Ray Peat Intersectional Feminist Facebook Group

[DaveFoster]

Wow! that's espionage level photoshop. Did you make it?

I did not, but I believe @goodandevil found it first.

 

[keith]

Do you think telling people something like this is judgmental? "On average, for both men and women, the more people you sleep with, the less likely any marriage you get into will last. For women this effect is much stronger then for men."

I just wonder because that seems true and doesn't seem that controversial. Like I can imagine telling a teenager that who is getting into sexual society.

Edit: I wish I was told that

No, I don't think that would judgemental put that way at all, but if I were to tell someone that, I would be sure to note that there is a correlation, but the cause/effect is not certain. I don't personally believe that having multiple sexual partners had any negative affect on someone's ability to have a long lasting monogamous relationship. People who want to have multiple partners may not want to have a long term monogamous relationship, and may only bother trying due to social pressures. Also, I think there are lot of people who are unhappy, for a variety of reasons, and try to find happiness in bars and nightclubs, heavy drinking, drugs, sex, etc. Is the sex making them unhappy, or are they already unhappy and using sex to try to hide from their issues? These are just examples of different cause/effect relationships. Sharing knowledge to help someone make a decision is a good thing, especially a young person still finding their way in the world, as long as the advice is welcome, and as long as it is fully honest.

 

[Dhair]

No, I don't think that would judgemental put that way at all, but if I were to tell someone that, I would be sure to note that there is a correlation, but the cause/effect is not certain. I don't personally believe that having multiple sexual partners had any negative affect on someone's ability to have a long lasting monogamous relationship. People who want to have multiple partners may not want to have a long term monogamous relationship, and may only bother trying due to social pressures. Also, I think there are lot of people who are unhappy, for a variety of reasons, and try to find happiness in bars and nightclubs, heavy drinking, drugs, sex, etc. Is the sex making them unhappy, or are they already unhappy and using sex to try to hide from their issues? These are just examples of different cause/effect relationships. Sharing knowledge to help someone make a decision is a good thing, especially a young person still finding their way in the world, as long as the advice is welcome, and as long as it is fully honest.

Human beings don't behave like bonobo chimpanzees. In other words, we do not solve conflict through sexual love. It's counter-intuitive to how a dominance hierarchy functions in all other higher primate species.
I have heard Terence McKenna mention something along these lines, saying that for thousands of years we had multiple and simultaneous sexual partners until a patriarchal society began to take hold and subsequently put an end to all the fun. It's complete nonsense.
I am not sure what benefit this type of behavior would have in the first place. It seems to go against all of our base primal instincts.
Ask yourself this: Do you know ANY single women in their thirties who are happy with sleeping around on a regular basis?

 

[keith]

No I didn't, in fact I said that the drug war is disproportionately affecting blacks.

Argumentation does not equal arguing, argumentation is the term for coming to a conclusion between two or more people without violence.

Ok, my mistake, then. Apologies. I must have thought someone else said something you did.

So the first part is just that. Black people are arrested at disproportionate rates for the same crimes committed by white people. They are also convicted at higher rates, so are the statistics that suggest black people are more violent than white people really very accurate?

Additionally, black people in the US have faced extreme violence and oppression as a group for centuries in the US. It seems likely any additional disparity in violence rates, after accounting for skewed data might be due to social status and other externally imposed conditions, rather than race.

 

[keith]

Yeah, instead you have with no evidence decided that it's good to tell women that they will not have any problems no matter how many sexual partners they have.

I don't recall ever giving anyone advice about how many sexual partners they should have, and am not likely to start now. When dealing with data that is inconclusive, I think it is best to say "I don't know". If appropriate, I might say, here is some data, this is what I think it might mean. I wouldn't make a strong assertion on something I'm not sure about.

 

[keith]

Human beings don't behave like bonobo chimpanzees. In other words, we do not solve conflict through sexual love. It's counter-intuitive to how a dominance hierarchy functions in all other higher primate species.
I have heard Terence McKenna mention something along these lines, saying that for thousands of years we had multiple and simultaneous sexual partners until a patriarchal society began to take hold and subsequently put an end to all the fun. It's complete nonsense.
I am not sure what benefit this type of behavior would have in the first place. It seems to go against all of our base primal instincts.
Ask yourself this: Do you know ANY single women in their thirties who are happy with sleeping around on a regular basis?

I disagree; Bonobos and Chimpanzees are extremely closely related, some biologists consider them the same species. They have very different social structures, though, and attitudes towards sex. Why is it counterintuitive to think that humans couldn't do the same?

I don't really know a lot of women in their 30s at all, and I don't quiz the ones I do know about sex partners or happiness, so I can't really answer your question.

 

[thomas00]

And I can't find a date.

All the way.

No nagging, no wasting money on flowers and other tacky crap, no having your days planned for you and being managed and surveilled.

