some honest questions to Asian/Indian and Asian/Indian American parents on the value of your sons on the dating market…

22 11 2013

1. Today in the era of radical feminism, when men are no longer evaluated on their ability to provide, why do you push your sons to study like machines, creating a whole generation of math nerds with aspergers who play the violin but lack the basic social skills and even the courage to talk to girls?

2. Do you believe the physics professor on the Love-shy forum, or the Indian room mate of 3rdworldHero who is a senior level engineer that earns 100k a year and a kissless virgin, lacks success in the dating world because they lack the ability to provide?

3. What do you think of your over protective nature and the fact you never hear your son out in anything other than academic success, does to his confidence?

4. do you think it is a coincidence that we have the highest education and lowest crime rate, the men in our community are the least desired on the planet, and being the model minority actually make us LOSE respect?

5. do you think it is a coincidence that even with affirmative action acting against us, we are over-represented in the academia especially in the field of STEM, the men in our communities are also the group that struggles the most on the dating market.

6. are you aware of the value of your sons on the dating market?

7. How do you feel about the significant proportion of young men in our community flooding into the pick up artist culture?

Advertisements

Actions

Information

49 responses

23 11 2013
Franklin

You can’t reasonably expect these parents to answer these questions because these issues are totally outside their realm of experience. The burden of dealing with these issues falls entirely on you, the first generation in the cultural cesspool. You must make the right decisions on your own, and then explain them to your parents afterwards.

23 11 2013
JL

Upbringing, confidence, social skills and culture aside, what about racial prejudice based on physique and looks, women on average preferring tall men, and Asians/Indian men being shorter and smaller than the white or black majorities? I assume that alone limits their dating market value, in addition to what you mentioned.
———————————————–
on the topic of height, Latin men are also short in stature but they don’t struggle, they are “naturals”.

22 02 2014
Aaa

I’m a 6’1″ Iranian American and I’m incel. It’s not that ethnic guys are short that women don’t want us – it’s that women ONLY want the handsome, extremely tall, muscular, white douche the media has conditioned them to want. Men like many types of girls. Women only like ONE type of guy.

24 11 2013
rantsofanincel

I do not think that looks matter as much as you think they do. I am a decent looking guy, tall, in good shape, and I am still an incel. The reason I am an incel, is the same reason why most indians/asians are incel. Overly intellectual, indifferent to social status, and shy. These three attributes are the kiss of death for today’s cunt.

24 11 2013
survivingincel

Mike, this is not very politically correct to say and you might take it the wrong way but, if you had rejection from women your entire life, you are probably not “decent looking” as you think. how women act before truly handsome men is something else all together. Check out my post on Paul Janka, who is good looking and a successful wall street trader(you can’t be a stupid thug, blue collar criminal to be that). Women and sex bloggers will fuck him for fun. They sure as hell don’t want to fuck you or me for fun.

Also check out my post about this individual Aziz Shavershian. He is an individual with an exceptional IQ, and a Science nerd since high school. But he did not get girls throughout college until he decided to transform and hit the gym. Did you think it is a coincidence that he got attention from girls after he got muscles and 6 pack abs?

If you are tall and in shape, then I am sorry to say you probably have the wrong face. It ain’t quantum mechanics, you look good you get laid, if you don’t look good you don’t get laid.

24 11 2013
The Cockroach

Well said. Have you come across the fake male-model ‘experiments’ while reading puahate?

11 12 2013
P Ray
13 12 2013
survivingincel

brought to you by PUAHate

15 12 2013
P Ray

Not exactly, more correct to say “Invisible, formerly of Puahate”.
There is still some bluepill-ery there, regarding the idea that “regular guys” should “just accept any woman that comes their way”, regardless of her previous terrible decisions.

It takes a very aware “regular guy” to be single past 30, most are grateful and unaware of reality that they accept the attentions of a former-alpha-chasing-hosebeast – the same women who chose to ignore them over pointless flings and abuses that she would never allow him to experience.

Because too many men give women second chances, women take men for granted. The only way to teach them a lesson – that actions have consequences – is to look beyond the bluepill attitude that
“ugly women are nicer” and “women have fun until their 30s, then they settle down”.
After all, women don’t consider “ugly men are nicer” and think that attractive men are winners, while those they marry are “losers”(Would you consider marrying a 30year old moneysapping cockcase an upgrade to your life?)

