Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

As I’ve said before, I tend to write my posts over the weekend and release them during the week. Here’s my release schedule, subject to change, for the coming week. The lack of thematic variety was unintentional, but post hoc, I’m going to call it Dating Week.

Monday 21: Lust story, part 1: An allegory illustrating the average-case life trajectory of a modern Sex and the City gal. Our protagonist is Sarah, a 28-year-old Manhattanite who “has it all”. She’s sown some “wild oats”, but she’s ready to settle down with Mr. Wright, a 32-year-old venture capitalist. Will she find love, or rejection? Tune in Monday morning, and meet this delightful fictional character, one about whom I probably won’t succeed at making you give a damn.

Tuesday 22: Lust story, part 2: Return for the second half of this very special story essay rant for its dramatic conclusion. Surprise ending, I promise!

Wednesday 23: Opposite-sex friendship can work. Here’s how : Genuine friendship between single, heterosexual opposite-sex adults is rare. Why? The answer’s not “sexual tension”. Platonic friendships are common in teenagers, who are just as horny as adults. Nor are same-sex platonic friendships uncommon among gays. I address the causes opposing opposite-sex platonic pairings, and discuss solutions.

Thursday 24: You can’t win at combat dating. Win by ending it. Advice for American woman on how to “clean up” in dating by cleaning up dating. No gimmicks are involved. It’s a straightforward approach. Return his calls? Admit that you like him? Demand respect from him? Yes, it can be that simple.

<strike>Friday 25</strike>: Online dating can work. Here’s how. Current Internet dating sites suck. Hard. We aren’t using the available technology nearly as effectively as we should. Much of online dating merely replicates (at scale, its sole advantage) the failed dating practices we already have. I’ll discuss a model for a dating site that, given a sufficient user base, just might “move the needle” on our society’s currently inefficient dating process.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

I write. A lot. In general, when I’m blogging, I write my posts over the weekend and release them during the work week. This enables me to target others’ prime Internet-using hours while remaining (mostly) outside of the blog circuit during my working hours. It also means that I have a lot of time during which to write my posts, and that they can get very long.

I’m finishing a post (probably out Tuesday) that’s approaching 1700 words. I know: that’s a long post. I’m tempted to make it a two- or three-parter and, more generally, impose a word limit on my own posts. I can be verbose, but I don’t want to enter “TL;DR” territory.

What maximum length should I impose on my posts? 500 words? 1000? 17? I tend to think it the upper limit depends on the quality of the writer, and I consider my writing to be quite good, but blog posts are supposed to be short. I can certainly write 3000 words of coherent English prose in an hour, but most people have no interest in reading that much. Especially not during the work day, when they’re not supposed to be reading me at all.

Advise me: What should be my upper limit for word count?

This post is 231 words long. Word counts of some recent posts are:

Teabaggers : 967

White men go another way : 1183

Gratitude : 117

Race/IQ = cultural : 1438

Straight from the trash : 191

Black and white : 1545

Read Full Post »

This is a shocking depiction of what we, the rational and intelligent, are up against. Teabaggers, a drag against the force of American social progress, represent a populist movement against one of the foremost prerequisites for a nation to qualify as First World: universal healthcare. They oppose “Obamacare” because of the well-spoken Harvard graduate proposing it, hate “lib’ruls” out of a misguided belief that egalitarian economic and social policies conflict with sexual morality, and they consistently vote against their own interests. They’ve accused Obama of being a racist, a terrorist, a Muslim, a czarist, and a communist. They don’t listen to reason. They don’t even understand their own positions, as the video above illustrates clearly. They take as divinely-revealed truth a tome that most of them have never read, of which nearly all of them possess only a translated version, and of which virtually all lack sufficient comprehension of its cultural context to interpret properly. (Question to ponder: after death, you’re either going to be thrown into eternal torture or divine rapture, based on a set of rules regarding faith and behavior. The “final exam”, death, will inevitably come, and could happen at any time– even tomorrow. Its stakes are infinitely high. Materials for study: a widely-available medium-sized book that would require a mere couple hundred hours to read properly. If you sincerely believe all of this; given the stakes, how can you not have read the book, cover-to-cover, several times?)

