Leftist chick self-flagellates because she doesn’t find her dress-wearing boyfriend sexy

Female author at The Guardian: My boyfriend’s wedding dress unveiled my own shortcomings over masculinity.
(Via Ace: http://ace.mu.nu/archives/386163.php)

This is a hilarious work of Stalinist self-criticism. A chick whose brain is colonized by the leftist mind-virus gropes toward rediscovering what any sane, normal human being could have told her: A man in a dress is ridiculous. But she rejects the obvious truth and rebukes herself for being insufficiently woke. This is what leftism does to people’s minds.

I’ve excepted it here; comments in bold.

I’m quick to blame men for their toxic behavior, but in this case, I, the woman, was part of the problem.

My gaze scanned the racks of clothing and stopped abruptly on something I’d never expected to see: my boyfriend was clutching a wedding dress – that he wanted to buy for himself.

“Emily!” he cried with victorious glee. “I’ve found the one!”

Ian thrust the white garment into the air like a trophy. Its lace sleeves sashayed from the tapered bodice and fluffy tulle grazed the tiles of the thrift store floor.

“Oh, wow,” I managed to spit out. LOL.

We were searching for dresses to wear during the annual Mother’s Day Climb up Mount St. Helens, a tradition in which everyone scaling the volcano sports flowing garments.

I knew Ian would be among the most outrageous on the mountain. My boyfriend is aggressively fun and a flair fanatic, Uh-oh which I find wildly attractive on most occasions. Stop lying.

But I found myself unexpectedly uneasy with his new fondness for feminine frocks – a reaction that challenged the progressive ideals I’d prided myself on for decades. Yes! Admit your guilt, fascist! I’d long thought I was contributing to a progressive shift in how we define masculinity, finally allowing men to be emotional and vulnerable, or to ask for help, or to hug their male friends … or to wear dresses.

Men are perfectly capable of asking for help. If I ever need to know how to field strip an AK-47, I’ll ask a guy friend. If I ever want to know about trendy hair styles, NO, that was to see if you’re paying attention! Like that scene in In and Out where Kevin Kline is tricked into saying “What a fabulous window treatment!”

As far as hugging male friends, you’re allowed to do that under certain circumstances – the most obvious one being that you’re on a professional sports team and you just won the playoffs. Then your team is expected to embrace each other, while popping champagne and dumping a barrel of Gatorade onto your coach. You can also do it in other circumstances if you do it right. If you don’t have an intuitive sense of where the line is, just err on the side of no hugs, duh.

While I’m on the subject, Dave Barry: “When is it okay to kiss another male? When he is your brother and you are Al Pacino and this is the only really sportsmanlike way to let him know that, for business reasons, you have to have him killed.” (The Kiss of Death.) And I’m kinda leery of that. Can’t you just have him canceled without going through the bourgeois formalities?

Ian giggled. “Isn’t it beautiful?” His chest hair battled the sheer neckline. God, this is gross. I imagined him skiing down Mount St Helens in it, the lengthy rag concealing his chiseled calves and hardened quadriceps, and strained to find it an appealing vision.

This was not the first time I’d found myself a little uncomfortable with the sight of Ian in women’s wear. I hate to repeat myself, but: LOL. It’s not an unusual sight to spot him sporting a skirt, dress, or sarong at a party, picnic, or trailhead. Acknowledge the obvious, honey. He uses his unconventional apparel as a display of his individuality and a reflection of his fondness for fun. What’s a three-letter synonym for “fun” or “festive”? Starts with “G”. I adore both of those qualities, but I was realizing I was less fond of seeing them exhibited through floral numbers or tight sequined garments or wedding dresses.

While it was attraction-at-first sight with Ian, his closet full of feminine gear TALK ABOUT BURYING THE LEDE! put a tiny dent in his desirability from the very beginning… there was a disconnect between what I thought I was OK with a man wearing, and what I actually found appealing on his body.

Honey, your vagina does not want a man in a dress. Your vagina is smarter than your brain. I don’t often say this to women, but: Go with your vagina.

On the first weekend we hooked up, I had to yank a green sparkly dress over his head to unclothe him.

You need to be much, much LESS open-minded.

“That was the first time I’ve undressed a man – from a dress!” I shrieked the next morning. “Oh girl, what an exciting milestone! Congratulations!” hollered Eli, an effervescent gay man who dons many dresses himself.

Intellectually, I enjoyed that Ian was rejecting gender norms and expectations. But physically, my desire didn’t match. Those feelings illuminated some unanticipated boundaries of where I define attractiveness in men and when I still crave traditional masculinity.

