Chubby Older Dads Are More Attractive To Women, Study Finds

OP
kayumochi

kayumochi

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2015
Messages
376
I have often heard husbands say, "I have decided not to have kids and my wife agrees." When I hear this I stay silent knowing what will more than likely unfold: He made the decision not to have kids and his hot wife went along (maybe she wants to keep her figure, travel, please hubby, etc). Soon she will watch all her friends having babies while she contents herself with cats and dogs. Then, her body starts to talk. Sometime later I will hear they have a newborn ...
 
Last edited:

michael94

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
2,419
The problems you are complaining about are the symptoms of what Men have done in the past and continue to do. It is wrath well-deserved...and an opportunity for the Others to overcome.

Men get exactly what they deserve from women, Good and Bad. She is the more beautiful reflection of You, but as they say... garbage in garbage out.

 

x-ray peat

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
2,343
The problems you are complaining about are the symptoms of what Men have done in the past and continue to do. It is wrath well-deserved...and an opportunity for the Others to overcome.

Men get exactly what they deserve from women, Good and Bad. She is the more beautiful reflection of You, but as they say... garbage in garbage out.


Thank you for the Nazi take on the subject from a member of the SS propaganda wing, Kurt Eggers.

This fashionable meme that Democracy has failed us and we need to try something else is just as manufactured as all the fake third wave feminist BS. Divide and Conquer as said above. It's not left or right or women vs men, it's the elite vs everyone else. To blame women for all of the ills of society that are purposely propagated amongst us by the ruling elite is the ultimate in naiveté to put it politely. Read Anthony Sutton for a little background on who funded both Communism and Nazism. The same people currently fund feminism, the alt right, anitifa, Democrats, Republican's etc. It is all a rich man's trick. FWIW Ray has said over and over how the CIA and our government have taken hold of all political ideologies to confuse the real issue of class in this country.

and in case anyone thinks that I have Michael's ideology all wrong, his previous avatar was that of a little girl in a Nazi uniform. His current one is a picture from Eagle's Nest, Hitler's fortress of solitude. The video he posted can be found on several neo-Nazi websites.
 

Kyle M

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
1,407
Thank you for the Nazi take on the subject from one of Hitler's favorite composers and member of the SS propaganda wing, Kurt Eggers.

This fashionable meme that Democracy has failed us and we need to try something else is just as manufactured as all the fake third wave feminist BS. Divide and Conquer as said above. It's not left or right or women vs men, it's the elite vs everyone else. To blame women for all of the ills of society that are purposely propagated amongst us by the ruling elite is the ultimate in naiveté to put it politely. Read Anthony Sutton for a little background on who funded both Communism and Nazism. The same people currently fund feminism, the alt right, anitifa, Democrats, Republican's etc. It is all a rich man's trick. FWIW Ray has said over and over how the CIA and our government have taken hold of all political ideologies to confuse the real issue of class in this country.

and in case anyone thinks that I have Michael's ideology all wrong, his previous avatar was that of a little girl in a Nazi uniform. His current one is a picture from Eagle's Nest, Hitler's fortress of solitude. The video he posted can be found on several neo-Nazi websites.

Unfalsifiable hypotheses to the rescue!!!
 

Kyle M

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
1,407
Only to someone as blind as you who refuses to read something he doesn't already know. The self-confidence of ignorance knows no bounds.

That's exactly how I learned what I know now, howja know?

You might want to look into psychological projection, as you have steadfastly refused to read and/or take seriously anything I've ever recommended to you.
 

x-ray peat

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
2,343
That's exactly how I learned what I know now
You might want to look into confirmation bias, as it seems your reading list is based on a Spotify playlist type algorithm. Even your misuse of Karl Popper's, much maligned and incorrect, theory of falsification has a connection to the Austrian School. Moreover it applies to science and experimentation, not history but your forced use of it only goes to show how much you have limited your sphere of knowledge to the self contained world of Libertarian fantasies.

You might want to look into psychological projection, as you have steadfastly refused to read and/or take seriously anything I've ever recommended to you.
I have spent more time on the Mises Institute website looking into your Anarcho-Capitalism theories than I care to admit but did so out of intellectual curiosity. I seriously doubt you have ever gone to any of the websites or read any of the books I suggested.
 

Constatine

Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2016
Messages
1,781
There were no Elliot Rodgers
My next door neighbor was injured by Elliot Rodgers. I think emasculated fathers are definitely a huge part of the equation. The most successful people I know, both financially and with women have had extremely masculine fathers. Many young men just don't know how to be men anymore, yes men tend to be less androgenic now a days, but they were also never taught what is manly and what is feminine.
 