24 11 2013
Puahate Representative

You would have absolutely no problems getting laid if you really are, as you claimed, a tall, good looking stud.

http://puahate.com/showpost.php?p=1622952&postcount=126

24 11 2013
rantsofanincel

You may be right about that! If you are EXCEPTIONALLY good looking, you are absolutely right. I am maybe a little above average in looks, but that probably does not mean much. I have met quite a few “naturals” who were quite ugly, yet always had a woman, however. I never seemed to understand that.

26 11 2013
Sal

rantsofanincel makes a good point… I strongly believe that it is possible for someone to be good looking and incel… IF and only IF that person has serious personality flaws… take misclegend from puahate, a legitimately good looking dude.. but nonetheless incel… I’m incel as well and I can objectively say that I am good looking, I’m not someone prone to self delusion and I have no problem admitting my own personal flaws, I have many. Being severely shy and passive limits both your attractiveness and your options… and some people will even start suggesting that you are gay. I have had success through online dating though which I’ve only started recently, so hopefully the incel thing will change soon. But as far as soliciting dates in “real life” being dominant and aggressive is the key.

I certainly agree that looks matter to women, but I honestly think it’s around the 2nd or 3rd most important factor for them. A lot of times it’s a necessary condition, but NOT a sufficient one.

26 11 2013
survivingincel

“being dominant and aggressive is the key”
right, violent criminals have no problem in that department. I will make another post concerning passiveness in men in today’s era. If cavemen were timid math nerds that play the violin(Asian/Asian Indian males), the human race would not be here today.

And to Sal, if you can have success in online dating, which means you can really pass the look test were as I can’t. I can bet in real life you do get attention from women but can’t act upon it. On the love-shy forums you are what we call a “pure love-shy”, not an incel.

see my previous post about feminism affecting love-shies and incels. Feminism can actually work TO your advantage since it tells the woman to take on the aggressive role, and you have the looks thats good enough for them to be WORTH pursuing.

The ground truth here is, the thug who dealt drugs ,robbed and murdered people by the the knife and gun, gets far more tail than the scrawny graduate student from India with the thick glasses and aspergers that has extensive knowledge and understanding of string theory

If “sapiosexuals” exist, we humans would be a far more intelligent species

24 12 2013
Tyrion Lannister

“right, violent criminals have no problem in that department”

Well many of you have observed a palpable female tendency to preferentially mate with abusive, and promiscuous male delinquents. There are two hypotheses regarding this issue:

1) Some researchers think that this tendency is real because it has been biased by evolutionary success (and is thus adaptive in the near evolutionary frame). The strategic optima of genetic benefits (indicated in physical attractiveness) is short-term mating, and thus anything that expedites short-term mating traffic (netting males higher fitness gains, and thus an evolutionary advantage) is likewise advantageous.

It then follows that genetically attractive males should evolve strategies that expedite this kind of traffic (frequently indicated in abuse, delinquency, and promiscuity), as documented in the study:

“Good genes, mating effort, and delinquency” (Martin L. Lalumièrea and Vernon L. Quinseyb a Forensic Program, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 250 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5T 1R8;b Department of Psychology,
Queen’s University at Kingston, Humphrey Hall, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, K7L 3N6.)

Thus, evolutionary success will tend to correlate male physical attractiveness with abusive, delinquent, and promiscuous tendencies (and will limit deviations accordingly). So, when we observe that females privilege such males, it is not that females find these traits attractive per se, but rather that they are selecting for certain desirable traits that have become correlated with negative ones – this is their dilemma.
In fact, females will be under evolutionary pressure to accomodate such males, as male offspring will tend to share the same inherent advantages as their fathers, resulting in high-fitness male offspring for the mothers (and thus a likewise evolutionary advantage).
Females who tend to reject such males will be at a relative disadvantage(producing less prolific offspring), and thus evolution will tend to limit the frequency of such females over time to the point of rarity.
To summarize, there are evolutionary reasons why female choices tend in the opposite direction from ‘nice guys’(females who privilege ‘nice guys’ – by the conventional meaning of the term – incur an evolutionary disadvantage for the increased prospect of breeding fitness-handicapped sons – thus evolution will limit the frequency of such outcomes accordingly).