You might ask yourself why traditional masculinity is traditional.

My ex-boyfriend had the emotional depth of a paper airplane and couldn’t engage with the deep pain I was enduring – or any other emotion, period. Dweeby, and probably not true, but a typical chick statement, so we’ll make allowances. When I started hanging out with Ian and he immediately wanted to talk about feelings, it was a gulp of ice-cold lemonade on a 98-degree day. Dweeby but a typical chick statement. I’d been craving this vulnerability and openness from the men I dated. Dweeby but a typical chick statement. Conversations like that one drew me to him, as did his emotional openness, his fondness for communication, and his public displays of affection for close male friends. Dweeby but WAIT, FUCKING WHAT!? Unless your boyfriend is a mob boss who’s having rat-finks iced, this signals a problem.

My boyfriend’s wedding dress Honey, pause and reflect here: Your relationship involves sequences of words like “My boyfriend’s wedding dress.” pushed me to perform a scrupulous inventory of my deepest ideas about masculinity and helped me identify my shortfalls as a woman who wants to help rewrite gender norms. As I went through this exercise, I chatted with a handful of girlfriends about it, who could all identify their own small hang-ups with masculinity: their need for men who are bigger and taller than they are, or who are better than them at sports, or who don’t cry in front of them. LOL.

As we interrogated our feelings about masculinity, we recognized gaps between our ideals and reality. I’m quick to blame men for perpetuating toxic behavior, but in this case, I, the woman, was part of the problem.

Yeah, you’re an enabler.

Mother’s Day dawned sunny and crisp in the Washington Cascades. It was a beautiful day for a wedding dress. Depends who’s wearing it.

After we reached the summit, Ian plunged down the frozen slope, his long, white train flowing behind him, whipping from side-to-side like a lacy windsock.

“Do you find your boyfriend as attractive as I do?” whispered Eli, as we watched Ian in his flowing skirt, his laughing smile nearly detectable through the back of his floral sunhat. You can’t make this shit up.

My eyes chased my boyfriend down the mountain, my sensitive, silly, affectionate, emotional, vulnerable boyfriend – skiing in his wedding dress.

“I do,” I promised[, lying my ass off.]

Someone needs to tell this woman that the thing she suspects about her boyfriend is, in fact, true.

Bonus: Sidebar at the Guardian article: “Masculinity is a trap – which is why more men should wear skirts.” The haute reaches of the left really are just trolling their own followers now to see how much they can get away with before the followers are like, “Wait a minute.”

Political professional wants political professionals to have veto power in elections

Well… at least a few more scraps of the mask have come off.

George F. Will says, “Harumph! Heavens to Betsy! The peons are voting!” Recently in the Washington Post, Will wailed in pain that people are allowed to select their own political candidates, and cried out for someone to do something about this. Will, who has a doctorate in political science and is a former university instructor of political philosophy, wants “political professionals” to have more say in deciding whom you’re allowed to vote for. I quote from his pile of garbage below; comments in bold.

Opinion: The lure of kamikaze candidates, by George F. Will
Feb. 7, 2020

The nation… needs a nominating process that minimizes the probability of kamikaze candidacies and maximizes the probability of selecting plausible presidents. Hence it needs a retreat from the populist idea that the voice of the people is easy to ascertain and should be translated, unmediated and unrefined, directly into nominee selection.

That idea is part of democracy. (Neurotoxin is not a Dark Enlightenment blog that thinks some other system will have better results than democracy.) Don’t worry! George Will wants to save you from choosing your own rulers! Your stupid notion, you rube, is “the populist idea that the voice of the people is easy to ascertain and should be translated, unmediated and unrefined, directly into nominee selection.” Will’s infinitely more sophisticated notion is that the voice of the political class is easy to ascertain and should be translated, unmediated and unrefined, directly into nominee selection.

George F. Will, doofus.
…And because I look like Gollum!

In 1972, Democrats made their process more plebiscitary — more primaries, less influence for political professionals — to elicit and echo the vox populi. This, however, produced a nominee favored by the party’s most intense minority, the anti-Vietnam War cohort: South Dakota Sen. George McGovern lost 49 states. Republicans didn’t have “political professionals” choosing their nominee either, and they WON 49 states. Twelve presidential election cycles later, both parties are still uncomfortably holding the populist wolf by the ears.