Badger

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2017
Messages
960
I agree, but a measure of blame stills falls on the willing and willfully ignorant dupes of the elite, including women. Hence there is validity in analyzing the role of the willing tools of the elite, whether or not they know they are their tools. If one does so in the context of elite hidden string pulling, you will have a much fuller or complete picture of what is happening. If I were an Elite, which of course I am not, I would view clarity and completeness gained by the peasants as a severe liability to be abolished at all costs.

Assuming top-down Democracy - the big "D" kind - has ever really worked, and I have my doubts it has, but that's another thread, it is my opinion it's not working now. One could argue that stridently condemning efforts to find something better, as you do, is Nazi-istic, because the present course of a deeply corrupt Democracy, such as it is, is leading us directly to a fascistic, totalitarian world. Insisting we hold onto something that has or had some merit while it's poisonous and toxic at the same time or in the same body is a protocol for catastrophe.

My stab at an alternative is a merger of the monarchical and the democratic. It would first entail allowing one term only for President and senate, ditch the Congress. The power they had would be transferred and evenly distributed to the President and senate. The President only has one term at say, three years. No more, and somebody who held the office could never seek office again. Senators would have 2 years in office, and never seek office again. This would be a merger of the neo-monarchial and democratic, as both government entities would have much more power - which would make it much easier to get vitally critical, crucial things done much quicker - the monarchical part. But the duration of time for holding more power is severely constricted - making it much harder to abuse more power in the office - and persons entering it would enter only after a vote. Limited duration of office, which requires voting, is the democratic part.

The creators of the American government at the beginning - Jefferson, Madison, etc. - were geniuses, in my opinion, but what they came up with had a fatal flaw: it assumes voters are intelligent enough to avoid manipulation and instead research their choices, choose intelligently to get good people in office. As is so clear now, it doesn't work, though maybe it did then. Most of the voters now are too dumb or ignorant or too tired to choose wisely, even assuming they have good choices to choose from, which more than ever they don't. All their choices are bad. My approach would attract much better people aspiring to office, as they would see that the very limited duration in office would seriously constrain their grifting and personal empire-building opportunities, hence they would come at it from more ideal or noble motivations. Instead of having to choose from a list of appalling, incompetent, ignoramt, morally corrupt and horrible choices as we do now, to vote in, we would have only good choices to choose from. It will matter much less that voters are lazy and dumbsh*t - as they are - in their choices. When their selections are all good choices, it matters little who wins. And if in the infrequent instance a lemon won, a powerful senate and limited time in office will limit the damage of a lemon.

This is not perfect or ideal for many reasons, but it tries to be very realistic and practical in addressing our shortcomings that the Founders of the US could not anticipate. We are living in times when decisive action is needed to address horrific and huge environmental, financial problems and problems induced by technology that threaten all life. If we don't radically change our form of governance soon, the present "Democracy" - which is much too weak to avoid manipulation by the Elites for their own ends - will lead us to an immense, inescapable fascistic dystopia, an utterly unlivable, super-toxic world for most or all people, which is the optimistic view. The pessimistic one is all life ends on planet Earth.


Thank you for the Nazi take on the subject from a member of the SS propaganda wing, Kurt Eggers.

This fashionable meme that Democracy has failed us and we need to try something else is just as manufactured as all the fake third wave feminist BS. Divide and Conquer as said above. It's not left or right or women vs men, it's the elite vs everyone else. To blame women for all of the ills of society that are purposely propagated amongst us by the ruling elite is the ultimate in naiveté to put it politely. Read Anthony Sutton for a little background on who funded both Communism and Nazism. The same people currently fund feminism, the alt right, anitifa, Democrats, Republican's etc. It is all a rich man's trick. FWIW Ray has said over and over how the CIA and our government have taken hold of all political ideologies to confuse the real issue of class in this country.

and in case anyone thinks that I have Michael's ideology all wrong, his previous avatar was that of a little girl in a Nazi uniform. His current one is a picture from Eagle's Nest, Hitler's fortress of solitude. The video he posted can be found on several neo-Nazi websites.
 

Badger

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2017
Messages
960
Absolutely concur.

My next door neighbor was injured by Elliot Rodgers. I think emasculated fathers are definitely a huge part of the equation. The most successful people I know, both financially and with women have had extremely masculine fathers. Many young men just don't know how to be men anymore, yes men tend to be less androgenic now a days, but they were also never taught what is manly and what is feminine.
 

AretnaP

Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2017
Messages
180
This is where Peat's hormone theories come into play.

No matter how masculine the fathers are or how boys and girls are brought up, modern humans have impaired thinking due to excess serotonin, NO, estrogen, prolactin, histamine, etc.

