Post: #1

Fat broads gonna fat broad: Lindy West get extremely pissed off on Jezebel.

This is the horribly offensive, woman-blaming Youtube video. Also, per her words, is terribly boring and must have been the product of somebody who has never loved.





Some choice Lindy quotes:

Quote:MARRIAGE = GOOD.
BIRTH CONTROL = BAD.
EVERYTHING = WOMEN'S FAULT.

I have no idea how this bitch is a functioning individual. That isn't what the video said whatsoever.

She then tries to play nice and be reasonable:

Quote:I'm just so bored of being lied to by stupid people. I'm so bored of being forcibly confined by someone else's bullshit narrative. Because it's simply not true. Human lives are simply not so simple. I know, because I have one, and everyone I know has one, and right-wing lawmakers (the keepers of that narrative) have them too, and every single one of those lives is messy and complex and unpredictable.

This bitch keep on going, making bold claims:

Quote:So stop telling me—"family values" traditionalists, shitty rom-coms, and Zales commercials—that it is my biological imperative to trap a complete stranger into a lifelong contract based entirely on how many diamonds he's willing to buy me with. Stop telling me that when you're choosing someone to sleep next to every single fucking day until you die, your personalities and goals and aspirations are irrelevant. Stop telling me that my lived experience is "nothing" compared to some numbers cooked up by a repressed bigot with an agenda.

She follows up with this gem:

Quote:And I literally do not give one shit if you disagree, because this is not a debate. My human agency is not one side of a thought experiment—it is an objective fact.

Get if fellas: she just decided this isn't a debate - whatever the hell she thinks she is railing against.

She concludes:

Quote:It's no coincidence that the people most concerned with clapping a chastity belt on the entire earth and swallowing the key are the people currently (and historically) in power in our country. And it's also no coincidence that the people with the most to gain by maintaining "traditional" family structures—by keeping women dependent and docile and shutting everyone else up—have the least nuanced understanding of how actual human beings interact with one another romantically. It's almost as if they've never known what it's like to really connect with someone as a human being—to love a partner as an equal, not as a bank account or a body. What a pathetic, lonely life that must be.

Lindy, baby, that is a hot mess of projection. You are lonely. Your views are not nuanced or informed or anything. You just bitch, moan and whine that other people are trying to figure out human nature. You are so full of your own shit that you have convinced yourself that you are so fucking unique that you in a class of human populated solely by yourself.

Unfortunately, you have an expiration date, Lindy. Unless you can grow up and be an actual writer and journalist, nobody -- not even feminists -- tolerate this puerile behavior from older women. You are 31, dumbass. The clock is ticking.

Post: #2

Yeah - I saw that video and enjoyed it. Somewhere in the forum is my response to it.

But thinking about it some more. I wonder if Lindy West may have a point?

I mean you can apply an economic clculation to anything. Even the time and favours you do for friends could be broked down and 'explained' by economics. But - in some ways - I think that can lead to confusion. And in many ways - for alot of people - the smae is porbably true when it comes to applying economics to sex and love.

Economics has yet to come up with a sensible theory to explain capitalism and its regular financial crises. So - expecting it to understand the mysteries of the heart may be a category error.

It doesn't allow for randomness. And when it comes to sex and love - randomness plays a big part. From how much you drank, what the weather was like, what music was playing and how recently it was since you got out of a relationship. To what time of the month it is...

Post: #3

My response on MarginalRevolution to this spectacle:

Quote:STAHHHHHP! Sex and relationships can’t possibly be described by economics because it hurts a woman’s feeeeeeelings and offends her Disneyian notions of romance. If you disagree, you’re obviously just a bitter virgin loser. And no, there is no irony in declaring that female and male sexuality are identical, and then in the same breath trying to insult men by attacking their sex-attaining abilities! - See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalre...l#comments

Post: #4

[This is my comment over at reddit/r/TheRedPill]

I actually found this video a couple of days ago through a tweet from Evan Marc Katz, one of the more successful dating coaches (for women) in the country. He praises this video in this blog. All successful dating coaches have to understand the absolute realities of attraction and dating so they can provide good information and advice and stay in business.