Political scientist Raymond J. La Raja and Jonathan Rauch of the Brookings Institution recommend a recalibration. “Recalibration,” interesting word choice. They do not favor what political realities would not permit: abandoning primaries. …Rather, they recommend leavening (“leavening”) mass participation with vetting (“vetting”) by professionals That is, they want “professionals” to select the people for whom you’re allowed to vote.— “political careerists with skin in the game” What “skin in the game”? What the hell are you talking about? Do “elite” experts ever suffer any negative consequences from having made wrong predictions? From offering advice to people that hurts them? Did the medical experts who told people to gorge on carbs ever suffer for their fuck-witted and health-ruining advice? Have the eco-alarmists who predicted we’d all be dead by now been laughed out of academia? And how do “experts” have more “skin in the game” than anyone else, in elections? We all have to live in the country after we choose a President. Will’s “professionals” are the people who told us that Hillary Clinton was veritably guaranteed to win in 2016. How’d that work out for you, geniuses?

Indeed, “political professionals” plainly have less skin in the game than the average person, and the wrong kind of skin.
(1) University professors and others in that realm swing heavily to the left. They told us that communism was a wonderful system, while it was slaughtering 100 million people. Will: “Give them more political power!” Their incentive would be to pick the most plausible leftist candidate and the most foaming-at-the-mouth, obviously insane rightist candidate, to guarantee a leftist victory.
(2) They have less skin in the game than the average person, because they’re not in the private sector. Voters in the private sector have an incentive to think about which candidates are likely to be good for the economy, since their livelihoods depend on that. University professors keep drawing their paychecks in any case, rain or shine, recession or expansion. They have no incentive to think carefully about it. They laughed at Trump’s economic policy proposals, before he presided over a record-breaking economic performance (low unemployment, high stock markets).
(3) They have the wrong kind of skin because all a politician has to do to get their approval is to promise more funding for college and university political science departments.
Not only does this crowd brazenly announce their desire to rule us against our will, they insult our intelligence while announcing it.

Will actually thinks it’s an attractive idea to the average person to give more power to the “political professionals” in our Political Science departments, filled with Marxists, man-hating feminists, and terrorists from the 1960s who went on bombing campaigns and then got tenure in academia. My entire political philosophy – and I’m hardly alone in this – can be described as “keep people like that out of power.”

Continuing, these “professionals” will be
serving as gatekeepers or quality-control evaluators of candidates Tell ya what: We’ll decide candidates’ quality ourselves. before the primaries begin. “In 2018, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee worked aggressively to weed out weak and extreme candidates in swing districts.” I think Will’s unstated conclusion here is, “…and that worked well for the Dems.” Yeah, but Clinton was the professional/Establishment candidate in 2016 and that did not work out so well for the Dems.

Doing something similar in presidential politics is difficult. The process has no gatekeepers. “Harumph!” … The 2016 process illustrated the difficulty of aggregating voters’ preferences when there are many candidates: A demagogic charlatan won Jesus! Will’s butt is still chafed because someone from outside the Beltway won the Presidency. Will, this is a feature from the average American’s point of view, not a bug! Also, it’s been more than three years since November 2016. Get over it, man. without winning a majority of primary votes until after the nomination was effectively settled…

In 1924, the parties’ professionals blocked the presidential ambitions of industrialist Henry Ford, a racist and anti-Semite. Oh Lord, here we go with “racist.” People in the political class nowadays really do regard that word as a kind of magic incantation. Also, EVERY white person in 1924 was a “racist” by the standards of today’s chattering classes. In 1976, Democratic insiders helped clear the field in Florida’s presidential primary to enable Jimmy Carter to end the candidacy of the racist Abracadabra! George Wallace…

LOL. Seriously, “racist”? Will: “I’ve got an ironclad weapon; I’ll just say something something RACIST! No one can resist that incantation!” Will, the left calls every white person racist these days. Many explicitly say “All white people are racist.” White people’s increasing anger at this horseshit is one of the reasons Trump won.

Also, your argument amounts to, “Without my plan, sometimes candidates you disapprove of will be elected.” But in both your examples, they weren’t elected. You can’t even come up with one example in which your alleged problem even exists! Also, all systems will sometimes pick people I abhor. Also, is it the case that in the entire history of non-democratic governments, no “racist” ever took power?

