“The [male] feminist”

The [male] feminist” is solid reading about a guy who needs a dad or uncle or male cousin to take him aside and tell him to stop being a p***y. Much of what we perceive as social or gender dysfunction is actually, at its heart, family dysfunction and disintegration, and, because of families are smaller and more fractured than they used to be, we don’t know how to become adults, which usually also means “how to become a man” or “how to become a woman.” “The [male] feminist” is most notable for the absence in it, because there’s no mention of this guy’s father or uncle. Where are they? Does his uncle not exist? why not?

There used to be a guy who kept a blog named Goldmund, for example, who, whatever his flaws, talked a lot about his older male relatives and how they influenced his development. Unfortunately his blog has been effectively abandoned… but he’s one of the few guys I’ve seen talk seriously about family and family influence. A lot of “how to be a man” and “how to be a woman” are best conveyed by aunts, uncles, older cousins, those relationships. Default_friend tweeted the other day that she learns a lot from her mom and grandma (can’t find the tweet at the moment), which may help explain why she thinks modern feminism is re/tarded. Camille Paglia writes about the same in her books and essays, about the vital role extended family play in development.

Who or what replaces family? Schools, bureaucracies, ideologies. Except none of those replacements work, it’s like trying to live off McDonald’s and fast food: even if you’re technically alive, you’re barely living. In “The [male] feminist,” the guy absorbs an ideology pitched by power-hungry bureaucrats. The story is exaggerated for effect, I understand that, but normal guys, as they get older, they understand how to discard bullshit that doesn’t work. Even the pathetic snake guys who embrace “I am a feminist” as a way to get laid in high school or college, almost always quit at some point. You get old enough to see an ideology doesn’t work, you quit it. The most interesting part of many stories isn’t what’s in them, but what’s missing.

Chicks aren’t attracted to vulnerability, and the story’s narrator goes around with his belly exposed to every chick he runs into. Chicks like guys they can be vulnerable with, but not guys who are vulnerable. Or the guy is vulnerable is a minor way, like, “I am afraid of heights.” Or maybe, “My ex was super hot but also hurt me badly.” Your hot ex (social proof) hurt you, and now I, a lady, can heal you with my magic pussy? That’s minor vulnerability. Major vulnerability is something like outright incompetence. Competence is attractive to women, which is why effective men work so hard to develop it.

Lots of red pill guys get that masculinity is earned, not given, and that’s why so many primitive tribes have intense male initiation rituals. Femininity is given, not earned, just by going through puberty. That power must be learned to be wielded well, to be sure, but it’s there by showing up… something the male feminist in the story misses.

I don’t remember how the exact conversation went, but Short Dancer admitted that she slept with an incompetent guy her age (who I knew slightly) right before I started f**king her. The guy got her by virtue of proximity and luck, but he lacked masculinity identity and had no one, from what I can tell, to teach him about it. Then I got with Short Dancer, who was diplomatic, but also basically said that he lacked adequate aggression and masculinity. I thought the guy was okay, and if I’d been able to see a way to help him I would have, but, due to some other circumstances, there was no real way to do so. Maybe losing Short Dancer to an older, more masculine guy taught him something important. He seemed like a guy who might identify as a male feminist, although I never heard him actually do so.

Continue reading ““The [male] feminist””

Delicious Tacos talks to Personality Girl and Default Friend about getting laid and other things

Personality Girl and Default Friend have a hilarious podcast with Delicious Tacos, a podcast covering many topics, including how women don’t (maybe can’t) understand what life and horniness as a man is like, alcoholism, writing, groupies, face, sociopathy, work, and Houellbecq (the key philosopher of the last 50 years, no one else who hasn’t done pr0n counts). My replies are disjoint and won’t make sense without listening to the podcast.

Hot, emotionally mature girls aren’t on the market much and aren’t drunk or snorting coke. Guys with alcohol or substance abuse problems are attracting girls who will accept those, and it’s dangerous to draw conclusions from that biased sample… I try not to generalize too much about women based on the women I’ve been with in the last ten years, because most of them are at the very least curious about or accepting of non-monogamy, while women who want a conventional family and children aren’t going to put up with that shit. Delicious Tacos lives in L.A. (all the normal girls stay out of California). The conversation is a very big city conversation, cause normal girls who want a husband and family live in the midwest, or Texas, or Florida, or any place that it’s possible to live a middle-class existence and have a family… they’re not in the big famous cities. That’s where the sluts are, and the people who can’t afford to have kids, so they might as well do all sorts of weird sex things. I’m one of them, I’m talking about my own here, but I’ve also spent lots of time in smaller cities where women in their 20s walk around with their children in strollers and their husbands next to them. Most of them are 10 – 40 lbs overweight, which is gross, but that’s where they are.