Dating women can be OK, to extent. Beyond that it just becomes an exercise in masochism.

For the unrealized man, a relationship will be little more than an impediment to his growth.

 

[Tarmander]

I was getting frustrated and losing my temper. I would give up and try to impress my pals by going to women and asking strange questions or making outlandish remarks. Nothing too repugnant or gratuitous, just genuine humorous stuff. For example once I went up to a girl and asked if she'd by me a drink. Course she says nah. Or I ask for her phone. She ask's "why?" I say "it's urgent- I need to get in touch with the president of Guatamala" or something. "He's on his way here and the bar is all out of spicy corn dog's-they're his favorite. If he doesn't get them he wont share any state secrets with us" Just harmless silly stuff like that.

Of course none of the gals saw it this way- they are used to dozens of guys delivering the same tired cliche line "How you doin tonight hot stuff" etc etc....When someone throws them a curveball they run to their favorite security guard and ham it up "he's soo creeepy zomg" At 5 different bars/clubs the security guard has refused my entry saying that he received too many complaints from women about me. I guess they remember me because I have a handsome face. Even though my pals would be up to the same shenanigans (or usually worse) and they would always be allowed in.

It's all good now- I didn't enjoy going to any of those lamestream joints. I prefer quirky bars like olde british pubs or retro diners, and usually I only order sodas or coffee so who cares.

Ahh, man I used to be so much like you. I had to realize some hard truths about women before I had any success. Feminism has boinked women's honesty in a big way. I thought that being interesting, different, and exciting was what women were looking for, and it is to a certain extent, but it's not at the base of their desire pyramid. They want safety and security...and money/resources. Feminism says that they can do everything for themselves, so they aren't allowed to come out and say "I am nervous and insecure most of the time, it would be nice to have a man who could give me some stability and who has the resources to let me do what I want." But, they would if they could. Just assume that ALL women are nervous and insecure...which means any aberrant behavior is going to make them scared unless you have the social proof/money to show at the same time.

I bet if you went back to those bars and did your routine, wearing a Rolex, ordering expensive drinks for people, and generally not giving a ***t, you would get much different results. It is like 50 shades of grey...it only works because the guy is a billionaire.

Edit: Don't do MGTOW

 

[Kyle M]

Ok, my mistake, then. Apologies. I must have thought someone else said something you did.

So the first part is just that. Black people are arrested at disproportionate rates for the same crimes committed by white people. They are also convicted at higher rates, so are the statistics that suggest black people are more violent than white people really very accurate?

Additionally, black people in the US have faced extreme violence and oppression as a group for centuries in the US. It seems likely any additional disparity in violence rates, after accounting for skewed data might be due to social status and other externally imposed conditions, rather than race.

There's something about this line of thinking that runs through your other statements, and I'm going to try to point it out. You are skeptical about causative information (that's good) but asymmetrically. You are applying rigorous skepticism to information that has "mean" or "rude" conclusions in your estimation, but you readily accept information that is "nice." You took anecdote of a female bodybuilder, for example, as "proof" that women can be just as strong as men, or can perform the same in physical tasks, even though that doesn't prove that at all because it's just one example and we don't even know what is meant by "female bodybuilder." She could very well just have the strength of an average man.

So in this case, it's true that there are reasons for blacks to be in prison other than something to do only with their race. In particular, the high homicide and property crimes rate seems to be directly related to the war on drugs. But you take it one step too far and readily accept that the entire disparity in crime outcomes is due to this, I suppose because of an implicit bias that all groups are the same and if there is a difference between them it must be from outside, oppressive force. Believing this and applying it without evidence is the same error as believing every difference between races is due to factors inherent in the race, you lose the same amount of intellectual rigor. If you wanted to be fair, you could easily parse out that many homicides and other violent crimes by blacks have nothing to do with drugs directly. Any time a black person is shot by a white person the news is all over it, but if you search heard enough you will find stories of at least one order of magnitude more frequent incidences like that of black on white violence. Black parents are more likely to hit their children, black children are more likely to fight in school, are we going to blame this on the problems in the justice system of unfair convictions for drug crimes between whites and blacks? At best it's a cultural problem, blacks simply being raised with more violent discipline in their families and that turning into violence external to the family, but there's a live chance that it's biological as well. There is very little chance that all of these observations are due solely to inequities forced on the black population by "the system."

So it just really gets my goat that you will never accept anything causative that you find politically distasteful, but apply none of that rigor to thinks that strike your fancy. The part that makes discussion difficult is you treat your judgment as reserved, but it's only reserved in one direction, you're fully open to any little anecdote or piece of gossip as proof that women have the same abilities as men, all of the races are the same, etc.

 

[Kyle M]

I disagree; Bonobos and Chimpanzees are extremely closely related, some biologists consider them the same species. They have very different social structures, though, and attitudes towards sex. Why is it counterintuitive to think that humans couldn't do the same?

