Boomhauer from King of the Hill.
1,695 words
Part 2 of 8 (Part 1 here, Part 3 here)
The good is one thing, and the sensuously pleasant, another. The wise choose the good. The foolish, being motivated by greed and avarice, choose the pleasant. — The Upanishads
Women are attracted to psychopaths — of the factor 1 kind, anyway. In one study, researchers showed women videos of men on a date. The more psychopathic the man was, the more women liked him, on average. The women also said the psychopathic men looked better in still photos, proving they perceived the men as having better looks. But even after controlling for looks, the researchers discovered women still favored psychopathic men, meaning they liked their mannerisms in and of themselves.
As part of the study, the women left voice messages to the men they had seen in the videos. Researchers checked the audio for raises in vocal pitch, which is a sign of a woman liking a man, and they found that “women tended to increase the pitch of their voices for men scoring higher in the affective component of psychopathy, i.e., shallow emotions, callousness, lack of concern for others and to lower their pitch in response to men higher in the antisocial component, i.e., those who display impulsivity, irresponsibility, disregard for authority, and poor anger controls.” In other words, they like Gordon Gekko from Wall Street and not Alex from A Clockwork Orange. The only explanation I can offer for this is that being with a deceitful, narcissistic, cold-hearted rich guy like Gekko must increase one’s odds of reproducing.
But it seems women have buyer’s remorse over marrying psychopathic men because psychopathy is a major predictor of divorce, and women usually initiate it, so women would seem to choose to leave psychopathic men more than normal men. Psychopathic women make difficult partners as well. For example, serial killer Ed Kemper described his quarrelsome mother as having gone “through three husbands like a hot knife through butter.”
One reason their marriages don’t last is that rather than bonding with their sexual partners and wanting to settle down with them as normal men do, psychopaths do the opposite. They grow bored and desire new ones. Hence, psychopathic men are more likely to cheat on their spouses, which matters because infidelity causes 20% to 40% of all divorces.
Psychopathy may seem like a serious disadvantage, but it is adaptive to an environment permitting little parental investment in one’s children. This environment could be species-wide or a social niche within a species. Psychopaths focus on having as many sexual partners as possible rather than nurturing the children they have in a monogamous union.
To see what this looks like, let’s take a look at the ladies’ man Boomhauer from the American TV show King of the Hill, soliciting phone numbers from women in a discount shoe store. His eagerness to approach them and lack of inhibition in doing so enable him to play a numbers game and eventually find a woman who will give him her number, and from the pool of women who do this, he finds one who will sleep with him. While psychopaths may experience regret over past actions, they fail to envisage the ramifications of future ones. Hence, Boomhauer remains undaunted in soliciting phone numbers from new women despite suffering near-ubiquitous rejections. Psychopathy helps men get the next woman and not retain the current one.
Unsurprisingly, psychopathy is associated with sociosexuality, or casual sex. Thrill-seeking, dishonesty, and cold-heartedness helps psychopaths more easily attract women and avoid becoming attached to them.
Factors other than infidelity put a strain on relationships with psychopathic individuals. For one thing, psychopathic people are less happy on average. According to Psychology Today, they show low levels of positive emotions and life satisfaction along with high levels of negative emotions and depression. Further, this unhappiness is partially explained by the poor quality of their romantic relationships [emphasis mine].
You can buy Tito Perdue’s The Gizmo here.
The two types of psychopaths differ in happiness. Factor 1 psychopaths have relatively higher levels of sustained happiness than factor 2 psychopaths, and find more meaning in life. They also tend to have a sense of personal growth. Factor 2 psychopaths, on the other hand, react more readily to good fortune and success, but have lower lows. Factor 2 psychopaths generally show more mood swings and are less emotionally stable. No wonder women prefer factor 1 and dislike factor 2.
Another thing imperiling psychopathic marriage is that they are likelier to perpetrate domestic violence against their spouses. Men scoring higher in the interpersonal-affective traits, or factor 1 psychopathy, are more likely to abuse their spouses than men scoring higher in the antisocial-impulsive traits – i.e., factor 2 psychopathy. This seems to go against what we’d expect, as factor 2 psychopathy entails impulsivity, but then again, factor 1 psychopathy entails lack of empathy.