La Raja and Rauch suggest various “filters” by political professionals to mitigate the “democracy fundamentalism” i.e. democracy of today’s nomination process: e.g., more political professionals as “superdelegates” eligible to vote on conventions’ first ballots; pre-primary votes of confidence in candidates by members of Congress and governors; OH DEAR LORD! THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO TELL US HOW TO ALTER THE GOVERNMENT!? Right, bloody brilliant! Will, you are a fucking idiot. Isn’t it sad how the least qualified people get to be prominent members of the chattering classes? Every person on my blog roll, including Bauer Hockey Equipment, is a better political thinker than George Will. Let’s let people in government decide who gets to be in government. What could go wrong?!

…Limiting and influencing voters’ choices by involving professional politicians early in the nomination process would require risk-averse political professionals to go against today’s populist i.e. democratic sensibility. But if this November the choice is between Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, the professionals might consider letting go of the wolf’s ears.

Sanders is an unrepentant admirer of the most genocidal regimes in the history of the human species. Trump sometimes tweets things that George F. Will thinks are coarse. Will treats them as if they’re equal, as if Trump calling someone a loser on Twitter is equivalent to Sanders praising Mao, the most murderous person ever to live.

Will, if you had the self-awareness God gave a flatworm, you’d realize that sentences like that are EXACTLY why the average person will never let people like you decide whom they can vote for.

Women Do Not Have Better Social Skills Than Men

It just seems that way because (1) sex is a big part of the social world and (2) women control access to sex (average pussy being in higher demand than average cock). Therefore whatever women want or like is defined as “good social skills.” That is, women have the social power to define “good social skills.” This is not the same thing as actually having good social skills.

If employers wanted job applicants’ resumes to have every word in a different color, job applicants would be forced to do that, and a resume with that feature would be defined as “a good resume” and a resume without that feature would be defined as “a bad resume.” But this is not actually a good resume by any sane standard. It’s crazy, obviously, but it would be what the less powerful people in that situation were forced to do by the more powerful.

Women in fact can be outrageous assholes. (If you don’t believe me, just ask a woman about the most annoying girl she had to deal with in eighth grade or high school.) However, when it comes to male-female interactions, somehow through the dark magic of social power, female assholery is redefined as a man not being socially adept if he can’t deal with a woman’s assholery.

Example: Years ago I was hanging out with this babe and I went to an ATM to get cash, but due to our bizarre banking laws at that time, you couldn’t get cash with a card that was issued by an out-of-state bank. When this became apparent, the girl gave me the whole eye-rolling “What an asshole this guy is” treatment. Who’s the person with bad social skills here? Me, for not being an expert on interstate banking law? Or her, for acting like it’s an incredible failing that a guy is not an expert on interstate banking law? If I hadn’t fooled around with her later (we did fool around, somehow), I doubt the standard line would be “That chick lost that guy’s interest because she has bad social skills.” I think it would be, “That guy lost that girl’s interest because he was so stupid as to not be an expert on interstate banking law.” Seriously, what would the average gossip say about this? Would it be “She was socially inept” or would it be “That guy’s a loser for failing to get laid”? More people would say the second one. Admit it; you know it’s true.

Indeed, the above anecdote is simply an example of shit testing. Woman acts like asshole, man passes this shit test or doesn’t. If he doesn’t, then through the magic of social power, he’s the one defined as being socially incompetent.

It’s not about objectively good social skills; it’s about power.

Another example: Consider the bizarre notion that communication is good, a notion which disproportionately comes from women. The most outrageous example of this is the idea that one should be explicit in seduction. I.e. that you should tell the other person, “I’m attracted to you. Let us get to know each other such that a romance may develop” or some shit like that. GAH, NO! What are you, a robot? The essence of seduction is to be indirect, oblique. Women don’t want you to be explicit in seducing them. Many of them don’t even understand themselves well enough to understand this! Yet they yap about what constitutes social adeptness. “Better social skills,” my ass.

A pic of women’s superior social skills.

No, it’s the simple power of being the proud owner of a vagina. Owning a vagina – in evo psych terms, a uterus, actually – is an incredibly powerful reproductive strategy. There’s a reason that men risk their lives to gain access to pussy, but women don’t risk their lives to gain access to cock. And it has nothing to do with “social skills.”

The Left is Monolithic and Not Monolithic


One the one hand, the left is absolutely monolithic: They all always repeat the propaganda line their thought leaders tell them to repeat. E.g., halfway through Obama’s first term the party line became “There’s only one correct position on gay marriage: pro,” and all leftists started repeating this, with no admission that they’d ever thought otherwise. (If you point out this or similar examples they respond, with unblinking glibness, “Society has moved on.” Seriously, try it.)

