15 November 2012

Stupid question of the year



I saw this on a website the other day. It left me gasping in utter amazement:

Why Do Men Date If They're Not Ready for a Relationship?



What kind of a retard needs to ask something that obvious?

As every man knows, men date because they believe it's a necessary prerequisite to sex. Relationships haven't got anything to do with it.

There are very few men in the world who want to date a woman before sex, let alone have a relationship before sex. Unfortunately, though, there are very few men attractive or skillful enough to seduce a woman without dating. Therefore, the overwhelming majority of the men have to entertain women on dates and pretend to be interested in a relationship, in order to satisfy their vital need for sex.

As someone so brilliantly put it: "A relationship is the price a man pays for sex. Sex is the price a woman pays for a relationship." Men's and women's biological needs are antagonistic: the man desires to fuck as many women as possible, investing as little as possible; the woman desires to withhold sex until the man is emotionally addicted to her, so that he would stay with her permanently. It is always an unsolvable conflict – that is, it's impossible to arrange things between men and women so that both would be satisfied. (If someone knows a way, I'd love to hear about it.)

It is ludicrous to suggest that a man be "ready for a relationship" before he has even fucked the woman – and, for that matter, fucked many other women in order to be able to choose the best possible life companion. And there are many men for whom a long-term relationship isn't suitable at all – not a monogamous one, at any rate.



14 November 2012

The myth of men's mid-life crisis



It is a common belief that throughout most of their life, men prefer sex partners close to their own age, but at a certain age, they suddenly freak out and develop a preference for much younger women. Many wannabe experts have offered mystical explanations to that phenomenon.

It is undeniable that many men in their 40s or 50s start pursuing much younger women, but I say that it has a perfectly logical explanation.

It has to do with reward-to-effort ratio. One has to put up a certain amount of effort in order to seduce a woman, and one gets a certain amount of satisfation if that goal is reached. Let us create a model that enables us to understand a man's partner choice situations throughout his life.

I am sure that pretty much every man finds younger women more attractive than older women. Of course, different men's preferences are hugely different and a woman's attractiveness is influenced by many other factors apart from her age, but I dare to suggest that it's pretty close to the truth to say that if an average 20-year-old woman's attractiveness for an average man is 1 unit, then the average 30-year-old woman's attractiveness is 0.8 units and an average 40-year-old woman's attractiveness is 0.2 units.

As to the amount of effort, it is reasonable to assume that it's relatively easier for a man to find sex partners among the women he interacts most with, and it's reasonable to assume that a person interacts most with people in his own age group. Considering the social custom that a man be slightly older than his partner, we can say that every man has a certain comfort zone (as far as we can ever talk about any comfort when seduction is concerned) which is the age group slightly below his own. In other words:
1) for a 25-year-old man, it is, on average, easier to seduce a 20-year-old woman than to seduce a 30-year-old or a 40-year-old woman;
2) for a 35-year-old man, it is, on average, easier to seduce a 30-year-old woman than to seduce a 20-year-old or a 40-year-old woman;
2) for a 45-year-old man, it is, on average, easier to seduce a 40-year-old woman than to seduce a 20-year-old or a 30-year-old woman;
That would be because those are the women he has most social interaction with, and has more in common in terms of discussion topics and such.
Let us say that when the difficulty of seducing a woman in one's comfort zone is 1 unit, the difficulty of seducing a woman out of one's comfort zone is 2 units.

(By the way, the numbers don't really mean that much. We could just as well set the attractiveness of a 30-year-old woman at 0.9 or 0.7, the effort to seduce outside of one's comfort zone at 1.5 or 2.5 or 3.0. The following calculations would still be essentially the same.)


Now, let's look at the pussy hunting choices of a 25-year-old man.

Prospective partner's age
Attractiveness
Effort to seduce
Reward to effort ratio
20
1
1
1.0
30
0.8
2
0.4
40
0.2
2
0.1

For a 25-year-old man, the situation is the simplest. He has the most interaction with the most attractive age group, so he has no need to spend any thought on older women. (Meaning: he probably wouldn't mind fucking them if they were to offer themselves, but he hasn't got a reason in the world to make any effort to approach them.)


