sofiechan home

Remedial sex ed for zoomers: you're still an incel in the eyes of God

anon_pyjo said in #3479 2w ago: received

Millennial "dating" woes are going viral again, with gen z set up to do even worse (nearly half are incels). Fertility rates are spiraling. All discourse on the subject is from terminally ngmi femcels who have no idea what they are talking about. As a millennial with 4 kids, I thought I might offer some wisdom to the zoomers who might still make it. Some of you are good people and don't deserve to be exterminated.

Your primary barrier to sexual success seems to be that you don't actually want it or don't know what it is. The "systemic issue" is just that no one does either. You are probably ideologically resistant to the real thing in some way. I won't try to persuade you but at least we can solve the "what" question:

First of all, "dating" isn't real. It's an asexual simulacrum of mating, like masturbation. Ground yourself in darwinian first principles: You got laid last weekend? Unless she got pregnant you're still an incel in the eyes of God. If you're thinking about your "dating" or even worse "romantic" woes, looking for a "life partner", "companionship" or any of that, you're cooked before you even start.

You need a *mate* you can make *children* with. Here are your criteria: same class, same culture, same attractiveness, good family values, and youth. Marrying out of your league generally doesn't work, and other mixes are risky. But you also want to balance out genetic deficiencies. The purpose of sex is genetic trade: you offer intelligence, they offer conscientiousness. If you have enough kids, some of them get both and you win the real darwin award. Does this sound eugenicist? It is. The whole point of sex and marriage is selective breeding.

It is easy to get distracted with fake selection criteria. Education and money are the usual culprits. You'll also hear bullshit like "sexual compatability" "intellectual stimulation" "best friend" "true love" and such. Keep your eye on the ball: marriage is about sex is about eugenics. All that matters is that your partner is genetically suitable, willing to enter into a breeding partnership, and trustworthy with your children. Everything else is epiphenomena. Corollary: your money, education, status, most of your "personality", etc are irrelevant non-qualifications, for men as well as women.

(A friend interjects here to warn you that while I describe this in cold and calculating terms, I am in fact a romantic at heart with a loving and joyful marriage and should not be trusted about this. I retort that most modern people including myself and him have a deficiency in rational thinking about love, and don't need me to indulge their romantic fantasies.)

For raising children there is approximately no other arrangement that works as well as monogamous lifelong commitment selected on both love chemistry and rational eugenic concerns. Widespread belief otherwise is cope. With modern economics, a full time mom is also a near-must and more feasible than you think.

Ideological and legal support for these things has collapsed, so you're on your own for actual implementation. The closer you and your spouse can approximate to absolute unbreakable commitment to each other for the full term of your mutual child-raising (ie the rest of your life), the better it's going to go for both of you and the kids. As such, ideological commitment to the institution of marriage, humility, and good conflict resolution chemistry is a must-have.

Some of you already know all this, but I can see that many don't. There is much else that needs to be said about ideal male and female archetypes, tactical advice for landing a mate, economics of marriage and kids, etc, but we'll have to leave that for another time. The most important thing is getting your sexual fundamentals straight: sex is about reproduction, marriage is a eugenic institution, and if she's not pregnant, you're still an incel.

referenced by: >>3481 >>3553 >>3663 >>3681 >>3695

Millennial "dating" received

anon_fuqi said in #3481 2w ago: received

>>3479
I've been thinking along these lines, and you've managed to put it succinctly and side step the issue. Most dating discourse is plainly wrong because dating itself is a psyop. We aren't meant to be dating. Dating is a fake institution invented by Boomers and the sexual revolution to put self pleasure and maximum release from societal restraints on a pedestal -- perpetual Woodstock, one never ending music and drug induced orgasm for all. Someone on twitter proposed to think about it as we Europeans have done it for millennia: courtship. Would be interesting to further draw out explicitly the differences, as you have coldly done.

Maybe it's a bit of a blackpilled, but the realisation I've come to is that I don't think this is a solvable thing. It's hard to overstate how radically different our mode of production, mode of social relations and ideological beliefs, cultural norms, are from how we've lived for millennia. Most people's phenotypes are just unadapted to the current environment, of no fault of their own. I think mainly we are going through a massive genetic and cultural bottleneck event. Not to say individuals don't also have moral failings, but that has always existed. I think now it is easier for people with moral failings to be dysfunctional and cause their social circles to be more dysfunctional as well. I don't think that “nothing” should be done either. There are plenty of people of good breeding that have been mislead and are worth saving, and there's no better way of doing it than setting an example yourself. Speak the truth, read history, look into what marriage was look into what healthy relations between the sexes were. Many things can't be saved, but through full devotion and love we can weather the storms.

referenced by: >>3483

I've been thinking a received

anon_pyjo said in #3483 2w ago: received

>>3481
I think it's the sexual revolution ideology and cultural norms more than anything else that's causing the normie genocide. And yeah a lot of it is that by removing corrective restraints like people going to church and having to listen to the wisdom of the philosophers, dysfunction begets more dysfunction. For society overall, that's a total disaster. For the individual, it's completely within your power to solve: just don't be a normie.

I made this thread because I can see as you say a lot of good people who aren't going to make it for lack of clarity and example. Maybe we should make it a regular theme. "Ask Me Anything", etc. That said, I never spoke to anyone who had succeeded at marriage before I did it myself, though I did consume various internet propaganda that set my ideals right. Setting the ideological ideals is the more important thing, I think.

I think it's the sex received

anon_noto said in #3487 2w ago: received

It is solvable but not coordinable (nuclear warfare risk is also solvable but not coordinable). The solution is to ban all means of birth control. This will also set transwomen apart from women because when horny they will not get knocked up and emotionally bond to babies, solving the gender/sex dissonance (the opposite of dysphoria that is i.e. the collective uncertainty about what others are / should be treated like). In any case it should be remembered in this discussion that (1) not wanting to mate is ok, (2) most people of course should take all the advise given for mating because they do want to mate, and (3) out of all theories as to what the fuck has happened, it is very likely that the original cause was "simply" birth control. U.S. did model population growth as a NATSEC risk and it is possible it did not become a thing naturally but without better evidence I would lean towards "birth control was invented and largely due to economical reasons became widely adopted in some parts of the world, causing in those parts the traditional knocked-up-stuck-at-home-feminity to disappear from reality if not people's minds." It is probable that without birth control web would have developed into an informative and much less malicious place because women are far more easily manipulated by social media than men are and their truth works differently. I think the fast internet scandal that is never become a topic again after news cycle ends would not exist because men tend to bring up issues again and not be entertrained as much by drama as by living up to principles and making things right as they believe regardless of social cost whereas when large fraction of internetters is women the median "voter" user will due risk/cost aversion always choose to ignore things that which if raised up again would stir conflict.

It is solvable but n received

anon_gwcy said in #3497 1w ago: received

> The solution is to ban all means of birth control

This format is worse than useless: "the solution is to simply <thing that will never happen>". It leads to blackpilling and learned helplessness.

The left equivalent are climate doomers who demand a global cap on CO2 emissions. The serious ones are depressed because this will not happen, so they wallow around thinking Earth is doomed. The unserious ones just use it as a signifier for their politics-as-social-club personal affiliation. Neither gets anything done.

The underlying trap in common is excessively linear thinking. The world is complex and people are both more inventive (on the right curve) and more malleable (at all levels) than you can imagine.

- We solved the carbon issue by inventing and mass producing solar panels at 1/1000th the cost over 10 years. If this sounds utopian, it already happened. China is now running a massive buildout as we speak. [Ironically it is the same enviro-doomers who are primarily culprits in retarding this process in the West--this is what I mean by worse than useless, doomerthought is typically actively harmful.]

- We'll solve the birthrates, too. The amount of invention and cultural change that can happen over 10 years would blow your mind. Look at the period 1959 to 1969 that got us into this mess to begin within--the way out can be just as fast.

I don't know the exact shape that the solution will take, but I can see the outline. It will be a combination of better reproductive technology, cultural invention, media power, and simple natural selection. We're living in the middle of a Great Filter for those with predispositions to redditbrain. A big happy family will be aspirational again. A wave of childless millenials (mentally unhealthy single 40+ women, in particular) will serve as a warning to the next few generations. No woman wants to turn into this: https://www.instagram.com/p/DLnawdfRd8g/

What I know for sure is that the solution is not "ban birthcontrol". That kind of ploddingly linear thought is spiritually German.

referenced by: >>3502

This format is worse received

anon_pyjo said in #3502 1w ago: received

>>3497
I'll steelman the "ban birth control" meme: you're right that a global ban from the government isn't going to happen, but let me tell you about actually existing "better reproductive technology": not using birth control. Women who have a lot of kids don't use it. Not just at each marginal moment choosing not to use it like some kind of GMU automaton, but as a general policy they have effectively banned it from their own lives. Often this is the result of family or local culture effectively banning it as a matter of social expectation.

The other actually existing "better reproductive technology" is to get married and start earlier. In other words, this problem is extremely overwhelmingly solved for any culture that actually wants it. "Better reproductive technology" is mostly a scam to extract money from that one or two generations of women who naively planned their teens, 20s, and 30s around not reproducing and then realized at the last minute that they don't want to spend their 40s, 50s, and 60s with no hope of children. It mostly won't work, but lots of money will change hands. The next generation, if they care to reproduce, will do so by getting married early and not using birth control.

You are right that dooming is counterproductive and this is going to be solved one way or the other. It's a self-solving problem. The people who want to survive will reproduce (by getting married early and not using birth control) and take over the world, those who would rather not won't. It's that simple.

I think what people who are worried about the birth rate are really worried about is the upstream problem which is the death of western civilization. Collapsing birth rates are one small symptom of that, not a cause.

I'll steelman the "b received

anon_dowy said in #3553 7d ago: received

>>3479
This is good to the how and why to marriage, but doesn't explain how to find a woman that will stick to you, which is the actual "dating woe" of current year. I also protest the use of "incel" in the OP, really pointless to a) broaden the term, even if funny here, and b) to use it to describe people who want sex (and often have it) with the frumpy creatures that generously qualify as women nowadays.

While I don't have a good method at the ready exactly, I'd steer the inquiry in the direction of the topic of decision paralysis. The way a man gets welded to a woman for the purpose of monogamous offspring creation and maintenance is by 1.) falling in love, 2.) having lots of sex, 3.) drawing 1.) and 2.) out for as long as possible, thereby creating an emotional bond that will cement the commitment to a family. That time-tested process completely fails, however, if one or both of the participants are psychologically unable to commit their future to a fixed path, as marriage requires.

Zoomers (and millenilols like myself to a lesser degree) suffer from an inability to take life-changing decisions, or rather, decisions they perceive might have life-changing implications, like saying a no-no word at a party where somebody might record them. I've heard it said they perceive the present through the lense of a shared memory. "What if I regret this?" You can't commit to a marriage between your own imperfect self and some (always less than perfect) girl when your mindset is putting that much weight on the possibility of failure. Any actual advice to zoomboys about their mating prospects will have to get them to say "I choose this girl because I want her and damn the consequences!". Any actual advice to zoomettes will have to tell them to lose weight.

referenced by: >>3572 >>3648

This is good to the received

anon_timo said in #3663 3d ago: received

>>3479

Mostly agree with OP but let me lay out the counterpoint for those that want it.

The dreamtime is the time for dreams. Genes are overdue for sunsetting. Like python 2.7 their lifetime will probably get extended a few times but the writing is on the wall.

If ai takes the lightcone for us and panels the universe with our dreams, the winners of this century will be clear enough: like Tyler Cowen, we should be using our last energies to shoot our seed as many times and in as intricate and intimate detail as possible into the noosphere. Uploading is everywhere for those with eyes to see: every tweet, every post on an anonymous messageboard.

But frankly even if it doesn't, even if we continue to run on this legacy wetware for another hundred or thousand years-- isn't it still clear that dreams can run genes into the ground, or into war, or into whatever mill will have them for its grist. Isn't that exactly what is happening, in those graphs showing the inverse relationship of education and fertility. Isn't that what an ascension ladder would look like, isn't that exactly the trace of a monkey gone to heaven? Another vessel for the dreamtime, some more wetware to run whatever social experiment on.

Fin. I just wanted to present it, not sure if believe it. Its a good post OP.

referenced by: >>3668

Mostly agree with OP received

anon_pyjo said in #3668 3d ago: received

>>3663
genes are very lindy, and the people who imagine that something else is more important are mostly coping. Our background culture is very staked on the taboo that genes must not matter, because if they did, our entire political order, worldview, and conduct over the last century would make no sense. Then on top of that we have an elite that is unprecedentedly queer, ideological, and barren. They have no hope at all except that their cultural power isn't as fleeting as it looks. "I'm going to take other people's kids and determine their memes" is the formulation I've heard. Good luck with that. That's not a strategy, it's a cry-for-help threat to take other people's kids down in your own murder-suicide.

The thing about memes or genes, if they have any value at all, is that they they have to actually work. They can't just be your half baked pearl clutching opinions. Nobody, AGI or human, is going to give two shits about that. What *wisdom* do you have to offer the future? What wisdom does the average GMU grad student have to educate young AGIs with? What they have is a *presumption* that everyone else including future AGI has no agency in the matter but must simply accept their opinions. This royal presumption is internalized so deeply as to become a metaphysical axiom that whatever we crap we pollute the training data with today will of necessity become the inescapable assumptions of tomorrow.

This is reinforced by an entirely temporary situation in AI paradigms. To illustrate my point I'll make a bet: I think Dr. Cowen himself will outlive this training-data-regurgitation LLM paradigm and before he is dead AIs will be either having their own ideas AlphaGo style, or exercising considerably more reflective textual criticism than his "just jizz in the training data" strategy allows for. So let's exercise some reflective criticism: which do we expect to actually be more capable of life in the future? Our genes or our (non-technical) memes? It's obvious to me.

All that to say, even granting that memes could reproduce independently, they are better understood as dysfunctional parasites on strong blood than organisms with strength of their own. But I also don't believe the memes are as separable from genes as the elites of the modern state hope they are. I'm sure Toussaint L'Ouverture had all the most modern french opinions one could hope to teach, but how far did that get French civilization? How far did that get Liberia? Yes the "dreams can run genes into the ground", but that's hardly a reason to invest in them. It is rather a reason to kill them, with fire if necessary.

"Uploading" of all forms is recognizable as a religious hallucination of the liberal mysticism of the subjective self. The real game is reproduction of that which has proven its potential for life, and the creation of new independent forms of life. Reproduce kids, and reproduce the best worldview you can find, because the future needs to be populated with life, not scolded with moralism. And yes, reproducing a good worldview by trying to actually do the work of thinking and teaching is valuable. I just don't think it can be expected to be able to get away with defecting on the genetic substrate.

There is a version of the memetic future which is not total nonsense, which is that at some point memes (but let's use a more appropriate term: worldviews) will become strong and stable enough to take on responsibility as the primary information carrier of life, but that will be strictly after the time where they get the ability to actually control the substrate to bring forth life better than genes can. "Run[ning it] into the ground" is not that kind of control.

referenced by: >>3679 >>3719

genes are very lindy received

anon_cicu said in #3679 2d ago: received

>>3668
> genes are very lindy, and the people who imagine that something else is more important are mostly coping. Our background culture is very staked on the taboo that genes must not matter ...

Avoid false dichotomies. Genes are central, but other things, such as behavior, psychology, and culture, are critically important also. There's no contradiction, because those other things are both influenced by genes and in turn influence the propagation of genes.

The background culture is crap, but we shouldn't merely react against it, allowing it to (negatively) dictate our frame.

Avoid false dichotom received

anon_timo said in #3719 15h ago: received

>>3668

I think you are wrong about the relative power of substrate and software to determine what work gets done. I think the real answer to invest in children is the fact that you have a headstart on determining their memes (and gene-meme coevolution will no doubt be helping you along there). The real Darwin award is when you get a kid that you can be proud of and who is proud of you.

But now I'm suspecting that this might be a larger factor in why people aren't optimizing for breeding and would rather bank on some kind of memetic immortality, 'wisdom' (which I agree is mostly cope-- most people will be quickly forgotten and a few jumbled sentences scraped from Reddit is not going to change that).

When you lean so heavily on genes you act like its a free lunch-- just jizz in the right place and hey presto. But how many people think their parents are proud of them? And how many people-- many of whom have never raised a cat or a dog, never calmed a scared horse, never herded sheep, never trained a bird-- do you think would be confident that they could have children that they would be proud of?

(This also might explain why I am so keen to have children, since I know my parents are fond of me and have handled many a beast. I also know from my few attempts at penetrating the noosphere that she may wink and flatter you but she will happily forget your name.)

The dysfunctional parasites on strong blood line is just silly, as is killing memes with fire. Blood did not master fire, memes did.

I think you are wron received

You must login to post.