, really think about the pragmatic implications regarding the sexual market.
Ladies: Please, please understand the forces that work to rob you of historically the greatest source of joy/power/meaning that women have access to. Our government is actively subsidizing (i.e. for hfcs, soybean oil, corn oil, grain fed cattle, etc.) robbing you of your biological capacity to attract a man, procreate, live with a family etc, etc. Worse still, our culture lies to you about it and says you "eat too much and exercise too little". I'm not making this up. This is real.
Men: A much larger more attractive pool of eligible females is possible and was the historical norm. Ending farm subsidizes would be a great first step.
It really breaks my heart every time I see a twenty something female that is so obese she is almost completely desexualized. This isn't good for anyone and it is time we start telling the truth about what causes this.
You blame the victim too much. Yes obesity, bad attitudes, etc. are indeed our fault collectively, but individuals are only culpable to a limited extent. For example, you said: ....you might think they'd exert serious effort to at least control what they have control over: their weight, clothing, hairstyle. But no....
What you are not acknowledging here is the simple fact that in other countries (likewise in the past US) women do not suffer from weight problems despite no food shortages. I do not believe they have control over their weight. The simplistic notion that people are obese because they "eat too much and exercise too little" is a pernicious and cruel lie. The real cause is the dramatic changes in our food supply. Worse still we subsidize this problem by making HFCS, corn oil, soybean oil, factory farmed animal products, etc. unnaturally cheap.
You blame the victim too much. Do you really think women don't put serious effort into trying to control their weight among other things? Almost every women I know puts effort into "losing weight". The problem is they're lied to and told that "eating too much and exercising too little" is the cause. So they creully starve themselves and over exercise which usually makes the problem worse long term.
The real problem is that our food supply has been radically altered over the last 100 years. It is not in the nature of women to figure that out. Is it really their fault?
BTW - Those who think that Americans "eat too much and exercise too little" fail to acknowledge that much of the rest of the world is thin despite having no food shortage and not exercising much in lots of cases.
What we eat is radically different from what peoples of the past ate. It doesn't take much investigation to see that this is why America is physically degenerating. We need to acknowledge this. It is getting worse with each generation and will continue to do so until we change our ways or lose our ability to regenerate.
Oprah ought to explain it to them.
The rest of the world: Look at the stats on obesity increasing in Europe. I've done FuturePundit posts about it. Some Euro countries might now be worse than the US. Though our different racial mix makes cross-country comparisons hard.
I'm afraid her sponsors wouldn't approve.
BTW - European and other western countries (e.g. Australia) eat the same kinds of junk Americans do so those stats are to be expected.