Despite all that I have a piece coming up in the next month or two about how I was dumb to not have figured out mdma earlier in my life, cause, used judiciously, that’s where many of the easy lays are. Lots of hot chicks lack personality, or drive, or the ability to admit the sex they want and get it, and need some external aid to get there. Trying to talk to a lot of hot girls age 18 – 24 isn’t easy, cause their knowledge base consists of inane gossip and an interest in drinking and drugs. That’s it. It’s hard to build commonality from that. Solution? A lot of conversation that uses The Game + insinuations of drinking/drugs now, or in times to come. I should’ve learned this earlier… in many ways I’m a slow learner.

Very true: pussy begets more pussy. Absolutely. Sex clubs are apotheosis of this. DT gets this. He says something like, the difference between 0 pussy and 1 pussy is a million times greater than 1 and 2, and pretty much everything in game is about moving from 0 to 1. Red Quest might be less interesting cause it’s mostly about moving from 2 to a million, via sex clubs + non-monogamy.

Agree that guys who get a lot fuck a lot of chicks, almost all of varying quality levels.

Delicious Tacos should get a counseling degree and do counseling for men. He’d be great at it, and he’d get out of the corporate grind office job, become more of a prophet than he already is. I’d refer guys to him. “You want to get laid, get your life in order? Talk to this guy, Delicious Tacos.” Would he be popular, though? Most therapists seem to need to take 20 sessions to get to the obvious, because they have to wait for the person they’re talking to to get to the idea on their own… I think Delicious Tacos would be like, “Your family’s fucked up, go learn the deadlift, and get in touch with your feelings that way.” If more guys mastered the deadlift and pullup we’d have less need for therapy.

His voice is peculiarly similar to mine, as are many of his life experiences, although I’ve never had alcohol or substance abuse problems… although I have been accused of being a sex addict (DT discusses “sex addicts” on the podcast). I don’t think I am, though, because I usually have some standards, and after I get my fill I go read a book or whatever.

He says that he used to get groupies when he showed his face… but then he sadly got doxxed… I’ve speculated to other guys that, to build a bigger following it’s necessary to show some proof-of-lay and become a public figure. Krauer and Tom Torero did that. Andy from Kill Your Inner Loser has done the same. I don’t think I care enough to want to take red quest to the next level that way, but it’s useful to hear ideas echoed. Like Balaji says, “we’re going to need to build a pseudonymous economy, where over the medium to long term, you separate out your real name, your earning name, and your speaking name. And in fact, you have multiple earning names and multiple speaking games, just like you have multiple usernames at different sites.” Balaji goes on,

Continue reading “Delicious Tacos talks to Personality Girl and Default Friend about getting laid and other things”

The Internet fantasy bubble: the gap between the responsible and the spectators

The Internet lets people indulge in wild fantasy, and Twitter is more like World of Warcraft than is commonly assumed: this effect might also be more pronounced in “smart” people than dumb ones. Being smart, or high IQ, isn’t a shield from this effect either, and if anything it may make you more susceptible to these effects. Being rich also insulates a person from the effects of excessive fantasy: the richer we are, the more we seem able to indulge fantasy, because our base human needs are met.

To be good with women, you should be able to suspend disbelief and create an alternate reality, for women to step into, but that skill can be dangerous in regular life. Or useful. Along with suspending disbelief, rock-solid frame helps a lot with women, and thus the emphasis on bringing the woman into your world and worldview. Some guys seem to forget that that frame is a creation, and they carry it through on everything, even when it’s not correct.

Continue reading “The Internet fantasy bubble: the gap between the responsible and the spectators”

U.S. politics is defined by the structure of the American constitution:

Political science geekery ahead… if you want actionable stuff about the game, though, we have that too… but politics is also a form of game theory, like the game itself.