But others data and evidence suggests the opposite pattern:

2) Several researchs have refuted that male physical attractiveness could be correlated with delinquency and criminal behavior :
http://cw.routledge.com/ref/criminology/physical.html
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00916114
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=112343

Furthermore “Good genes” theory is not is not entirely clear and verified, because there is not a direct association between physical attractiveness and good genes.

Most empirical research is based on the assumption that individuals seek a mate of the highest possible quality (in terms of the genes or resources that can provide), and hence show directional preferences for indicators of mate quality. This would imply that attractiveness and quality should be highly correlated. But surprisingly there are not a linear relationship between beauty or its components and genetic fitness, and there are not particular greater mate qualities of those who are highly attractive.
Empirical research show that whereas unattractive faces can signal poor genetic fitness, on this account, those who avoid mates with extremely unattractive faces would have increased their reproductive success over those who did not. In the extreme case of genetic anomalies, such as Down’s syndrome, it is obvious that unattractive faces signal low health and intelligence. However, faces that are above average in attractiveness are no more ‘‘fit’’ than those in the middle of the attractiveness.
Specifically, some mathematical models have shown that the preferred male must provide genes that increase the survivorship or mating success of the offspring as compared to the genes provided by less desirable males. And empirical research on lek mating systems, as well as other non resource-based mating systems has confirmed the association between mate preference and increased offspring viability, although the fitness effects appear small at only a few percent.
Beauty provided valid cues to intelligence and/or health for faces in the lower but not the upper halves of the distributions of these facial qualities. Thus, low attractiveness (low averageness, low symmetry, or low sexual dimorphism) signal low fitness, as indexed by intelligence or health. On the other hand, high attractiveness does not signal any higher levels of fitness than does moderate levels of these attribute. Then mate preferences for attractive faces could not have enhanced reproductive success via choice mates in the top half of the beauty distribution.
So maybe humans not only correctly utilize these cues when they are valid, but they also overgeneralize, utilizing these cues in the upper half of the distribution, where they are not valid. Therefore beauty preferences appear to have evolved under the influence of both the good genes and the runaway selection mechanisms.

28 12 2013
Franklin

Tyrion, I hope you realize that modern research is crap. I explained why women in feminist societies are attract to evil morons here:

http://www.biblicjudaism.org/Human-Evolution-tp17.html

29 12 2013
survivingincel

the long argument here between a lot of us, is that we do agree on these two points:
1. Handsome evil assholes have their fair pick of women in the west
2. ugly, intelligent, nice guys are incels in the west

what we disagree on:
Franklin: personality matters more than looks, an ugly evil asshole has better reproductive opportunity than the handsome nice guy

PUAHate and NewHope: good looks fix everything, handsome nice guy beats ugly bad boy any day. Badboy personality is the byproduct of physical attractiveness, as Tyrion here tend to agree more

and the disagreement continues. However; I do see evidence point towards Tyrion and the others from what I observe

27 11 2013
angelwanderer

Men are aggressive by nature. We’re built for it. Our minds, our bodies, our core constitution, all are pointed this way . We are MEANT to be this way because it compliments our counterpart. Everything in today’s life is designed to circumvent natural masculinity in favour for a softer, feminine version. Rather than understand, cultivate it, value men’s ways, we’re given messages to stem it and put a stopper on it. You don’t stem nature, you merely alter it’s course until it pops up under pressure somewhere else.

We need more serious talk (not from tossers who drop in and laugh at this issue) figuring out what the hell is missing in men’s modern lives that makes them feel so depressed, alone and powerless to counter the affects of prolonged INCEL. The problem is real and growing. – A (http://angelwanderer.wordpress.com/)

27 11 2013
survivingincel

men have aggressive, its all about how you use it. Nikolai Tesla did not use his masculine aggression to commit crime and rape, but dedicate his entire life to science and research. Without aggression, he would not have accomplish what he did

28 11 2013
angelwanderer

Good point – A

28 11 2013
angelwanderer

Very good point -A

11 12 2013
P Ray

Asian parents have 0 clue about what their kids want,
and 0 clue about how to address the world beyond:
earn money, be milquetoast, and the women will come.
They need a short, sharp shock by their male children saying:
Mum, Dad, I’ve done what you say and have gotten zero results, so I am off for a sex tour in Europe.
I know you want what’s best for me, but the girls you present are sluts to other guys and treat me as their gay best friend.
Besides, they’re not that attractive either, which makes their attitude even more terrible.
I am off to ravish some woman that actually allows me to mesh genitals with her, and I am sure you have nothing to tell me beyond “it’s immoral” and “what will the neighbours think”.
The neighbours don’t think about you or me, and you cannot help change the attitudes of the girls you know, so I need to fix myself.
Having made all this money, it is time for me to enjoy it.
… and then, sex fest in Europe (it is pointless to stay nice forever when it gets you 0 results, as Einstein said, insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results)

13 12 2013
survivingincel

yup!

14 12 2013
Asianguy

How can the blind lead the blind? What makes you think Asian parents are even capable of comprehending these questions? They didn’t grow up in the West, they can’t possibly understand the social dynamics when they themselves are surrounded in their immigrant bubbles.

31 12 2013
survivingincel

just because they can’t comprehend, that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t ask

31 01 2014
blah

This is true. In their minds, they honestly believe that these old world values hold the same value in western culture. They are working within the context and social dynamics of the Old Country, which they believe will help their sons gain status and secure a wife. Of course, what they fail to realize is that the rules that worked there does not work here. Rather pointless to try and convince them otherwise.

24 12 2013
Tyrion Lannister

I feel compelled to address some questions about sexual selection. First, the results of these empirical studies (field experimentation,speed dating, online dating,etc) generally are totally opposite to the evolutionary hypothesis that women would emphasize social status attributes more than men. Also failed to support the hypothesis that men would emphasize physical appearance more than would women. Furthermore, regarding to strong female choice skew, women accept less variability on this dimension from their potencial partners than men do. A physical attractive appearance is the characteristic prefer mostly by women when considering a potencial partner. Attractiveness clearly plays a much larger role in women`s mating preferences than theoretically has been supposed.

In fact, the sexes in general are far more similar than different in terms of their selection standars. This suggests that male partners are primarily selected on the basis of external physical attributes, rather than by any ability to provide resources, intelligence, or mental stimulation through social skills. Taken together, empirical studies suggest that any theoretical evolutionary perspective completely captures the dynamics for human mate selection. Parental investment-based evolutionary theories and social context theories are structured based on to a mixture of surveys, self-reports (questionnaires are lack validity for measure of mate preferences), and theoretical predictions (not within real mate choice environments) and seem particularly suited to predicting and explaining short-term mating preferences. Neither perspective comprehensively accounts for the importance placed by women on attractiveness in male partners and the relative unimportance given to social status attributes. Interestingly, Darwin himself predicted this patter, suggesting that when existing environmental conditions create the opportunity to choose from an array of potencial mates, both sexes will select partners:

“not for mental charms, or property, or social position, but almost solely from external appearance” (1871, p386).

Although Darwin did not speculate as to the adaptive significance of this preference for beauty, it is certainly the case that in modern ,industrialized societies ,the physical and social environments are such that both men and women have considerable, and considerable more equal, powers of selection ( e.g., mobility increases access to potencial mates, economic opportunities for women reduce the need to select mates based on financial considerations, contraception, decreased social sanctions against divorce and premarital sexual activity, etc).

24 12 2013
Tyrion Lannister

Some points:

1) Female domestic authority is associated with female mate preferences more like those typical of males (i.e., based upon the dimension of visual parameters) across a sample of nonindustrial societies, providing further evidence for the contribution of social and economic constraints on women to sex differences in mate preferences. When women are not dominated by their husbands and therefore have greater equality in terms of power in the household, they express more male-typical mate preferences. In societies with high female domestic authority (i.e, Western world) women had mainly stronger preferences for physical attractiveness in a male partner than in those with lower female domestic authority.

2) Kurzban and Weeden (2005) document the importance of group size (i.e, modern world: great populations, widespread mobility, communication networks, internet,etc) whereby women, not men, become more selective in larger meetings. Female choices are more skewed than are those of males, indicating greater mate choice agreement and hence greater potential effects of sexual selection at the hands of women as the choosier sex. That is, for humans, the more potential mates available to the chooser (females), the greater the inequality in mating opportunity among the selected (males). In still other words, when top-ranked (on beauty) men are among more competitors, they dominate even more and low-ranked men fare even less well.

3) These findings suggest that mate choice strategies are indeed influenced by the choice environment: As the mate decision becomes more cognitively demanding, people (women are more discriminant) use simplifying heuristics that are likely to ensure that the mate chosen is above-threshold on at least the chooser’s most-important criterion: morphological clues.

4) Moreover there are plenty of analyses that reveal that women are less willing than men to compromise to deviating from their ideal aesthetic standard and accordingly assume the possibility of assortative mating. Most of empirical mating research (i.e., speed dating studies, online dating studies, field studies (where the vast majority of females choice the same top-ranked male targets as potencial partners) are consistent with men, but not women, significantly compromise their mate beauty standards (e.g., attempting to mate using sub-par courtships for casual sex.) because such compromise increases the likelihood of finding some female partner ready to pair off.

24 12 2013
Tyrion Lannister

Although the ancestral state of early human bond pairing is not well known given the lack of conclusive archaeological evidence, arranged marriages are inferred to go back at least to first modern human migrations out of Africa and phylogenetic reconstructions suggest that marriages in early ancestral human societies probably had low levels of polygyny (low reproductive skew) and reciprocal exchanges between the families of marital partners (i.e., brideservice or brideprice).

Thus, mutual sexual attraction, traditionally, has never been a requirement for long-terms relationships. Rather, sexual chemistry was(and in many cultures still is) a frequent trade-off that women were expected to make, in securing a long term mate – the reason being, that women are so selective in terms of sexual chemistry, as to render an insoluble scarcity of males to satisfy this requirement under assumptions of a monogamous mating system.

Female sexual liberation (where they were no longer economically/politically dependent on their mates) changed all that, and engendered in effected female populations a kind of romantic idealism, that, for many, will be impossible to realize. And it is these kinds of unrealistic expectations that form the basis for much of the prevailing conflict between the sexes in the Western world. But, what most in the manosphere fails to grasp is that being a high-status male in the current mating market (post female sexual liberation) says less about independent wealth/status indicators, than about indications in physical attractiveness.

True, all things being equal, women will favour wealthy/high status males – but only in very exceptional cases (often involving very high profile individuals in the public eye, tending to skew perceptions of normal) will a female make significant concessions in terms of the physical attractiveness of her mate (unless she is not, herself, attractive enough to warrant the attentions of physically attractive males).

Not so surprising, when one considers that a selection bias for resourceful males should exist in some proportion to the advantages they pose to the survival of her offspring. Thus, if the advantages are small (given a prosperous welfare state, which marginalizes these advantages), then there will be minimal selection bias (which explains a large population of women who are increasingly disinterested by the lone prospect of a resourceful mate). Therefore male physical attractiveness has become the limiting concern in female mate choice, following a Pareto (Principle) distribution.

Females only receive two quantities of evolutionary value from males – direct benefits (observed in long-term mating, with implications for the survival of offspring), and genetic benefits (observed through indications of physical attractiveness in her mate). And since females can receive genetic benefits outside of marriage(i.e. through casual sexual encounters), and no longer need rely upon mates for the survival of their offspring, there is no pressure for them to compromise on holding out for an unlikely (long-term)fantasy partner.

24 12 2013
Tyrion Lannister

Firstly, you all need to appreciate that females are the reproductively limiting sex (rate limiting in reproductive success) – which manifests in *all* dimensions of mate choice (in other words, females are more selective in all their mating considerations).

One obvious implication of this, is that, given sufficient latitude of female choice (i.e. relieved of systemic constraint, which would otherwise limit their choices), female sexual choices will always tend towards small male breeding populations. In more colloquial terms, what this means is that male/female ‘leagues’ are asymmetrical – with male ‘rank’ being bottom heavy in distribution, while female ‘rank’ being top heavy.

If we take the (justified) assumption that guys are more inclusive in their mating choices, and consider a higher male optimal mating rate, we also come to an inescapable conclusion: that not only should the most attractive males mate with the most attractive females (duh), but also a significant proportion of average females as well(given the higher male mating rate). Which, of course, renders less available ‘average’ females to be mated with average guys – necessitating an imbalance that progresses down the attractiveness scale(rendering a sexually asymmetric mating dynamic).

This is why it is so easy to observe that even relatively unattractive females are still much more successful than unattractive males at disassortative mating (i.e. such as with fat women being able to commonly mate with non-fat men, etc). Next, know that females consider only two quantities of selective value in their mate choices: genetic benefits (physical attractiveness – optimized in high-rate short-term mating), and direct benefits (optimized in long term mating). Thus, long-term relationships (i.e. long term mating), and short term relationships are each just one of two time-variant fitness strategies. Women have evolved to value long-term relationships because this implies direct-benefits (long term benefits with implications for paternal investment as the basis of selective value in long-term mating). But, they have also evolved to value short term relationships as this implies genetic benefits (genetic quality indicated in sensory biases fixed by evolutionary success, and subjectively assessed as physical attractiveness).

Since these two forms of benefits are rooted in evolutionary stratetegies with conflicting optima, females have evolved a further strategy to minimize the trade-off in receiving one benefit at the cost of another – something we know as strategic pluralism: where females are mate specific in receiving independent benefits(they tend to mate with the most physically attractive males for their genetic benefits, and manipulate the less attractive, but more resourceful males(who are frequently duped into supporting the offspring of the former) for their direct benefits.

24 12 2013
Tyrion Lannister

It is important to stress that, from the perspective of the ‘nice guy’, any female who neglects to mate with him within a reasonable interval (or at reasonably frequent intervals), can justifiably be deemed a risk for ‘strategic pluralism’ (and paternity fraud).

Females (unlike males), do not enter into long term relationships (inclusive of marriage) for sex. And because of the economically prosperous, systemically mediated welfare state dynamic that prevails in developed world populations, economic and ecological pressures no longer mediate their mate choices to the extant they did in the past.

One consequence of this is that erotic capital (physical attractiveness) has supplanted other forms in the stratification of male status with respect to mate availability. So, being a high status male (with respect to mating) now says less about material wealth, than about physical beauty. All things being equal, females will still preferentially mate with males who provide the highest measures of direct/genetic benefits available to them. But, since things are rarely equal(for reasons I will expand upon below), gender-biased legislation combined with female hyper-selectivity makes it all but certain that those females who marry, will tend to practice a bait and switch style of marriage(with minimal sexual concessions).

28 12 2013
survivingincel

Lord Tyrion, what brings you here from Westros? thank you for posting!

31 12 2013
Tyrion Lannister

@survivingincel,

Thanks for appreciating my comments. I have come across this blog accidentaly, and I realized that most of you (in particular, the author) really are observing a real phenomenon in the high level, systemic effects of runaway sexual selection(and the more or less predictable evolutionary consequences).

But, at the same time, the prevailing layman interpretation of this dynamic is deeply flawed. So, I feel the best way to increase knowledge of this phenomenon is to redress much of the misinformation being circulated on various topical blogs.

Unperturbed female sexual choice can be the most pernicious agency acting upon the stability of density dependent human systems. And, since the ‘problem’ I am describing is a systemic one, entangled in the most base and selfish of evolutionary concerns (which mediate all human rationality), there can be no common solution, these problems must resolve systemically, over evolutionary time (where we should expect that the same invariant evolutionary forces that acted upon small populations in the past, tending to constrain female choice, will likewise hold, and reassert themselves in the future).

29 12 2013
P Ray

So, in short:
Alpha fux and beta bucks; women want sex with the quarterback and the nerdly chump to pay for the kid AFTER the quarterback dumps her (cue: Man up; be responsible for ANOTHER man’s kid; if you truly loved your wife she’s allowed to be a slut; the only guys that can screw around are the attractive ones; men have to pay (old) women for sex.

Does that cover everything?

31 12 2013
Tyrion Lannister

@Franklin,
“Tyrion, I hope you realize that modern research is crap. I explained why women in feminist societies are attract to evil morons here:”

I think another subtlety lost on those naive enough to comtemplate a correlation between female short term strategy and evil badboys, are confuning correlation with causation.

Women don’t necessarily want to ride the carousel, per se. It is rather a case where they want the most physically attractive males (causation), who – for evolutionary reasons – will tend to be fixtures of the carousel machinery (this is because physically attractive males have a high-rate fitness optima, and thus, evolution will limit the frequency of monogamous-tending deviations accordingly, given the implied fitness handicap).

Men vary in their genetic quality, largely due to mutational pressure in the context of parasite resistance dynamics, which impede allelic fixation. Men with good genes have low levels of developmental instability, and some indicators of developmental instability are detectable. Women prefer men with low levels of developmental instability, and hence such men have more mating opportunities and therefore they can invest less in particular women (eliciting badboy/cad behaviour).

31 12 2013
Franklin

You obviously didn’t read my article.

3 01 2014
Thir d WorldHero

I had dedicated a post for this in my blog

http://3rdworldhero.blogspot.com/

Regarding the Indian engineer (i put photo up).. I actually know of an more insane story. Try Asian-American MILLIONAIRE ivy educated with a downtown penthouse who has women problems! Females should be flocking to him… but things are not always what they seem.

//Please add me on your blog roll. Thank you — Happy New Year

4 01 2014
survivingincel

no problem bro!

5 01 2014
sbui

Interesting blog and interesting comments. I am not exactly a 3rd world “hero” but am a 3rd world fob(although long ago) to west nonetheless. So even though my situation is different than OP, and although I am nowhere near to understanding GR let alone string theory(lol), I can still relate my STEMy nerdness to this post. Keep writing guys. Good to be aware of reality(even though negative) than be delusional.

6 01 2014
survivingincel

thank you for commenting. I can tell you this, understanding string theory doesn’t turn on the hot girl. Its the square jaw and the six pack abs, along with psychopathic immorality to boot.

6 01 2014
survivingincel

would you mind posting about your situation as well?

7 01 2014
sbui

I won’t generalize saying “Indian culture” as its too varied and complex, but in the culture I come from, if you are ugly or emigrant or both like me, the only way to find a relationship is marry in arranged system. Although, 100% of my immigrant(& otherwise) friends don’t find anything wrong in it, I oppose it on principles and most probably would die a dateless incel than trade a body and call it wife.

Secondly, I am a staunch atheist and childfree by choice. I don’t see any point in breeding. Amateur but passionate anti-natalist. This is like a 9 dimensional impossibly weirdest thought to most of women(& men).

Thirdly, I do have nerdy interests (though I am not very intellectual). I prefer documentaries & parallel cinema to holly/bolly and what not woods, prefer technical books(with equations) to novels etc., never ever listen to music, don’t enjoy social occasions of more than 3-4 people & have no idea of what to speak beyond “weather” in gym/pub/bars etc. This makes me look like a rude logical smart-arse.

So there you go, I even know logical answers of why I am a perpetual incel and why I won’t be able to do anything about it. I read blogs like your’s and laugh at myself. Its a bit entertaining.

Note: Understanding string(& other) theories might be a pleasure in itself which I crave for, may be not as much as sex, quite a bit though 😉

6 01 2014
Thir d WorldHero

Clarification on the name Third World Hero. Third World because I left the “developed nation” as an act to rebel against my socio-economic position. I am using the Third World to leverage a business, much like how many AMERICANS are now operating in Asia marketing themselves as “location independent” when in fact they are Third World arbitrageurs, using Asia again to leverage themselves. I asked myself: I am Asian-American so Asia is a natural extension for me. Now I am here, all the cultural dictates are working in my favor and I am happy because of it.

I also operate in Latin-America. I will be heading to Brazil sometime this year. As an Asian man in Latin-America, I get a noticeable bump in my SMV (Sexual Market Value). Read my post on my time in Colombia (with pics) to see my story.

http://3rdworldhero.blogspot.com/2013/07/when-i-went-to-colombia.html

Hero. Hero is quite a story because I mean well, but I am no way trying to save anybody. My story has inspired others and will continue to inspire others. I was actually inspired by my African-American friend who moved out the USA for Brazil so credit goes to him. Lastly, HERO because I have a GO PRO HERO camera and if you go to my youtube channel (link at blog) will see me actually pickup girls and you will notice how the local girls have a vibe that is much more “approachable”.

12 01 2014
P Ray

Are they “more approachable” because they’re naturally more open, or because you “have what they want”?
It seems that with local men and women being paid pittances in Asia, they suddenly appreciate “a foreigner with money”.
And of course, the local women can always turn tricks or rely on “beta orbiters” to get extra money: that is how an “entry level receptionist” affords designer handbags.

31 01 2014
blah

Seems like at the end of the day, men and women act exactly as nature has intended. All this talk about women’s sexual liberation and out of control feminism is really a moot point at the end of the day since everyone is driven by their most base, primal desires. Women MUST be selective, because their biology dictates it. In her entire life, the number of eggs a woman will ever produce has already been programmed at conception. Men essentially have an unlimited supply of sperm and can father child well into old age. Hence, by nature men are promiscuous and seek sex with as many females as possible. That’s how the entire animal kingdom works. If you have shitty genes, the best you can do is work hard to change what you can change. All of this mental masturbation does not change the laws of biology. Sad but true.

31 01 2014
survivingincel

it is a misconception that incel men are deformed and have “shitty genes”. many of them are normal people. A lot of incel men I know are intelligent guys from the technical field and engineering.

why is the aptitude for the math and science, a characteristic that MANY incel men have, “shitty genes”?

31 01 2014
blah

I’m not saying “shitty genes” in that sense. I think those are attributes that should be valued, but actually aren’t by society. I put “shitty genes” in quotation to imply that point. Popular culture does not value those attributes when it comes modern dating culture, but instead values things like “you’re hot.” I guess I could have been clearer instead of an attempt at sarcasm.

16 03 2014
Tyrion Lannister

The “bitterness” and “creepiness” that women accuse loveless beta/omega males of exhibiting is often a symptom of a lifetime of failing to attract cute women. The lesser beta male may start his dating life with hope and romantic abandon, but repeated rejection hardens his outlook and reinforces women’s negative impression of him. This is why it’s critical for fathers of young sons to explain clearly and powerfully the nature of women and the minefields of romantic courtship that will be encountered before repeated setbacks make the job of finding a lover much more difficult later on when personality and temperament are less pliable.

16 03 2014
Franklin

I have a son of dating age. I have told him that American women and women in other feminist countries are the scum of the earth to be avoided like the plague, and that he should travel to non-feminist countries to date.

22 10 2014
fun dating

fun dating

some honest questions to Asian/Indian and Asian/Indian American parents on the value of your sons on the dating market… | Suriviving Involuntary celibacy the way I know how

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Boy DOESN'T Meet Girl

Welcome to the dark ages of male-female relations.

The Human Mating

Empiricism is the path of the knowledge

Third World Hero

my weight loss progress to get a girl

MICHAEL FORMAN AUTHOR

Neo-noir-erotica to get between the bone and flesh.

rantsofanincel

This is a site dedicated to men who suffer incel/TFL

THELONEWOLFTRAVELER

Travel, sex, aond dating blog, tourist, non confrmist, adventure seeker, culture explorer, sex and dating travel blog, Asian pioneer, Asian Manosphere, Asian Pride Website, A kickass blog for the Asian man, Author of #1 Amazon best seller "Get Laid in Hong Kong. A Travel Guide for the Western Asian Male."

M3

I will face my fear and let it pass through me.

The Sweat Project

A Personal Fitness Journey

Prego and the Loon

Pregnant and Dealing With Domestic Violence

Love Is My Only Addiction

Love Can Be Digested By All

Playing the Devil's Advocate

Upholding Dissent and Skepticism

CoAlphaAntiModernistIncelBlogger

Anti-modernist, anti-feminist, anti-liberal, anti-MRA, anti-seduction pro-patriarchy/reactionary, pro-Islam blog on incel, love-shyness, decline of the Western civilization/modern culture, concept of coalpha men/society and life in general

Freedom From The Gynocracy

There is no personal solution to systemic problems, and feminism/women is a systemic problem.

No 'FRIES' for 365

- My Journey: A Blog About Fitness, Nutrition, & Overall Health -

The WordPress.com Blog

The latest news on WordPress.com and the WordPress community.

%d bloggers like this: