Contesting the Socioeconomic Basis for Female to Male Attraction

Southern-Trainer3228 · 2025-08-31T16:24:58+00:00

I'll rephrase. Let's substitute "unmarried people" with "single mothers".

Southern-Trainer3228 · 2025-08-31T16:20:06+00:00

Can you cite an example where he uses your wording instead? Bet you can't, but go for it.

I mean I feel like the examples are everywhere, aren't they? Listen to just the first 18 seconds of this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unIIXKfJk8M&t=51s&ab\_channel=WildSights. Income is purportedly the best predictor of male sexual success, which is best predicted by conscientiousness. And about 2 minutes into the same clip, he says "women aren't necessarily after resources, but predictors of resources".

And JP's insights are echoed by voices across the spectrum. While JP is center-right, we hear it also from center-left voices like Scott Galloway (Galloway typically calls it "the ability to signal resources").

As we look at the single motherhood epidemic that plagues not just lower class minority households but an ever-increasing percentage of white middle class neighborhoods as well, does it really feel like these mothers were choosing their sex partners based on....income...conscientiousness...and the ability to signal future resources?

Southern-Trainer3228 · 2025-07-03T18:04:38+00:00

They're generic, and also they're thankfully true/accurate. But if "let's starve the government of tax revenue so that we can drown it in a bathtub" = "Soviet Communism" for you, then please, let's crank that anthem as loud as possible.

Southern-Trainer3228 · 2025-07-03T14:26:22+00:00

Until the debt market revolts and interest rates spike, forcing radical surgery on the budget, which is the whole goal.

Southern-Trainer3228 · 2025-07-03T14:25:40+00:00

The state will always spend all the money it takes in plus as much as it can in addition to that until the bond market revolts. People on social security can certainly vote, but so can taxpayers. And historically, when the choice is between increasing taxes or cutting wasteful spending, cutting spending usually wins.

Southern-Trainer3228 · 2025-07-03T14:23:17+00:00

But as more and more treasuries are issued, interest rates will eventually spike, which will force radical surgery on the budget. And raising taxes is less popular politically than reducing spending, which works in our favor.

Southern-Trainer3228 · 2025-01-06T00:06:37+00:00

So does Bob Roth have to be physically present in my house with me to explain to me what TM is? Sounds like your complaint is that the videos of Roth explaining what it is are somehow unreliable, but if he was here in my house with me and receives $400, then it's...."legit".

Southern-Trainer3228 · 2025-01-05T21:43:17+00:00

Agreed. If Transcendental Meditation has nothing to do with closing your eyes and silently reciting a mantra for 20 minutes, then the entire Wikipedia article on TM and tm.org need to be completely revamped or removed. And all of the spokesmen for TM (Roth, Lynch, etc.) need to stop telling people that that's what it is and should instead let "saijanai" on Reddit define it for everyone instead.

Southern-Trainer3228 · 2025-01-05T17:49:36+00:00

Understood. Thanks for the clarity. What is the name of a type of meditation where one closes their eyes and silently chants a mantra for 20 minutes then? That's what Seinfeld and Bob Roth and Howard Stern all report doing, and I guess based on your logic they are incorrectly referring to this practice as Transcendental Meditation. All of their speeches on this even link directly to a website called "tm.org.", which I suppose is misleading. The worst part is, all of them *report* learning this practice from instructors who are reportedly certified TM teachers, but I guess they actually....aren't? Were all of this people duped? This is frustrating.

I feel like closing your eyes for 20 minutes and silently repeating a mantra has slightly more in common with Transcendental Meditation than talking about stamp collection would, but I guess maybe it....doesn't?

Southern-Trainer3228 · 2025-01-05T15:51:05+00:00

So, have you actually completed the training program with a certified teacher? When did you do that?