I truly believe that no amount of philosophy schooling can give modern people the ability to think clearly until hormonal issues are addressed.

Try to talk to an average person about something controversial or "offensive", whether it be bad things the government is doing, chemicals in food/water, thought pattern differences between males and females. I dare you.

Most people would rather insult you and exclude you from the "social circle", even if there's evidence for the claim.
 

x-ray peat

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
2,343
I agree, but a measure of blame stills falls on the willing and willfully ignorant dupes of the elite, including women. Hence there is validity in analyzing the role of the willing tools of the elite, whether or not they know they are their tools. If one does so in the context of elite hidden string pulling, you will have a much fuller or complete picture of what is happening. If I were an Elite, which of course I am not, I would view clarity and completeness gained by the peasants as a severe liability to be abolished at all costs.

Assuming top-down Democracy - the big "D" kind - has ever really worked, and I have my doubts it has, but that's another thread, it is my opinion it's not working now. One could argue that stridently condemning efforts to find something better, as you do, is Nazi-istic, because the present course of a deeply corrupt Democracy, such as it is, is leading us directly to a fascistic, totalitarian world. Insisting we hold onto something that has or had some merit while it's poisonous and toxic at the same time or in the same body is a protocol for catastrophe.

My stab at an alternative is a merger of the monarchical and the democratic. It would first entail allowing one term only for President and senate, ditch the Congress. The power they had would be transferred and evenly distributed to the President and senate. The President only has one term at say, three years. No more, and somebody who held the office could never seek office again. Senators would have 2 years in office, and never seek office again. This would be a merger of the neo-monarchial and democratic, as both government entities would have much more power - which would make it much easier to get vitally critical, crucial things done much quicker - the monarchical part. But the duration of time for holding more power is severely constricted - making it much harder to abuse more power in the office - and persons entering it would enter only after a vote. Limited duration of office, which requires voting, is the democratic part.

The creators of the American government at the beginning - Jefferson, Madison, etc. - were geniuses, in my opinion, but what they came up with had a fatal flaw: it assumes voters are intelligent enough to avoid manipulation and instead research their choices, choose intelligently to get good people in office. As is so clear now, it doesn't work, though maybe it did then. Most of the voters now are too dumb or ignorant or too tired to choose wisely, even assuming they have good choices to choose from, which more than ever they don't. All their choices are bad. My approach would attract much better people aspiring to office, as they would see that the very limited duration in office would seriously constrain their grifting and personal empire-building opportunities, hence they would come at it from more ideal or noble motivations. Instead of having to choose from a list of appalling, incompetent, ignoramt, morally corrupt and horrible choices as we do now, to vote in, we would have only good choices to choose from. It will matter much less that voters are lazy and dumbsh*t - as they are - in their choices. When their selections are all good choices, it matters little who wins. And if in the infrequent instance a lemon won, a powerful senate and limited time in office will limit the damage of a lemon.

This is not perfect or ideal for many reasons, but it tries to be very realistic and practical in addressing our shortcomings that the Founders of the US could not anticipate. We are living in times when decisive action is needed to address horrific and huge environmental, financial problems and problems induced by technology that threaten all life. If we don't radically change our form of governance soon, the present "Democracy" - which is much too weak to avoid manipulation by the Elites for their own ends - will lead us to an immense, inescapable fascistic dystopia, an utterly unlivable, super-toxic world for most or all people, which is the optimistic view. The pessimistic one is all life ends on planet Earth.
Interestingly if you read the anti-Federalist papers, Patrick Henry and friends predicted just about every ill that we now see, and rightly saw the undemocratic Constitutional Convention as an aristocratic Coup D'etat that stole power from the States and gave it to an untouchable elite. Try suing a rich man in court and see how long your money will last as just one example. They used to have Jury trials for civil cases with a very limited number of appeals

I think it's very hard to come up with a solution to our Government's problem but what you are proposing would actually make things much easier for the elite to manipulate us. Their strategy has always been to consolidate power into fewer and fewer hands with an ideal of one country, one leader; yes a Nazi slogan. So doing away with the House of Representatives would be a step in the wrong direction. I think a better idea is to wrest back power from the Federal government and make everything as local as possible. We would have some stupid laws but at least the people would be in control of their destiny.

Term limits while attractive in theory have their own problems because the newly minted politicians would be heavily dependent on uncountable career staffers and bureaucrats to tell them how things work. It may end up like the Ottoman empire where the advisors ran everything and tyrannized everyone.

And just to clarify, I didn't mean to conflate the Nazi roots of that video with the current trend to bash democracy. Though at some level you could say they are related, I don't think people who want a return to Monarchy necessarily have Nazi beliefs.
 

Badger

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2017
Messages
960
"I think a better idea is to wrest back power from the Federal government and make everything as local as possible. We would have some stupid laws but at least the people would be in control of their destiny."

No ideas, and as I said in prior post, mine included, are ideal or perfect, nor is yours of bringing down power to the local level. Because the latter would be fine until one locality's interest collides with another locality's interest. Then you have the Balkans, or Scottish highland-type conflicts/warfare, the Hatfields and McCoys, the fragmentation and endless mutual hostilities of different congregations towards each other in the Eastern Orthodox Christian world, the present-day Middle East with its innumerable tribes and entrenched tribalism, and so on. What I suggest enables stronger and more independent leaders to much more efficiently make decisions and implement them for the common good of all conflicting parties and POVs, while putting real limits on that power to constrain abuse typical of absolute monarchies. That's really the formula we should aim for, whatever form the actual solution takes. My ideas does risk subversion by elites or covert rule by their advisors, but there's risks in every solution. At the end of the day, we have to evaluate which solution has the highest likelihood of expressing the worst-case scenario for abuse and excluding such to focus not on perfect solutions but solutions least likely to have very bad outcomes. My or your or another idea may be one for the latter category, but it will require much more research and analysis to figure out at this moment in time. But something better needs to replace what we have now, because what we have now has a very high probability - I am 100% convinced - of blowing up the world figuratively and literally.

Interestingly if you read the anti-Federalist papers, Patrick Henry and friends predicted just about every ill that we now see, and rightly saw the undemocratic Constitutional Convention as an aristocratic Coup D'etat that stole power from the States and gave it to an untouchable elite. Try suing a rich man in court and see how long your money will last as just one example. They used to have Jury trials for civil cases with a very limited number of appeals

I think it's very hard to come up with a solution to our Government's problem but what you are proposing would actually make things much easier for the elite to manipulate us. Their strategy has always been to consolidate power into fewer and fewer hands with an ideal of one country, one leader; yes a Nazi slogan. So doing away with the House of Representatives would be a step in the wrong direction. I think a better idea is to wrest back power from the Federal government and make everything as local as possible. We would have some stupid laws but at least the people would be in control of their destiny.

Term limits while attractive in theory have their own problems because the newly minted politicians would be heavily dependent on uncountable career staffers and bureaucrats to tell them how things work. It may end up like the Ottoman empire where the advisors ran everything and tyrannized everyone.

And just to clarify, I didn't mean to conflate the Nazi roots of that video with the current trend to bash democracy. Though at some level you could say they are related, I don't think people who want a return to Monarchy necessarily have Nazi beliefs.
 

Badger

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2017
Messages
960
Excellent post, agree entirely. Would be deeply fascinating to see historical studies analyzing human conflict in the past as based in hormonal system imbalances and defects.

This is where Peat's hormone theories come into play.

No matter how masculine the fathers are or how boys and girls are brought up, modern humans have impaired thinking due to excess serotonin, NO, estrogen, prolactin, histamine, etc.

I truly believe that no amount of philosophy schooling can give modern people the ability to think clearly until hormonal issues are addressed.

Try to talk to an average person about something controversial or "offensive", whether it be bad things the government is doing, chemicals in food/water, thought pattern differences between males and females. I dare you.

Most people would rather insult you and exclude you from the "social circle", even if there's evidence for the claim.
 

Lucenzo01

Member
Joined
May 17, 2016
Messages
355
There are three genders: women, alphas and betas. Once you understand this women are easy to read.
 

Badger

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2017
Messages
960
There are three genders: women, alphas and betas. Once you understand this women are easy to read.
Don't know if you are joking or or serious, but there are alpha women also, which complicates the picture. And I not talking about lesbians, but straight women who are alpha.

I would add: May whatever God you believe in help you if you get romantically involved with an alpha woman without knowing she is one, especially if you are a beta.
 
Last edited:

AretnaP

Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2017
Messages
180
There are three genders: women, alphas and betas. Once you understand this women are easy to read.
I don't like the terms "alpha", "beta", etc., but I get the gist of these kind of talking points.

It is important to understand that women view different men in different ways. For example, women view their husbands and the guys she had casual sex with in college in two totally different ways, I'm not here to say whether this is good or bad, but I think it's fairly obvious that it's true.
 

Lucenzo01

Member
Joined
May 17, 2016
Messages
355
Don't know if you are joking or or serious, but there are alpha women also, which complicates the picture. And I not talking about lesbians, but straight women who are alpha.

I would add: May whatever God you believe in help you if you get romantically involved with an alpha woman without knowing she is one, especially if you are a beta.

There are no alpha women.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom