J. D. Stembal

I have the opposite personal experience to report as SWMA. Outside of the collegiate environment where both sexes are often equally sexually liberalized (read: hyper-sexual), I have found that women are more amenable than men to the idea of casual, friendly or one time encounters. Perhaps I send an eye-candy or bad boy signal out to most women, but I have had the frustrating reoccurring experience of getting physically intimate with a woman, only to have her run the other direction when I begin to talk about upgrading it to a serious relationship in the following months. When I was 22 and 23, I did the opposite and never broached the topic, and often resisted women who wanted to keep me honest. Personally, I was having too much fun flirting, chasing, and playing The Game. In this phase of my life, sexual intimacy would fall into my lap at regular intervals. I estimate that about half of my sexual partners have been casual or one time affairs. As soon as I started to take women seriously at age 24 to 25, and attempted to not treat them as sex objects, they began to be repelled by me. It's as though they could sense that I was acting opposite to my nature. (He looks like a bad boy, but his words don't line up.) I recall one female acquaintance tell me straight up, "I'll fuck you, but you will never be my boyfriend." I was turned off by her candidness and lack of compassion for my feelings, and declined. It felt as though she took a rubber stamp and branded me with the slogan FUCK TOY on my forehead. Obviously, that stamp was already there, and I didn't know it. I've only recently figured all this out, and avoid casual sexual encounters because it not what I want. My penis has had way too much to eat at the sex buffet already.

This has been the way of the world for quite a long time, as long as vaginas have been around anyway. It's through her eggs that the female of the species derives true power.

I'm on an EDM binge at the moment, and extremely addicted. I need help!

Mental faculty and competency is not the point. Children can comprehend sexual reproduction from a very young age if you take the time to explain it to them. Look at these baby chicks. They will grow into hens, and start to lay eggs. This is just one half of sexual reproduction... The reason why it is preferable for ten-year-old children to abstain from having sexual intercourse - no matter the age of the other participants - is because they are as yet too young to start a family. If children were actually taught about sex before the age of puberty, they would understand this and likely reserve the privilege to experience sex until later in life. In theory, I could have functionally impregnated a thirty-year-old woman at age ten since I was recently pubescent, but imagine living a family life where your father is only eleven years older than you, and your mother is thirty-one years older than you. How would that work out? In hunter-gather tribes, puberty comes far later (sixteen and older) than it does in the modern civilized world. I believe that little tidbit comes out of Sex at Dawn, but I could be mistaken. There are some very interesting theories as to why we, in the West, start puberty 6-8 years sooner than usual.

This thread has been very painful for me to read. That level of neglect and trauma is unforgivable. I am having trouble empathizing with it. Saying you have an ACE of seven doesn't put a face on the abuse, but when you consider that your mother abetted familial sexual abuse, it becomes very troubling to imagine the hostility of a family environment such as this. Your mother taught your brother how to abuse you by abusing him. I sat on a defoo letter for about a month before I sent it. It was very difficult. I would get a few paragraphs into it and burst into tears, sobbing uncontrollably as I did when I was a child when my parents rejected me. It took me about a week to open the one I got back. I knew what the content of the letter was going to be before I read it. There were no surprises at all. I wonder at the point of sending it, but it had to be done. I never have to see or speak to my parents again, and it feels liberating. I also had to cut off my cousin because I suspected my mother and her sister were using her to keep tabs on me.

She's castrating me with her words! Just kidding, I didn't watch it. I'd much rather watch one of the MGTOWs on Youtube ream her a new one. Anyone got the link for Sargon's video? I couldn't find it by quick searching his channel.

I've been noticing lately out of service ATMs, meaning they are empty of currency. What this means is that more people are holding cash, which must be accepted at stores and businesses. The financial system has taken notice of this public trend, and are currently casting dispersions against people who desire to hold cash. An all digital currency attached to your identity would totally eliminate the threat of a bank run. It would also make currency confiscation effortless. This is a win-win scenario for governments and banking institutions. Of course, this topic does not even begin to explain how paper currency is not backed by any store of value, but the typical person has no desire to learn this. They know that they don't trust the financial system, and stores have to accept their dollars. What they can't see is that the currency they have is more and more rapidly losing purchasing power, which manifests as higher prices in the stores. Mike Maloney's Hidden Secrets of Money Series is enjoyable to watch and easy to understand. It was published in 2013. The first episode has 1.1 million views, and the last episode has 327 thousand. Episode four is the most widely viewed with 3.3 million hits, and explains what G. Edward Griffin calls the Mandrake Mechanism. As a comparison, Peter Schiff's videos fall into the 30,000 to 60,000 range. A couple of Taylor Swift's music videos have three-quarters of a billion views. Apparently, poon trumps precious metals. This relative lack of views should accurately demonstrate the level of economic literacy in the world today.

One of the articles you linked mentioned mammoths and saber-toothed tigers. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6195/392 And here as well, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction: The Science article you quoted suggests otherwise. Carbon dating puts the last species of mammoth dying out around 4,500 years ago. Agriculture developed between 10,000 and 15,000 years ago. You (and Les) have yet to prove that survival is a moral action that you can universalize. It is typically preferable to live rather than to die, barring a debilitating illness as a possible exception. I explained my reason behind why extinction cannot be moral concept at the end of reply #36 - https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/43866-voluntary-human-extinction-movement-terror-management-theory/page-2#entry401086 As yet, you have offered no evidence indicating that voluntary human extinction is necessary and no logical proof to universalize extinction.

Mr. 1001 Nights, I'm glad to see you have evolved from linking Wikipedia articles to major popular science publications, but what do these articles prove? How could the mammoth been driven to extinction by modern deforestation? These are two unrelated events separated by thousands of years. You can't draw correlation, let alone causation. The mammoth is a grass-eater, and therefore did not live in the jungle or the forest. It's the same story with the saber-toothed tiger which hunted mammoths in the open plains. We also hunted the mammoth. Why aren't humans extinct as well? Could it be that we were better adapted to survive after the last ice age? Shouldn't it be the responsibility of each species to ensure its own survival? I'm a size twelve.

I'm going to diverge from the binary nature of the question and argue that the Libertarian Party has done the most damage to civilization despite having some of the best arguments. It is precisely because they have the best logical arguments that they are the most dangerous. Despite all reason and evidence, they believe in using the gun of the State, endorse the political process through voting, and hold religion to be a valid moral framework. Through these three irrational conduits, the Libertarian Party has subverted many otherwise rational individuals to participate in the mass delusion of the State with everyone else. Libertarianism is a con! How can it not be when it falls apart by its very premise, violating the non-aggression principle by existing?

How did you determine this? Have you discussed the topic with any rocks or animals? How about plants? Can you offer us any evidence of this assertion? There were five major mass extinctions before humans. Entire classes of plants and animals perished during these events. Some consider the Quaternary extinctions (the megafauna) to be the beginning of the sixth mass extinction. How are you certain the extinctions occurring now aren't a continuation of this global trend in evolution? Why are humans automatically the guilty party, and why humans collectively as a species? I can assure you that I had no part in any living being's extinction. Exclusively, I co-exist in symbiosis with extant life forms. You did not address any of the points I made against your thesis in my last reply. Thank you for your consideration in advance! It seems that way because you are ignoring evidence that contradicts the theory of human voluntary extinction. By the way, logically, you cannot make a universal moral argument that all rational actors must voluntarily extinct themselves. If anything, it falls under aesthetically preferable behavior. If you do not wish to exist, by all means, voluntarily cease to exist. However, you can't make that decision for anyone else aside from you because it violates the non-aggression principle.

If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding! How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat? - Pink Floyd, Another Brick in the Wall I also find the lack of negotiation at the family dinner table to be disturbing, as it lies at the root of dogmatic nutritional thought (three meals a day, healthy whole grains, portion control, calories in calories out), and perpetuates the propaganda onto the next generation. My three precepts are listen to your body, eat that which makes you feel good, and finally, eat when you are hungry, stop eating when you aren't. Family dinner throws all of this out the window, at least in my personal experience.

Thanks for the feedback, Scott. Admittedly, it was intended to be a click-bait thread title. I can do better than that! Here is my latest video installment of pushing the low carb envelope. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56366lBWqR0

Regarding the "numbers" issue, most women exist in a quasi-moral plane where they are empowered by sex positive messages, and simultaneously fear being judged for it. Interestingly, in my experience, it is only men who are actually put on trial for sexual misuse of their genitals. In my early twenties, I recall being shamed by women on more than one occasion for being sexually indiscriminate. At the same time, I didn't closely consider the number of partners a women has had, and if I ever asked, the question was always deflected, minimized or guessed at. You can easily see this tactic used by Dina in the call. Stefan even asks, "Why so hazy all of a sudden?" When they move on to discussing polyamory, Dina takes the lead in describing her feelings and impressions of it, but when cornered by questions, suggests that her boyfriend knows more about it - ask him. I don't know where this fear of judged as a slut comes from, but I don't think it is generally directed at women by men. Perhaps it comes from within the collective female psyche. I know a mother of two that freely admits sleeping with over ninety people, male and female. As far as I know, her and her baby daddy are still introducing new female partners into the bedroom. Before she had children, was she as candid with her sexual history? I wonder.

At the end of the The Game, Neil Strauss hangs up his player shoes and settles down with a woman. I am not entirely certain of her relative virtue, but she possesses some sort of quality that convinces Neil to retire from the player scene. Like a lot of men, I don't think his heart was really in it, his first love being journalism. In defense of PUAs, the philosophy of game centers on self-improvement, evolving as a man and building confidence through the art of seduction and handling rejection. Yes, there are a lot of cheap gimmicks, pick up lines and tricks like asking a woman to describe her imaginary box. (I still don't quite understand that one.) If you have ever seen a sleight of hand magician work a crowd, you will notice how that this skill is catnip for nearly all women in sight, not just the bunny-boilers. At some point, a man may outgrow the scene, but most of the concepts still apply to male-female relationships in general. For example, you still need to know about shit tests even if you are in a monogamous relationship, according to David Deida. A woman continually tests the "sex-worthiness" of her man. It's base animal instinct. The flip-side of human instinct is that all men want to impregnate 80% of every fertile woman that is not family in his vicinity, but everyone knows already knows this, including women. I agree that the reason professional PUAs and seminars exist is because there are almost two generations of men raised by women (to paraphrase Brad Pitt in Fight Club). We wouldn't be so desperate for the male empowerment crutch of game if we had actually been raised by our fathers instead of perfect strangers.

When I think about the opportunity costs and imposed standards of public school, I am reminded of my father timing my brother with a stopwatch as he completed his math homework assignments. My father made a critical comment about my brother's time because it wasn't completed quickly enough. The sense of defeat was palpable. All I wanted to do at age eight was make stick forts and climb trees. Is memorizing multiplication tables really that crucial to the success of a child?

When dealing with new people, by all means, go with your gut instinct regarding trustworthiness. I want to go back to the videos from Elliot and Amy. By watching just one minute of each of them speaking, which person do you trust more and why? I'm tossing this question out to everyone, not just Tservitive.

What is the subject of the thread and the intended direction or purpose of the discussion?

The result for me was more like, "We couldn't tell you were so sad. Don't you remember all the good times?" No, but I remember being hit and being prescribed anti-depressants.

Willem Buiter at Citibank is cooking up another ghastly idea for the Federal Reserve to move to strictly digital currency and abolish cash currencies. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-central-banks-should-embrace-negative-interest-rates-and-get-rid-of-currency-2015-04-13?siteid=yhoof2 Save the elderly poor; fuck criminals and Libertarians!

It is practically impossible to actually run out of a finite resource. We will stop mining petroleum deposits long before all of them are totally depleted because increased scarcity will inflate the price. As the price rises, consumers will seek cheaper alternatives, or miners will implement technology to extract petroleum more efficiently (hydraulic fracking, resonant radio waves), thus effectively lowering the price with greater supply. We can never run out of it, however, because before the last drop of oil is harvested, the price will be too high for it to be effectively used as an industrial resource. Then, there's the peanuts on a plane analogy. If you are stranded on a coral reef in a downed plane loaded with bags of peanuts, you will never find the last peanut in order to eat it because the plane will be filled with spent bags and peanut shells. The amount of time and energy you would have to expend to find the last bag of nuts would not be worth the effort.

That looks like it was lifted from The Way of the Superior Man.

Is the anxious person demonstrating empathy? It's not as though being uncomfortable is, in itself, an empathetic overture. For example, if I see a person showing the outwards signs of anxiety around me, how can I be certain that I am the cause of it without asking them about it? What if the true cause of the discomfort is their abusive father, and I happen to look like him? This reminds me of the feminist explanation behind the theory of manspreading, and why it's such a hot button issue on public transportation. How dare those stinky males display dominance on the bus?

Good luck getting people to make eye contact if you are male. I look at people for a while and wait for them to make eye contact with me. Most do not ever make direct eye contact and only look at me peripherally. If they do, they look away immediately. This is a sign of the deep dysfunction and lack of trust in society. Check out some of Elliot Hulse's body language/bioenergetics videos and his theories on non-verbal communication. This TED talk by Amy Cuddy is an interesting female counterpoint to Elliot, which associates open postures with career success, testosterone and male dominance. Whereas Elliot uses empathetic language to describe strong and open postures, Amy focuses on how closed postures promote weakness, mainly in women, and are a side effect of being judged. She goes into an anecdotal story about how she was afflicted by the "imposter syndrome" in graduate school. Then, contrast the speaking qualities of both. Personally, I feel more empowered listening to Elliot, but perhaps I have a male bias. I have the feeling that Elliot cares about me through his use of interpersonal communication, and body language. http://www.ted.com/talks/amy_cuddy_your_body_language_shapes_who_you_are Here is an unpacked version of the same lecture given to a predominantly female Harvard class. Notice how women in power poses are subjectively depicted by Amy as empowering while males are intimidating, domineering or rude.

If a possession is left out, even unintentionally, it is implied that the owner does not care about it enough to take care of it. A thoughtful person would not misplace an important item, and they would also take measures to prevent it from being stolen. This is why alarm systems, safes, doors, locks and safety deposit boxes exist. Obviously, when parking and locking a vehicle on a street, for example, not many people interpret that as an offering to the general public. However, if a major appliance in left near the curb, it is generally accepted that the owner wants you to take it. Alternatively, if you leave a valuable item in plain view inside your car, you are signalling to people that do not hold property rights in high regard to take it. The same reasoning can be used to apply responsibility to promiscuous men and women who claim to have been raped or assaulted after consorting with many people in compromising situations. The person is being careless with his property, and therefore, promoted the commission of the property crime. To bring it full circle, if you lose your wallet without identifying information, or drop a bill on the street, you have not given anyone the choice to return your possession to you, so it is impossible for you to expect that person to act morally by returning it or not taking it if they wish. I have found money lying on the street before. I have also donated clothing with money in the pocket, accidentally, of course. In both cases, the carelessness involved signals a lapse in judgement over how to best protect property rights. There is reason we have the expression, "Possession is nine-tenths of the law."