Finally, psychopaths tend to be attracted to other psychopaths. This seems to be a case of double trouble.
Psychopathy not only strains relationships but efforts to start families as well. Psychopathy is strongly associated with opposition to having children — i.e., anti-natalism — meaning psychopathic men are more likely to dissuade their partners from having children. They aren’t so much opposed to breeding per se but to providing for their children. If they can get away with impregnating a woman while not having to invest in the child, they’ll do it. For example, one man purporting to be a psychopath claims he delights in knocking up out-of-town women who can’t track him down for child support, but stated he always uses protection with local women who know where he lives.
Of course, not all anti-natalists are psychopathic. Depression, student loan debt, careerism, not having the opportunity to maintain their parents’ middle-class lifestyle, educational demands, health concerns, desire for solitude, having had bad parents, and many other factors play a role in people’s decision not to have kids, so being anti-natalist doesn’t mean someone is psychopathic. Displaying traits on Hare’s psychopathy checklist-revised does.
Moreover, while promoting large families for whites in the abstract is a good thing, trying to persuade an individual other than one’s partner, descendant, or close friend to have kids may have the opposite effect of what’s intended in the sense that it may make them feel like their privacy is being invaded and harden them against the idea of having kids.
Despite psychopaths being more likely to oppose having kids, psychopathic men are more likely to sire them. In time, this would seem to cause the population evolve to become more psychopathic. One study shows antisocial personality disorder, a correlate of psychopathy, is increasing, going from 3% of men in 1994 to 5.5% in 2005. It seems like factor 1 psychopathy is going up, though, instead of factor 2, which is more associated with antisocial personality disorder.
Perhaps something is offsetting psychopathic men’s fecundity. One possible clue is that women who have antisocial personality disorder get more abortions on average, and since about a third of people who have antisocial personality disorder are psychopaths, psychopathic women probably get more abortions. That could help to offset the greater reproduction of the males.
Also, bisexuality is correlated with psychopathy, and bisexuality is popular among zoomer women, but not zoomer men, so perhaps psychopathic women opting for female partners offsets the higher reproduction rates among psychopathic men. It makes sense that a behavior that makes some men appeal to women might also make some women appeal to women.
The same study alleges that psychopathic men often become parasitic fathers. One would imagine this is more common among African-American men whose partners are on welfare. Psychopaths also allegedly view their children as possessions that can be discarded if they don’t meet expectations. I’m not saying 50 Cent is a psychopath, but despite the entertainment industry having him play a overprotective father of a girl going out on a date in fiction, the fact is that he has displayed the opposite behavior in real life and has disowned his son. The media always seems to show blacks in a better light overall than their real circumstances.
African-Americans, apparently more than any other ethnic group, help us to understand how psychopathic traits perpetuate themselves. For example, gene variants for psychopathy may be passed down partly via cuckoldry or men impregnating the wives or girlfriends of other men. African-American rappers, many of whom are highly psychopathic individuals, often express interest in having sex with other men’s women. For example, DJ Paul of Three 6 Mafia raps in “Stay Fly”:
DJ Paul is a dog, one you do not trust
. . . You leave your girl around me, if she bad, she gonna get fucked
Consider also these lyrics from Future’s “Stick Talk” from 2015:
We be talking stick talk, we be talking bricks too
We be talking lick talk, and I’ma fuck your bitch too
And Future’s “Low Life” from 2016:
That’s your wifey, wifey, wifey, wifey, wifey?
I think I like her, like her, like her, like her
This mentality undoubtedly contributes to African-Americans being more likely to have half-siblings.
Conclusion
Because psychopathy is a sociobiological concern, to some extent we can breed it out of the population by persuading individuals rich in psychopathy-linked gene variants to curtail their fertility. This may have unintended consequences, however. Half of all men aged 18-29 are single thanks to women in corresponding ages being too picky or unfriendly. One attribute of psychopathy is promiscuity. Maybe the gene variants that code for promiscuity in lighter doses merely help women to be friendly and more apt to form relationships. Thus, breeding them out of the population could result in too many women being sexually ill. It seems as though this may already be happening.