When the man has turned 35, his choices are as follows:

Prospective partner's age
Attractiveness
Effort to seduce
Reward to effort ratio
20
1
2
0.5
30
0.8
1
0.8
40
0.2
2
0.1

In his 30s, the man still pursues women of his own age group, but not, mind you, because he finds them most attractive. If he could take any woman he wanted (like in a brothel), he would rather choose a 20-year-old, but since he has most interaction with 30-year-old women and feels most comfortable around them, it's easier for him to settle with them, rather than make the extra effort to approach the 20-year-olds. In other words, at the age of 35, the women in his own age group aren't yet ugly enough to push the man out of his comfort zone.


Now the man has reached the age of 45:

Prospective partner's age
Attractiveness
Effort to seduce
Reward to effort ratio
20
1
2
0.5
30
0.8
2
0.4
40
0.2
1
0.2

The 40-year-old women are much, much less attractive than even 30-year-old ones. So the man has reached the point where staying in his comfort zone is no longer rewarding enough – he has to leave it. The important thing to realise is that it's not because the man's preferences have changed. The man has preferred 20-year-olds over 30-year-olds over 40-year-olds throughout his life. What has changed is that the women in his own age group have gradually become uglier as they aged, so it's inevitable that at some point they have become so ugly that they're no longer worth pursuing. So, for better or worse, the man has to leave his comfort zone.
Why 20-year-olds then, rather than 30-year-olds? When we look at the table, the answer is obvious. When it's equally difficult to seduce a 20-year-old or a 30-year-old, one naturally goes for the 20-year-old. And as I said above, it doesn't matter if their attractiveness ratio is 10 to 8, or 10 to 9, or 10 to 6. The result remains the same – the reward-to-effort ratio makes it more reasonable to pursue younger women.

By the way, even if you would argue that it's easier for a 45-year-old man to seduce a 30-year-old woman than a 20-year-old one, it would alter the figures in the last table in favour of the 30-year-old women, but the 40-year-old women would still clearly remain the underdogs. So it won't change the general result – that at a certain age, it is perfectly natural for a man to start pursuing women much younger than himself, and, contrary to the popular belief, it is not due to the man's inner change, but to the external change in his circumstances. In other words, it doesn't happen because the man suddenly begins to fancy much younger women, and one doesn't need any Freudian mumbo-jumbo to explain it. It happens because of the obvious fact that as women age, they become increasingly less attractive, to the point when they're barely tolerable, so that the man is forced to leave his comfort zone unless he's willing to give up sexual pleasure altogether.
Obviously, I am not suggesting that it necessarily happens when the man is 45. Some men might reach that point a 40, some at 60, but it happens inevitably sooner or later. The above numbers are just a rough approximation to make the general principle easier to understand.


Actually, there are other factors, apart from the reward-to-effort ratio, that contribute to this phenomenon:

1. The man learns eventually that it's actually possible to be desirable to women much below his age.
This is something totally counterintuitive. Since younger women are obviously more attractive than older women, men naturally assume that the same goes for men. They can't even imagine that a 20-year-old woman would desire a 45-year-old man.
I am sure that it's one of the biggest surprises in every man's life to learn that many 20-year-old women actually believe that older men don't desire them but prefer women closer to their own age.

2. As the man gains more life experience, he will at one point have enough inner strength to liberate himself from the social taboo that it's somehow unseemly for a man to hang out with women young enough to be his daughters.
Unsurprisingly, older women are doing anything in their power to uphold that taboo, because once their physical attractivess is gone, they are desperate to keep their men from leaving them. So they keep screaming "pedophile" whenever they see a man with a woman 20 years younger. (Do you know what the woman's definition of a pedophile is? "A pedophile is any man older than yourself who desires women younger than yourself.")

3. By the time a married man's children have grown up, which usually happens sometime in his 40s, it is safe for him to leave his wife without risking financial ruin through the so-called child support payments.


So, these are the perfectly logical reasons why men tend to start pursuing much younger women sometime in their 40s or 50s.






13 November 2012

The floating brothel



It's outrageous how the modern Western society is constantly conditioning people to automatically assume that whenever there is a conflict between men and women:
1. the men are criminals,
2. the women are victims,
3. the worst kind of torture imaginable is when a woman is being fucked and she doesn't desire to be fucked.

