Its been talked about....now its happening

[sambuca]

How about the bitch in the blue dress that was so concerned about objectifying women? She was so attractive, I was thinking that she was doing a pretty good job herself. Some men may need something like this someday. Its a little weird right now but think of future iterations that could be even more realistic. Why does this appear to be such a threat to women like the one in the blue dress? Maybe these undesirable, loser-men will now leave her alone after they acquire the right sex doll? Maybe that's the problem? She loses power with the doll or future iterations of the doll?

I was watching the blue dress babe's intense disapproval and wondering if the dolls could actually change the power dynamics between men and women. It's obvious from her appearance and demeanor that she is likely use to having a great deal of power in relationships with men. As with many highly attractive, educated women, she is more likely to have her choice of potential mates and setting the terms of the relationship. I think you know what I mean.

I'm not sure shifting the power balance will be a good thing. Consistent with my other posts elsewhere, I believe it's better for civilization and the natural order for as many young men to pair up with women in committed relationships.

Certainly, the attractive, intelligent blue dress babe will still be a very desirable partner for prestige, stimulative conversation and very importantly offspring. Affluent men are generally smart and practical. They want beautiful, intelligent children.

PS_ How bout that Vietnamese-Brit cutie at the end of the clip? Nguyen to Win!

 

[hungry101]

I was watching the blue dress babe's intense disapproval and wondering if the dolls could actually change the power dynamics between men and women. It's obvious from her appearance and demeanor that she is likely use to having a great deal of power in relationships with men. As with many highly attractive, educated women, she is more likely to have her choice of potential mates and setting the terms of the relationship. I think you know what I mean.

Sambuca - Yes, that is what I was trying to point out. This is why women object to prostitutes so much. I remember during the C36 debate a women saying something along the order of "If men can just pay for it they won't have to try so hard."

I'm not sure shifting the power balance will be a good thing. Consistent with my other posts elsewhere, I believe it's better for civilization and the natural order for as many young men to pair up with women in committed relationships.

I agree with you but I think young men with testosterone running through their veins are not going to swayed by this...oh, we may have a few of them lose their virginity to a plastic doll but the top men are still going to pursue the top women.

Funny you mentioned this but this is a possible distraction like escorts. The #MeTo is another potential disruption of that process. I read Jordan Peterson's book and he maintains that men at the University are forced to conduct themselves like women in order to survive...These things are not good.

 

[sambuca]

Hungry101,
I'm more concerned about the young, awkward men who don't seem to find female companionship. The pairing up of men and women is a good thing for them.

When I read your response, it hit me. While I believe men and women are equals, I certainly don't believe they are the same. Western women in our modern civilization have tipped the power balance in relationships and unwittingly made it difficult for all men to pair up with a woman.

 

[EagerBeaver]

Agree with Sam21 100% in his post above. The prior posters are referring to the Elliott Rodgers of the world. These individuals always existed and will always exist. The only difference now is they have guns and can use the internet for “retribution” videos like this:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G-gQ3aAdhIo

Since Rodger posted that video before committing mass murder and suicide, he has become a revered Messiah among the troubled or socially awkward individuals being discussed here.

You either adapt and survive socially or you fail. It’s Darwinian. One can wonder why Rodger didn’t opt for escorts but this sort of assumes that escorts wouldn’t have been as creeped out by him as other women. I think escorts actually have a better radar for the Elliot Rodgers of the world and weed them out as clients. What that means is a life of masturbation and sex dolls. So he couldn’t take it and killed himself and took out some other people before he did so.

Is it harder for these guys to hack it now? No, because they could never hack it or adapt.

 

[hungry101]

The dating scene is certainly more complex than it used to be and it seems to be getting more complex.

Another factor is the equal pay issue. I understand that there is data that indicates that women compete well in the work place and that they will work very hard in pursuit of the next promotion....this becomes less important after they have children. After children, women look for more flexibility so that they can tend to their family. Men, on the other hand, tend to start out working just hard enough to pursuit belly appetites. After they have children, the data says men become more committed to the job so that they can support the family. This is traditionally how it has been. Now that equal pay has become an issue, I have seen something akin to affirmative action for women in the work place. Jordan Peterson said that this is causing some unintended problems for women. You see, men typically have less of a problem with marrying someone of lower economic status than women. A potential mate for a woman has to be about an equivalent or greater wage earner. Women are more inclined to look upon a man that sits home as an additional child. These are just norms. Anyway, according to Peterson, successful women are having trouble finding a successful potential mate. Surveys indicate that 30 to 40 something professional women long to get married but can't even find someone to date. Similar surveys have indicated that more and more men have given up on the idea of marriage. Here's the kicker: An unintended consequence is that the wage gap that has existed between the rich and the poor is increasing as more and more professional women are marrying men with the same earning power.