While it’s good for women to avoid outright psychopaths as well as subclinical psychopaths, it couldn’t hurt if they lightened up a bit around mildly psychopathic men and normal men — just as long as said men settle down and commit to the relationship indefinitely. Although knowing where to draw the line between harmful subclinically psychopathic men and mildly psychopathic, tamable ones is tough to figure out. In real life, no one has all the answers. The best we can do is to know the signs of psychopathy and avoid obvious cases.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “Paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
- Third, Paywall members have the ability to edit their comments.
- Fourth, Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
- Fifth, Paywall members will have access to the Counter-Currents Telegram group.
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
Paywall Gift Subscriptions
If you are already behind the paywall and want to share the benefits, Counter-Currents also offers paywall gift subscriptions. We need just five things from you:
- your payment
- the recipient’s name
- the recipient’s email address
- your name
- your email address
To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.
32 comments
“Half of all men aged 18-29 are single thanks to women in corresponding ages being too picky or unfriendly.”
You’re sure that none of it is related to men aged 18-29 being dorky, charmless, certifiably testosterone-deficient compared to previous generations, and prone to sullenly pulling out Excel spreadsheets to “prove” why they fail to attract women? Women just decided to be “too picky and unfriendly”? OK, what’s the evidence for that?
Did you ever consider that “psychopaths” (placed in parentheses because there’s nothing scientific about psychological diagnoses) exude something raw, untamed, and animalistic that naturally appeals to women? Maybe the true deviant aberration here is the “civilized” man.
In the first installment of this series, Cicero was quoted: “It is the peculiar quality of a fool to perceive the faults of others and forget his own.” There’s tremendous wisdom in that quote. I also think it applies to incels who exclusively blame women for their own romantic ineptitude.
Psychopaths are probably more attractive to women because they are behaviorally more masculine and as such make women feel more feminine. Like men, psychopaths are less emotional, blink less, have less of a startle reaction, stay up later (in the case of young men but not old men), drink more beer, are more promiscuous, have lower cortisol levels during times of stress, are more sensation-seeking, and show more conversational dominance. Double the number of men score high enough to be considered psychopaths, and the traits are more common among subclinically and mildly psychopathic men, and normal men probably exhibit more of the traits too.
As for evidence Zoomer women are pickier than Zoomer men and Boomer women, a study shows from 2011 to 2021, the percent of single women under 35 increased from 20% to 33%. In the previous two decades it hovered around 20%. In 2011, most people got smart phones. They could use them to look at all their crushes online whenever they wanted, and women could expand their tastes beyond their middle and working class social networks. The result of this was “choice overload,” a phenomenon where women become less happy with their dating options if given more of them. It didn’t help matters that women are pickier to begin with. For example, one study showed 75% of men said yes to sex with a random female asking for it, whereas 0% of women said yes to a random man. Because women started off being much pickier, getting even pickier seems to have led many to price themselves out of the market. Smart phone technology better explains this shift in increasing percentages of single women than men having lower testosterone or being “dorkier,” which we’d expect to be more gradual since testosterone levels have dropped gradually and not relatively abruptly, but it’s not to say these things don’t play a role. Smart phones seemed to be the catalyst to further unveil the lower testosterone and lower income of young men relative to the women’s fathers along with potential buildup of genetic mutations or “eternal age” which had been slowly making things more difficult in the dating scene.
Smart phones may be doing damage in other ways. Women have more 17% more gray matter in their temporal cortex, and smart phone use has been shown to retard gray matter in the temporal cortex. Smart phone use also retards gray matter in the anterior cingulate cortex, and women have a 6% larger cingulate cortex overall. These brain features are important in emotional processing, but I don’t know whether they are playing a role in making women less interested in men overall. I wouldn’t be surprised if heavy smart phone users are more likely to be single.
