College chick foolishness

“No dude worth a damn is going to marry or have a long-term relationship with a chick whose vagina has seen more action then a war vet.”

Of course not. However, unless she’s really been working it like a pro, you won’t be able to know unless she’s honest about her sexual history…and you know they are never honest about their sexual history.

So if you want a halfway intelligent cool woman who is fun to be with and also pretty good looking…guess what, she hasn’t been saving herself for you. Unless you are pathologically insecure about how you measure up to her past, it shouldn’t matter.

And this is exactly why college education should be made super expensive and hard to get, so only the most serious and academically inclined students will enter.

This is also the reason why white and black Americans seem to perform so poorly in college, their focus is diverted into “relationships” and other such concerns.

When Asians go to college they go to study, not to get laid.

Bardamu:

“No, honey, it’s NOT all good. No dude worth a damn is going to marry or have a long-term relationship with a chick whose vagina has seen more action then a war vet.”……………………………

Me:

AND YET, you all do! If the skankiness of college girls is as pervasive as you claim, that means that whomever you do eventually decide to “settle down” with – in a LTR of 5 or more months, (I know “marriage” is out of the question for you guys), will in fact be one of these war vet women!!!

The irony is you men are turned on by super hot women. Super hot women are often, well, super hot.
The low key, conservatively dressed, non-made-up women would not be attractive to you because she lacks the “it” factor, the “hot” factor. And yet, at the same time these super hotties turn you on, you hate them. And neither are you able to be turned on by the non-hotties.

I feel your frustration.

At some point you might want to opt for being non-fickle though.

“The low key, conservatively dressed, non-made-up women would not be attractive to you”

Speak for yourself. Not all of us think with our dick.

Well I would agree with FB on that as well. I don’t think that it’s either/or.

On a visceral level, jelly doughnuts drive me to ecstasy. But on an intellectual level, I know that doughnuts are not the foundation of a healthy diet. A glutton might not have the self-control to stop gorging on doughnuts, but that doesn’t mean that everyone who drools over doughnuts is a glutton.

Can people actually read through Feminist blogs without falling asleep? Good GOD this stuff is crap. Blah, blah, blah…

I used to wonder why I had very few women friends. Did I hate women? No. I happen to be one myself…

But I just couldn’t stand the relentless “I’m sooooo faaaaat” and the constant, never ending griping about men and how bad we women have it.

Sorry, I just can’t stay focused once Feminists start nittering away.

I hated college. It was just one giant sex-fest with everyone behaving like dogs in heat. I dropped out so I could get married and have babies. I’m now ten times happier then I ever was at college! And I’m probably learning more…

Ok, dude. Go join a church and find a pure moral missionary-style wife. Who had a nasty past she won’t tell you about.

“And this is exactly why college education should be made super expensive and hard to get, so only the most serious and academically inclined students will enter.”

Well, they tried making it hard to get in…but liberals whined about NAMs not being able to pass muster. So colleges were forced to lower the bar for them, as well as foot their bills.

“If you want women to stop being sluts, you will have to stop enabling their behaviour (in other words, stop sleeping with them).”

You have cause and effect reversed, bub. If women would snap their legs shut, and demand higher standards of their gentleman callers, this problem wouldn’t exist. Of course, this isn’t going to happen short of a Taiping-esque revolution.

And not every woman I sleep with is a slut.

“It appears you have a dysfunctional co-dependent relationship with them.”

I love sluts. Some of my best friends are sluts. But I wouldn’t want my son to marry one.

I tend to agree with you, but I do have a couple of contentions with what you’re saying.

Wanting to have sex does NOT equate to being a cockaholic, or as Roissy oft puts it, “riding the alpha cock carousel.” I enjoy sex. I want sex. I love sex. But, like most people, I restrict my nymphomaniac tendencies to relationships.

Women are not happy having casual sex. We view the experience as indelible from our emotions, whereas men are capable of just experiencing the physical enjoyment and isolating feelings from the act we will always desire more than just a “fling.”

There are a surprising minority of women who think that sex during university doesn’t “count.” They know this is bullshit because they will always remember that night they became a mere notch on a man’s belt, and it will eat away at their soul. Heh.