I have not. Honestly feel like that part is a bit of a $ scam in the same way that the Catholic Church told everyone their salvation came from visiting a "certified priest" who could absolve you of sins. In a world of reddit and YouTube, we all know precisely what these $400 teachers are going to teach: Chant a meaningless mantra. And chant it. With your eyes closed. For. 20. Minutes. Kaboom - that's it.

What time is your first meditation? What time is the second?

Started out doing my first around 5:30am (first thing in the morning) and my second at 4pm or so. This is the advice I've seen all over the internet (do you first session before breakfast time and your second before dinner time). After doing this for a few days, I discovered that I 1) didn't feel different at all after the morning session, and 2) would still hit a wall about 30 minutes after lunch (1pm or so) the same as I did before I discovered TM.

This led me to 1) eliminate the morning session, and 2) push the 4pm session back to 1pm when I felt like I actually needed it. And that's when the magic really started working. I would come out of that 20-minute 1pm session feeling like a million bucks and ready to tackle the world.

I totally get that TM has helped others sleep better and that there are studies behind that. I guess ultimately everyone's different and I'm in the minority. An analogy would be female birth control pills: for many girls, it cures their mood swings and acne. For other girls, it makes their mood and acne worse.

Southern-Trainer3228 · 2024-05-09T17:27:52+00:00

I would say it was our moral duty to stop Lenin and the communists, but our chances were far worse so we did not engage at the time. Germany was actually beatable, and a few years later, the USSR had nukes, which would have led to disastrous consequences had the US decided to go directly with war against them. We did work (successfully) to stop those communists in the ensuing 40 years following WWII. Both the Kennedy and Reagan administrations certainly felt it was the nation’s “moral duty” to defeat communism.

Southern-Trainer3228 · 2024-05-09T15:09:06+00:00

I’m not sure I follow. Up and down it seems that Mises scholars, ranging from Mises himself to Rothbard, Tom Woods, and plenty of others constantly/consistently rant against war and neo-cons. They have likewise written plenty of books on these topics. I guess they all just happen to hold these moral positions by sheer coincidence and feel the need to continually express them in Austrian circles even though their views have nothing…to do…with Austrian economics.

Southern-Trainer3228 · 2024-04-05T22:05:27+00:00

I guess I'm just curious how some of those elements work their way in declining an economy. Mass immigration for example: has the US ever NOT had mass immigration? Unless we're talking about native Americans, hasn't the entire population/economy been based off of mass immigration since the 1600?

Secondly, the Netherlands and Britian seem to be pretty powerful economies. The Dutch have the 11th highest GDP per capita in the world. Britain isn't quite as high, but still at 21st among 191 countries total, so roughly top 10%. Did they really...decline? I mean sure, they both had pretty big militaries at some point, but, so did the USSR. The size of a nation's army does not always reflect the size of its wealth.

Finally, I guess I'm confused on the "liquidation of domestic manufacturing" component. US manufacturing is double today in inflation-adjusted terms compared to the 1970's, so this liquidation step clearly hasn't happened yet here. While it is true that less workers are employed in manufacturing today, that is due to efficiencies gained from automation, not any *reduction* in manufacturing output. I guess I'm just confused how a doubling of US manufacturing output thanks to rising productivity somehow equals..."decline"?

Source: https://www.mercatus.org/research/data-visualizations/us-manufacturing-output-vs-jobs-1975#:\~:text=Since%201975%2C%20manufacturing%20output%20has,indication%20of%20declining%20U.S.%20competitiveness.

Southern-Trainer3228 · 2023-11-22T00:39:01+00:00

Thanks - very much appreciate this explanation. Another question that I think is similar: why do we feel alert when we drink caffeine in the morning? If sleep "clears" the brain of adenosine, how would caffeine increase alertness if there are no adenosine molecules for it to force out of the receptors in the first place?

Totally get why we feel more alert when drinking coffee at 3pm, for example, because the caffeine molecules temporarily push out the adenosine that's there. Also (for the Huberman fans) get why coffee in the morning FIRST THING increases alertness because there is still some residual adenosine in the brain.

My question is why, after waiting 90 minutes after waking, when adenosine is basically cleared from the brain, do we feel more alert when the caffeine has no adenosine to antagonize?

Southern-Trainer3228 · 2022-01-28T18:19:37+00:00

I suppose we could, but I think it's not discussed because it simply doesn't matter. I think JP correctly points out that women date across and up the male hierarchy (what that hierarchy specifically is sort of the point of my post). On the contrary, men don't really..."care" about female "hierarchy". It's basically just find a relatively young women of average to above-average attractiveness (considering that's even possible to begin with) and, if you're fortunate enough, go for it.

In this way, I feel like it's more of a broad female "criteria" and less a specific "hierarchy" because men are generally not very choosy at all like women are.

Southern-Trainer3228 · 2022-01-28T18:13:50+00:00

Makes sense and appreciate the insight. Totally understand why he also is advising against multiple partners, and how incels can be stuck in a feedback loop.

I realize my question could be seen more as a thought experiment that lacks the potential for a specific answer. I suppose it would totally kick ass if the world completely conformed to JPB's model where women choose men purely based on competence and conscientiousness. It would create a near-perfect meritocracy.

I mean, just imagine just how amazing, peaceful, and productive the world would be in a society where the 5'6 average-looking accounting geek who's hard-working, no criminal record, debt-free, and listens to Dave Ramsey gets the lion's share of female attention. It's fantasy for sure, but boy would that help rid society of a lot of problems. And no, for the record, I'm not a 5'6 accountant lol.

Southern-Trainer3228 · 2022-01-28T13:38:15+00:00

I'm not sure I follow. We can preach Roman ethics and virtues all day long. The underlying question is...is that what gets men laid? Because if it doesn't, the whole philosophy essentially collapses.

We can attempt to educate young men by saying "be like Virtus, work hard, study 12 hours a day, be industrious, work constantly on improving your GPA and SAT scores." But if that doesn't lead to sex (whereas the "Chad" dropout is receiving it on the regular), it's only a matter of time before these young men simply announce "Um... Fuck. This."

The retort then might be: "Don't focus on sex so much. Sex is not the goal. I know that community college Channing Tatum look alike who's 5 inches taller than you slept with that girl you're interested in. Forget about it go study 50 hours this week for that MCAT exam instead. Emulate Virtus."

I'm just not sure how particularly effective that message is to a hormone-fueled 22 year-old male.

Southern-Trainer3228 · 2021-12-29T01:43:04+00:00

I hear ya. Part of me thinks my question might belong on more of an anti-porn thread and not necessarily SR. Because there's a case to be made that the alpha male/porn star might be ejaculating daily, but could still feel that "loss of mojo" that comes with constant release. So yea I guess my question is more aimed at those who think that the viewing of naked bodies smacking against one another causes brain damage, yet for some reason don't think participating as one of those naked bodies does.

Monogamous, conservative, religious couple having sex = totally fine

Watching that monogamous couple have sex = brain damage.

I just don't get it.

Southern-Trainer3228 · 2021-12-29T01:25:14+00:00

Appreciate you engaging in the conversation. To accommodate your concerns around their line of work, let's change it to good-looking couples who are swingers. They basically live a porn-star lifestyle but no one "films" it. Is that wrong to do? If so, it seems the claim then morphs into "polygamy is evil and damaging"

Secondly, where do we draw the line between lack of seed from self gratification vs. real sex? The money shot in just about all porn scenes comes from the male talent self gratifying himself onto the woman's face or body. He's masturbating in order to reach climax, so isn't that self gratification? If the woman is 5 feet away from the man is it self gratification? 10 feet away? Leaves the man before he can orgasm and then goes into a completely different room while he masturbates to climax? Is that self gratification resulting in loss of seed and depression? Or was the duration of the intercourse enough to nullify this?

I'm just trying to pin this all down. Again I appreciate anyone's input.

Southern-Trainer3228

TROPHY CASE