Anyway, there are additional layers of complexity these days for some men and women. I thought Tinder would change all that but Tinder appeals to the segment of society that really doesn't need much help in the dating scene.

 

[sambuca]

I think there were always guys that struggled to attract women and there always will be, and there will always be men who will want a younger more attractive female partner for sex and will be willing to pay for it, that too has not changed.

It may just be that with today's instant news , social media, you hear and see it more.

Perhaps.

I'm thinking more broadly than university-educated or skilled high school grads. It's been documented that some men have suffered from the decrease in blue collar, union-type jobs. It's harder for them to attract mates, stabilize their lives and raise families (if they choose). Think about the opium epidemic. A quick look and over 2/3 of opium deaths are men. We know their is some link between the opium epidemic and underemployment.

Think about the rise in single mothers that have never been married. That's likely a family without a steady male engaged with the children. As we have moved away from traditional agriculture and manufacturing jobs, women have been able to better adapt to office work and service work. Many men don't have the intellectual and personal skills to thrive in today's society. Obviously, it's a very complicated issue that touches many social problems.

 

[sambuca]

The dating scene is certainly more complex than it used to be and it seems to be getting more complex.

Jordan Peterson said that this is causing some unintended problems for women. You see, men typically have less of a problem with marrying someone of lower economic status than women. A potential mate for a woman has to be about an equivalent or greater wage earner. Women are more inclined to look upon a man that sits home as an additional child. These are just norms. Anyway, according to Peterson, successful women are having trouble finding a successful potential mate. Surveys indicate that 30 to 40 something professional women long to get married but can't even find someone to date. Similar surveys have indicated that more and more men have given up on the idea of marriage. Here's the kicker: An unintended consequence is that the wage gap that has existed between the rich and the poor is increasing as more and more professional women are marrying men with the same earning power.

This socioeconomic phenomenon has been discussed for over twenty years I believe. Many women are inclined towards hypergamy "marrying-up". Many successful men are inclined towards the opposite hypogamy especially when motivated by selecting a physically attractive mate. We've all seen successful women struggle in the dating scene. They seem to spend years chasing even more affluent, successful men who are fewer in number. As they get older, they are also competing with younger, attractive, less successful women for the attention of these men.

I love Jordan Peterson's work and his appearances. However, he has repeated many concepts and themes about men and women that have been out there for some time. What makes him popular is how articulate he is and his ability to break things down in a highly cogent manner. Last but not least, he can think on his feet and make superb counterarguments in the face of hostile interviewers and panelists. It helps that I think he is mostly right. I think people who have been programmed to think differently simply dismiss him or just attack him because he threatens everything they have been taught and believe without much thought behind it.

And yes Hungry101, professional men and professional women that marry create households that amplify income inequality. I don't think there is any social engineering that can reverse this trend.

 

[sambuca]

Patron,
Yes, humans are quite an adaptable species. I believe I've also seen your name on the Brazil board. The Portuguese settlers in Brazil were mostly men and few in number due to the small size of Portugal. As can be expected, the Portuguese men fucked the natives, then shortly after the black slaves and they filled up a vast land with a genetically diverse population.

However, men and women adapting to modern society isn't always optimal from traditional or historical roles. You can see why you want young, less educated men sexually coupled in some form another. Otherwise, their lives are more likely turn to drugs, violence and other ills. Not as obvious, it would be good for a society that high IQ, high achieving women had offspring.

 

[jalimon]

I have always gotten shit on this board for not really being into fat chicks, although I do enjoy having sex with one every once in a while for variety.

Haha Exactly like my relation with Poutine. I do not particularly enjoy eating Poutine but I got to have one down my belly once in a while

Does not make me smart tho... Something's wrong?

Cheers,

 

[sambuca]

Don't see why this would be bad for society.
What is wrong with having more intelligent people in this world.
People always tend to hook up with similar minded or class of people simply because they spend most of their time with them.

I was at a large wedding recently(one of my sons buddies who I taxied around to soccer and hockey games while they were growing up). There must have been over a hundred young couples , mostly a University crowd.
I still remember thinking that all is well in the world still, as most of the young women were better than average and highly fuckable ( at least I admit to thinking it). some of them were DDG.

I concur with everything you've said.

I was specifically addressing the phenomenon brought up that successful women have a hard time finding mates because they want to marry-up and there are not enough males who fit that profile. I personally know many smart, successful and attractive women in their 40s who have held out and they will likely never have children.

 

[EagerBeaver]

I concur with everything you've said.

I was specifically addressing the phenomenon brought up that successful women have a hard time finding mates because they want to marry-up and there are not enough males who fit that profile. I personally know many smart, successful and attractive women in their 40s who have held out and they will likely never have children.

A lot of women in this group become pussy lickers and eventually adopt. It's not necessary that they have a male partner and sometimes they do relent and "settle" for pussy. Some women do this even after being married to men and having kids. One of my SA girls was telling me her mother was getting remarried and I asked her if she got along with her soon to be stepfather. She said to me, "I am not going to have a stepfather." Yeah, she will have a stepmother married to her mother.

Bisexuality is much more common than you guys know or imagine. It can be assumed in many cases.

 

[sambuca]

I am deeply skeptical of social engineering, psycho-babble and the use of science and statistics as it is applied to an issue such as intelligence that has too many factors to hold any of them constant long enough to measure the variable factor.

I have always gotten shit on this board for not really being into fat chicks, although I do enjoy having sex with one every once in a while for variety.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/01/20/curvy-women-kids-study_n_6504456.html

So am I wrong? This study says they produce smarter kids.

Okay, someone mentioned Brazil. The land of the big butt, enjoyed by so many guys that it may have ruined Portugal’s expansion as a major world power with colonies. The ships from Spain and England came back from the New World bringing spices and seeds for delicious foods, while the Portuguese sailors stayed and fucked girls with big butts, presumably founding the Brooklin Clinica that Hungry likes so much. Their Portuguese countrymen simply assumed they had died in a shipwreck when they never returned.

So Brazilians are the smartest people in the world, correct? Not quite. The country has a complete economic meltdown once a decade, unimaginable poverty and violence, and their flagship museum just burned down. Sprinkler system in the most important museum, geniuses?

And the study of whether “smarter” parents produce “smarter” kids has been done to death with no conclusion. I am not convinced they do. Here is a good summary of the debate, with a conclusion that 80-60 percent of intelligence is not inherited. Apparently smart people say 80-60 instead of 60-80.

https://sites.psu.edu/siowfa16/2016/10/20/do-smart-parents-always-create-smart-kids/

Not sure how “smart” is determined anyway. I have a bad feeling it involves measurements of book learning, which would tend to show that kids of “book smart” parents are relatively more “book smart”. Probably explained by there being more books around when they were young.

Intelligence studies at American universities are highly charged, political affairs. If I told you that your grandparents and parents are a great determinant of your future success, what does that say to the people on the lower rungs of our society. Nothing can be more complicated or controversial than these types of socioeconomic studies and discussions. Many of these academic studies are politically correct bullshit.

I've seen studies that show that just over 50% of intelligence is inherited. Perhaps that doesn't sound extremely high, but it is very high relative to intelligence being randomly distributed throughout the population. Beside the genes we inherit, we are also assimilated into culture and taught things like motivation by our parents. If you grow up in a successful family within an advanced country, your parents can reinforce your potential in these societies.

You made a comment "probably explained by there being more books around when they were young." Is this a reference to the old "Freakonomics" case example? Because if so, you missed the entire point the Freakonomics authors were making. Books in the house are a big fuckin' deal. My simple grandparents did not have a lot of education, but they read the newspaper every day and they had lots of books around the house. Perhaps the success of their offspring was an accident, but I don't think so.

I got much of your humor regarding Brazil and it was very funny, but Portugal was never a major world power. I kind of wish the big butt theory of intelligence was true.

Your dismissal of social engineering and calling it pyscho-babble doesn't acknowledge that we are all living in a petri dish. Intellectual curiosity should have made you questioned a long time ago why you are sitting comfortably in front of a high-power computer thinking about your strong rebuttal to my post instead of being a poor subsistence farmer somewhere in the world wondering if there will be enough rain for your crops.

 

[sambuca]

Everything is a matter of degrees and situations aren't static. Poor countries have organized, installed proper governance, improved education for the masses and encouraged foreign investment. South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Singapore, Ireland, Chile......the list is long. China is a special case, but also a political head case. You might be adding some Southeastern Asian and Eastern European countries to that list sooner than you think.

 

[sambuca]

U.S. education funding is kind of a mess, but statistics don't tell the full story. Many of the wealthiest communities have the highest paid, unionized teachers with very generous pensions. (Mostly the pensions are underfunded but that's a different discussion.) I personally don't believe there is a huge correlation between what you pay a teacher within a reasonable range to the quality of the education.

The other thing that happens is wealthy people and communities find a way to provide additional support for education one way or another. In affluent areas, there can be very successful fundraisers off-the-books (no pun intended) to support school programs.

I wouldn't advocate the Federal govt. try to equalize spending per student on some cost of living basis, but I support trying to maintain minimal levels of spending and programs which I think our Federal and State governments try to do with mixed results. If the Federal govt. aggressively equalized spending across the country, more wealthy families would simply send their children to private school. I'm sure this happens in Canada and elsewhere.