Thursday, June 25, 2015

Is Nature “unfair” to Women?

I had an interesting conversation with a male Swedish feminist typical Swedish guy the other day. As it is often the case, once they have a few beers, they often make some very surprising statements that hint at some of the confusion they experience due to decades of indoctrination. He must have had two beers at this point, and part of his true personality apparently came through, because he suddenly talked about a “female friend” of his (translation: fuck buddy). He is close to 30, she is in her mid-thirties, and she seems to sometimes lament that she cannot find a guy to commit to her. For a moment I considered informing him about the fact that his fuck buddy relationship was somewhat one-sided, since she apparently has bigger plans for him. [My prediction is that she would end this arrangement as soon as she got a guy to really commit to her, but for plenty of women getting at least some dick on the side and fostering the delusion of a relationship is better than getting none at all and spending every evening with a bowl of ice cream in front of the TV.]

All of that is just a prelude to the rather amusing statement I then heard, as he claimed that nature was “unfair” to women. Said unfairness seemed to consist of the fact that men can be promiscuous at a time when women tend to start to panic because a lot of those guys who happily blew a load in them disappeared as quickly as they came, sometimes literally, and all those she “really liked”, because they were hotter than the average she could normally get, had no sustained interest in her.

As I thought about that, it quickly dawned on me that there is no unfairness at all. Women blossom sooner, for sure. So, a woman in her early thirties who has a hard time finding a guy who wants to keep her should first and foremost ask herself how it happened that she ended up being alone after 20 years of sexual activity.


The mere notion that nature is “unfair” is ludicrous to begin with. Nature doesn’t give a fuck about fairness and that some people are taller, better looking, or more intelligent than others, even though the thought of innate differences between humans is deeply offensive to SJWs. Despite that, though, nature is pretty “fair” inasmuch as this statement makes sense in this context. Women normally become sexually active a bit sooner, or a the very least they will find it easier to engage in sexual relationships because they have guys coming on to them. A good-looking 14 year old certainly arouses the sexual interest of the 16 or 17 year old guys in her high school, and even with little impetus on her own she’ll quickly be able to sample quite a few dicks. Guys, on the other hand are not so lucky. They get sexually active a bit later, and due to how sexual attraction between sexes works — the hot guys get all the attention, while the less hot guys have to work on other areas in their lives to get attractive, but for other reasons —, they may take longer to gain more experience. Not even the better looking guys are in a situation comparable to hot girls, i.e. chicks will normally not come on to them, in an interpretation that means “sending clear, unambiguous signals”.

So, how unfair is it that a woman might learn in her 30s that the stream of cocks she had gotten used to is coming to an end? At there very least, you could blame her for lack of foresight — and feminism for making her believe that she is entitled to whatever the fuck she wants. On the other hand, one could state that she has a staggering 20 years, let's say roughly between 14 and 34. To make the numbers work out nicely, we'll say that her sexual peak was around 24. That’s a fucking long time, if I may say so.

For guys, the span may be a bit different, with their main period of sexual activity between, say, 16 to 36, give or take a few years. Yes, yes, you can be a good looking 40 or 50 year old dude, and it’s quite obvious that guys can be sexually attractive for longer than women. After all, attractive 40 year old guys are by no means a rarity, while sexually attractive 40 year old women do not exist. However, the typical guy in his late 30s is quite remote from being a pussy magnet.

It seems that nature isn’t that unfair after all. What does happen, though, is that women normally see their options decrease as they get older, while the opposite happens for guys. An 18 year old woman is attractive for a 40 year old guy, but as she gets older, she will be less attractive to guys that are around her age or younger. This alone should lead women to make the realisation that the gravy train will eventually come to an end. Thus, a guy in his late 20s, realising that his sexual market value is increasing, while the sexual market value of a woman in a similar age is not, is not an example of unfairness but a reflection of lifestyle choices. Both sexes get their window of opportunity. It just so happens that for guys it opens a bit later, and for those who play their cards right, it does indeed stay open for longer.

What do you think? Let me know in the comments below!
(Also, if you’ve got a comment that is off-topic or only tangentially related to this article, then please post in the most recent Open Thread. Thank you.)

24 comments:

  1. Hi Aaron, I recently left a similar comment (Anonym19. Mai 2015 um 11:15) on Marco's blog: http://whatswrongwiththeseguys.blogspot.de/2015/05/daygame-katastrophen-und-dann-wurde-ich.html#comment-form

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a nice comment. On a related note, Tit for Tat is not just a phrase but indeed a highly successful strategy in life, or at least according to game theory:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat#Background

      Delete
    2. Thank you, Aaron! While Tit for Tat might appear rather simplistic, it is in fact an art that only a few people have mastered. In my opinion on an international level solely Wolfgang Schäuble and Wladimir Putin have learned how to play it well.

      Delete
    3. The Plague DoctorJune 28, 2015 at 4:28 PM

      In Putin's Russia, Tat tits you!

      Delete
  2. chicks lose it sooner, but chicks also can take it more easy, being approached,
    while guys do the approaching.
    oh well.
    shit guys need to spend energy, chicks dont need to do anything at all.
    then what does this mean? if you are tired you dont aproach women or something.
    women on the other hand gets approached regardless.

    so she has more opportunities.
    i would say its unfair to men. lol
    why do i need to bother ? when they dont need to? lol.
    however there is of course women when its clear its high chance thing
    from first sight but this shit is so rare. i can count it on my fingers on a year.
    maybe happened 6-7 times in the last 6 months. oops.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Consider that while a guy has to spend more work, more energy and more time, chicks take bigger risks. She can get pregnant, raped or any other physical risk that can alternate her current life.

      Delete
  3. AS: "It seems that nature isn’t that unfair after all. What does happen, though, is that women normally see their options decrease as they get older, while the opposite happens for guys."
    I think it's quite a shame that you generalize at this Point. As a man your Options go through the Roof, if, and only if, you are thin, are somewhat attractive, have a full set of hair and have something going on in your life.
    That's a very reachable possibility for guys (except the hair). But not that much men do reach that. *cough* married slobs *cough*

    By comparison you can see why there are (and I'm quoting you here) no attractive 40 year old women:
    - Women usually have nothing interesting going on in their life. That's any Age.
    - They usually explode weight-wise past a certain Age.
    - Everything else succumbs to gravity.
    - If everything you got to offer is your slit and attractiveness and you lose that, well, you are in for a surprise.
    But still, a woman will probably still find a man who'll catch that grenade, because all the other guys treated her unfairly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "But not that much men do reach that."

      Yes, but how many women are attractive?

      Not every man becomes a porn star just because of age, you are right, but not all women are attractive to begin with either. We just tend to oversee the ugly ones.
      If you use public transport on your way to work, count the number of women on that bus/train and then frankly ask yourself "how many of them would I fuck?". You'll be surprised, how small that number is IN RELATION to the total number of women.

      I completely agree with your second paragraph (especially last sentence), although I don't see the point in comparing your life quality with anyone else (besides yesterdays version of yourself).
      Teh womenz past 30/40 suck? - Ok, well let them. Since you are not going to bang them you need not care why the suck. Nothing personal, but believe me it's irrelevant.
      There is enough supply of young beautiful material.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnlv1wd13fY

      Delete
    2. In the sentence directly preceding the one you quoted I make the statement that, "the typical guy in his late 30s is quite remote from being a pussy magnet." In the draft of this article I had a paragraph in there that elaborates on this point, but this will be a separate article instead.

      Delete
    3. "Teh womenz past 30/40 suck? - Ok, well let them. Since you are not going to bang them you need not care why the suck. Nothing personal, but believe me it's irrelevant."
      Don't worry, never fucked a fatty or woman past 30 in my entire life. ;) And I don't care about the opinions of women any more. It's more a Statement of fact (= most women have only their slit to offer) contrary to societal wisdom.

      Delete
  4. I think the sad thing is most guys in their late 20's to early 30's likely don't know just how high their value is. I sure noticed the flip myself once I hit about 27/28, and didn't quite understand why at first.

    I find this comment funny, "If she didn't want me in my 20's, I don't want her in her 30's"

    ReplyDelete
  5. If the only thing a woman has going for is her looks, later life may not work out that well for her.

    There was a funny story a while back about a woman asking advice how to land a rich husband, and the response from a trader was that as time progresses the rich guy could be richer, but the woman would not be hotter. Therefore, the woman was not an asset to hold onto for the long term.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Plague DoctorJune 30, 2015 at 9:35 AM

      You probably mean the following story, which was first posted on Craiglist.

      The following is what a women posted on a dating forum seeking a rich husband:

      " I’m going to be honest of what I’m going to say here. I’m 25 this year. I’m very pretty, have style and good taste. I wish to marry a guy with $500k annual salary or above. You might say that I’m greedy, but an annual salary of $1M is considered only as middle class in New York.

      My requirement is not high. Is there anyone in this forum who has an income of $500k annual salary? Are you all married? I wanted to ask: what should I do to marry rich persons like you?

      Among those I’ve dated, the richest is $250k annual income, and it seems that this is my upper limit.
      If someone is going to move into high cost residential area on the west of New York City Garden(?), $250k annual income is not enough.

      I’m here humbly to ask a few questions:

      1) Where do most rich bachelors hang out? (Please list down the names and addresses of bars, restaurant, gym)
      2) Which age group should I target?
      3) Why most wives of the riches are only average-looking? I’ve met a few girls who don’t have looks and are not interesting, but they are able to marry rich guys.
      4) How do you decide who can be your wife, and who can only be your girlfriend? (my target now is to get married)
      Ms. Pretty
      "

      A philosophical reply from CEO of J.P. Morgan below:
      "
      Dear Ms. Pretty,
      I have read your post with great interest. Guess there are lots of girls out there who have similar questions like yours. Please allow me to analyse your situation as a professional investor.
      My annual income is more than $500k, which meets your requirement, so I hope everyone believes that I’m not wasting time here.
      From the standpoint of a business person, it is a bad decision to marry you. The answer is very simple, so let me explain.

      Put the details aside, what you’re trying to do is an exchange of “beauty” and “money” : Person A provides beauty, and Person B pays for it, fair and square.
      However, there’s a deadly problem here, your beauty will fade, but my money will not be gone without any good reason. The fact is, my income might increase from year to year, but you can’t be prettier year after year.

      Hence from the viewpoint of economics, I am an appreciation asset, and you are a depreciation asset. It’s not just normal depreciation, but exponential depreciation. If that is your only asset, your value will be much worse 10 years later.

      By the terms we use in Wall Street, every trading has a position, dating with you is also a “trading position”.
      If the trade value dropped we will sell it and it is not a good idea to keep it for long term – same goes with the marriage that you wanted. It might be cruel to say this, but in order to make a wiser decision any assets with great depreciation value will be sold or “leased”.

      Anyone with over $500k annual income is not a fool; we would only date you, but will not marry you. I would advice that you forget looking for any clues to marry a rich guy. And by the way, you could make yourself to become a rich person with $500k annual income.This has better chance than finding a rich fool.

      Hope this reply helps.

      signed,
      J.P. Morgan CEO


      Moral: In Putin's Russia, the wall hits you!

      Delete
    2. "Whoa, whose Bentley?

      I know this ain't a rental.

      Jackpot just caught that.

      You paid cash?

      COD all day.

      Cash on delivery?

      Why not?

      First piece of free advice.

      You got to listen, y'all make millions.

      Never buy a depreciating asset.

      Okay.

      If it drives, flies, floats or f*cks, lease it."

      Ballers, Pilot, "Forever Dreaming"

      Delete
    3. lol, i loved this reply very inspiring stuff, dude is quite smart.
      i have never considered such a viewpoint.
      nice. very nice.
      but yeah, chicks become more ugly,... and fast, shit, just fuck prostitutes
      you can always replace them to a new good looking one without difficulties.
      good. :)

      Delete
    4. I know this text. It's probably a hoax. The only issue I feel about it is: judging matters purely in this way is a bit heartless.

      Delete
    5. Just type "depreciating asset" into Google search and see what its first suggestion is! ;)

      Hint: The third word starts with a "G".

      Delete
    6. “If it flies, floats or fucks, rent it, don’t buy it." Supposedly, this comment was made by Tommy Earl Bruner in Dan Jenkins’ novel, Baja Oklahoma (1981).

      Zerohedge has a nice discussion about this specific topic at the moment: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-03/sugar-daddies-are-paying-their-share-13-trillion-student-loan-balance

      Delete
    7. Regarding the looks department of women who are older than 30, there are quite some remarkably exceptions, though the majority ages like a glass of milk. In contrast, men generally age more like a glass of wine; think of John Stamos (51) for example. Nonetheless, I would consider Gwyneth Paltrow (42), Michelle Hunziker (38), Christie Brinkley (61) and Gisele Bündchen (34) rather good looking for their age. Of course, their asses aren't that sweet anymore if you compare them directly to, say, Bella Thorne's. But this certainly gives an impression how most women can't control themselves when it comes to a healthy diet and regular exercise to keep in shape.

      Delete
    8. Holy shit, that is a perfect young 17yo ARSE:
      http://hollywoodlife.com/pics/bella-thorne-bikini-pictures-candies-ad-pictures-spring-2014/#!16/bella-thorne-candies-gallery-1/

      Delete
  6. Awwwwww, nature is so unfair, awwww poor women...

    Well, if your career was oh so important and you didn't find a dude, I hope you made some cash at least and can buy yourself a giggolo, ehhh Gentleman...

    And hey, no kissing, no fucking, "just" company.....

    200 USD/hour of which 100 USD are for the Gent? I'd do it. Fucking career empowered feminist bitches. They deserve to pay. I wouldn't feel objectified. The cash in my account is what it's all about.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=139&v=0nO8ZXwEo9w

    What's your take guys?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ha, that's funny! So basically, some weird folks from "bulimia.com" photoshopped notorious female characters from popular computergames to make them more appealing to the ego of modern western women.

    Sorry, no English, since it's from German PBS – but the pics speak for themselves anyway…

    http://dradiowissen.de/beitrag/körperideale-us-website-verwandelt-computerheldinnen-in-durchschnittsfrauen

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I read about this some days ago on VICE:
      http://motherboard.vice.com/read/lara-croft-gets-a-realistic-makeover-from-eating-disorder-support-group

      The writer cracked me up, as they quote Bulimia with the following statement: ""And with that kind of attention to detail, it makes us wonder, why can’t they accurately portray the female body?""

      So, just because a lot of women are fat and ugly doesn't mean that their are no women out there who are indeed stunningly beautiful. Hot women certainly see themselves accurately portrayed in mainstream video games.

      I intend to write a separate post on the nonsense by Bulimia.com as soon as I find the time.

      Delete
    2. OMG, I just couldn't hold my laughter when I saw this on a newsstand in a printed edition. Apparently the German Green party finds it necessary to regulate beauty pageants and "Miss" contests, because they discriminate girls who are less tall and less beautiful.

      Of course it goes w/o mentioning that the female politician championing this ludicrous idea is far from making it even to a low level beauty pageant. Does she actually have a dog in that hunt herself?

      http://www.bz-berlin.de/artikel-archiv/gruene-wollen-miss-wahl-auch-fuer-weniger-schoene

      (Sorry guys, this is from a Berlin-based tabloid paper! No English version available.)

      Delete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.