Another month down, another round of awards to hand out to the best and brightest patrons of the online pub that is In Mala Fide.
The September 2009 Comment of the Month Award goes to Doug1 for pointing out why quantblogger analyses of sexuality are flat-out wrong:
I read that Agnostic piece contemporaneously in GNXP. I didn’t post anything in comments questioning it because I had no social science basis for doing so. Nonetheless I flat out don’t believe it. Well there IS one thing I do believe. That is that there WAS a diminution of slutty sexual activity beginning it’s commonly said as soon as the 70s were over but really beginning around 1984 or so. When the aids thing hit, and it hit FAST in consciousness as a huge scare when it did. Aging boomer girls were already turning away from casual sex and big into clamping their husbands down from dreams of open marriages and so on, but that was the big thing. It did go down in the second half of the eighties and much of the 90s. Not completely atall and there were pockets, but a lot. Came back in the oughts, or really by the late 90s in NYC.
…
All this GSS and other stuff is based on a house of cards. Those cards are that females don’t lie, or don’t lie much in anonymous as reported surveys about sexual activity including number of partners or incidence of infidelity. I’m here to tell you that girls lie HUGE about such stuff and do so reflexively, as part of their personality almost, and do so so thoroughly that only the most reflective even fully realize how much they’re doing it. I’m talking about the big numbers girls. Girls for whom the answer is 7 or maybe 5 or less probably come in fairly accurately, because they figure they aren’t really even supposed to be virgins anymore, THAT is rather shameful, and anything that’s well within single digits is probably ok for almost anyone but real prude/can’t get sex guys they don’t care about anyway. That’s the urban girl feeling.
But if you think girls for whom the true answer is 15 or more, not to mention 30 or more, give their true answers much at all except possibly to a guy that loves or they believe loves slutty girls, after much showing of same, you know nothing. Because I’m such a guy (who does love the extremes including sluts for some/many things, but hardly for having my babies or committing to durably) and I’ve gone through the process of getting good true slutty stories, and eventually true slutty numbers, out of numerous girls. I know what they say to begin with and I know what they finally say after all that. I know some/many of the rationalizations. (e.g. guys whose names they can’t remember don’t count. Guys who had no emotional impact on them don’t count. Guys they can barely remember at all, and then only with effort, don’t count. Only guys they had a relationship with count. And so on.)
When you’re a calculator, everything looks like a number, and the quantbloggers are living, breathing calculators who think everything can be reduced to a readout on an Excel spreadsheet. Good work, Doug1.
Honorable mentions go to the following:
Good Observation Awards go to Novaseeker for spelling out why any man should pay heed to the words of rakes:
The reason why rakes like Byron are useful for men to understand is because these guys understand the women guys are marrying, too, because in many cases they have bedded them, or at least turned down the dangling offer to do so. Pollitt is right, of course, that female sexuality is an unruly force. She’s wrong, because of her feminism, in thinking that unleashing this unruly force is a good thing, even for women themselves (it does not appear to make most women happy, long-term, to indulge their sexuality). But for men, in a culture which no longer restrains this significantly, it is critical to understand from people like Byron and his present-day analogues just how women, even married ones, behave sexually when the “right guy” comes along.
…z.g. for noting the four factors that have altered the sexual landscape for the worse:
All the theories of the “quantsphere” fall apart when these four are introduced:
Birth control
Condoms against STD’s
Abortion
Child support/State child support/state subsidized child care/birth money
Forget about laws, social support, other supports and welfare etc.
The above four are enough to let women loose from their given by nature shackles.
The rest is also as effective but it is more difficult for the effects of these (laws, welfare etc) to be seen by the q.bloggers in the sexual context.
Millions of years of natural restraints not existing anymore… This by itself is big enough.
…Mike T for this explanation as to why the higher education scheme will soon collapse:
WRT the college scam, the biggest problem is the fact that most of the college graduates have no marketable skills, or they have demands that are completely unrealistic for what they do have. Most liberal arts majors should feel lucky to just have jobs, and most business majors probably don’t know much more about actually running a business than the average manager at McDonalds who worked their way up the management chain.
…Thursday for pointing out how sex ratios affected the sexual revolution:
I have long maintained that the sex ratio favouring men from the 60s through the late 70s helped ease men’s acceptance of the sexual revolution. Michael Blowhard, for example, doesn’t remember anything like the kind of anger on the dating scene back when he was a young buck. The hangover for men really came in force in the 90s by which time the sex ratio had shifted in the other direction.
…and Sebastian Flyte for this note on PDA:
I think excessive PDA is a good indicator that the man has not yet slept with the woman.
Great job, all.
mike wins the Witty Comeback Award for this zinger aimed at haterette shesadandy, who was caught parroting a tired lie about men who date younger women:
Yeah, because when I look at a young fertile girl with tight, cellulite-free skin the first thing I think is “Wow, I’d like to have a conversation with her!”
Technically, mike made this comment in August, but AFTER the comment awards for that month had been issued, so I get to make an exception for awesomeness.
Justin wins the Dunce Cap Award for this spectacularly clueless statement on picking up strippers:
Strippers are not difficult to pick up. They are just always taken. There is a big difference there. In fact, the “always taken” status of strippers is due to the fact that they are not difficult to pick up.
Strippers are easy to pick up IF you have extremely tight game, which ninety-five percent of men don’t, dum-dum. Now, go sit in the corner and think about what you’ve done.
The Elusive Wapiti wins the Graphic Prediction Award for this remark on Ron Guhname’s comments about his wife:
Yeah, I’d like to see that fella’s stance on how wonderful his sweet wittle woman is if she ever leaves him.
I suspect his being forced to witness his testicles sliced off before his very eyes, his kids kept from him with the approval of the State, and his ass being sold into slavery will force him to eat a lot of crow.
No man thinks his wife will divorce him until the process server shows up.
Sofia wins the Public Service Announcement Award for her advisory on how to avoid sleep deprivation:
Seriously though, over time insomnia will affect you adversely. I had to put up with a lot of crappy, biological issues because of my involuntary sleeping habits. UNFORTUNATELY, I do get panic attacks and most sleeping medications are benzodiazapenes, which I’m pretty much immune to at this point. If you have sleeping problems, and also suffer from anxiety, request barbiturates, though I don’t know if they still prescribe that in the U.S.
Me personally, I prefer OTC allergy pills or Cruzan Blackstrap when it comes to sleeplessness.
RT wins the Tinfoil Hat Award for this insane response to Satoshi Kanazawa’s contention that Asians can’t do science:
LMAO – what a laughable joke!
China beat the West in most scientific inventions (until hitting a cultural cyclic low the last 2 centuries) by centuries. Read “The Genius Of China” by Robert Temple.
And Yoshiro Nakamatsu singlehandedly invented most of our modern technology today – including the floppy disk, CD, DVD, digital watch, etc.
The US took a leap past them in the last 2 centuries due to Asia losing wars and the US winning them. Not to mention secret technology transfers from the Grey aliens. The truth comes out and normalizes over time, though. [emphasis mine - ed.]
Remember to watch out for the black helicopters, dude – the Illuminati’s coming for you!
Finally, dagezhu wins the Creativity in Bigotry Award for “correcting” me on Roman Polanski’s ethnicity:
Polanski is not a Polack, he’s a Jew.
There’s a big difference, one that would have gotten your face beaten in if you said that to the wrong people.
He raped with his Jew cock, not with his Polack cock. Get it right.
That comment cracked me up beyond belief when I first saw it. I’m a very bad person. And I would think that “the wrong people” would be less concerned with my omission of Polanski’s Judaism and more concerned with the fact that I referred to a Pole as a “Polack.”
No comments:
Post a Comment