And like Black Military Man said, women are sexual beings too. I will corroborate this. It’s near impossible to wait for marriage the way the workplace has been restructured. Like I said elsewhere, the day a slut stops being enabled by a man who refuses to sleep with her, is the day pigs fly.

Michelle, I respect your life choices, but not all university-educated women are inherent sluts. Being informed and educated is a valuable asset to a relationship. I would HARDLY describe my undergraduate, academic experience as a “sex-fest”. More like, sleepless nights fuelled by caffeine at the library.

Mea culpa. Sorry.

“And women are sexual beings too. They can’t neccessarily wait until they are 25 or 30.”

This is really the heart of the matter. A society that delays family life until 25 or 30 is on the road to destruction. The college degree, in many cases, has become a meaningless piece of paper and all of this useless education is stunting our productivity. At the same time, high schools have become college prep centers with no vocational education.

There is no need to delay adulthood as long as we do. It’s incredibly destructive for everyone.

You might be surprised, Sofia, but those categories are not mutually exclusive. Many of the smartest, most school-minded girls I knew in college were also the biggest sluts. Work hard, play hard, you know. Then again, I only knew the girls who weren’t terminally shy.

Mike,

They aren’t mutually exclusive factors (intelligence + slutdom), but, there are a host of other ways to tell if a woman is a huge slut. I’m also an INFJ.

My thoughts exactly.

Sofia: Did I say that *all* university-educated women were inherent sluts? No.

Yes, I did say “with everyone behaving like dogs in heat” but quit being so nit-picky and stick with the original point of the posts and comments. You know I was just using a common phrase.

“I would HARDLY describe my undergraduate, acedemic experience as a “sex-fest.”

Was I talking directly about you? No.

This happens to be a pet peve of mine: My fellow women (ok, fine, not *all* of them, just in case some of you want to nit-pick) take posts and comments so damn PERSONALLY. It’s so self-centered.

No wonder women aren’t taken very seriously… so busy being personally offended by generalized comments.

Very interesting discussion, and if I may, I’d like to link it to a recent discussion here in the forum, about a 40 year old Woman from the UK who was lamenting her inability to find similarly aged Men for potential mates.

My question is this: given that the gals we’re talking about here are in their late teens to say, mid 20s, can we reasonably say that Game should adjusted to take age into account-or-as the Anna Pasternak article suggests, Women have certain deeply held views, regardless of age? I’m very curious about this, since I tend to be aware of such quirks a bit more than others, it seems. My personal hope is that a Woman gains a bit more perspective and wisdom as she ages a bit, but the Pasternak article, when put next to this College Girls piece, doesn’t suggest much of a difference.

Comments?

The Obsidian

I’m not personally offended. It’s a mistaken generalized comment. I will maintain that universities are not places for “sex-fests.”

Oh, and of course the personal anecdotal evidence you offer isn’t self-centred. You also failed to respond to my point that educated women are able to offer a lot to a relationship and some men prefer this.

I think judging by the way I write, speak, and generally converse, not to mention my GPA, a man could certainly tell I went to university to pay attention in lecture (admittedly ogling gorgeous professors) rather than getting drunk at the local Frat house and being handed around by various, disease-infested men.

As Mike points out, these are not mutually exclusive.

When I was at Stanford in the 1980s, there were obviously tons of very smart women around. Many of them were *also* quite promiscuous, even at that point in time when the AIDS hysteria supposedly temporarily tamped down promiscuity among the young. It wasn’t the “dumb girls” (we didn’t really have any of them, but of course some were smarter than others) who were promiscuous — it wasn’t sorted that way at all, really.

Tom Wolfe wrote a book about this a few years ago called “I am Charlotte Simmons” based (to some degree) on his own daughter’s college experiences and what he was able to observe himself. The rampant sexual promiscuity on college campuses is a reality. I know it’s not *all* college women who do it, but it’s still a very prominent part of the culture.

“Colleges shouldn’t be forced to lower the academic bar, but the financial bar?”

I am not opposed to scholarships. Although I think even those are a privilege, not an entitlement.

I am opposed to race-based scholarships and lowered admission requirements for certain groups(NAMs & females) only – as is currently done. This is very unfair to those not of those groups, but better academically-qualified – and lowers our national competitiveness as a whole. It rewards failure and enables underachievement in those groups. It’s also a big reason why business is simply outsourcing to more merit-based societies now (see Asia) and bypassing this whole liberal dumbing-down whose main goal is NAM/female empowerment (selective diversity)…rather than simply finding the best.