The U.S. looks insane to the rest of the world because of some apparently minor political structures that over-power rural states and under-power urban ones. If you read The Federalist Papers (don’t worry, you won’t), you’ll see the concern about balancing powers among states expressed repeatedly. A quick history lesson: the American Revolutionary War (or “The war of the ungrateful colonists” depending on where you are) lasted from 1775 – 1783, and at the end of if the U.S. states created a joint and ineffective government guided by a document called the Articles of Confederation, which didn’t allow for sufficient coordination among the states; that ineffective document led to the creation of a Constitutional Convention in 1787, and the ensuing document was eventually ratified by the states in 1789.

Way back then, smaller states were worried about being bullied by larger states, and, to prevent that from happening, and to prevent the usurpation of the presidency by a tyrant, the U.S. Senate was designed to give each state two senators, irrespective of the state’s size, and the Electoral College was created to put a barrier between the possibly tyrannous will of the people and the power of the presidency.

The world had very little experience with democracy back then, and the states’s representatives were more like start-up founders than CEOs implementing a mature business process. They had no idea what the f**k they were doing and did the best they could with the limited experience they had at the time. Those features may have seemed good in the agrarian period when they were created, but since then the Electoral College has shifted from “stop tyrants if necessary” to “vote according to the vote of the people of a given state.” In modern presidential elections, that means only a handful of states matter, and the votes in those states count for far more than the votes of other states. At the same time, the ratio of the population of the smallest states and largest states has grown enormously. Montana has just a million people in it, and Idaho has just 1.7 million, while California has 40 million. Yet Idaho and Montana between them have double the Senate representation California does. A fairer alternate Senate system might have two senators per state, and distribute those senators by state lines whenever possible, but also attempt to use a non-partisan commission to distribute senators. In a system like that, Idaho and Montana might have two senators, but California, Texas, and New York might have 3 – 4 senators (getting us closer to the “one person, one vote” ideal).

Instead, we have a system in which some rural votes are far more valuable than other rural votes. It’s also proven to be internationally true that, the more urban an area is, the more it votes towards the left. But the U.S. has a peculiar system that disproportionately empowers rural areas, and that’s had big international consequences over the last 20 years.

Continue reading “U.S. politics is defined by the structure of the American constitution:”

“Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga:” the uncanny valley

Eurovision Song Contest” is a cute movie, I laughed at some of the scenes, but it’s a socially uncanny valley movie, and the uncanny valley thing but one thing gnawed at me… the leads are way too old for the roles. So old they feel weird, but in a revealing way… the plot of the movie has Will Ferrell and Rachel McAdams as a platonic singing duo, with Ferrell also trying to deal with his father’s disapproval, and McAdams trying to sexually entice Ferrell, since Ferrell is, as in most or all of his roles, asexual or sexually uninterested in women (a fantasy many guys who lack masculine identity and play too many video games have). Farrell and McAdams are having problems characteristic of the 16 – 24 year old set… the teens and young adults who haven’t formed proper identities yet and who are trying to make it in the arts business… and the movie is ambiguous about the age of the characters, but come on. Even with surgeries and procedures Ferrell and Rachel McAdams are ridiculous.

I checked and McAdams is 41, so she’s on the verge of infertility if she’s not already infertile… she’s way too old to be chasing a man-child. What’s her sexual past like? If she was 19 we could see her as a late bloomer but few hot or once-hot women age 30+ have no sexual past. Ferrell is 53… and still in his father’s shadow…? Has he not managed to evolve at all as a man? Ferrell, like Adam Sandler, specializes in man-child roles but even man-child actors must eventually move out of those roles. Ferrell and McAdams are in the social uncanny valley because they’re middle aged playing roles appropriate to teens and young adults, but their many cosmetic procedures also make them look unnatural, even with hollywood lighting and makeup. All acting is playacting but they feel off, even though they are funny. In the movie they have not managed to move past the problems that 20 year olds have and that is revealing about our society as a whole, which deifies youth and leaves little role for anyone who has left that period. Continue reading ““Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga:” the uncanny valley”

Red Scare podcast girls on real sex

I was listening to one of the Red Scare podcasts, I think this one, and it’s amazing how on-target so much of it is regarding how sexuality really works. One of the hosts said, “Feminism’s all about being in denial,” about your sexuality and sexuality desires… it makes me consider, how many chicks are figuring this out? Lots of them will admit as much in private but not in public, for fear of the feminist social media mob. If feminists were as drawn to the squat rack as they are to baselessly attacking others, they would have boyfriends. It’s like the old days in the Soviet Union, when everyone knew the truth privately but was afraid to admit it publicly. Modern feminism is a con… one of the hosts says, “I’ve taken the red pill on feminism a long time ago.” So Red Pill language is permeating the mainstream. One of them says, “Getting hit by your boyfriend feels good…. Well it doesn’t feel good but it makes you feel alive.” I like the distinction… is “alive” good? Sometimes. Sometimes maybe not. They get the ambivalence and ambiguity in sex and sexuality, something that’s almost entirely missing in the hysterical media world, where all women are innocent victims and all men evil predators.

In reality… there are few victims or true predators… a lot of women have decided that the inept stance that women are irrational is somehow desirable… exactly the opposite stance of the feminism in the 50s – 70s, when women wanted to be seen as being as capable as men. How many women have secret housewife fantasies they won’t express? I’ve heard those too, stated quietly.

Back to sex, one of them says, “I love getting restrained and getting the menace of violence.”… I keep saying “one of them” because it’s hard for me to figure out who is who… they both sound f**kable, could be wrong here… yet for men the lesson is, “BDSM skills matter.” That should be the new Twitter hashtag. I have another post about women’s love for BDSM that I forgot to put up… it’ll come…

Another time one says, “10 years ago I might’ve still been a yuppie.” I dunno, you kind of have to be a yuppie to afford big cities today…

I have talked about Red Scare a little bit before this, and I have been getting messages about it, and about how approving of it is somehow bad, cause it’s hosted by women, or some of the thins they say aren’t true… I disagree that some disagreement removes all value or truth… look, there are various things I disagree with them about (capitalism is awesome and the reason they have a podcast instead of being forced to toil in potato fields or factories, and also Bernie is economically illiterate and unfit to lead the country, or be more than a gadfly…), BUT: they have something interesting to say, particularly about culture, culture’s intersection with politics, sexuality, and male-female relations. It’s also important to not live your life in an echo chamber… we need to be able to disagree but be smart about it… most people can’t move on from their black/white thinking. Having something to say is compelling in an era of morons mindlessly repeating garbled angry formulas they learned fourth-hand from braindead tenured humanities professors.

If you listen to red scare, call her daddy, and joe rogan… one thing they all have in common is that they’re not having the standard media conversation.

Continue reading “Red Scare podcast girls on real sex”

Why you can’t trust drug claims, and what that says about the ability to trust in general

This is an even nerdier piece than usual, and it’s fundamentally about trust, verification, and science… try reading the Peaches saga for something fun, sexy, and actionable…

Game is an open field: it has few definite answers and doing it poorly has few short-term consequences. Drug development is different: it has more definite answers, although the answers happen amid a lot of noise, and has many important short and long-term consequences. Politics is closer to game than to drug development, but it’s not a perfect overlap, since failing or succeeding at game has a strong impact on a given individual… while most political opinions are meant to signal tribal allegiance, and being wrong has little impact on the individual. In the last three+ months there have been lots of dumb claims about how hydroxychloroquine “obviously” works.. and yet we’re still looking for that evidence, which seems less and less likely to exist. The more interesting preliminary commentary was out there, best summed by Derek Lowe… April 6, March 31, April 16… no bullshit and written by someone who knows a lot about drug development… his comments about preliminary studies with small sample sizes are accurate… the early studies showed that hydroxychloroquine didn’t seem to badly hurt anyone (good), but we have law of small numbers problems. The smaller the sample size, the easier it is to find a significant effect through chance. An early and bogus French study was done by a guy who is, to put it uncharitably, frequently full of shit. Yet a lot of guys writing in the game / red pill / right wing worlds went for him. Why?

Those guys often don’t know anything about the field and, in addition, they don’t know what they don’t know. Lots of drugs look promising in vitro or in murine/ferret/etc. models, then fail in humans. Evaluating data from coronavirus is tricky, because most people do recover. It’s possible to give 20 patients the drug and then see most of them recover, because they were at the stage in the disease where they were poised for recovery anyway. These kinds of problems are how and why double-blind trials showed up in the first place, to distinguish cause from effect. These are also the kinds of problems that lead many people to falsely believe in all kinds of cures for colds and flus that were on the verge of clearing up anyway. By now, we know that a large and real trial from the UK with 11,000 patients found no benefit to hydroxychloroquine. France has also suspended trials like this one. A trial of 821 patients didn’t show hydroxychloroquine acts as a prophylactic. Yes, there was a study published in Lancet that was withdrawn due to phony data: but other data is consistent with the “no benefit” hypothesis. In other words, the guys you read on Twitter proclaiming that hydroxychloroquine is an easy win were all wrong, and they were wrong in predictable ways.