Jezebel is an ideologically-driven website that attempts to insert its wildly unrealistic political views into attraction and dating. Note that comments inevitably bring up the LGBT community. They are focusing on the exceptions to the rule and are trying desperately trying to transform exceptions into the rule. They will fail but in the process, are sowing confusion amongst both women and men. Jezebel is actually doing a great service for dating coaches.

Post: #5

Quality headline Wycked.

Post: #6

I watched the video that Lindy West was railing against. Typical tradcon bullshit. "Men like sex more than women and are more permissive while women associate sex more with love and commitment" with an implied tone that these horny men are evil and must be contained.

It's amazing that people who analyse the sexual marketplace are still wading in the shallow end of the pool. The idea of multiple sexual strategies for both sexes would blow their minds. Aside from academic research, the manosphere is still the only place where the actual realities of the modern western sexual marketplace are examined.

The tradcons are as deluded as the Lindy Wests, but at least they use language like "SNIFF MY DONG" (her caps) less often.

Post: #7

I like a lot of the video, but it misses a few key points.

The first two minutes assume only men are interested in casual sex. Two wrong assumptions - men are not interested in sex with all women - only younger, more fertile feminine women, and women are interest in casual sex with men - provided his status or game is high enough.

In economic terms, if the man offers high quality goods, she'll pay more. Likewise, women offering low quality goods aren't even worth texting back.

Most conservatives don't understand female attraction. When you reach a high enough status, the script flips, and it is women competing for your attention.

The real issue in the sexual marketplace is wealth inequality. 20% of the men have all the status and sexual wealth and only 20% of the women have the highest quality feminine looks

Women colluding would help the 20% most attractive women marry the highest quality men, but it's stop the droves of 6s and 7s from hooking up with male 8s and 9s. So from a market perspective, average looking girls who slut it up are making a rational choice.

Like I said, I like the premise of the video, but the marketplace is more complex and some of their assumptions are wrong.

Would anyone like to fund the RVF Institute for Sexual Economics with me?

Post: #8

I think she has a problem with the concept of analogies.

Post: #9

(02-23-2014 08:20 PM)dads Wrote:  I think she has a problem with the concept of analogies.

She has a problem with a lot of things - logic, reason, portion control, etc...

Post: #10

I feel like 90% of my issue with her is the way she writes. I mean she's crazy, yes, but if she was able to convey her points like an adult and not like a 15 year old on tumblr, I think she'd be able to push her agenda a lot more efficiently.

Post: #11

RawGod is right. This is one of those stations where both sides are equally delusional.

The video is quite bad. It is an odd mix of white knighting, just so evolutionary theory, and really bad social science. And the data they use appears to be answers to self-assessed survey questions, which has to be about the worst way to learn anything about the sexual marketplace.

Post: #12

Post: #13

This thread was great:

http://gawker.com/lindy-west-would-be-a-...1528034654

"Lindy West would be a Size Two if she spent even 1/10th her time exercising as she does arguing that gender norms are a social construct and that her civil rights are being violated every time somebody points out that morbid obesity is detrimental to one's health."

Post: #14

The video has serious flaws. It does not describe the economic model of sex accurately. Primarily, it fails to account for pure female sexual demand.

The first mistake is a true but misleading generalization: in age-adjusted aggregate and on average, men desire more sex than women. But you don't have to "zoom in" very far to discover that this generalization is not very useful. For example, a man's estimation of an individual woman changes dramatically with successive copulations, simply due to boredom. Male demand for the notch (novelty) is much higher than the for the routine sex. The video applies this generalization carelessly throughout.

The next mistake is the big one, though. It involves the way males are described as "paying" for sex. The fundamental Trade in the sexual market is not "beer for sex" or "dates for sex" or "wedding ring for sex" as the video describes. The fundamental sexual market trade is sex for sex. A high value partner "trades" for another high value partner. A low value participant (Lindy West, for example) can not "afford" a high value (alpha) male. Participants can leverage their SMV to gain relationships, commitment, money, gifts, favors, or just attention. But this is more like "cashing out" or converting to some other currency, and to focus on this is to ignore the fundamental exchange. That the creators failed to properly account for female sexual demand shows up throughout the remainder of the video.

The narrator then asks: "Why don't women charge more [for sex]?" Faulty assumption. Women haven't stopped demanding commitment merely because the monogamous marriage cartel collapsed, but because they instead started demanding just sex (with high-value alpha males) instead.

The subsequent discussion of the "split mating market" discussion is a crude way to account for this mistake. Although there are good insights in that section, ultimately most of the conclusions in the video fail to properly account for female sexual demand and thus, this video is much less than it could have been.

(PS I almost threw up when I saw the title of this thread. Honestly not much interested in addressing any of West's pointless verbiage.)

Post: #15

(02-23-2014 08:53 PM)Maximun Wrote:  

I've never seen the video of that gif, and I have to say, seeing Lindy actually talking is a much different experience than reading her ranting. One, she is kind of funny. For the first few minutes, she doesn't come off as completely insane. However, the longer it went on, the pattern for her argument really started to become obvious. It was statement-statement-emotion as opposed to statement-statement-logic. She was not constructing an actual point as much as explaining her and people who were on her sides feelings, and peppering that with anecdotal evidence and a bunch of "well, ACTUALLY"'s that never really went anywhere.

Post: #16

I hadn't seen it either. I searched and here is a thread relating to that debate.

/thread-24386....lly+biased

Post: #17

"Lindy West's Panties.."

Post: #18

(02-23-2014 10:22 PM)soup Wrote:  "Lindy West's Panties.."

Post: #19

From Lezabel comments;

Quote:Just had a peek at the Austin Institute's website (a.k.a. the people behind this vid), and it's six men and two women. All white, and all with some religious affiliation, mostly Mormon. Heh.

WHITE PEOPLE?!? Oh no, no, no. This isn't going to fly.

Post: #20

Agreed with everyone who says this is white-knight tradcon BS. There are a few other factors they are missing in why there is less marriage:

-Contraception doesn't just let men have sex without worrying marriage, it allows women to go about riding the cock carousel throughout her 20s without worrying about getting pregnant, and then trying to get married in their late 30s, this is encouraged by popular culture. Before, this would be impossible without risking getting pregnant from multiple babydaddies. Unlike what the video says, women when they are young don't want marriage any more than men do.

-Marriage doesn't offer men the same benefits it once did. Marriage once meant having someone to bang for life, someone to takecare of the home and raise the kids. Marriage no longer guarantees any of that, and on top of that gives women the ability to financially destroy the man at any time. So it's not a surprise that men are going to avoid marriage more.

-Young people have less economic opportunity and are less financially stable than previous generations. Less financial stability = delayed marriage. This is the most obvious one that they completely overlooked.

Of course, being a man, I am able to rationally criticize an argument I disagree with without hating the person who made it, unlike feminists who seem to collapse into a ball of rage because somebody wrote something on the internet that they don't agree with.

Post: #21

There is another thread discussing this video:

/thread-33223.html

It is not a dupe thread since this one leads with Lindy West's response to the video.

Anyway - I will just 'cut and paste' what I said about this video from there:

Quote:But it simplifies things too much.

The way I read things is that a minority of men are having sex with women when they are in their teens and twenties. And for them - they are benefiting from the changes in society over the past 50 years. Since they are able to sleep around with hot youg women without having to commit to marriage or being a father.

But that still leaves a vast majority of men who are stuck where they always were. Not getting laid.

And for them - they are settling down in their thirties and getting married.

But they are not settling down because they have gotten 'bored' of having lots of sex with different women.

They are settling down - because the women are about to be thrown off the cock carousel - and are looking to find a husband before they hit the wall.

Which is when they reach for the guy who is grateful for the attention after being overlooked by women his whole life.

The point is that for the majority of men - the changes in society means they get to wife a bitch up in her thirties. As opposed to when she was in her twenties.