This is because they don’t respond to reason, but to passion. This is the fundamental difference between evangelical conservatives and urban, educated liberals. Passion, not a reasoned argument, is king: a man who enters a religious ecstasy, writhing on the floor and speaking in tongues, is a rock star to them. This is why a screaming, bitter, fat and drug-addicted demagogue like Rush Limbaugh is able to bring these people to hold passionately a set of positions, contrary to their own interests, that they don’t understand. This is why it’s easy to get them up in arms over “czars”. Throw some shit against the wall, and maybe it will stick. Throw shit against the wall hard, so hard it hits the wall loudly, and an army of bovine discontents will come to your assistance and make sure it sticks.

All this said, I don’t think the bovines are especially racist. Are many of them extremely bigoted? Sure; anyone would who believe in a God who would subject someone to eternal torture for disbelieving in Him, despite providing no objective proof of his existence, and considers such a God omnibenevolent, is a bigot. (Indeed, they’d probably argue for my damnation. I am a theist who practices Buddhist meditation and believes, as the early Christians did, in reincarnation. I also believe that Jesus was at least a bodhisattva but I am agnostic about his specific theological role.) They don’t like people who challenge their ideas or seem to threaten their way of life. And they are scared. However, I don’t think that the younger teabaggers, for the most part, are racist. David Brooks reported on the friendly interaction between many of the “tea party” protesters and the Black Family Reunion Celebration. Most of these people aren’t indignant that a black man is president; they’re angry that a black man who isn’t like them is president. When this man is highly intelligent, has a beautiful family, and seems to have impeccable personal and family values, they can’t attack him over an extramarital blowjob as they did Clinton; they have to make shit up.

Why do the teabaggers detest Obama, if they’re not racist? As they see it: He’s an elitist. He’s an illegitimate child, raised by his mother. He’s a Muslim. His wife (by Republican standards) wears the pants in his marriage. As fits nicely with the conservatives’ zero-sum worldview, his universal health care plan will require “death panels”. Most, if not all, of these points are objectively false. However, the teabaggers have been told these things with enough passion that they believe them to be true. A deliberate campaign has been waged to mislead the bovines into voting against their own interests, with passionate demagogues spouting blather that has nothing to do with reality. Fox News, genteel in comparison to Limbaugh or Beck, plays the “good cop” role by framing objective and settled matters as “debates”, further muddying the water: Was Obama born within the United States? Is global warming real, and if so, is it caused by humans? Does Michelle Obama hate white people? Evolution: solid science, or atheist propaganda?

Teabaggers are confused, frightened, religiously intolerant, benighted, xenophoic and small-minded. Some of them, indeed, are racist and have overtly racial motivations in opposing Obama. I just don’t think that most of them do. With over 85 percent of under-50 adults approving of interracial marriage, and that number close to 100% among 18- to 29-year olds, racism appears to be on its way out. I think many of these people have black friends (Christian blacks only, however) and plenty of non-racial (if illogical and often wrong) reasons for their opposition to Obama. While racism is certainly the traditional reason for poor whites to mobilize against their own interests, and a contributing factor to the success of the Southern strategy; I think it has been replaced, since the 1990s, by politico-religious fervor.

In the South Park episode, “With Apologies to Jesse Jackson“, Stan Marsh’s father Randy humiliates himself on national television, using a racial slur in the course of incorrectly solving a Wheel of Fortune puzzle. Stan, South Park‘s comedic straight man, hopes to clear the matter by saying “my dad isn’t a racist, he’s just stupid”. I would argue the same is true of teabaggers. Well, it’s mostly true. Specifically, most teabaggers aren’t racist; all of them are stupid.

Read Full Post »

I’ll flat-out say it: from the perspective of someone seeking a long-term life partner, preferably in the next decade, American white women just aren’t, in aggregate terms, very good. Sure, some individual American white women are great– my mother is an American-born white woman, and my parents are still together after 35 years– but there are far too few of them. The odds are long, and the good ones out there are usually taken. Show me an American-born single, attractive white woman older than 25, and I’ll show you an 85% chance of a defective personality.

The cultural pestilence (celebrity culture, The Rules, Sex and the City) that has swept through middle-class, predominantly white, suburban America has corrupted more women than men, just as the rot in our nation’s black culture (gangster machismo) has destroyed more men than women. The result of this, in both cases, is a severe gender imbalance– a “marriage squeeze”, if you will. There are plenty of great black men out there, but not enough for all the college-educated, professional black women. Likewise, there are plenty of quality white women out there, but not enough for all of the high-quality white men to find one. One conclusion: white men and black women should get together in larger numbers than they already do. It just makes sense, and I’ve been saying this for a long time.