I ran across a book titled "The Floating Brothel" or something. I skimmed it, reading a page here and a few pages there, but then I didn't buy it after all. The book is about English criminals who were exiled to Australia, then a young British colony.

The beginning of the book describes the fate of a number of people who committed one or another petty crime and were caught and spent some time in prison and were then sentenced to the exile in Australia.

The final part of the book is about the hardships the colonists faced after they had arrived in Australia.

The middle part is about the journey. A number of convicted criminals (keep in mind that the crimes might have been quite trivial by today's standards) were loaded onto a ship which set sail for Australia. Technology was not too advanced back then, so the journey was long and arduous. In particular, food was rather scarce during the journey, and now we come to the "floating brothel" part. It would appear – unsurprisingly – that some of the female passengers let the crew members fuck them in exchange for extra food. Amazingly, the author bemoans the fate of those poor women who "had to" let themselves be fucked by men they didn't fancy.

Let's examine the situation more closely and apply some elementary logic.

The first question is: why didn't the passengers get to eat as much as they wanted to? Was is because there was abundant food on the ship, but the crew members were so mean that they gave only very little to the passengers? I don't think so. Obviously it was because the ship's capacity was limited and they were able to take only so much food, so it had to be strictly rationed, so that as many people as possible would make the journey alive and reasonably healthy, and perhaps some food would remain to feed the colonists until they would be able to produce their own food.

The second question is: when a female passenger had sex with a crew member and was given some extra food as reward, where did that food come from? Did it fall from the sky? No, I don't think so. I am quite sure that it came from the same place all the other food did – from the ship's hold. Which, considering what I just said about the severe limitedness of resources, means that because of that woman getting more food, someone else got less.

So, who were the actual victims in that situation?
Was it the women who had the choice between:
a) let a perhaps-not-too-desirable man fuck them and get extra food, or
b) not do anything and get their regular food rations?
Or was it the men (and the very ugly women) who had only the choice (b), that is, who, for better or worse, had to do with their regular rations, or actually a little less than their regular rations because some of the food that was rightfully theirs was given to the whores?

For the authors (as well as the overwhelming majority of book reviewers) the answer is obvious. The victims were the women who "had to" (actually, chose to) have sex for the privilege of appropriating someone else's food.

It's, of course, the same everywhere. Women have always the option (but not the obligation) to exchange their sexual attractiveness for other goods. And still we're being drowned in feminist whining how the women are being oppressed and how women are supposed to get equal salary with men – in addition to having been born with the facilities that enable them to get a large share of men's resources by doing little more than lying on their backs. Half of the money and all the pussy – that's supposed to be equality.



04 November 2012

That's capitalism for you




The title is a bit misleading. Actually, the article's about a woman's experience in a company's so-called customer service. She describes in blood-chilling detail how she is (as are her colleagues) pressed to persuade the customers who are CALLING FOR HELP to order insanely expensive services, even if she could just give them some instructions over the telephone so that they would be able fix the problem on their own.

That company's behaviour is very close to the crime known as fraud, and in some countries they would certainly get fined by the government's customer protection agency. Anyway, according to the libertarian theory, companies who cheat their customers like that ought to lose their reputation and go bankrupt. In the reality, though, such practices seem to be in the increase (although maybe they're merely being written about more).

P.S. The original article was down for some reason, so I posted the cached version. Scroll down and you will see the article. Should the cache be gone and the original page back up, google for the string  "how do you learn to take advantage of people".


03 November 2012

Uus leidlik kasutusviis sõlgedele



Kui tunnete muret, et eesti rahvariided jm. rahvapärand ei ole tänapäeval enam praktiline ja kaob seetõttu kasutuselt, siis siin on Hongkongist pärinev idee, mida Eestiski saaks kasutada, ühendamaks vanu traditsioone uue aja kommetega:




02 November 2012

Caution: recycled virgins



This is an interesting article about hymen restoration. What surprised me, though, was the mention of a court decision annulling a marriage when the bride turned out to not be a virgin. The surprising thing was that it was in France.

How can that be? I've been taught that the basic principle of the European law is that all people are equal, and now it would seem that there is different law for Moslems and non-Moslems. After all, I am sure that if a Frenchman would demand the annulment of his marriage on the grounds that the bride was not a virgin, he would be laughed out of court.

Are the nationalists right after all? Is the danger of Islamic law in Europe really real?