And for this men are supposed to be grateful? Well - the only ones who should be grateful are the tiny majority of men who are in demand and have access to the top shelf pussy - without any of the demands and commitments that the rest of the men have placed on them.

That is my analysis. I don't think the changes in society are a good or a bad thing. Since I hate the idea of being married and want to be single forever. As such - the traditional marriage market was never that appealing to me and seemed pretty sad since you would have women getting frumpy in their mid-twenties (after five years or so of marriage). At least now - women feel more of a pressure to try and look good for longer.

Post: #22

Such a clusterfuck of a video, and I can't even begin to unpack all of Lindy's issues.

For the Alpha, the players, the pick up artists -
- we've always been here. There have always been men that do much better than the average in terms of sex. ALWAYS.
- Women have always lusted after Alpha Cock and illicit and dangerous sex. ALWAYS.

We're animals for Christ's sake! Cuckolding is rampant in the animal kingdom. Alphas dominating the sexual pool is the norm.

When the video says that "guys" have all of this sexual power - they're not talking about your cousin playing Halo in the basement.

Right now, in 2014, but probably for the last 40-50 years, men are being made less sexually attractive en masse
- poor diet
- poor exercise
- jobs that promote poor diet and exercise
- those same jobs going to women, being automated, or going overseas ...all reducing a man's earning potential, thus his ability to attract women outside of his physical gifts
- electronic distraction - internet, social media, porn, video games - if you aren't addicted to one of those 4, count yourself lucky

This has the effect of reducing the "real men" that these bitches clamor for.

We're losing and have lost our traditional strengths.

Throw in a culture that allows women to pursue their every fantasy
- work outside the home
- workplaces that can be more welcoming to her, and not welcoming to him
- educational gains
- jobs that de-emphasize strength and mechanical ability
- a "you go girl" culture that is attaining the same cultural level of "boys will be boys"
- an entitlement, you can have it all culture
- the pill, condoms, internet dating

So you've got a bunch of guys who are less attractive, and a lot of women who are increasingly choosy - both of which dance to the beat of the Alphas in the bedroom or in the boardroom.

On top of all that, you've got the basic psychology and personality issues of any two given individuals.

So the micro-economic factors as well as the macro-economic factors make the whole thing awful for almost everyone.

Everyone except for us.

Again, my brothers
- work on your health and fitness
- work on your economic viability

But also work on your game, your understanding of interpersonal relationships, incentives, and motivations.

WIA

Post: #23

Check this comment. Disgraceful

Lynx says in response to that article:-

Naomi Schaefer Riley is a white woman married to a black dude. Everything she says about sex and marriage is automatically nullified.

Huh?

Post: #24

This video definitely has its flaws, but everyone must consider that these are Mormons writing this. They haven't swallowed the red pill, they haven't read Bang, and they haven't even heard of hypergamy. From their very limited exposure to the SMP, I think this is a very well put together video that could be used to introduce friends to the sphere.

As for Lindy, it really speaks volumes that she has followers who read her NONSENSICAL WRITINGS!!!!!

Post: #25

(02-24-2014 11:35 AM)redbeard Wrote:  This video definitely has its flaws, but everyone must consider that these are Mormons writing this. They haven't swallowed the red pill, they haven't read Bang, and they haven't even heard of hypergamy. From their very limited exposure to the SMP, I think this is a very well put together video that could be used to introduce friends to the sphere.

As for Lindy, it really speaks volumes that she has followers who read her NONSENSICAL WRITINGS!!!!!

What makes you think that Mormons don't understand hypergamy? This is a religion whose founders practiced polygamy for decades. And many fundamentalists still do. Mormonism is a very hierarchical religion. They absolutely understand hypergamy.

As a matter of fact, take a look at how the fundamentalist Mormons who still practice plural marriage deal with potential competition from other males. Lots of teenage boys get excommunicated from these communities, so the older men can keep taking teenage wives.

As always, the problem with the tradcon view is that it is nostalgia for a time that never actually existed.