You’re not from the US…ok, that explains everything now.

Michelle was talking about American life, which is markedly different than areas outside the ZionAnglosphere.

Was this directed at me? Your choice of words is telling. You use “beautiful”, the men here “hot”. There is a HUGE difference. My grandmother is beautiful, but she’s not hot. Many “hot” women are not naturally beautifully at all.

Also interesting that you put “fat” and “ugly” in the same category.

Nobody asserted that beautiful or even “hot” women could not be intelligent, either.

Then divorcees in their late 30s or early 40s with kids are the way to go. They would have been taken off the market a long time ago when they got married, hence they would NOT have had a lot of sexual partners.

It’s the single, young “hot” women with the high numbers of partners that you have to worry about.

Not everyone needs a university degree, but it’s a wonderful opportunity. If you like learning, and want to specialize in a particular area of interest, I can’t think of a better way to do it. You don’t have to employ it in a practical sense later in life to have gotten use and enjoyment out of it.

It is, but it comes at a huge cost. I think that the function of the education system should, first and foremost, be training people to be productive citizens. Other countries do that better than the US does, by tracking people into appropriate educational tracks for the kinds of work they will be doing for society, rather than smushing everyone together into getting an undergraduate degree. Personal enrichment is fine, but it isn’t really the purpose of an educational “system”.

Perhaps. Some of the divorcees in their early 40s will have been married around 30, and will have racked up quite a few partners by then. The ones who are divorced already by their early 30s probably married in the mid 20s and earlier, so for that subset, you’re probably right.

Of course you have other issues in terms of dating someone who has children. I’m a single dad myself, so I’m not biased against that, but it certainly is something a lot of people who do not have kids of their own do not want to deal with, for perfectly acceptable reasons.

I am from Canada. So it isn’t too much of a stretch, except when it comes to issues like these.

Vino, Everyone,
As promised, yet another astrologically-inspired essay addressing the issue at hand has sprung out of my head. God forbid, lol! It actually takes up the recent Anna Pasternak piece, but fully applies to the topic here as well. Check it out and holla back.

Over 40-Aged Woman Asks: Where Are All The Men?

Fri Aug 28 2009 1.21PM EDT

Despite all the many different kinds of astrology out there in our time, every last single astrologer worth the name knows that their bread and butter has always been, and will always be, what we call Synastry-the astrology of love, relationships and sex.

Given that the majority of those who consult us in this regard tend to be women, the following article deserves a close read by astrologers. It is a window onto the vastly changed dating/mating landscape in our time, and gives us pause to consider how we’ve done business up to this point moving forward.

Anna Pasternak, of the United Kingdom and a writer of some repute I understand, wrote a piece for the Daily Mail, which appeared on its website last month, Jul 30 2009 to be exact; below, I present lengthy excerpts of the piece, followed by my astrological analysis and commentary:

“Is there even ONE straight, kind, solvent single man in his 40s left in Britain?

By Anna Pasternak
29th July 2009

Recently, I gave a talk to 300 women entitled Hope After Heartbreak. I catalogued my emotionally devastating 30s; getting divorced, having a child with a younger man and being left a single mother.

Then I detailed how I’d overcome my grief and shame to find an unexpected level of contentment in my 40s.

When I was asked, as I knew I would be, had I found love again, my answer was ‘sadly not’. Did I think I would? My honest response was that I hoped so, but that I no longer had any certainty

Two types of men : The overgrown ‘kidults’ – men who have degenerated into hopeless commitment-phobes and  the successful, solvent divorcés who  approach dating like a cold business transaction.

Because when I look around at my girlfriends – bright, attractive, successful, fabulous women in their 40s who are single – I sincerely begin to wonder: Is there even one solvent, kind, desirable, heterosexual single man in his 40s left in Britain?

My friends and I have a horrible suspicion that the answer is no.

The topic was much debated when I went on a detox holiday in Morocco at Easter with nine single women, ranging in age from mid-30s to late-40s and all looking for love.

At first I thought it would be an oestrogen-infused nightmare, but as I got to know the women, all well-educated and successful (including bankers, a lawyer, a top fashion buyer, a media executive and an art historian), we bonded over our inability to find our male match.