A little knowledge is dangerous and most of the people on Twitter know zero about statistics or the history of drug development… they make the same mistakes homeopathy people do. Their conspiratorial mindset flares up. They have no skin in the game: they’ve heard of Nassim Taleb but failed to internalize his lessons. If their recommendations turn out to be correct, they announce how right they were. If their recommendations turn out to be false, they say nothing, or cite the one “maybe” weasel word they used, somewhere. If you can’t trust them on something that has known correct answers, how can you trust them on things that don’t?

Meanwhile, people with skin in the game know that most drugs fail. Twitter has its uses but taking drug recommendations from it is nuts. Then there are Twitter exchanges like this one:

Stedman may know something about men and women (a field with limited opportunities for falsification… he’s also posted some goofy shit like this), but he doesn’t know shit about complex systems or about drugs, and he too doesn’t know it. He doesn’t want to learn, either. People have been trying to get Vitamin C to do something for decades (seriously, Linus Pauling initially made up the idea that vitamin C helps the immune system). Chaga is fine but it’s also been relentlessly studied. He’s a sort of Gweneth Paltrow and Goop for the red pill set: mostly harmless but also overconfident and making unbacked medical claims, relying on the ignorance of his followers. But if he’s wrong about something that can be falsified… what else is he wrong about? He’s also a conspiracy theory guy. And he has a large enough platform that he should try harder not to mislead his readers.

On Twitter, the ignorant are often loud and the most knowledgable often quiet. The ignorant have nothing at stake. Sometimes they are right, too, which is gratifying, when it happens. But what general lessons should we draw?

People are susceptible to showmen. Arguably the game is about becoming a better showman (Mystery was literally a showman: a magician). But the natural world doesn’t care about the show, like the human world does. It’s very reality-based. When dealing with women, some men fail to realize that the show can be more important than the reality, under current social and cultural conditions. When dealing with the human body as a system, the show doesn’t matter… the reality does.

There is a problem, I forget the formal name of it, in which people who have expertise or intelligence in one field, think they know all fields. Their knowledge or expertise doesn’t transfer, though. It’s limited. That’s one way people who are otherwise smart, make stupid mistakes. Stedman doesn’t even realize that what he’s pitching has a long history… he’s making a common mistake but doesn’t know it, and, when I pointed out that he’s wrong, he ignored and muted me. Fine. In terms of the drug world, politics makes people stupid and, oddly, people who know that then accuse others of it, not realizing that they themselves are subject to the challenge.

Meanwhile, here is yet one more piece, an older one, about HCQ not working in late-stage patients, which matches doctors’s anecdotal evidence. That HCQ wasn’t working well in moderate and severe cases became apparent by late March/early April, yet we still saw many on Twitter touting its efficacy… how many docs are writing to game, red pill, or far-right twitter… probably not a lot.

There is an interesting question in why otherwise smart people fall for myths, conspiracy theories, etc. I don’t think the whole answer is there, at the link, and I don’t have a full answer, but self-deception seems to be super common. Stedman falls for it. So do many others.

A gear switch. In game: it’s very tempting to lie to yourself first, but guys do well if they do one of two things: lie to themselves to the point of incredible, delusional confidence (“frame” if you prefer that term), OR be relentlessly honest with themselves about their strengths and especially weaknesses. The human propensity to lie to ourselves seems strong, and in medicine this seems like a particularly powerful tendency. We like to see patterns in randomness. Small parts of humanity have spent the last few centuries trying to learn how not to lie to ourselves. The internet does lots of good things, but it also allows the ignorant to be amplify their ignorance, without realizing their own ignorance.

One logical counter is to say, “Experts have their own problems,” and that’s completely true: but experts being wrong is notable and intersting, while non-experts being wrong is the norm, and many of them don’t even know what they don’t know.

It’s possible that the thousands of people wrongly amplifying their messages will learn something from this… but more likely they won’t. We have centuries of knowledge about how to test drugs already, and one more example of being wrong probably won’t convince anyone, anymore than the homeopathic holdouts can be convinced. Ignorance is the human condition, knowledge the exception. Game is one kind of knowledge, but it’s an imprecise kind. You can be great at game, or a great showman, and know nothing about scientific or technical fields.

There are problems with how to test drugs and other health treatments in the United States… but the noisiest people haven’t been repeating them, mostly. Their knowledge level doesn’t extend that far, and something closer to the truth, doesn’t make it to tweets.

We probably won’t learn much from the hydroxychloroquine debacle, since the people falling for it mostly aren’t or weren’t doctors prescribing medications. Everything I wrote above about statistics and drug development is well-known to people who work in drug development or have learned about drug development and how it works. Everything I wrote above about those topics will probably never be known to people with no skin in the game, no knowledge of statistics, and no downside to being wrong. They were wrong yesterday and will be confidently wrong about something else tomorrow.

Knowing what is really true is hard, which is why it took humans so long to build the civilization we have today. Most of our existence has been spent in superstitious blather. That tradition continues in homeopathy, anti-vaxers, and Twitter.

Most people who think they have secret knowledge are deluding themselves.

In some fields, there is a definitively right answer and a definitively wrong answer. When guys wander into these fields and say things that are likely wrong, or at least unwise, there is a tendency, maybe unfair, to denigrate their knowledge in all other fields.

It’s good to know when you’re part of a show and when you’re part of the study of reality… and a lot of guys online don’t distinguish between the two. Trusting noisy Twitter has its dangers.

Update, January 2021, see The most stridently asserted opinions will disappear down the memory hole

“Call Her Daddy” the podcast, and what guys should take from it

Listened to CALL HER DADDY because of this, and the podcast feels more legit than expected… for example, they refer to “Metoo bullshit” in one episode… normal people who like f**king, see “MeToo” as a power play by feminist harpies in the media and academia, and by older women who want to stigmatize the hot sex lives of young one. Most chicks realize that f**king guys in authority positions, like bosses and professors, is hot… if it’s consensual… normal guys don’t try to make chicks do things the chicks aren’t into, and normal guys feel out whether she’s into it… the small number of crazies on both sides ruin things for the rest of us. Especially crazy feminist harpies.

How much of the CALL HER DADDY audience is female and how much of it is guys jacking off to hot chicks talking about their sex lives?… The hosts talk a remarkable amount about making and disseminating sex tapes. Are the hosts posturing or for real? We have all heard hot girls loudly talking about f**king at parties for male attention, but not living up to their talk… I’d guess a lot of their “show host” mode is a persona, like most entertainers. Not saying this is bad… a lot of entertainers make it look like it’s easy, when it’s not. The number of people who can build a podcast audience is way smaller than the number who’d like to. Despite being ostensibly pro sex, the CALL HER DADDY hosts do a lot of slut shaming too… the number of girls who are truly pro sex is not huge, not even today.

In the episode “Every Man’s Achilles Heel” the hosts cite the joy of bondage and how a guy’s familiarity with bondage and restraint sets him apart from other guys… ahem… as you should know… one of them says adding a blindfold “took it to a whole f**kin’ different level…” during sex… a blindfold! That’s it! I conclude that a lot of guys are dumb or just ignorant… I feel like I learned this shit ages ago. Sex skills for guys are still sorely needed.

Continue reading ““Call Her Daddy” the podcast, and what guys should take from it”

The dark side of denial and dishonesty about women

I feel a lot of ambivalence towards this skeevy story, Teen models, powerful men and private dinners: when Trump hosted Look of the Year, cause the authors get some of the story, but it’s a story about dishonesty and dishonest people, but the authors are dishonest too. How? The guys running this supposed teen modeling show thing are obviously just trying to get sex, but they’re putting on this dishonest veneer of modeling. The “models” are trying to get money and their big break and pretending to not be basically selling sex, which is what all “models” do. The authors are dishonest by pretending not to know that men and women are different, and pretending that no one understands what’s really going on, when almost everyone involved does.

The “men and women are different” thing is shunted away from most teens by our society and education system, despite its obviousness… men want more sex with more different women than women want with men, and most women want it with men around their own age (some women also like much older men, while almost none like younger men). We’re unwilling as a society and culture to say, “men and women are different” and then to teach girls how… most attractive women realize that almost all straight men want to have sex with them, and would if there was a way to do so. This power intoxicates many women and frightens others. Most learn to accept it, and rue the day it departs. The teen “models” in the story are probably not stupid and understand the dynamic on some level.

A lot of the “models” in that story… had probably absorbed the wrong story that we present… unless their parents (more likely parent) told them the truth, as most parents don’t. Not directly. The lie that “men and women are exactly the same and want the same thing” is most dangerous to younger but post-puberty teens, who often don’t really understand that they may be desirable to many men… have you ever seen or heard a fight between a girl and her parents, with the parents saying, “Don’t go out in that,” and the girl saying, “It’s fashionable and I’ll do what I want, f**k you”? The parent is really saying, “You are sending sexual signals to adult men and they may respond,” and the girl is either saying, “I’m not really doing that” (she is), or she is saying, “I want to be sending out sexual signals so I can get the attention those signals bring.” And maybe more. The parent doesn’t want his or her daughter coming back pregnant by some guy who disappears. Few parents will simply say, “You’re sending out intensely sexual signals, are you really ready for the male response you’re going to get?”

The parent-child misdirection is a lot like the misdirection in the “Teen models” story, where the guys are misdirecting what they’re doing (trying to have sex with young chicks) and the girls are misdirecting what they’re doing (trying to trade sex appeal for money) and the parents are often misdirecting what they’re doing (“this is a great economic opportunity…” the economic opportunity of trading attractive and sex for money has a name… I am not opposed to this business but let’s be real about it is, why don’t we?). The story authors hate Trump. I am not a Trump guy but I am a reality guy… and there is too little reality in this story, and Trump being a poor president and bad person is not important to dynamics in the teen models story.

The thing is… a lot of young girls are ignorant and their society and parents (often parent, no dad in the picture) have made them ignorant… I know from talking to the 18 – 22 year old models in particular… chop off a couple years and the ignorance is more profound. Parents aren’t doing their jobs. Education institutions aren’t doing their jobs. In a world of bulls**t, to speak the rare truth is a profound act.

These media hit pieces never stop to look a little bit deeper and to think a little bit more deeply and cross culturally. One book, by a woman named Judith Levine, a journalist, was totally controversial and no one wants to talk about it, least of all the writers. Age of consent varies wildly by time and place… take Rome,

The age of lawful consent to a marriage was 12 for girls and 14 for boys. Most Roman women seem to have married in their late teens to early twenties, but noble women married younger than those of the lower classes, and an aristocratic girl was expected to be virgin until her first marriage.

Most of you have probably not noticed that I haven’t been making a “right” or “wrong” argument in this piece, except to say that subterfuge is wrong, and we should be more honest about our intent. That’s my normative claim. “Honesty” includes the authors of that teen models story, who can’t come out and say that men and women are different and women need protection from carnal males, which is what they’re getting at. Their feminist indoctrination has them tied up… “men and women are always equal” on the one hand but also “women need special protections,” like religious Christians would say, on the other. They can try to make women the “victims,” however, because feminism also holds that all women are oppressed… and frightened lambs… who are subject to those big bad males luring them into temptation… does that remind you of anything, like Christianity?

I dunno. I read this story and think that there is a lot of blame and bad behavior to go around, and there is also a lot denial. There are also some girls from a surprisingly young age who are locked and loaded and ready for sex. I know cause I’ve met the adult versions of them, who tell me what they were like at young ages. I’m not nearly as sex-negative as most of the society. I’m aware that our current ideology and culture finds that Women don’t think that women can make adult decisions and be held accountable for those decisions. Then feminists are all like, “why aren’t women taken seriously at the upper echelons of corporations?!?”… they can’t imagine their own rhetoric and positioning has anything to do with it. Almost no one will ask what age of consent laws are really doing, or ask why it’s cool to prosecute male teens as adults for many crimes while announcing female teens are children when it comes to sex. Kinda weird when you think about it, right? But we don’t need to think about it… we just need to write that Trump is bad.

There is no real takeaway from my writing here. I think that taking these girls away from their families and their sources of strength/protection is bad. I don’t like all the subterfuge: obviously, the guys running these programs are trolling for sex and have set up a system to attempt to acquire it. I feel bad for the young chicks who genuinely don’t know what’s going on. Some of them probably really don’t because they’re young and naive. Their parents and teachers don’t level with them. It’s like giving a 15 year old boy a million dollars… how many 15 year old boys are going to be responsible with that cash? Not too many.

If you present as an adult… people will often treat you as an adult… whether you’re a woman, running a consulting company, whatever. If you present as a kid you will be treated like a kid. Presenting as an adult leads to entry, maybe premature entry, into the adult world… it is not smart for teen boys to talk s**t to adult men, although some do… it is a choice that can be made for teen girls to present as adults… but no one levels with them about making that choice. I don’t think much is going to change this dynamic. The historical and cultural forces supporting bulls**t are too strong. Feminists like having legal and cultural cudgels to hit men with. Parents want kids who are docile and not emotionally distraught because of erotic energies. Women want agency for the good things, like getting better jobs, and want to be victims for other things. It is very rare for women in public life to admit this dynamic… someone like Camille Paglia does… but she is a rare bird, one easily ignored by journalists, who have great capacity for self-delusion.

In the time of coronavirus we’re not on the streets and we’re not at the party, so the more boring posts will have to take the place of exciting real-time stories.

Yes, the coronavirus is really dangerous and no, your view of the “media” being wrong is not relevant

There have been bad takes on Twitter about how the “media” was wrong about this thing or that thing, and therefore coronavirus isn’t dangerous. There is no “media,” but there are individual writers and thinkers whose work should be attended to. Some publications also do comprehensive fact checking and some don’t. The good publications do really well at fact-checking real things, like the number of cases or speed of spread. They may have political opinions you don’t like or agree with but are very good on basic facts (even if they sometimes ignore other facts).

In terms of being “right” or “wrong” in politics, and the consequences of being right or wrong, consider past political behavior in a crisis… both Bush and Obama, whatever else you think of either, reacted to the 2008 crisis with TARP, the stimulus bill, and bank prop-ups, because economists in both administrations had learned the lessons of 1929. Obama was roundly and wrongly condemned for this from the right and from the extreme left, but keeping banks upright is essential to a modern economy. 90 years ago we didn’t realize it. Firefighting: The Financial Crisis and Its Lessons is a good take, although it requires detail, which means 99% of the population lacks the sustained attention necessary to understand it.

Most people vote as a means of tribal identity. Less than half the (voting part of the) country identifies as rightish or Republican, so they foolishly voted for an incompetent who doesn’t have the acuity to run a pizza shop. “Basic competence” is why the white house’s occupant is such a potential disaster. He’s like holding a stick of lit dynamite with a fuse of unknown length. We are now seeing the blowup.

We are now seeing the blowup in a situation that demands high IQ, managerial skills, attention to reality, and fast reflexes, none of which the current white house occupant has. A competent president would have lasered in on removing FDA barriers to COVID-19 testing a month ago. He didn’t. With exponential processes, things can feel normal until it’s too late to prepare. Seriously, read that.

Yes, Trump is that bad, and many of the guys writing about game and women are unfortunately enamored of the stupidest parts of the right and the Republican party. Poor decisions from voters to elect Trump in the first place, and then to elect incompetent Republican Senators who have protected him, are likely going to lead to a lot of deaths.

Yes, the media’s hatred of men and being white is bad and annoying, but dying or being debilitated from a virus in a pandemic is worse. Much much worse. These two things can both be true and one can be a lot worse than the other. Right-wing voters are too tribal to have voted according to Trump’s fundamental incompetence. A lot of people may have to die because the real world exists (if we are lucky, states and local governments will step in). It’s not all Twitter and Fox News (much worse than most publications and not even remotely interested in facts).

This is not a matter of “bias.” This is a matter of real resources, which the country has not prepared, in part because of ineptness in the white house. The inept response is awful now and will likely be worse later. No, I am not a lefty. Think past right versus left. Avoid dogmas. This is “reality” vs “fantasy.” Develop a strong reality bias.

Most people’s ability to separate out what they want to be true and real from what is true and real is poor, and that is why we have the white house occupant we have.

If the other side had won the 2016 election, and the other side’s response to coronavirus had been this incompetent, the right would be screeching about that incompetence, for good reason. We are facing a real crisis with real stakes with someone who lacks the ability to understand what is happening at the helm. He should have been removed by the Senate already and every day the Senate delays removal we inch closer to the brink.