More generally, the rising generation of white American men– unless they want to be celibate and miserable, or stuck in a sham marriage with a substandard partner– should look not only outside of their racial category, but beyond our national borders. Some white men are only attracted to white women; they can go to Eastern Europe. Others like Asian women; there’s a whole continent full of such women to the east. Those who are like me, and don’t care about a woman’s race in the least, will discover that there are several continents full of beautiful, charming, intelligent women who blow America’s suburban-bred office-cows and casual-sexing divorce monkeys so far out of the water they land in Poland (and, if they know what’s good for them, they’ll take lessons from the local gals).

I feel a need to clear up some misconceptions, propagated by panicking and jealous U.S. white women, about American white men who pursue international and interracial relationships.

Misconception #1: “White men going another way” (henceforth, WMGAW) are seeking subservient housewives.

False. Feminism is a worldwide phenomenon, and has been a force for good in most cultures it has touched. Modern Eastern European and Asian women are not submissive housewives. They’re smart, strong, educated, and assertive. They have college degrees and careers, and demand equality in relationships. The fact that they return calls, initiate sex, and support their lovers rather than trying to compete with them is not acquiescence. The first of these is basic politeness, the second is healthy sexual desire, and the third is love.

If WMGAW wanted subservient housewives, they’d target misogynistic shitholes like Saudi Arabia and, upon bringing their wives back home, keep them in complete social isolation– but no reasonable man wants to live like this. These men often go to countries like the Czech Republic, where women are as feminist as here. Others date black women, who are certainly not known for being docile housewives.

This assertion is also made about white men who date second- and later-generation Asian-Americans, and even more ridiculous when applied to them. Those who propogate this particular stereotype expose their ugly racism.

Misconception #2: WMGAW are taking advantage of foreign womens’ depressed economic situations.

This is, quite frankly, an offensive and wrong assertion. To make no distinction between (a) an upper-middle-class urban Colombian gal with a PhD and (b) a miserable third-world peasant is, quite frankly, absurd. To imply that most foreign women who date white American men are doing so for economic reasons is “ugly American” jingoism in the extreme. People– yes, even those who live in countries with $5000 per-capita GDP and hang-dry their clothes (gasp!)– do not separate with their families, friends, and cultures so lightly. A college-educated, comfortable Peruvian woman is not going to pack up and leave her friends and family behind and move to a foreign country because they drive larger cars there. Most of these women date internationally, and accept the attendant difficulties, because of love, not economic greed or desperation. (The “mail-order bride” phenomenon is a separate beast. It’s not representative of the norm for WMGAW.)

In most cultures, men are inferior (i.e. they have worse moral character and behavior) to women, creating a surplus of desirable and good women. Among U.S. whites, the reverse is true. The U.S./foreign pairing only makes sense, then; the discrepancies cancel out to some degree. An American man who goes overseas to find a wife does so because he can find a higher quality of lover overseas than he can in the U.S., and these men are desired because these women are able to find a better husband by expanding their horizons. International and interracial dating are win-win.

If WMGAW were seeking to take advantage of women in economic depression, they’d go to miserable villages in the third world, not high-rent districts in Seoul and Budapest where the women they’re chasing, although “merely” middle-class by American material standards, are near the top of their respective societies.

Misconception #3: WMGAW have race fetishes such as “yellow fever”.

Also false. The Columbia study put this one to bed. American women turn out to be far more racist in selection of dating partners than American men are. Which is why white American women propogate such nasty stereotypes when “their men” date women of other races and nationalities; interracial dating benefits only the open-minded. A nerdy, kind, moderately attractive but socially reserved, white “beta”, who wouldn’t have gotten a second look from attractive American girls in college, incites unholy indignation in these women when he is seen with a woman of a different skin color or accent.

Misconception #4: WMGAW “can’t get white women”.

There’s a bit of truth in this. For one thing, foreign women have no interest in American notions of social status, whereby having chased an oblong ball in high school makes one sexy, but having an interest in computers makes one asexual. They don’t respond as strongly  to the crass gimmicks (“game”) that work on American yuppies. Finally, for an upper-middle-class Polish or Korean woman to be seen with a “bad boy” below her level of intelligence and couth is just not socially acceptable. So foreign womens’ tastes in men are indeed more (for lack of a better word) cultured than those of American white women.

We, the cultured and intelligent “beta” males, can certainly “get white women”. It’s not exactly hard! On the other hand, we don’t want most of the available ones when we realize how much better we can do by expanding our pool to include other races and nationalities.

Okay. I’m done on this topic for the morning. Let’s pause to hear the shrill cries of the unwanted Sex and the City gorgons before Perseus’s mirrored shield petrifies them into spinsterhood.