Some of the bankers confessed to resorting to affairs with married men at work, which was depressing, but mostly we concluded we were unable to find what we were looking for because like-minded men of our age didn’t exist.

Why? Because our male counterparts were looking for something completely different.

I have been single for the past four years and have dated a handful of men. As far as I can see, they fall into two distinct camps. There are the overgrown ‘kidults’ – men who have degenerated into hopeless commitment-phobes and just want to have ‘fun’ (ie lots of sex) with taut twenty-somethings. They just seem to seek endless couplings, often facilitated by the internet.

Then there are the successful, solvent divorcés who are so determined to find wife number two pronto that they approach dating like a cold business transaction.

A first date with a corporate-style player is as relaxing as a high-pressure job interview (for a job you’re not sure you want) as they mentally tick boxes and suss your potential worth on the marriage market.

I have been asked before the starter ‘So what is it that you are looking for in a relationship?’ and by pudding I’ve been told in unstinting detail exactly what he wants.

Believe me, in all this it’s not a case of us women being unrealistic or fussy. It’s our male counterparts who are more exacting, arrogant and demanding than we could ever be, and who have this vile presumption that they are some kind of sought-after prize that we would be so lucky to ‘get’.

For once, they feel in a position of power in the sex war – and they are exploiting it for all it’s worth.

One City high-flyer told me over dinner in a slick Mayfair restaurant that he couldn’t contemplate a relationship with a woman with whom he didn’t have compatible skin tone. He ordered me to whip off my watch so we could compare our natural skin colour.

He also boasted that he had a strong awareness of aesthetics and had already clocked my accessories (yuk!). He turned out to be obscenely wealthy – when I asked where he lived, he said ‘on a plane’, meaning his private plane.

I realised, during our evening together, when he rattled off the story of his divorce, proudly announcing that he had left her, that he was one of the many male divorcés stung by handing over huge alimonies and who secretly hate women and are after only unchallenging trophy wives.

These men are so adept at sizing you up – your wealth and your looks – that they don’t bother to see who you really are. And they don’t care that an intelligent forty-something woman like me seeks a spark of recognition, of mutual companionship and respect.”

*Back To Mu*: the article continues on in this vein, ending with something about Pasternak and her erstwhile MILF colleagues waiting for a miracle in the form of a straight, single, good looking and successful man over 40, who doesn’t have commitment phobia, a roving eye for all them Pretty Young Things, and doesn’t view these ladies as the next business transaction. Nevermind the fact that these ladies are bringing with them a good bit of baggage to begin with-in Pasternak’s case literally, since she has a kid and is a singlemom-but we’re supposed to forget all about that.

Hmm.

I wasn’t able to locate Pasternak’s birthdata (if someone out there has it, by all means send it along!) but the Daily Mail website also published a clocktime along with the calendar date her piece was published: Jul 30 2009 8.59AM BDST, which, using Placidus houses, gives an Asc of about 14 Virgo. The ever-critical Maiden. Why am I not surprised?

This chart, which is a kind of Horary, given that Ms. Pasternak has asked a seemingly earnest question in which she has a vested interest in its outcome, suggests that it can yield much information not only for her but for the rest of us as well.

As mentioned above, Virgo rises, giving us Mercury as its ruler; these would describe Ms. Pasternak and certainly makes sense. Moreover, we note that Saturn-age-is rising in the Virgo Asc-Pasternak’s concerns and worries over getting older and being a spinster (Saturn), and as well we note that the Moon, significator of women everywhere, is Fallen in Scorpio, and in the 3 house of article and essay writing, newspapers and websites. Like I said, it seems this chart is a good fit to the matters at hand.

The 3 house is also that of questions of all kinds, and the Moon in a Horary chart suggests the querent’s mental and emotional state at the time the question was asked. Here it suggests that Pasternak isn’t thinking clearly on these issues, or that she has, forgive me, delusions of granduer. Why do I say that?

Well, aside from the Moon being Fallen to begin with, it is also tightly square Mercury, the thinking and rational planet. Its placement in the 12 house certainly doesn’t help things, and shows Pasternak certainly suffering as a result of her loneliness. The Moon then takes full centerstage in my view here, and again it is not well placed. Both these planets, the Moon and Mercury, don’t acquit Pasternak well in this map with regard to attracting the high quality mates she desires.

