Comments to Steve Sailer:
* Trainwreck follows the script of Manhattan-centric media. There is a type of sorority clique of writers, pundits and assorted fellow travelers that pushes the themes that Schumer presents. View them poisoning yet another generation of girls via their writing at Cosmopolitan, Glamour, Jezebel, Salon, etc. Helen Gurley Brown got the balls rolling and her minions picked up her ignominious mantle. Their ilk are also behind Sex and The City and other shows that try to manipulate young minds, I mean recruit new soldiers in the great war.
* Madalyn Murray O’Hair really was an awful woman. Her hatred of Christianity ultimately caused her and her family their lives. Apparently she liked to hire ex-cons as she thought them unlikely to be good Christians. Well she got her wish. The men who kidnapped and murdered her and her family were certainly untainted by any hint of Christian morality.
* Commenters have been focusing on Amy’s promiscuity, but Amy’s alcoholism is much scarier to me.
The notion that Mr. Nice-Guy-Sports-Surgeon would risk having a long-term, raging alcoholic as the mother of his children, is scary as hell. Anyone who has had children should be scared stiff by this.
Doesn’t Mr. Nice-Guy-Sports-Surgeon have family or married friends to sit him down and seriously discuss this with him?
* This movie seems to illustrate one of the points you often make about women pundits … women want to change the world so that they will be hotter and more desirable.
Here, Amy Schumer makes as movie where an over-the-top alcoholic and promiscuous woman gets the good husband. A more honest movie would have shown how good husbands prefer non-trainwrecks.
* Are you male? If not, you have no inkling of the visceral disgust that most men instinctively feel when they hear about their wife/girlfriend’s past sexual relationships. And if it involved threesomes and blowjobs in dimly lit bars, it’s just so much worse.
One of my good friends went into major depression for several years after his girlfriend broke up with him and spent a year slutting around. The depression was not because they broke up, it was from the slutting around part.
You’re right about that not being how things play out in real life, however.
In real life, men have to account for their own limited value on the mate market, and often have no option but to suck it up and accept a wife with a slutty past. Because it’s either that, or no wife at all.
The liberated sexual market is essentially bringing a lot of beta men face to face with an eternal truth – that nature intended 50-60% of them to die in war. Whatever pussy they land up getting is a blessing from the god of biomechanics.
All the previous centuries of patriarchal civilization made beta men expect a virgin female companion to just plop into their lives, with no effort on their part. Now they are beginning to realize that the sexual market, which is sort of a metaphor for life, has winners and losers and most men are destined to lose.
* Honestly, i don’t see *any* reason why a smart, healthy, high-quality guy with good providing prospects should settle for anything other than a girl with a *zero* number count. A virgin when you take her.
The divorce data i’ve seen are pretty clear. Your her first, she’ll likely bond with you very well, and your chance of divorce is only about 2o%–basically “picked the wrong person” territory. After just one previous partner, the divorce rate is 40%+, though it stays in that 40-50% range for 1-4 partners–your “few fux”. After that it goes off another cliff, and is well above 50%. Given what divorce rape does to a guy … why bother? At some number approaching 10, it’s just a complete joke. The gal has demonstrated her fundamental sexuality is chasing the thrill of the alpha and she’s long ago burned out any real bonding capability. Getting married is just signing up to get divorced. Shoot a few loads into her and move on–that’s all she’s good for.
The fact is there are still plenty of young women who are interested in getting married, having kids and would be more than happy to just have sex just with their special guy, who becomes their husband. You read these little stories–like the phony “rapes”–and it’s clear that many young women are unhappy and just confused. They have sex and want it to mean something. When it doesn’t they are upset.
What’s needed is really twofold:
1) Pretty obviously, end divorce rape with default joint custody–mom and dad split the kids time and providing (hey, that’s equality!)–no special deal for the wife, no child support, none of dad’s money going to a wife who is no longer doing her wifely duty.
2) But at the front end, young men, being judgmental and just not marrying non-virgins. Hey, you’ve been outing hooking up … great we can hook up. When it comes time for marriage just tell her … uh, no, not interested in a gal who hooks up with guys. Get even 2o% of the good guys delivering that message and the girl’s behavior will radically improve. And with it the prospects for high quality provider “dad” types to have happy lives–and with that provide their wives and kids with happier lives.
* I know dozens. They screwed their way through high school and a few years at community/Tier 129 colleges, married some tradesman sucker at a fairly young age, were divorced 10-15 years later with little support, as these guys are mostly pretty good at hiding income, jumped back on the cock carousel in their late thirties/early forties and subsequently spend a lot of time in local bars commiserating with their similarly-addled girlfriends about how hard it is to find a good man.
Discovering that your middle-aged snatch doesn’t have nearly the magic it did 20 years ago is a hard lesson to learn.
* By “slutting around”, in that specific case, I meant hooking up with random strangers in bars on a regular basis. Sleeping with two brothers, just to see what that felt like. And so on.
STD rates tell a different story from “oh I only had sex with three guys my entire life”. Women say they have less sexual partners than men in surveys, but it is very likely they are underreporting, perhaps out of a sense of shame. In spite of the extraordinary promiscuity of gay men, and their contribution to the male total, men still have lower STD rates than women. Some of this may involve differences in genital anatomy, but I doubt that explains it all.
Secondly – the state of nature you so gleefully claim as the feminist utopia involves a small minority of men winning the intrasexual competition, establishing their dominance over the land, and making the women their sex slaves.
There is nothing HBD advocates need to concede to feminists here, unless the feminist goal is to be part of a harem. This isn’t pure conjecture – in the society where social decay has progressed the farthest (i.e ghetto blacks), top males like Floyd Mayweather and Chris Brown treat their women the way a medieval peasant treated his cattle.
* This is the somewhat famous Rollo Tomassi SMV graph:
It says that females start out with super high SMV (Sexual Market Value), really from the point they go through puberty. It “maxes” at 23 and then diminishes. The SMV of males is almost non-existent when they are young and slowly increases through the 20s, remaining high through the 30s then falls afterwards.
My opinion of the chart, especially today, is that the chart shows the relative SMV “maxes” as equivalent between men and women. And to me that is nonsense. For almost all men, they rarely attain anything close the power that almost any above average women would have. There was a chart (that I don’t feel like searching for) on OK Cupid that charted “attractiveness” (1-10) and the number of messages received. The graph for the women was almost parabolic, something like “n squared” maybe “n raised to the 1.7 power”. For men it was a very small slope with anything less than 7 almost receiving zero messages, perhaps 1, with a 9 receiving maybe 3 or 4. The woman with SMV of 3 received more messages than the most attractive men. The 8 or 9 SMV woman was getting her inbox filled up.
But the Rollo graph shows an intersection of the two curves, M and F, about the ages 26-28 and this is called the Marriage Zone.
I can get quite harsh about all of this. A woman has a disposition to wish to be married and/or that men want to be married to her. Or she doesn’t. Women are stayers or they are leavers, and they are women that men wish to stay with or they don’t. And so to paraphrase Daryl Royal, “When you go with women, 4 things can happen. And only 1 of them is good.” So that would she is a stayer that men wish to stay with. Now the other operative idea is another Daryl Royal quote, “You gotta dance with them that brought ya.”
F Roger Devlin has an interesting essay “Sexual Liberation & Racial Suicide” (I am not going to link it here. It is posted in Counter Currents. If you search for it it will come right up on Google.) He makes the point about “choice”. There are two sorts of choices. One is a temporary and the other lasting. Which ice cream flavor is an example of the first. But then there is the more important choice. And it can’t be temporal because the effect of making the choice is important and in changing the choice is damaging. He gives the man’s choice of vocation as the example. We must choose early and then dedicate ourselves to it. To change that choice is a setback. For women, the choice of a mate should be in the same class. But Feminism has pushed for Marriage to just be another lifestyle choice, one of a bouquet of options that life lays at the feet of a woman. And then men should like one of the 31 flavors. Rocky Road when young, Vanilla when 30, then some more flavorful after that.
I am 60 and it was quite normal to have selected before 25. And many of those marriages survived. The June wedding was a function of graduating in May. The Maxim that holds true is “past performance is a good indicator of future performance.” Easily a woman that wished to choose on “Good Father” and “Good Husband” qualities could easily ascertain those tendencies in any man by 24.
And now go back to that SMV graph, you get him well before he is aware that he will have this high SMV, or better, well before he has experienced it and is aware of it. A man of 33 that has all the trappings that women want is a man with options. Why would he compromise those options for you, especially if you are above 30? You wanted him when you were 23 and so do other 23 year olds. Why would he want you now? Ah, but that 24 year old, he doesn’t sense those options yet. And the bonding process in our heads is designed to hook him, hard. He is the true Romantic, far more than women. And that process does two things, it hooks him hard, especially if it has not happened yet. And it points a loaded gun at his head, a gun that remains loaded practically as long as he lives, that if he isn’t “with you”, stress agents go off and punish him. Especially for what the Bible calls “The woman of his youth”.
Here are two articles on the subject:
The first reference a study from the University of Texas. I went to school there and they have a big deal sociology department that is extremely feminist, quite anti-men. The study was called “Later first marriage and marital success” and what they found where the happiest unions occurred in those that married in their 20s. The WaPo author suggests “The Marriage Zone”, mid 20s. I think earlier than that for a woman, who marries a guy that is older (Provided the woman is properly educated on the true benefits of marriage to her and more importantly, to her children. )
Now as to your question of “how to determine this N count”. Mostly it is circumstantial. An unmarried woman in her 30s is enough to find guilty until proven innocent. But she tells you in many ways. Firstly, in her stories. I married a woman in her 30s with a low N count. First off she told me almost straight out. She was divorced, married right out of college for 10 years, lived in a small town, had trouble finding any one that she wanted to date. There are no stories of vacations to exotic locales. No stories of spiffy nightclubs. She can’t tell me about the best restaurants in the area. The names or characters in the stories of her past never change. There are few stories with “This guy I knew”. No stories of concerts. She rarely drinks. She is naive sexually. Never does any illegal drugs. So if a woman in her 30s doesn’t have a history of long relationships with short intervals between them, and she is in her 30s, then there is history.
* The thing that made me an “innocent anti-Semite” as a child watching too much TV wasn’t incomprehensible 18th century hate tracts or conditioning by my normal liberal parents. It was watching talentless and unfunny entertainer after talentless and unfunny entertainer drive unworkable ideas straight core-way to Australia, all them just happening to be Jewish, and then once in a while seeing an actually talented Korean or Goy I liked and wondering why the talented ones didn’t get more work. Is there anything a Jew can do to not get remunerative and undeserved entertainment work? Well, there’s a big, obvious one: you can piss off your connections and fail to incarnate proper revolutionary consciousness, like Kramer’s N-word faux pas. Almost all scandals of this type have this character: the formerly privileged nobleman who is more shocked that noblesse oblige doesn’t extend to literally everything than worried about his career or any offense given.
“Trainwreck” doesn’t argue for monogamy, it merely documents the oft-observed and remarked-upon female self-exemption from morality and fairness, aphorized in the manosphere as “alpha f*x, beta bux.” In other words, enjoy sexual promiscuity in your youth with strangers who don’t respect you, then retire to parasite off a man you do not respect, divorcing him and stealing his property the first time he fails to make you haaaaapy. This is the thing, the inescapable bad deal, that destroys not only marriage but, in the near future, the physical safety of our brainless western women. There will come a day of the rope where none of them will be raped but many will be murdered, and the media will have absolutely no idea why (or like with game-hater Elliott Rodgers they will perfectly mischaracterize it as effectively its opposite). Right now in our society we hate each other, not racially but atomistically, and hate each other so much that only a highly discriminatory process pitting powerful drives against unrealistic expectations can make us tolerate one another for the time it takes to come and zip up our trousers. And not just with sex; white males are only hired (by overwhelmingly female human resources staffers) when there is no alternative.
So: this film is everything that is wrong with this era. I recently gave up watching new Hollywood movies (having for most of my life been a brainless movie buff) and this sort of thing validates my decision. But given the evil hater facts of the first paragraph, who wants to bet they’re already writing the sequel?