Regardless, single young men should judge themselves as worse than they really are because that’s how many perennially single women–and society overall–are judging them. They should concentrate on improving their income, getting a good set of jokes, improving story-telling ability–particularly with respect to funny anecdotes and punchlines–and get in shape not just in getting bulky muscles but in not being fat. If they make themselves happier income-wise and status-wise, women will like them more (though that’s easier said than done). They should ask out women with whom they share a mutual attraction even if it’s not super strong or ideal. It may work out, and it may not, but they should see whether it will.
Yes F Roger Devlin and others have delved into this phenomenon. To make a blanket statement that men are weak and worthless (which I partly agree with) and say nothing of women being degenerate whores, anti-natal, atheists, the literal opposite of wife material is just wildly white knighty. Most young American women are extremely delusional about their SMV and they all think they deserve a top 5% guy. There is a lot of data out there regarding how women have become extremely selective, mostly on fickle and shallow stuff. Rob Henderson is one researcher that comes to mind but there are many others. Because women don’t need men anymore to provide, they almost all elect to be whores in their 20s and ride the cock carousel, delaying marriage and children and only considering that for guys that are way out of their commitment league (but who may have sex with them casually). F Roger Devlin has done great work on this, really the seminal work in my view. Nobody else even comes close to assessing recent mating trends more accurately. This is coming from a guy who has a lot of experience dating and has been a cock on the ‘carousel’ fwiw. Finding a wife is a whole nother’ matter, as there are so few marriageable women out there.
@Rockwell – “To make a blanket statement that men are weak and worthless (which I partly agree with) and say nothing of women being degenerate whores, anti-natal, atheists, the literal opposite of wife material is just wildly white knighty.”
In point of fact, the blanket statement that I see, ad nauseum, in this and other comment sections is a blanket statement that women are “degenerate whores, etc.” while any criticism of male ineptitude and dysfunction is met with copy-pasta about the holy writs of F. Roger Devlin. Strange, because men of my generation had no problem whatsoever attracting and mating with women.
Sounds like this hit home for you. You can be a real man and not be a psychopath. A psychopath/sociopath is someone who lacks conscience, has no real morals, purely opportunistic. You can call it what you want but those type of men are not guys you’d want your daughter to marry, esp not in our very safe society. A psychopath is the kind of guy that would rape a child or murder one without remorse, that would sell his daughter into prostitution, etc. Some women (with daddy issues) being attracted to psychopaths is nothing new, but in the old days the girls dad and brothers would veto her going out with a scumbag like that who can’t actually give a shit about anyone but himself. Now they get used up by these guys and the more humble and honorable men (some strong, some not) have to clean up the mess. It’s a symptom of late-stage empire degeneracy that these guys are even allowed to breath, let alone reproduce or live freely. Merely being disagreeable and tough minded doesn’t make you a psychopath. Unless you can murder an innocent person or enjoy being cruel, you aren’t a psycho. Or if you are capable of loving another person, you also aren’t. If you aren’t capable of loving another human being, you are empty and worthless and always will be.
Here’s a hypothetical question. If you were to use a time machine to switch young Boomer men for young Zoomer men, meaning Zoomer men would court young Boomer women and young Boomer men would court Zoomer women, then which group would do better? I’d bet on the Zoomer men Boomer women combo especially if they had the material culture of the 1960s through 1980s. They had good-paying union jobs with humane conditions, no overpaid petered out fathers with whom to compete, no HR, a growing white collar sector, cheap rent, 80% to 90% White population, married parents, greater social capital, less affirmative action for non-whites, less crazy politics, no smart phone addicts, no dating apps, no social media, no texting, fewer college degree holders with dumb majors for employers to equivocate with smart ones. Things weren’t perfect, but they were better in many ways.
“Did you ever consider that “psychopaths” (placed in parentheses because there’s nothing scientific about psychological diagnoses)”
Even if we were to put psychology under the same standard of evidence as we would exact sciences, which is an unreasonable position to begin with, psychopathy still passes the reality test. The disease has a very strong genetic component, which makes it objectively measurable. For example, a gene involved in managing dopamine and serotonin levels has been found to be deficient in psychopaths. Not “believing” in psychopathy as a valid category is tantamount to denying race.
“exude something raw, untamed, and animalistic that naturally appeals to women?”
Just a point of contention re- how everyone seems to be treating this issue. I don’t think it’s fair to single out women, manosphere-style, when the confidence and assertiveness of psychopaths is also appealing to most men in a non sexual way. That’s why it’s relatively easy for them to schmooze to bosses or climb to leadership positions.
“Maybe the true deviant aberration here is the “civilized” man.”
Man is a social animal and we are naturally selected for at both an individual and group level. Civilized groups consistently beat the shit out of savages towards the laters near extinction. There’s nothing aberrant about evolution following its course.
Well I think the issue is that women don’t select for honor anymore, they don’t care about it at all. I think this is because men (father, brothers, grandfather ) no longer guide women in their mating choices, because any man worth a shit knows if another man has honor or not and wouldnt let a woman they love shack up with a dishonorable scumbag.
left to their own devices, women select for height, charisma, social status, dick size, dominance, jaw line, beard, etc. NOT honor or moral character, the most important traits in a spouse or friend.
The point you make about men being attracted to psychopathic men is good. I don’t know whether men are drawn to psychopathic men as leaders and if so, how it compares with the extent women are drawn to them.
In a well functioning society you must have weaker and softer men as well. Not everybody can be leaders. You also need fellas who accept being low status, just obeys orders and do what they are told. You call such men dorky and testosterone-deficient but we should not look down on anyone who can be useful for the white society. The problem is that today’s women don’t accept being with a man on their own level, since they can easily get casual sex with men of higher status. So you can’t be a low status guy anymore. A polygamous and sexually liberal society activates hypergamy in women. Some will inevitably become losers under such conditions.
Great point and this is the crux of our current predicament, as any young man with a brain and some self respect can attest. Women in your league are busy throwing themselves at guys out of their commitment league, damaging themselves in the process and making themselves unmarriageable to the guys in their league. Families aren’t being formed as a result, because what man wants a used up whore who will resent him anyways? Or a fat slob who is well below his league? These are your options if you aren’t in the top 5-10% on looks and social status. But yeah, it’s all mens fault…
Lots to unpack here, Jim, and I appreciate the Cicero quote. But I have to take issue with this part that I think you worded very carefully: “..applies to incels who exclusively blame women for their own romantic ineptitude.”
Is there any such thing as an incel who exclusively blames women, and who is not trying to cope with self-hatred over his real or perceived lack of physical attractiveness? Because incels may have LOTS of personal issues, and they may fall short in many ways, but all of those other ways except physical attractiveness don’t matter at all in terms of romance.
Why? Because women have no way of knowing about those other things. We’re not talking about men who get to go on first dates and never go on second dates. We’re talking about men who never get a second glance. Any given incel might be the greatest guy in the world except for being ugly, or might be the worst guy in the world, but he never even gets a chance to so much as speak to a woman, so no woman has the ability (or the inclination, of course) to find out anything else about him.
So why can’t such a man just accept that women find him unattractive? Why should he be mad at women? Why should he blame them for anything? Because women aren’t supposed to be like that. We see movies like “Shallow Hal” where men are superficial pigs for judging women only on how they look, and women have been complaining about being held to unreasonable standards of beauty for a long time, so we all consider “superficiality” to be a male thing. Women are the ones who do the most talking about the importance of treating everyone with equality. If you saw the movie “Eyes Wide Shut” you remember the scene where the Nicole Kidman character tells the clueless and unbelieving Tom Cruise character that women have sexual impulses just like men. Here’s the thing: most men don’t realize that and are just like Tom Cruise in that scene (I was too).
Incels need a lifeline for their self-esteem. So they think, ok, I’m not sexy and I’ll never get a girlfriend. But I won’t be a sexist pig and I will treat women with respect and I’ll at least have women friends. Well, maybe not friends exactly, but at least friendly acquaintances who will chat with me when I bump into them at work or on the bus. They won’t want to have sex with me – heck, I wouldn’t either, I can see myself in the mirror and my ears are too big and my nose looks funny – but if I treat them with kindness they will respond to me in the same way, especially since they are all (as we are all taught, as we all know) just so darned nice.
But – incels find out that’s not the case. Hey, what happened to equality? Any woman who treated black people the way she treats incels would soon be called out as a racist.
Men will at least talk to women they don’t find attractive. It seems women should be able to do that too. Hence the blame.
There is the theory that relatively high psychopathic traits among Europeans has contributed to our greater creativity over higher iq Asians. A nietszchean argument.
true psychopaths seem quite rare, nevertheless. Using the checklist, the most psychopathic people I think I’ve known only get up to around 13-16 at best. Very mild psychopaths. The full blown psychopath must be a real piece of work!
Susan Craig she is a psychopath who I was talking to on Hangouts she was scamming me and then she decided to start harassing me and threatening me her Google account is a fraudulent one she created a Google account just so she can use it to go around to scam people harass them and threaten them.
Ladies, psychopaths can be identified instantly. They are the men you feel attracted to.
Granted, factor 1 psychopathy is somewhat bundled with good looks in men. Thus, to some extent, the devil appears as an angel of light.
However, in some ways psychopaths are either no more attractive than ordinary men or less attractive than they are:
Psychopathy is not correlated with extroversion, and women grade interactions with extroverted men more highly on average.
Women like tall guys, and psychopathic men are shorter on average.
Women also like guys who resemble their fathers physically, income-wise, personality-wise, intelligence-wise, etc, and their father’s traits aren’t necessarily psychopathic.
Women differ individually in their taste for factor 1 psychopathy because psychopathic women like psychopathic men more on average.
Women tend to dislike features associated with factor 2 psychopathy. The psychopath serial killer Ed Kemper had more of these and wasn’t popular with the ladies.
My point regarding women liking psychopathic men is that if women get everything they want, they often regret it, so maybe single women should de-emphasize their interest in psychopathy-linked traits and bolster it in things unrelated or negatively related to psychopathy.
My boyfriend is moderately psychopathic. He is not perfect but he has many good and useful traits.
.
.
Does he have the ability to genuinely care about another human being? If so, he’s not a psychopath. Does he enjoy being cruel to others (not merely manly horseplay or fighting)?
Someone can probably be good and be above average in psychopathic traits. Autistics are sort of the opposite of psychopathics because they have a high gray matter to white matter ratio in their brain rather than the reverse. The two traits aren’t entirely negatively correlated and may not be correlated at all, so I can’t say one is the reverse of the other, but they differ on a biological level. Subclinical autistics can do harm in maniacally sticking to their routines and not considering the well being of others in the process. They also may go to pieces when times get tough, whereas psychopathics are more flexible on average. I guess their steely aspects can help a girl keep calm. The communication difficulties of some subclinically autistic men can be frustrating or tedious, but then again the shallowness of psychopathics can be boring. There are many criteria by which to judge a person. The psychopathy spectrum is not the only criterion.
I only care about physical beauty in personal attraction. Face and physique. I don’t care if the individual is psychopathic, low iq or about other psychic traits.
Yikes. Don’t care if she’s a whore? Manipulative? Incapable of loyalty? Honest? That’s retarded.
Whether you are kidding or not this is hilarious and I would hang out with you at a party. Which, I guess, proves the entire article true!
What I don’t believe is “bisexuality.” Instead, I think that these folks are either lying for whatever odd purposes, or they are so degenerate they’ll do damn near anything.
It’s true. Some of my friends refer to me as “contrasapiosexual.”
“In a good family, the husband is blind and the wife is deaf.” – George Washington
The Grinch who Stole Christmas.
I’m going to take this occasion to be A Grinch.
Women have to be what, 5% of white identitarian/ nationalist readers? Women who date psychopaths and who would change their behavior from reading have to be less than 5% of that group. So we’re looking at a target audience, at best, of roughly 1/20th of a woman for this article.
I have an idea.
Why not write an article directed towards men, who are 95% + of Counter-Currents readers? But not your typical Counter-Currents Men article. These have run along the lines of stating that all men unable to bag the female of their dreams are an “INCEL”. This stands for “Involuntary Celibate” and is a derogatory term implying that the luckless guy is dorky, charmless, and certifiably testosterone-deficient.
I find such writings offensive and more importantly, unhelpful.
When a decent single woman joins an online dating site she often gets 300 hits/day for matches for men. When a decent man joins one of these sites months can go by without a single eligible female. In-person meetings work better but are often characterized by a cloud of “guys on the prowl”, boasting of their Ferraris/Lamborghinis/ whatevers, with only one eligible woman.
Checking online leads to not even a hint that this situation is occurring. Usually, it’s clogged with ads from online dating sites promising a Scarlett Johansson for different levels of payment.
Why not a well-researched article on this situation and how to approach it from a man’s perspective? It could benefit men here who are looking for women which might also enhance this site’s membership. I should mention that many books on this subject are essentially worthless money-grabbing ploys.
I don’t know the gender balance of the readership, but if women are wise, they’ll read and share. It has more useful information in my opinion than most articles on the subject and a more efficient overview.
To answer your question about game, Michael Bell wrote a piece on it. It may be more suited for a twenty something in 2010, but I’m sure some things are universal. Here it is. https://counter-currents.com/2010/07/a-white-nationalist-guide-to-game/
Thanks, James, that is exactly the situation I was thinking about. It’s a very good article and I’m surprised that it only got 3 comments at the time (2010). Now the issue is how to develop “this game”. Somebody by the name of Chateau Hearst also had a humourous website addressing some of these issues but it’s been inactive for 10+ years now.
Of course, something more updated and current would also be good. Maybe some of the leads in the article on how to develop “Spittin Game” can be useful.
Abuse of some stats. While psychopathy will increase the risk of divorce, that is not the same as saying psychopathy is the cause of most divorces. Being married to a neurotic, entitled partner probably is. Notable for the study linked: those with psychopathic traits were more likely to be married to those with psychopathic traits.
When I was young I had the mentality of that TV show ‘Cheaters’. The cheating man or woman is a bad person. Now, with age, I have gotten to know the details of lots of peoples marriages and it is not so simple. People in a happy marriage don’t cheat. If a woman is vindictively withholding sex to get what she wants, is a man cheating so simple a concept? Or if a man is treating his wife badly and withholding love and affection, is she simply a slut finding romance and intimacy with another? While it is a no brainer that infidelity is a predictor of divorce, it is likely the events the preceded the infidelity that are the major turning point in the trajectory of a marriage.
While I disagree with Goad that there is no science to psychology, what science there is gets abused massively. The amount of change in startle response is not so dramatic that people are going to pick up on it. And just because a particular brain area is bigger is not a guarantee that it works better/stronger. When a body part is working inefficiently it often grows to compensate. Muscular Dystrophy is a disease of weak muscles. However their muscles are actually larger (hypertrophy) in a failed attempt to compensate. So just pointing out this or that grey matter might be bigger or smaller on a $1000 MRI scan can sometimes be the modern equivalent of phrenology.
And using Boomhauer in an article about psychopaths? He may be a flirt and not ready for a long-term relationship, but did King of the Hill show psychopathy in him? On the contrary, in this age of incels who give up easily I think Boomhauer is an example to keep trying, don’t waste your time being hung up on any single rejection (even if he is going to excess for the sake of comedy). Women are the ‘pickier’ partner in male/female dating. The man has to expect to plays the numbers moreso unless a day comes that women become the pursuers of men.
How much of being “a neurotic, entitled cheater” fits the bill for psychopathy?
Somewhat, but I smell a straw man. About half of first marriages end in divorce and it’s more complex than psychopathy and infidelity. Each partner has their own perspective on what happened and usually their stories don’t agree a whole lot. Neuroticism is far more common than psychopathy and is a well known predictor of divorce. Both partners in a successful relationship cherish the idea that they have a partner who is of value (not necessarily monetary). Part of one;s value might be not being a psychopath, but no chick intends to show a guy to her parents saying, “he’s fun, got a good job and he’s never killed anyone, even by accident”. Being a “nice” guy to her is necessary, but far from sufficient. Romance kindles the relationship, behavioral economics sustains it.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.