But there’s another major factor at work in this chart and that both figuratively and literally, clouds her judgment-note how both the Asc ruler AND Moon, are in aspect to Neptune. In the former case, its by opposition, and in the latter via square. Note also how strong these aspects are, for two reasons: one because they occur in Fixed Signs; and two, because the aspects in both cases, are applying. This means that it will be very hard for Pasternak to see that her expectations for what she can reasonably expect in a mate at this point in her life are incredibly unrealistic, and rather than to face that fact, it is easier to go on blaming others (the men she calls “kidults” in the piece; note that Uranus is in the 7 house, and that Neptune, ruler of the 7, is opposed the Asc ruler Mercury!) for her own failings. Afterall, what “straight, solvent, single” guy would want a woman who’s not only 40, but divorced by one man and had a kid by another, and is now a singlemom? I mean, really.

Note also that Jupiter is conjunct Neptune, and thus is brought into the mix. As we all know, Jupiter tends to puff up anything it comes into contact with, and here we can see that it puffed up Pasternak’s ideas about herself, shown by Mercury’s placement in Leo as well. That may have been true 20 years or so ago, when she was young and vivacious, before the bad marriage and kid came along. But, as Saturn rising in the Virgo Asc clearly shows, the years have not been kind-and she must now take stock of these facts and act accordingly.

Simply put, had Ms. Pasternak had consulted me instead of writing such an article in pain and anguish, I would have told her to “settle”-her days of attracting high powered “players” are over. There is nothing preventing her from getting a loving, stable relationship from a good guy, but it is likely that he is not going to be of the high achieving sort that she’s accustomed to. Much more likely that he’s a blue collar guy (note Neptune, ruler of the 7, in the 6 house of employees, NOT bosses; Neptune=”service work”), perhaps a social worker, or something along those lines. But innany event, w/the years wearing on in very obvious ways, w/a child on her own and a divorce in the back mirror, I would advise Ms. Pasternak to have reduced, more realistic expectations, and to have a much less critical (Virgo rising) attitude to the men she’s about to meet, to be much more outgoing and friendly, and to SMILE a lot more as well. Something tells me she doesn’t do that a lot, particularly around men.

And, as Pasternak states at the beginning of her piece, she is by no means alone. The greatly changed dating scene has meant that more women than ever are accomplished, but also are more often than not alone as well. And to add insult to injury, many of these same women are nearing the end of their most attractive years-yet many of them are in the same boat as Pasternak, demanding that they be able to snag the top of the heap men regardless of their own actions over the past few decades, and when that doesn’t happen (because, you know, men aren’t supposed to have “choice” too, only women), then they are man-boys who won’t commit, and some such nonsense. Sure, there may well be some truth to all that, but the fact remains, that there are tradeoffs in all things-Saturn teaches us this, and it seems, based on the chart I have in front of me, Ms. Pasternak is getting a crash course in this lesson as well. If you wish to spend your most fertile years slutting/partying it up, chasing the corporate dream, or making bad decisions as to who will be your baby daddy, you can’t then turnaround and blame all other men when they aren’t too gung ho to pickup the pieces that have been two decades in the making. At least not the topmost guys who have options, anyway.

I think, as the New Grrl Order wears on, it will be important for us astrologers to disabuse our lady clients over a certain age of all their grave misconceptions in these areas. If we do, we will be doing the world a great service.

Holla back

The Obsidian

I agree, and actually think scholarships should only be granted for hard sciences. Liberal farts would be a waste of pulic monies.

Although in general, unis have all become liberal re-education camps for brainwashing kids. Evo-psych and reality-based POVs (like on here) are strictly forbidden in these campuses and are career suicide for any profs who attempt to set the record straight.

I actually have a friend who’s faculty, and is forced to keep most of his liberally-incorrect viewpoints on the hush.

Point being, university is currently a HUGE societal detriment politically – since they are all pro-NAM, feminist strongholds.

Byrdeye,
While I agree w/many of your points wrt the current day Academy, I must call into question your use of the term “NAM” in assigning blame for the way things are today. Let’s keep in mind, that most Black kids coming out of America’s inner city schools are going on to university to begin with; most, if they go at all, begin at the community college level, which I think is quite appropriate for a host of reasons.

