"Show me a beautiful woman, and I'll show you a man who's tired of fuckin' her."
-- Sidewalks of New York
Earlier on, I said that I blame women for at least 51% of the big problem. That leaves a little bit of explaining to do on the behalf of my people. The male people.
As men, we are naturally pretty helpless when it comes to temptations of the flesh. Women know this, and surely not a second goes by on this planet without a woman taking full advantage of this knowledge to her own benefit. Women use sex to leverage themselves into all types of free meals, goody-bags, jewelry, jobs, relationships and pretty much whatever else they desire that a man could possibly provide. I can't say that I blame them, for if I could use sex as bait to flirt or fuck my unemployed self into a better situation, maybe I would. I like to claim nobility, but lets be realistic, it's just easier to scam. But heres the thing, like it or not, even scamming women are only working within the natural framework of things.
By nature, men are the providers, and women are essentially the caretakers. Sometimes, men being men, we have to be fooled (or harassed) into doing the jobs that need to be done. This is part of the reason sex is so powerful, it has to be. So as a man, I can't fully blame women for using it to its full potential. But just like men, sometimes certain women take things too far.
It was only once we became free from such day-to-day concerns as finding food and shelter that we were able to spend our time pursuing other, less vital interests. For some people, those interests are material. Hence, your modern Freak-Hoe Gold-Digger Broad.
The Freak-Ho Gold-Digger Broad is perhaps the simplest form of human being in existence today. A parasite of sorts on the hide of modern humanity. It's goal is singular, obtain as much of whatever it seeks. The vehicle, sex. Be it actual commission of the act, or merely the tease.
But don't be fooled, for it's not Freak-hoe's fault, it's really her suitors who are to blame. Sure, the most successful of Freak-hoes may often possess many of the appearance qualities prized by the superficial male sex-drive, but not always. I've seen some mediocre looking hoe's driving cars they surely can't afford on their waitress tips, with no rings on their fingers, so it's not her husband's car she's driving. Nope, it's just some guy. Some guy who probably does have a wife, whom he has just grown sexually bored with. And why is that? That brings us back to the free lottery ticket theory. Or more specifically, it's like the second law of thermodynamics paraphrased: sooner or later anything that can go wrong will.
Everything in nature has a tendency to revert to its lowest energy state. In terms of a man's approach to sex, that means doing whatever is easiest. And it's quite simply just easier to bang a loose woman that it is to actually do it the way it should be done. Some may ask, why does a married man go to other women for sex to begin with? Without trying to excuse the behavior, I think it's most properly analyzed from the other side. Why are women often attracted to unavailable men?
My theory on this is quite simple. Men choose women based largely on their appearance because we are naturally driven to select mates who look young and healthy and capable of bearing offspring. As men don't bear children, these consideration don't require quite as much emphasis to serve the female selector's purposes. Instead, women naturally select a man with the necessary resources to provide for her and their potential offspring. This is why it's more common to see older men with younger women than it is to see the opposite.
A man probably reaches his peak "value" later on in life once he has established himself financially and otherwise. In it's barest sense a womans peak is defined by her physical health and suitability for procreation, which happens earlier on. So young women arguably have a naturally guided inclination towards older men because those are the ones who have the most to offer them. But now we fan the flames of desire by adding in the social element. A man who is married is already in effect wearing the badge of the suitability of his resources and ability to provide, as already judged and attested to by another women with the same criteria for selection, his wife. So basically, a young home-wrecker is doing little more than following the map her self-interested, pre-programmed brain stem has charted out for her, only in this case she's found a short-cut.
A woman's evaluation of a man's suitability if done properly is slightly more invasive and time consuming than a man's (which can generally be done with a simple glancing over.) Since they have a more comprehensive review to undertake, it saves them valuable time if they can find a shortcut. In this case just piggybacking off of another woman's due diligence, and taking her word for it. Her word which is demonstrated by her selection of him.
Our older man is doing much the same, only now he has little if any interest in her suitability for bearing offspring, just in using her young healthy body which is so much more suitable for his primitive sexual purposes than his withering wife.
Sure Gold-Digger Freak-hoe Home-wrecker is acting selfishly and messing up the whole system, but she's only allowed to do so because Mr. Tired-of-the-Same-old-Ass can't control his outdated impulses. And he's not alone.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Do The Wrong Thing Pt. II: Double Standards and Prophylactics
"The basket is the same height in men's and women's basketball. It's the same game, there's no difference."
"Yea there is, the attendance."
-- ?
Sometimes double standards exist for a reason. In a strictly biological sense it is to a mans advantage to have sex and create the potential for offspring with many different women. Its like filling out free lottery tickets, it doesn't cost him anything, and he might win big, i.e. make another child. This is all presuming that he is going to have limited if any presence in raising said child, as he likely has a primary female to whom he allocates most of his meaningful resources. Even if he doesn't have a go-to girl, he probably just discovered the world of promiscuity, and has little intention to harness his urges because as we all know, sex is pretty fun. Sadly however, for the banner-waving, square-shouldered, bucket-headed young ladies screaming for equality in everything down to the most harmful of vices, the same advantages cannot be said to exist for the female of the species.
The reason is quite simply because men cannot get pregnant. It's a low-cost, relatively low-risk operation for a guy to bounce from girl to girl having sex, regardless of any intention to procreate, at the very least it's fun for him. Sure it's probably fun for her too, but at a pretty considerable price mark-up. The worst case scenario for Mr. Unattached Leg-splitter is that he (God forbid) catch some transmittable ailment. The worst case scenario for Ms. Guys-Get-to-Do-It-So-Why-Can't-I is quite different. She runs the risk of creating a child with a man who has no intention, desire, or perhaps even ability to raise one. Back to the comedian theme, Chris Rock pre-emptively rebutted the next militant female equalitarian argument quite nicely with this gem. "Just because a woman can raise a kid without a man doesn't mean its to be done. You can drive a car with your feet if you want to, that doesn't make it a good idea."
We humans have a general two-parent system set-up for a good reason, raising a child is a daunting task, and if it is to be done properly, the duties are best shared by two mature, like-minded adults. So it naturally behooves us all as potential parents to see to it that the other half of our progeny's genes come from a well-scrutinized counterpart cut to our liking, or as close as you can reasonably get. People who fit this description aren't always going to look the part at a glance, and some who do look the part are in reality the very last person you want helping to raise your child, hence the sexual selection process.
Somewhere around the time people figured out how to take prophylactic measures to reduce the likelihood of conception, things really started to go awry. - The Birth of Sport Fucking- Once this happened, it became a much more affordable luxury to choose sexual partners based strictly on their physical appeal. The problem with this being obvious, not everyone who looks to be a good time in the bedroom is someone you want to split genes with. But now we can avoid unwanted conceptions altogether, so lets have some fun! We all know how this story ends, yet we keep telling it over and over again.
"Yea there is, the attendance."
-- ?
Sometimes double standards exist for a reason. In a strictly biological sense it is to a mans advantage to have sex and create the potential for offspring with many different women. Its like filling out free lottery tickets, it doesn't cost him anything, and he might win big, i.e. make another child. This is all presuming that he is going to have limited if any presence in raising said child, as he likely has a primary female to whom he allocates most of his meaningful resources. Even if he doesn't have a go-to girl, he probably just discovered the world of promiscuity, and has little intention to harness his urges because as we all know, sex is pretty fun. Sadly however, for the banner-waving, square-shouldered, bucket-headed young ladies screaming for equality in everything down to the most harmful of vices, the same advantages cannot be said to exist for the female of the species.
The reason is quite simply because men cannot get pregnant. It's a low-cost, relatively low-risk operation for a guy to bounce from girl to girl having sex, regardless of any intention to procreate, at the very least it's fun for him. Sure it's probably fun for her too, but at a pretty considerable price mark-up. The worst case scenario for Mr. Unattached Leg-splitter is that he (God forbid) catch some transmittable ailment. The worst case scenario for Ms. Guys-Get-to-Do-It-So-Why-Can't-I is quite different. She runs the risk of creating a child with a man who has no intention, desire, or perhaps even ability to raise one. Back to the comedian theme, Chris Rock pre-emptively rebutted the next militant female equalitarian argument quite nicely with this gem. "Just because a woman can raise a kid without a man doesn't mean its to be done. You can drive a car with your feet if you want to, that doesn't make it a good idea."
We humans have a general two-parent system set-up for a good reason, raising a child is a daunting task, and if it is to be done properly, the duties are best shared by two mature, like-minded adults. So it naturally behooves us all as potential parents to see to it that the other half of our progeny's genes come from a well-scrutinized counterpart cut to our liking, or as close as you can reasonably get. People who fit this description aren't always going to look the part at a glance, and some who do look the part are in reality the very last person you want helping to raise your child, hence the sexual selection process.
Somewhere around the time people figured out how to take prophylactic measures to reduce the likelihood of conception, things really started to go awry. - The Birth of Sport Fucking- Once this happened, it became a much more affordable luxury to choose sexual partners based strictly on their physical appeal. The problem with this being obvious, not everyone who looks to be a good time in the bedroom is someone you want to split genes with. But now we can avoid unwanted conceptions altogether, so lets have some fun! We all know how this story ends, yet we keep telling it over and over again.
Do The Wrong Thing: A Dissertation on the Meaning of Life as a Comedy. Part I
"I think people used to be really, really, really, smart. But the dumb ones just out-fucked the smart ones."
-- Joe Rogan
The meaning of life as I see it pretty much boils down to this: We're here simply to make more people, and to make sure that the world and all of its resources last long enough for them to do the same. This is the name of the game, but some of us just aren't playing right.
I often find that few professionals have the ability to keenly sniff out and articulate some of the more dominant, common-sense themes in life better than comedians. If I was picking people that would be in charge of leading our collective thought process as a society, there would surely be several comedians among them. This sounds crazy, but if you think about it, it almost makes sense.
What is a comedians job? To produce laughs.
And how do they do this? Not just by telling jokes, but by offering commentary on life, and turning that material into jokes.
But in order for this to have its desired effect, it must first make sense. Jokes that don't make sense aren't funny, therefore with few exceptions, nonsensical comedians don't stay comedians for very long. This is why I would choose them to run things, because their job is basically to say things that make sense. What a remarkable upgrade from the job-description of our current leaders.
The point I'm trying to make here was perhaps best articulated by the comedian Joe Rogan. He said quite simply, "Dumb people are out-breeding smart people at an absolutely astonishing rate." Wow! How perfect, yet so simple, I couldn't have said it better myself. But this begs the question, why? Why are smart people essentially losing the big game to dumb people? Here's what I think.
First of all, the people that we are referring to here in the category of 'dumb' are not just limited to your run-of-the-mill natural numbskulls, but this category also extends past the realm of natural intelligence and penetrates into the social strata.
Many of these people being referred to I believe are those who for one reason or another are members of a society which has placed either a reduced emphasis on education, or have a reduced capacity to obtain one. This is the easier scenario to diagnose because in this respect, life is like a race. The object is to get to the finish line, but it's not the same race for everybody. Those who are raised with both the expectation and capacity to achieve a higher level of education are necessarily running a longer race than those who hop off of the educational train at an earlier stop. From a purely time-oriented perspective, those running the longer race have certainly less time, probably less oppurtunity, and also less motivation to commence pro-creative behavior than their counterparts. The burden of carrying a full academic courseload, with or without a steady source of income is a heavy enough task, people in such a situation tend to recognize that conceiving a child is a scenario best postponed until a better time. However, it is not my suggestion that people who have kids earlier on in life are necessarily all idiots, but the presumption is that there are more fuck-ups and mental midgets in this category than there are genuinely forward thinking individuals.
Just to get this part out of the way early, this is going to sound pretty misogynistic, but it has to be said. I place a slightly larger portion of the blame on women than I do on men. As men, we've certainly made a hearty contribution towards doing it all wrong, but I will get to that later. The reason for my saying women are closer to 51% responsible is that by nature, women are the sexual selectors of our species. Meaning that if the search for sex and a person to reproduce with are the modern day equivalent of a job search, women are the pen-tapping, question-asking, appearance-studying, judgment-making employers, and men are the resume wielding, big-talking, would-be employees looking for someplace to set-up shop and collect a few paychecks.
So it is the job of these employers to select the most suitable employees to perform the necessary tasks associated with the position. If the position they are being hired for is potential co-parent, there are some very important considerations, and valuable traits have to be selected for. But what I think happens is some interviewers have no idea what they're doing and just start throwing darts at a board full of headshots. Either that, or people have completely forgotten the idea that just like in the commercial world, actual products are often very different from their advertisements. Most people go to great lengths to downplay any possible weak-points they have, especially people prowling for pleasures of the flesh. Remember, "Batteries not included"? Don't hold your breath waiting for a person to make any such declaration as to their own deceptive packaging.
In the course of my life I have encountered many young girls raising offspring predominantly on their own, and on occasion have questioned them as to what led them to their decision to mate with the father. Answers range from sound and reasonable, all the way down to the pits of absolute buffoonery. One answer that stood out in my mind, "I liked his hair, I wanted my kids to have really curly hair like that." What?
-- Joe Rogan
The meaning of life as I see it pretty much boils down to this: We're here simply to make more people, and to make sure that the world and all of its resources last long enough for them to do the same. This is the name of the game, but some of us just aren't playing right.
I often find that few professionals have the ability to keenly sniff out and articulate some of the more dominant, common-sense themes in life better than comedians. If I was picking people that would be in charge of leading our collective thought process as a society, there would surely be several comedians among them. This sounds crazy, but if you think about it, it almost makes sense.
What is a comedians job? To produce laughs.
And how do they do this? Not just by telling jokes, but by offering commentary on life, and turning that material into jokes.
But in order for this to have its desired effect, it must first make sense. Jokes that don't make sense aren't funny, therefore with few exceptions, nonsensical comedians don't stay comedians for very long. This is why I would choose them to run things, because their job is basically to say things that make sense. What a remarkable upgrade from the job-description of our current leaders.
The point I'm trying to make here was perhaps best articulated by the comedian Joe Rogan. He said quite simply, "Dumb people are out-breeding smart people at an absolutely astonishing rate." Wow! How perfect, yet so simple, I couldn't have said it better myself. But this begs the question, why? Why are smart people essentially losing the big game to dumb people? Here's what I think.
First of all, the people that we are referring to here in the category of 'dumb' are not just limited to your run-of-the-mill natural numbskulls, but this category also extends past the realm of natural intelligence and penetrates into the social strata.
Many of these people being referred to I believe are those who for one reason or another are members of a society which has placed either a reduced emphasis on education, or have a reduced capacity to obtain one. This is the easier scenario to diagnose because in this respect, life is like a race. The object is to get to the finish line, but it's not the same race for everybody. Those who are raised with both the expectation and capacity to achieve a higher level of education are necessarily running a longer race than those who hop off of the educational train at an earlier stop. From a purely time-oriented perspective, those running the longer race have certainly less time, probably less oppurtunity, and also less motivation to commence pro-creative behavior than their counterparts. The burden of carrying a full academic courseload, with or without a steady source of income is a heavy enough task, people in such a situation tend to recognize that conceiving a child is a scenario best postponed until a better time. However, it is not my suggestion that people who have kids earlier on in life are necessarily all idiots, but the presumption is that there are more fuck-ups and mental midgets in this category than there are genuinely forward thinking individuals.
Just to get this part out of the way early, this is going to sound pretty misogynistic, but it has to be said. I place a slightly larger portion of the blame on women than I do on men. As men, we've certainly made a hearty contribution towards doing it all wrong, but I will get to that later. The reason for my saying women are closer to 51% responsible is that by nature, women are the sexual selectors of our species. Meaning that if the search for sex and a person to reproduce with are the modern day equivalent of a job search, women are the pen-tapping, question-asking, appearance-studying, judgment-making employers, and men are the resume wielding, big-talking, would-be employees looking for someplace to set-up shop and collect a few paychecks.
So it is the job of these employers to select the most suitable employees to perform the necessary tasks associated with the position. If the position they are being hired for is potential co-parent, there are some very important considerations, and valuable traits have to be selected for. But what I think happens is some interviewers have no idea what they're doing and just start throwing darts at a board full of headshots. Either that, or people have completely forgotten the idea that just like in the commercial world, actual products are often very different from their advertisements. Most people go to great lengths to downplay any possible weak-points they have, especially people prowling for pleasures of the flesh. Remember, "Batteries not included"? Don't hold your breath waiting for a person to make any such declaration as to their own deceptive packaging.
In the course of my life I have encountered many young girls raising offspring predominantly on their own, and on occasion have questioned them as to what led them to their decision to mate with the father. Answers range from sound and reasonable, all the way down to the pits of absolute buffoonery. One answer that stood out in my mind, "I liked his hair, I wanted my kids to have really curly hair like that." What?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)