Read Full Post »

Gratitude

Question for discussion: why is it beta to tell a girl you like her? I’m not talking about overblown, insincere praise. I’m talking about letting her know you like her, that you think she’s pretty and smart, that you enjoy spending time with her, et cetera. All of those behaviors that were previously genteel and are now “demonstration of low value”, or DLV. Why are we supposed to frustrate women into liking us?

What’s wrong with the “you’re great, I’m awesome, and we’re both really lucky to be with each other” approach? Please don’t fling that crap about women having “[va]gina tingles” when men are inaccessible and rude. We (men and women) aren’t that different, are we?

Read Full Post »

Straight from the Trash…

Here’s some vintage Manhattan stuck-up-bitch for ya. I ventured into the general waste of time that is online dating. After arranging a date I received this, completely out of the blue:

“[Me],

I’m afraid it won’t work out. You can chalk this up to another flighty New Yorker if you like. I can’t meet you Wednesday or any other day.

Too impulsive for my own good–

[Her]”

The date was arranged by phone, at which point the conversation ended. This email was our next communication. Nothing transpired that could have swayed her between the arrangement of the date and my reception of her email. Nothing changed but her tiny, erratic mind.

I can handle rejection– it’s a part of this game– but I can’t handle the stupid bitch who arranges a date and then breaks it. Last-minute cancels are the worst, and the next woman to pull that one on me I will publicly shame.

70+% of Manhattan’s single young professional women are such utter garbage that the only place they could possibly belong is in Fresh Kills. Less than worthless. I hate them with a passion that could stop a clock.

Read Full Post »

The plural of “anecdote” is not “data”, so nothing I offer here should be taken as a rigorous analysis. I’m only offering my own observations and experience. If we define having “dated” and “having gone on at least four dates with”, I’ve probably dated 25 or 30 women in my life, so we’re in the realm of small numbers. Moreover, the “sampling” of my dating experience is about as non-random as it can be. However, between my experiences and those of my friends, I’ve been able to notice some patterns. Among those is that among those women I find to be the best– loveliest personalities, best suited to a long-term loving relationship– a very high percentage of them are black.

I’m not discussing racial averages. For the purposes of this discussion, I don’t care about racial aggregates. My personal goal is to find one knock-my-socks-off amazing woman (of any race). So I live in the land of small numbers, and the difference between 0 and 1 is not irrelevant statistical “noise”, but utterly critical to how my life will play out. And I have extremely high standards in romantic partners. So my focus is on the where the best women are, and where they come from; it’s not on pedantic matters such as racial averages. So I’m not about to discuss (for example) the very serious and unacceptable socioeconomic injustices facing the black community, because nothing in my experience qualifies me to speak on them. Almost all of my dating experience involves upper-middle-class, highly-educated young women, and this will probably remain the case.

I adore smart, well-educated black women. I love the way they look, how they carry themselves, their sense of humor, their maturity, their charm, and their strength. I love that many of them intensely spiritual; my heart just melts for a woman of faith. I love the pairing of liberal politics and pro-family social conservatism, the antithesis of Sex and the City‘s disastrous cocktail of heartless libertarianism and faithless postmodernism. Finally, I enjoy the physical contrast; it’s sexy. I’m an attractive but nerdy white guy, and if there’s a better-looking couple than the semi-nerdy white-male/black-female pair, I haven’t found it.

The differences of quality in mating partners, between racial and ethnic categories, are almost certainly cultural in nature. I say this because I don’t believe race has any biological basis. It’s a powerful and often ugly cultural force– a “social construct”, if you will. But I’m strongly convinced that no innate superiority exists. For example, although American white women are the worst ethnicity in which to seek a wife– many of them are entitled, selfish, immature, and have terrible tastes in men– it is obvious that this has absolutely nothing to do with the “white” genetic stock. Canadian and Western European women, of similar ethnic stock and equally “white”, but from a culture where crass materialism is less prevalent, are markedly better. Eastern European women are amazing. Conclusion: culture matters, a lot. So it’s of great personal interest to me, and probably to many of my readers as well, to examine this cultural problem. What, within the United States, is it about black culture (more specifically, a highly-educated and upper-middle-class subset of black culture) that impels so many women to excellence?