In the main, those Black kids who are going on to college are often from the “overclasses” of Blacks, for whom Affirmative Action is a hotly debated topic. Some argue that they shouldn’t receive it because of their relative privileged status, others take the opposite view. I see both sides of the debate and don’t have a fixed view one way or another.

But the point is that it would be unwise to hang the failure of higher education around the necks of kids who in all likielihood aint gonna wind up at the Harvards and Yales of the world anyway, simply because of the crappy state of American inner city public schools to begin with. The problems on the campus have much more relevant culprits, like the largely White Feminist Studies Dept’s, and the like.

Just wanted to point that out. We have got to get out of this nasty habit of scapegoating.

Lastly, I personally think things are the way they are, because its profitable. Think about it-the unis make money hand over fist, regardless of whether the kids who go there actually learn anything or if they do, whether they are actually applicable to the realworld. And this persists because we as a society have bought into the hype that says, only those who have lambskins on their walls are not only fit to have better jobs, but just are better people, period. Having a degree means much more than mere earning potential-its a social credential, a status marker, and for some, a way of announcing in so many words, your IQ. Its a way of seperating yourself from the Great Unwashed, and guess what?-for all the cheering the Frank Riccis and Joe The Plumbers get, NONE OF YOU would actually want to BE them. Which is why, when it comes to forums and venues like these, one can count on one hand, if they’re lucky, the number of blue collar guys who actually participate. That’s not by accident-the uni experience and all it entails, actually winds up seperating more people than they bring together.

So, to me, on so many levels, discussions to me are a lot like pissing contests between rival groups of boys at school, its a bunch of ado about nothing, other than a kind of bragging rights. No one is really interested in changing things, because no one really wants to be the de facto Niggers of Society, doing its dirty work-hence why we stole a bunch of folk from one continent, shuffled around the existing folk here, and in more recent years, started importing folk from South of the Border there.

Holla back

The Obsidian

Sofia, Mike, Bardamu;

Fat and ugly.

Come on, you’ve never seen a fat woman who’s face was “beautiful”?

Also, in the USA currently Beyonce is considered “fat”, so no, I don’t equate that kind of “fat” with “ugliness”.

By the way, my wife is super slender so don’t start on that, “you’re a black man so you are automatically attracted to fat women”.

NOT!

Vino,
Speaking of which, the feminists never thought to themselves: what happens if the guys aren’t going to college at the same or at least similar rate as the gals? How will this change they way guys and gals meet? Nope, no thought about that at all, and look at the result.

I’ve long been of the view that you should pay as little as possible when dealing w/Women. That may sound harsh, but if they make more than you to begin with, and if we’re talking about being independent and strong and all that, well, then why NOT she pay for things? Its only fair, right? Ahh, but you see, not too many Women want to sign on for that task. They want to be independent and strong, but they also want to be pampered too. Can’t get both, the world just doesn’t work that way. Otherwise, every Pauper would be a King.

So, the Law of Unintended Consequences will indeed extract its price from the ladies, whether they want it to or not. Bottomline, most of them will NOT land the high powered guy of their dreams, for the simple Econ 101 reasons of Supply and Demand-such guys will be in seriously short supply, and they would be crazy to settle down too soon before sampling all the lovely flowers in the garden. That means they will keep their options open for as long as they can, so all most of these ladies can hope for from such a guy is an extended Pump & Dump.

Next comes the second tier guys moneywise. If they have Game, it’ll make things go smoother, because he’ll have the skills and tools to win her over and keep her despite the financial disparity. Only problem here is, as we know, not many guys are that diligent w/Game to make any real headway.

And then finally, they’ll be the ultimate losers on the guy side, the Omegas. However, the great thing about the vast majority of em is that they won’t bother anyone, and will pretty much stay to themselves, on the margins of human interaction.

The biggest losers overall WILL be Women. Because one, there’s so many of em, and they’re living longer. Two, because there simply aren’t enough warm male bodies to begin with, let alone those w/high amounts f either Game or money/status or both. And three, because even if some of these ladies snag a highend player, chances are very slim she’ll be able to keep her, given the cultural You Go Grrl zeitgeist we’re currently in. There are entire cohorts of young Women now who can barely heat up a microwave dinner, let alone do much of anything else. Its very sad.