It's not "counterintuitive" it's counter evidence. Humans don't do the same. If bonobos are basically humans, would it be counter-intuitive to think they can't build houses and develop the steam engine? Maybe a species that dissipates all of it's creative energy in constant non-procreative sex remains in the most primitive form, while a species that extends their maturation and productive processes by delaying gratification reaches greater heights?

Again, you are picking one trait, that being the differences in sexual behavior, and saying that for all we know humans and bonobos are the same with that biologically but something is holding humans back culturally from engaging in it that way. What other traits would you apply that too? Hair covering the entire body thickly? Developing a spoken and written language? What exactly convinced you that bonobos and humans are basically the same, DNA? That's about the most anti-Peat conclusion you could make, to over weight the information from DNA against all other available observations.

 

[Kyle M]

Edit: Don't do MGTOW

lol

 

[keith]

It's not "counterintuitive" it's counter evidence. Humans don't do the same. If bonobos are basically humans, would it be counter-intuitive to think they can't build houses and develop the steam engine? Maybe a species that dissipates all of it's creative energy in constant non-procreative sex remains in the most primitive form, while a species that extends their maturation and productive processes by delaying gratification reaches greater heights?

Again, you are picking one trait, that being the differences in sexual behavior, and saying that for all we know humans and bonobos are the same with that biologically but something is holding humans back culturally from engaging in it that way. What other traits would you apply that too? Hair covering the entire body thickly? Developing a spoken and written language? What exactly convinced you that bonobos and humans are basically the same, DNA? That's about the most anti-Peat conclusion you could make, to over weight the information from DNA against all other available observations.

I was responding to someone else's point that people should act like the other great apes; I was just pointing out the flawed logic in that. My point is that humans, like apes, can live in a variety of different ways. How chimps and bonobos live doesn't dictate how we should live. I think you are making a lot of incorrect inferences about what I said.

 

[keith]

There's something about this line of thinking that runs through your other statements, and I'm going to try to point it out. You are skeptical about causative information (that's good) but asymmetrically. You are applying rigorous skepticism to information that has "mean" or "rude" conclusions in your estimation, but you readily accept information that is "nice." You took anecdote of a female bodybuilder, for example, as "proof" that women can be just as strong as men, or can perform the same in physical tasks, even though that doesn't prove that at all because it's just one example and we don't even know what is meant by "female bodybuilder." She could very well just have the strength of an average man.

So in this case, it's true that there are reasons for blacks to be in prison other than something to do only with their race. In particular, the high homicide and property crimes rate seems to be directly related to the war on drugs. But you take it one step too far and readily accept that the entire disparity in crime outcomes is due to this, I suppose because of an implicit bias that all groups are the same and if there is a difference between them it must be from outside, oppressive force. Believing this and applying it without evidence is the same error as believing every difference between races is due to factors inherent in the race, you lose the same amount of intellectual rigor. If you wanted to be fair, you could easily parse out that many homicides and other violent crimes by blacks have nothing to do with drugs directly. Any time a black person is shot by a white person the news is all over it, but if you search heard enough you will find stories of at least one order of magnitude more frequent incidences like that of black on white violence. Black parents are more likely to hit their children, black children are more likely to fight in school, are we going to blame this on the problems in the justice system of unfair convictions for drug crimes between whites and blacks? At best it's a cultural problem, blacks simply being raised with more violent discipline in their families and that turning into violence external to the family, but there's a live chance that it's biological as well. There is very little chance that all of these observations are due solely to inequities forced on the black population by "the system."

So it just really gets my goat that you will never accept anything causative that you find politically distasteful, but apply none of that rigor to thinks that strike your fancy. The part that makes discussion difficult is you treat your judgment as reserved, but it's only reserved in one direction, you're fully open to any little anecdote or piece of gossip as proof that women have the same abilities as men, all of the races are the same, etc.

I could say the same about you and your biases. We all interpret the evidence in accordance with other beliefs. I'll be quite clear about my biases. As relates to this discussion, I believe in Popper's Paradox of Tolerance. I think a just and free society should be tolerant of everything except intolerance. I think he argued the point quite effectively, so I won't rehash it here. Many of your views are very intolerant, and you seem to want to pressure, if not force, people to act a certain way. That bothers me. Who are you to say how others should live? Worry about yourself. Are you really living a perfect life of happiness, that you have the knowledge to tell others what is best for them?

 

[Tarmander]

I could say the same about you and your biases. We all interpret the evidence in accordance with other beliefs. I'll be quite clear about my biases. As relates to this discussion, I believe in Popper's Paradox of Tolerance. I think a just and free society should be tolerant of everything except intolerance. I think he argued the point quite effectively, so I won't rehash it here. Many of your views are very intolerant, and you seem to want to pressure, if not force, people to act a certain way. That bothers me. Who are you to say how others should live? Worry about yourself. Are you really living a perfect life of happiness, that you have the knowledge to tell others what is best for them?

Seriously? He has been advocating the cessation of force in this entire thread...? Cmon man...

 

[InChristAlone]

Bad attention like just wanting sex?

Yes.

 

[Kyle M]

I could say the same about you and your biases. We all interpret the evidence in accordance with other beliefs. I'll be quite clear about my biases. As relates to this discussion, I believe in Popper's Paradox of Tolerance. I think a just and free society should be tolerant of everything except intolerance. I think he argued the point quite effectively, so I won't rehash it here. Many of your views are very intolerant, and you seem to want to pressure, if not force, people to act a certain way. That bothers me. Who are you to say how others should live? Worry about yourself. Are you really living a perfect life of happiness, that you have the knowledge to tell others what is best for them?

When did I say I wanted to pressure or force people? I'm an ancap, a propertarian, The only reason I care about cultural issues at all is that it seems clear to me that some lifestyles lead to outcomes where people call for the state more than others. Some lifestyles murder self-reliance and inner strength, and cultivate things like democracy to address "oppressive inequities."

Loose sexual culture morals, feminism, ham-fisted egalitarianism, these things aggrandize the state by diminishing traditional institutions like the family and private charity that involves real human to human interaction, in favor of impersonal state confiscation of resources from responsible, resource producing members to transfer against all moral laws to irresponsible, resource consuming members. The evil of this cannot be overstated.

I will stop "telling others how to live" when the state stops forcing me at the point of a gun to pay for and insure against others stupid decisions and destructive lifestyles. When women, who go out and get pregnant by low-rent males, pay for their single parent children on their own, I will stop criticizing the behavior of going out and getting pregnant by low-rent males.

 

[keith]

Seriously? He has been advocating the cessation of force in this entire thread...? Cmon man...

Has he? Seems to me he wants to decide how everyone else should act and think. Maybe I'm reading into what he has written, but that has been my impression. It can be hard to effectively communicate sometimes in a paragraph or two on an Internet forum where tone can be up for interpretation, but he doesn't seem to be very tolerant to me.

 

[Kyle M]

Yes.

That's where dimorphism dictates dimorphic behavior. Men will (on the average) always wants sex first and foremost more than women. That is because, physically speaking, sex is less of a risk to men than women. This is why the ideas that people should be free and nonchalant about sex, that women and men should have the same attitude about it, is so evil. It hurts women much more (in the long run) to adopt the male archetype of sex than the other way around.

Males produce sperm at a level millions of orders of magnitude more than females produce eggs. On the sexual market, males represent essentially unlimited demand, whereas females represent finite or scarce supply. To suggest that these two market actors should have a homogeneous strategy is to not understand the nature of reality. When a woman "gives it up" to a bunch of guys, she is degrading her primary value or scarce supply on the surface. The scarcity is still there, and this mismatch causes problems. This is why society has this idea of a "used up" woman who has had many sexual partners, whereas a man who has had many sexual partners is not considered that way. It's not fair, but it's true, and it's wrong to deny it and tell a different story to young women.

 

[Kyle M]

Has he? Seems to me he wants to decide how everyone else should act and think. Maybe I'm reading into what he has written, but that has been my impression. It can be hard to effectively communicate sometimes in a paragraph or two on an Internet forum where tone can be up for interpretation, but he doesn't seem to be very tolerant to me.

This is another asymmetry, if I say something yo don't like, like "behavior x is self-destructive" your brain adds in "behavior x should be prevented, I want to force people not to be able to do behavior x." BUT when someone says something you like, like "behavior x is benign, don't judge people who do behavior x" you DO NOT add in "behavior x should be subsidized, other people should be forced to give some of their resources to people who do behavior x, behavior x should be taught to children in compulsory education settings."

What's funny is, the latter is actually happening, people are being forced to subsidize feminism and other lefty stuff, children are being taught it in compulsory state schooling, and the former is not happening. I think what happens is whatever the political situation is, say company Y is being subsidized, the tendency is to see that as a neutral situation after a while. And then someone proposes to remove the subsidy, and you see that as taking money away from company Y, because you forgot the true dynamic happening around you.

 

[Tarmander]

Has he? Seems to me he wants to decide how everyone else should act and think. Maybe I'm reading into what he has written, but that has been my impression. It can be hard to effectively communicate sometimes in a paragraph or two on an Internet forum where tone can be up for interpretation, but he doesn't seem to be very tolerant to me.

Wow, so do you see being
-intolerant of behavior
-saying someone should live a certain way
-forcing someone's behavior to be a certain way

as all equivalent?

I mean if that's true it kind of explains the whole argument you're having with Kyle and why you speak past each other.