Women’s Assessments of Men’s Dad-liness Vary Over Their Menstrual Cycle

A signal flare of a finding, for those who still deny the red pill. USA Today, May 12, 2012. Via Chateau Heartiste.

Excerpts from the article, edited for length:

Hormones make ‘sexy cads’ look like ‘good dads’
by Dan Vergano

What does she see in that bum?

One answer, suggests a series of psychology experiments, is that she isn’t seeing that bad boy straight, and biology may be supplying the rose-colored glasses that makes a “sexy cad” look like a “good dad.”

“Why do women delude themselves about men who are terrible ‘boyfriend’ material,” asks professor Kristina Durante of the University of Texas, lead author of the forthcoming report in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. “It’s not just that they are attracted to them, but they actually see them as different people.”

In the study, Durante and her colleagues sought to explore observations that women were more attracted to stereotypical masculine faces when they were at the most fertile part of the menstrual cycle.

Some evolutionary psychologists have suggested that the high testosterone levels of swoon-worthy men, responsible for those chiseled good looks and come-hither self-confidence, served as a signal of evolutionary fitness and explained the attraction. But at the same time, Durante says, that high testosterone made these cads less-than-reliable mate material, there to help support the survival of offspring.

Instead, women should chase after dull dudes who seem likely to do the dishes and change the diapers, Durante says. But you don’t have to watch Divorce Court every afternoon to know that doesn’t always happen.


We are about to embark upon a mission to… The Red Pill zone. This study is “official science” catching up to the hardcore empiricist knowledge of Game practitioners, who long ago noticed the dual Alpha fucks, Beta bucks mating strategy that (at least some) women employ.


How come? In a simple experiment the team first asked 33 college-age women to take part in a study [involving] fertility tests revealing where they were on their monthly cycle. At both the high fertility and low fertility points of their cycle, the women were randomly shown a biography and photo of a “sexy man,” an award-winning skier and handsome adventurer, or the same for “reliable man,” a hard-working average-looking accountant. Then they asked the women how the men would split the work of parenting, (giving baths, cooking, washing bottles etc.) if they had a baby with him.

Good, old Mr. Reliable. The women estimated he would do around 40% of the household work no matter when they were asked. And the ski champ looked similarly helpful to the women when they were asked at low fertility moments. But the women actually estimated Prince Charming would do as much as 53% of the chores when they were ovulating, a statistically significant difference. The “sexy cad” will be a “good dad,” transformed into a caring father through the miracle of ovulation.


Women are biologically incapable of thinking objectively about certain topics. Official science has now confirmed it. Rather late, and confirming the blatantly obvious, but it’s something. By the way, I’m not saying that men’s ability to think straight is never fucked up by a beautiful face. But that’s been known forever, and is a politically correct thing to say. The finding that women are unable to make good judgments and good choices due to peculiarities of female biology is most definitely not politically correct. It’s startling that this information appeared in a mainstream newspaper.


Interesting, but the men did look different after all. So the researchers hired male actors to play twins, a “sexy cad” and a “good dad.”

“The actors really did a great job, one guy would play a cad and then shave to clean up and play the dad,” Durante says. The “dad” stammered his way through a self-effacing introduction, while the cad charmed them and promised them a good time. This time, the researchers also asked the women if the cad would make a good dad for another woman’s child.

Nope, they answered. For themselves, they thought the bad boy would reform and become a good dad [LOL] just like the first experiment, when they were ovulating. “But not for other women, they could see right through him then,” Durante says.


That’s another interesting finding. When the woman didn’t have skin in the game, she was able to see the realities of the situation. But when the message is, “He’s interested in you, honey!” then she gets all wet and can’t think straight.


The finding supports the notion that young women do delude themselves when the hormones are talking, says UCLA psychologist Martie Haselton.


Ya think?

Here’s the paper, which Heartiste linked to in his May 18, 2012 post that I provided above:
http://www.livescience.com/20294-women-choose-bad-boys.html

Advertisements

The Left Will Provoke a Civil War

Continuing my previous post about the infeasibility of a “national divorce.”

You have to understand the Left is going to provoke a civil war.

One, their leaders, e.g., people in the Deep State, think they’re bullet-proof. I’m sure Rand Paul and Steve Scalise thought so too, and those incidents happened in non-war times. You’d think this would give the leftist leadership pause, but leftists aren’t known for adjusting their beliefs in response to reality.

Two, the powerful leftists are absolutely willing to “accept casualties” that will occur in a civil war. These people are psychotically evil; don’t think for a moment that millions of people dead is a bug to them. It’s a feature. Think I’m exaggerating? Ask yourself this: Did these people eagerly support the U.S.S.R., even after Stalin’s genocides were known?

Three, their left-wing followers farther down in the power structure – everyday lefties – are mostly incapable of believing a civil war can actually happen (they have no imagination in that respect) so they won’t back down to avoid one.

Four, the few everyday leftists who can believe a civil war is possible actually seem to believe that the immigrants they’re importing into the US (and every other western nation) will fight for them. Yes, they actually believe that immigrants are going to put their lives on the line protecting white liberals! LOL!!! Meanwhile, back in reality: As soon as the bullets start flying, the immigrants will scram for home! Jesus! White leftists may literally be infinitely stupid.

Five, many lefties in the universities, government, and media actually think that we don’t know that they’re our real enemy, and so they think that if a civil war does happen, it will consist of people on the right fighting with ISIS-type invaders, etc., while lefties sip latte in the Faculty Lounge of the Sociology Department. God, lefties are stupid. That immigrant thing is fooling almost no one on the right. Seriously, lefties, actually look through the comment trails of right-wing blogs some time. Everyone knows who the real enemies of western civilization are. On the rare occasion that someone says something assuming the invaders are the real enemy, other commenters jump in and correct them, pointing out that it’s actually the government and the media, etc.

The “Divorce” Thing Won’t Work

Recently the proposal for national divorce between Left and Right is bandied about more and more. Here’s the most recent example.

I’m glad to see that people on the right, judging by the comments at Vox Popoli, for example, are not falling for this delusion.

The divorce idea won’t work, for many reasons.

1) The Left doesn’t want it to work. Their entire thing is that they’re sado-control freaks. They don’t really believe in global warming or that it’s morally imperative to call a man in a dress a woman. Their thing is that they want to rule you against your will. That’s the whole point of leftism. They want to do things to you that you hate but are powerless to stop. That’s why we have to fight and defeat them. Please don’t think that they actually believe the things they say, e.g. that anyone who disagrees with Barack Obama about anything is a racist or whatever. What they want is to rule you against your will, without your consent, over your helpless objections. That’s their fantasy and their goal.

There is no other explanation for their insanity. Every other potential explanation fails. In their world you should not be allowed to call a male-to-female transvestite “him”… but you should be allowed to infect him with HIV without his knowledge. (See the movement to decriminalize knowingly infecting others with HIV without telling them.) Now ponder: Is there any way that a sane person could actually believe either of those things? Let alone both of them? That laws should prevent you from hurting someone’s feelings, but it’s OK to kill them? Please! Stop falling for the Left’s pretense that they believe whatever they claim to believe. They don’t.

A quick review of history reminds us that the bullshit rationales frequently change, but the last line of the argument is always the same:

“… therefore, it’s necessary to create an all-powerful totalitarian government and put me and people like me in charge of it.”

It used to be socialism, then it was briefly environmentalism, now it’s “You’re racist!” But the “conclusion” of the “argument” never changes.

This takes me to my next point.

2) The Left does not voluntarily let go of power.

They have stepped down, e.g., Obama leaving the White House in January 2017, because they knew there was no alternative. But when they think they have enough power to continue holding onto that power, as in the U.S.S.R., they don’t relinquish it until they have no choice, until it’s wrenched from their grasp.

And you think the Left is going to voluntarily let the Right walk away. No, not in a million years.

3) The Left is the parasite class. We, the hosts, will thrive without them. But they will not be better off without us. Parasites do not voluntarily let their hosts cast them off and escape.

The high-functioning ones who aren’t themselves directly dependent on welfare – Democrat politicians, e.g. – have parasites as their main constituency. And they can’t promise an ever-increasing rain of welfare goodies to a country composed of 90% parasites. There won’t be enough non-parasites to pay for it all!

4) If we did manage to break the country up into Right-Wing U.S.A. and Left-Wing U.S.A., they’d immediately start the subversion process against us, just as the U.S.S.R. did, and as many hostile foreign powers have done. They wouldn’t just leave us alone! People like them never have before! They always make it necessary to fight and defeat them.

5) Plus, we’d have even longer borders to defend. The invasion situation is an existential disaster for our country now. How would we survive if we had to, e.g., defend the entire border between California and the rest of the nation, in addition to what we’re trying to defend now? Be realistic.

6) Plus, how the fuck are we supposed to actually accomplish the ejection of leftists without civil war? Leftists aren’t going to voluntarily self-deport, for all the reasons I just mentioned. Additionally, you can’t tell a left-winger from a white right-winger just by looking, and they love infiltration and subversion from within. You know what leftists would really love? Staying in the Right-Wing U.S.A. and subverting its laws, culture, and new constitution right from the get-go. That would give these people screaming orgasms!

So we’d have to eject them after a period of naked violence. But the entire point of the divorce idea is to avoid a civil war, right? But implementing it would require a civil war! I’m not saying a civil war is avoidable. Au contraire, my entire point is that it’s not. It’s important to be realistic about that.

7) If the Left got a piece of the U.S.A., that would just be another advance and a secure base of operations from which they would launch their crusade to carve off even more of the U.S.A. That’s what they’ve always done for the last century or so. Victory doesn’t satisfy them; it just encourages them and sets up their next offensive.

E.g., the day after the Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage is mandated by the Constitution (WTF?), the New York Times ran an editorial saying, Now on to the next campaign for gay rights.

It’s hard to think of something that would encourage them, energize them, and jack up their morale more, than carving off a piece of the United States of America itself. This nation, with its limited government, individual self-reliance, and gun-owning, freely-speaking people, has always been the Number One Enemy of the Left. If we lose a significant piece of our territory to them, that would be extremely bad for us in terms of the way it would energize them.

Furthermore, it would be just another instance of left-wing incrementalism. That’s how they try to accomplish all their goals, ever since they realized that outright Communist revolution was not going to happen in the U.S.A. Incrementalism is how they’re trying to kill off the Second Amendment, for example, as you might have noticed.

They want you to think that if you just appease them by carving off a chunk of your nation and ceding it to them, they’ll go away. Trust me, they laugh every time they read a right-winger write something like that. They’ll laugh at your naivete. Then they’ll take another piece. Then another…

No, the only way this ends is with a pile of bodies.

I don’t like it either! I had an entire life plan, and it did not involve a civil war started by power-mad psychotics! But we need to accept the hard fact that it’s now absolutely inevitable.

Why Female Behavior is so Floofy

Women bear the risks and the costs (e.g. metabolic costs) of pregnancy. Men don’t.

Thus,

From a reproductive standpoint, a man has a simple problem: How to get his sperm into as many uteruses as possible.

A woman has a complicated problem: How to get desirable sperm into her uterus, while avoiding getting undesirable sperm into her uterus.

It’s crucial that there’s no evolutionary distinction between your dying and otherwise failing to reproduce. Evolution doesn’t care at all whether you die at age 5 with no offspring or die at age 105 with no offspring. These are the same outcome from an evolutionary perspective. Not approximately or metaphorically the same, literally exactly the same.

In the evolutionary past, a woman could die in childbirth, so having sex meant she was non-trivially risking death. On the other hand, never having sex also meant that she would die, from evolution’s point of view.

So sex is fundamentally more complicated for a female. It is both desirable and undesirable, lethally fearsome and irresistibly attractive. This is why female behavior, especially female sexual behavior, is so psychotic.

Imagine that you were locked in a room full of hamburgers and were not going to be let out for a month. Imagine also that you knew that a significant proportion of those hamburgers were poisoned and would kill you. To avoid starving to death you have to eat. That’s an inescapable, rock-hard given. But also, to avoid being poisoned to death, you have to avoid the poisoned hamburgers. That’s also an inescapable, rock-hard given. Imagine what your behavior would be like in this situation. Now compare it to actual real-world female sexual behavior.

Furthermore, while it’s female reproductive (and therefore sexual) behavior that is erratic and psychotic, this is potentially everything, which is why their behavior in general is so erratic and psychotic.

Murderer Cruz Gets Tons of Love Letters

Sorry, red pill deniers. If you refuse the Red Pill, you have to get it in enema form.

Excerpts from the article:

Mass murderer Nikolas Cruz is getting stacks of fan mail and love letters sent to the Broward County jail, along with hundreds of dollars in contributions to his commissary account.

The attraction of women echoes the fascination with killers like notorious cult leader Charles Manson. Lyle and Erik Menendez, the Beverly Hills brothers convicted in 1994 of murdering their parents, attracted a pair of brides while spending life in prison. So-called “Bundyphiles” sent bags of mail to Ted Bundy, the serial rapist-murderer.

“I reserve the right to care about you, Nikolas!” writes a Texas woman. The letter was mailed six days after Cruz murdered 17 students and staff and injured 17 others at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on Feb. 14.

The reverent note takes up all available space on the front and back of a greeting card showing a furry bunny holding binoculars looking out at the ocean. The inside of the card says, “Out of sight, but never out of mind.”

A teenager wrote on March 15: “I’m 18-years-old. I’m a senior in high school. When I saw your picture on the television, something attracted me to you.”

The letter was mailed from Texas and tucked inside an envelope covered with hand-drawn hearts and happy faces. “Your eyes are beautiful and the freckles on your face make you so handsome.” She goes on to describe herself as white with big, brown eyes. “I’m really skinny and have 34C sized breasts.”

A woman from Chicago enclosed nine suggestive photos, including a shot of cleavage, another in a skimpy bikini eating a Popsicle and a tight shot of her backside as she bent over.

Now, deniers, how many nice guys get this kind of attention from women? Take your time.

“There’s piles of letters,” said Broward County Public Defender Howard Finkelstein. “In my 40 years as public defender, I’ve never seen this many letters to a defendant.”

“The letters shake me up because they are written by regular, everyday teenage girls from across the nation,” he said. “That scares me. It’s perverted.”

Via Anonymous Conservative:
https://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/news-briefs-3312018/