The Obsidian

O, let’s not confuse SES with race here.

While I am not opposed to scholarships as a perk for those with high scores and perhaps with some preference towards low-income kids…

Race-based affirmative action is not this, though. It is based on race, purely – whether it’s Bill Cosby’s rich kids or not. So, why should a rich Black kid get a lowered bar over a poor Cambodian ESL immigrant? it’s unfair to the non-NAMs and also artificially intellectually handicaps our country. Something we can’t afford to do anymore with rising mental giants in the East as competition.

I do agree that Americans created these problems to begin with by importing cheap slave labor, instead of just doing that grunt work themselves.

The biggest losers overall WILL be Women. Because one, there’s so many of em, and they’re living longer. Two, because there simply aren’t enough warm male bodies to begin with, let alone those w/high amounts f either Game or money/status or both. And three, because even if some of these ladies snag a highend player, chances are very slim she’ll be able to keep her, given the cultural You Go Grrl zeitgeist we’re currently in. There are entire cohorts of young Women now who can barely heat up a microwave dinner, let alone do much of anything else. Its very sad.

I agree.

The thing that struck me about the Pasternak article was how entitled she sounded. Many of the men she describes as having dated in the article were wealthy, high-status men. And yet she funds faults with them. She clearly feels entitled, coming into the market in her 40s, nevertheless to a man with all of the classic boxes on the list checked. That’s a recipe for growing old with your cats. And I suspect that will be her fate.

The most telling sentence in the article, though, was this one:

For once, they feel in a position of power in the sex war – and they are exploiting it for all it’s worth.

You can clearly sense the frustration there, a frustration with reality as it is. Yes, honey, you had the position of power when you were in your 20s, but you don’t now. And that burns you up, doesn’t it. cupcake? Well, time to either adjust to the reality of your situation, or learn more about cats. And, uh, maybe you should have handled yourself in your 20s a tad differently? Just maybe?

“Yea, but beauty encompasses more than just the face. ”

AND it encompasses more than just the body. That’s why I rarely find “hot” women attractive. They give off such an unattractive, shallow vibe.

As the son, brother, husband and father of females, I feel I should say something in their defense.

Just as we men may have been fed lies by the feminist movement, sexual revolution, pop culture and media, women have too. They were/are just as lost and clueless as we were/are.

Just as we were brainwashed not to care how many men women slept with, they were similarly brainwashed.

Even now you will hardly ever find a “condom” moment in a movie with a sex scene. Somehow the risk of disease/death/unwanted pregnancy/child support or the simultaneous appearance of all of the above is supposed to not exist.

This is perhaps one reason why teens and college kids think themselves so untouchable.

I was born and bred in a military family. I treat women with respect and they more often than not reciprocate.
Maybe it’s a military thing.

But as far as the “fallout” of feminism and the sexual revolution………. here’s a doozy;

http://www.blogher.com/no-kids-what-am-i-missing

“I treat women with respect and they more often than not reciprocate.”

LMFAO, I have never heard a real man, much less a military man, from this generation claim that. You have just outed yourself. I mean, seriously…women (especially with all the sloots in the military) reciprocate respect??

GTFOH sparky!!! Like a true feminist, you have NO ETHICS and playing dirty is one of your primary tactics.

But as far as the “fallout” of feminism and the sexual revolution………. here’s a doozy;

http://www.blogher.com/no-kids-what-am-i-missing

Although she would never, in a million years, admit that feminism has anything to do with where she finds herself in life.

Lol, it’s sooo obvious…

You are not Black.
You are not military.
You are NOT a man.

You ARE the feminist troll, sparky!
Now scram!

I disagree, I think women will be perfectly happy at maximizing their sex with Alphas, for as long as they can, and being alone afterwards.

After all, there is television. Cats. Other older women. Kids. Perhaps three by different fathers (something clearly women like and enjoy). So what if the brothers and sisters don’t care about each other and often fight?

Women are perfectly happy to trade sex NOW with as many Alpha guys, and Alpha thuglets, for companionship later.

“Do you really think the only reason men like women is that they are physically arousing?”

No, but it’s a crucial component that can’t be neglected. All romantic love starts down below.