On the other hand, the left is ravaged by factionalism, with trannies against feminists (lots of examples lately, for example this one), Hispanics against blacks, Jews against Muslims (recall the Ilhan Omar debacle), blacks against jews (e.g. Louis Farrakhan), gays against blacks, etc.

Let me expand on that last one: In 2005 a bunch of mostly white gay Harvard students condemned Jada Pinkett Smith, a straight black woman, for “heteronormativity”: https://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/16/opinion/meanwhilesensitizing-the-heteronormativists.html

Yes, with appropriate rhetorical footwork, you can be a white male Harvard student and still yell at a black woman for oppressing you.

From the NYT piece:

The latest brouhaha at Harvard University, home of the perpetually offended, is over a motivational speech telling women that they can have it all: career, marriage and children. The remarks, delivered by Jada Pinkett Smith on Feb. 26 at the Cultural Rhythms show organized by the Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations, were deemed too heterosexual by some. Or, in politically correct newspeak, “heteronormative.”

Here’s a sample of what Pinkett Smith said, as recounted by The Harvard Crimson:

“Women, you can have it all – a loving man, devoted husband, loving children, a fabulous career. We are a new generation of women. We got to set a new standard of rules around here…”

The Harvard Crimson reported that some members of the Harvard Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender and Supporters Alliance had been offended by the speech and were calling for an apology from the foundation… So what was the offense? In the words of the alliance’s co-chair, Jordan Woods, “Some of the content was extremely heteronormative…”

Contemporary observers noted that the bulk of these lunatics were white.

Another example, which could be relevant in the 2020 Presidential election in the very unlikely event that Bootigieg becomes the Dem nominee, is the conventional wisdom that blacks and hispanics just aren’t going to turn out to vote for an openly homosexual man with a “husband.”

Brexit, baby!

In your face, assholes!

The good guys won. You lost.

You tried with everything you have to prevent this. And you failed. You gave it your best shot… and your best shot wasn’t good enough.

You know how you leftists are always yapping about “the inevitable tide of history”? Well, guess what, assholes! Here’s the “inevitable tide of history,” long, thick, hard, and in your fucking faces:

An enormous, gorgeous middle finger thrust directly into the eyes of the totalitarians.

(Via Vox Pop.)

Red Pill in Reality

(1) Dozens of prison letters sent to Chris Watts in which women and men profess their love for the triple murderer and send sexy photos https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6512995/DOZENS-prison-letters-sent-Chris-Watts-women-men-profess-love-murderer.html

The Daily Mail says that both men and women sent admiring letters to the killer, but somehow they don’t manage to quote any from men.

A majority of the letters were from women, and many of these included photos that the sender purported to be of them as well as promises to send more images or add money to Watts’ commissary account.

The article also notes that “Some of his mail is not supportive with many telling him they hope he’s raped and attacked behind bars over the sick murders.” It’s nice that some people have appropriate reactions to a man who murdered his pregnant wife and two daughters. (Jesus!) But: How many nice guys get bikini photos from hot babes (see the link) trying to establish a relationship?

(2) Shocker: Mattress girl is attracted to masculine man


During the summer of 2018, [Columbia mattress girl Emma] Sulkowicz tells me, she was single for the first time in years. Swiping through Tinder, a man she found “distasteful” super-liked her. “It smelled like Connecticut,” she says of his profile. “He was very blond, law school, cut jawline, trapezoidal body figure, tweed suit kind of vibe, but something inside of me made me swipe right, I don’t know.”

That “but” is hilarious. Do women not understand themselves, or do they think we don’t understand them?

They began messaging, and she found him witty. “He was actually way more fun to talk to than any other person I matched with.”

(3) ‘Mad Men’ actress Christina Hendricks files for divorce from her husband of 10 years, actor Geoffrey Arend


This is a classic case of what happens when the women’s career situation puts her at a significantly higher status level than her man’s:

Hendricks was nominated for Emmy Awards for six straight years for AMC’s “Mad Men,” and now stars in the NBC crime drama “Good Girls.” Arend starred on the CBS drama “Madam Secretary” [some show that no one watches].

Also, look at the photo at the link. Their attractiveness differential is heavily in favor of Hendricks. Here’s another pic of her:

She kinda has psycho eyes, but a man who isn’t red-pilled might not even notice that.

Such an attractiveness differential is not a problem normally because the man’s looks aren’t as important to his sexual market value as a woman’s. His frame and social status are much more important. But of course that’s the problem here. He’s both uglier than her and now in terms of social status is lower on the totem pole than her. Bets on who initiated the divorce?

Note the headline: “Christina Hendricks files for divorce…”

Humor bonus:

The two announced their separation in a statement in October, saying they had an incredible time together, but are now on separate paths though they “will always work together to raise our two beautiful dogs.”


(4) Very much related to the above: Top jobs lead to divorce for women, but not for men


(Via Ben Gadwin at https://twitter.com/sovereignfamily/status/1211534825519116289)

Combining an enriching career and a loving relationship is a goal for many people. But for women, this goal still presents higher hurdles, even in the most gender-equal countries in the world. Our research on Sweden finds that women pay a high price for their career success. Being promoted to a top job in politics or business leads to a dramatic increase in the divorce rate for women, but not for men.

The article proceeds to not mention at all who is initiating the divorces which, apparently, fall out of the sky and land on these poor, helpless women. I don’t know about Sweden, but in the U.S., about seventy-five percent of divorces are initiated by women. In other words, this is classic female hypergamy. A wife’s status rises relative to her husband’s ➞ she initiates divorce.

The article acknowledges this, several paragraphs down:

We get closer to understanding the reasons for women’s divorces by zooming in on which relationships are more likely to end after the promotion. This detective work leads to suggestive evidence about couple formation. Heterosexual women — both those that aim for a top job and those who do not — often enter relationships with men who are older and earn more money than they do. Men, in contrast, often have younger wives with lower-paying jobs. The tendency for women to “marry up” means that their own promotion to a top job could create particular frictions at home. The economic and status balance that the couple used to have gets out of balance.

All they tell us about the data is:

In the Swedish data, divorces after promotion are concentrated to couples in which the wife was younger than her husband by a larger margin and where the wife took a larger share of the parental leave. The situation looks entirely different in more gender-equal couples. For women with a smaller gap in age to their spouse, and who split parental leave more equally with their partner, divorce is not affected by the wife’s promotion.

Let’s re-play a part of that passage: “divorces after promotion are concentrated to couples in which the wife was younger than her husband by a larger margin…” I suspect that’s proxying the wife simply being younger, period. That is, she has more sexual marketplace options.

(5) October 2019: Men with psychopathic traits are more attractive to women, study suggests


Not that we didn’t already know this, but…

“Psychopathic men have a personality style that makes them appear attractive to women in dating encounters. This may be because they are extra confident or feel at ease or know exactly what to say to get the attention of women,” Brazil told PsyPost.

(But how do they know what to say to get the attention of women?)

The researchers asked 46 male students at a Canadian university to participate in a video-recorded, mock dating scenario with a female research assistant. The assistant began the conversation by asking the participant what he liked to do on a first date or what he thought was important in a relationship.

The male participants also completed assessments of psychopathy, social intelligence and sociosexuality.

Afterward, the researchers had 108 women view the dating videos and rate each man on general attractiveness, sexual attractiveness and confidence, and leave voice messages.

Brazil and Forth found that men who scored higher on the psychopathy assessment were also rated more desirable by women.

The researchers concluded that their results “suggest that psychopathy in men may enable them to ‘enact’ the desirable qualities women prefer in social and dating encounters,” according to Psychology Today.

However, the researchers said these traits likely only help men on a short-term basis.

“Another important caveat to consider is that even though psychopathy may have these benefits of attracting others, there are enormous costs and risks to being psychopathic that helps clarify why not more people are psychopathic,” Brazil explained to PsyPost.

It is true that there must be costs as well as benefits of psychopathy, or all men would be psychopaths. Also, the benefit to being a psychopath certainly is a decreasing function of the number of psychopaths in the social environment. If every man were a psychopath, women would be aware of psychopathic mating strategies like casual lying and wouldn’t trust anything men said. But if they don’t trust men’s statements, then lying conveys no advantage. If the proportion of psychopaths is small, and most men a woman encounters are honest most of the time, then she’ll be trusting, so lying will be believed and will be advantageous. Similarly, psychopaths tend to “have an inflated sense of importance,” as the article notes, which can present to women as self-confidence (at least in the short run). But if all men had an inflated sense of importance, it would contain no mating advantage in terms of standing out from the average.

One angle on Game: It gives normal men an advantage over psychopaths, since normal men are able to form normal emotional attachments, which is good for long-term mating strategies, while also teaching men to use certain behaviors that woman are attracted to in a short-run sense (self-importance, etc.), which can be effective short-run mating strategies.