There’s a cynical answer, which is to note that African-American women face one of the most competitive dating environments on earth, meaning that they have to work harder in order to be noticed. Some black women complain of a “marriage squeeze” resulting from (a) the higher rate of black male/non-black female pairings than non-black male/black female couplings, and (b) a claim that women’s superior academic and professional performance (a growing trend in all races) is even more pronounced among blacks. Statistics support this, with nearly half of black women ages 30-34 having never been married. However, white men have similar complaints about the quality of white women (and, while I won’t address those complaints here, I do believe the average US white male is of higher marriage-worthiness than his white female counterpart). Everyone knows, of course, that there are plenty of great American black men and white women out there… but not “enough to go around”. The obvious solution is that white men and black women should get together. Why is this only rarely happening?

I don’t think overt racism is the answer. For example, despite the hypothesis of “yellow fever”, or a widespread fetish of white men for Asian women, there’s very strong evidence that no such preference exists. Men evaluate a woman as an individual, and not based on her race. Moreover, to be quite frank, I believe the preference of white men for foreign-born women, second-generation immigrants, and Asian women has nothing to do with exoticism. The U.S. is diverse enough that “exotic” is, in 2009, an alien concept. The “girl next door” was, for many of us when growing up, of another race. Rather, I think white men are pursuing these women because they are individually great.

On the other hand, while many black women are desirable– and seem to be highly desired by white men– they are less commonly approached by them. Humans are terrible at judging what will make them happy in the long-term, and much behavior in the early stages of dating has nothing to do with the more meaningful task at hand: pursuing an intimate romantic relationship with a beautiful, smart, kind, and loving person. An example of this is the fetishization of blondeness. Asked to rate a woman’s physical beauty, men will rate a blonde, a brunette, and a black woman of otherwise similar features as being roughly equal in attractiveness. This makes sense, since hair and skin color are completely irrelevant to the man’s rational desire to find a loving partnership. Yet on “the field”– for example, at a crowded bar, where snap decisions are made with little thought– the blonde will be approached about 3 times as often as the brunette. (Any woman who dyes her hair can attest to this.) The black woman will be approached even less than the brunette.

There’s beauty, and there’s “hotness”. That which is “hot” is ostensibly desired by many; that which is “beautiful” is a matter of individual preference. My experience is that beautiful women often have the best personalities, and hot women often have the worst ones. Black women are often considered by white men to be beautiful, but (excepting celebrities) they are rarely “hot” per se. The ideal girlfriend can be of any race, but the girl getting the most attention at the bar is invariably a blonde white woman.

So we have a possible explanation for the very strong representation of black females among the best women. It’s being desired strongly by a large number men– not physical beauty– that has corrupted many a white girl, and this seems not to have had as strong an effect on black women. Lingering cultural attitudes seem to typecast a beautiful, smart black woman as a slightly nerdy “girl next door”, not as a “bombshell”.

On the other hand, I think there’s another very powerful factor: American white popular culture is inherently mediocritizing (yes, I made that word up). Inherent in its archetypes are assumptions about people whereby every talent or positive trait is assumed to imply a negative one. Athletic people (“jocks”) are stupid. Smart people have no social skills (I’d bet that half the U.S. Internet was bitched by this one, growing up). Socially skilled people aren’t deep. Deep people are unstable. Stable people are boring. Interesting people are strange. And so on… None of these statements are remotely true, but they’re often assumed, and have woven their way into the DNA of suburban American culture. This creates a world in which many do not aspire toward excellence, settling for mere acceptability. For this reason, many white suburban American females have developed a jaded worldview, striving not for love but for an “arrangement” with a man whose high social status will increase their own.

As a result of the mediocritizing influence of “white” suburban American culture, positive traits are often decoupled from one another, much more than they should be. Let’s face it: finding a suitable mate is a statistical longshot. A great lover needs to be beautiful, intelligent, compassionate, creative, loving, sociable, and loyal (and much more). To find such a great person is only possible at all because the 100 or so traits required of a great lover are highly correlated; if they were independent coin-flips, we’d all be screwed. I believe the reason there is such a strong proportion of knock-your-socks-off amazing women in the black population is not because of any difference in the averages, but because these much-desired correlations of traits are higher within blacks, not being artificially depressed by a mediocritizing and trashy popular culture. (Of course, much of black “pop culture” is often as trashy as its white counterpart, but the blacks I am talking about ignore it.) There are many white women who are beautiful, smart, and well-educated, but have shit all over what God and society have given them by pursuing the Sex and the City lifestyle. We don’t see nearly as much of this among black women– the beautiful and smart ones are trying to maximize, rather than understate or deny, their incredible potential.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »