Against female sexual choice

Heartiste and Steve Sailer provide compelling evidence that females should not be allowed to make their own sexual and reproductive choices. Their hormones make them stupid. Thus we have a bunch of baby murderers running around who will doubtless repeat their parent’s choices. And here is another video of raging hormones on parade. Most females, upon meeting a seemingly high status male, will jump his bones given a few minutes of opportunity, which is why societies where virginity was important and illegitimacy disastrous kept fertile age women on a very tight leash.

The Daily Mail reports that Tavon White had five children with four female prison guards, all of them in their years of maximum hotness (why the hell is anyone hiring females as prison guards – oh yes, because failure to do so would be discrimination)  They suggest that the problem was that the guards had low self esteem, which kind of neglects the fact that most of the fertile age female guards were Tavon’s personal harem.  Did they all have low self esteem?

All thirteen indicted correctional officers were reasonably OK looking chicks, or at least all them that I could find. A few were too fat, one was way hot.  Did anyone ever hear of a hot chick with low self esteem?

My personal highly unscientific observation is that the lower a woman’s self esteem, the better her behavior, and vise versa, since the lower her self esteem, the more vulnerable she is to social pressure and male authority.  It is the girl with high self esteem that follows her pussy.

Obviously you should not have male guards in a female prison, because they are going to do the prisoners, pretty much all of the guards doing all of the prisoners, and equally obviously you should not have female guards in a male prison, because they are going to do the prisoners, or rather the prisoner,  the one highest status prisoner.

So when did the madness set in? When did people start thinking that women were a bunch of angels? No one is going to think that equality of the sexes means that male prison guards should be employed in female prisons.

Seems to me, that the PC doctrine that women are angels set in with the Whig campaign against George the Fourth, and therefore in support of that dreadful slut, Queen Caroline, and ever since then the natural momentum ever leftwards has compelled us to believe that women are ever more angelic. Plus, of course, if they acknowledged the nature of women, then it follows that King George the fourth should have beaten queen Caroline with a stick no bigger than her thumb, and the puritans had already rejected that a hundred and fifty years earlier.

29 Responses to “Against female sexual choice”

  1. […] Jim linked to the hilarious video of a fake celebrity generating gina tingles in an American mall. Seeing all those hot teens swooning for a fake alpha. Yet alpha is alpha, and a fake alpha is better than a real beta. A lot of oldies and game denialists say that that’s modern Western society that has changed women into inmoral skanks. The women of old were more virtuous, as are women in other, more traditionalist countries, such as those in Asia. […]

  2. […] Against female sexual choice « Jim’s Blog […]

  3. […] A huge problem is that different social mores work best for different types of people. One of the bi… Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:Like Loading… ‹ Literary flourishes don’t save Bioshock Infinite from sucking Posted in philosophy […]

  4. roger says:

    A huge problem is that different social mores work best for different types of people. One of the biggest problems around is that high IQ types seek and get absolute freedom (applicable unfortunately to everybody), which the high IQ types handle moderately well, but which is ruinous for everyone else.

    Also social norms have built in prisoner’s dilemma-type positive equilibria if they are followed. If most people agree to act honorably, you get a near-optimal type of outcome. If people start to act badly (for example, to be cads or to not honor business and personal contracts) unless society punishes such cheaters, eventually you find a new equilibrium that is suboptimal.

    With blessed diversity, if you mix the cheaters and the non-cheaters, what does the prisoner’s dilemma tell you about what the outcome will be?

    • Thales says:

      “high IQ types seek and get absolute freedom (applicable unfortunately to everybody), which the high IQ types handle moderately well, but which is ruinous for everyone else.”

      Bingo. If you’re smart, you can live like a liberal/libertarian sans immediate adverse consequences. If you’re not (esp. PITA population), you’re better-off just following simple rules (“don’t do drugs, save it for marriage” etc.)

      Jim has mentioned this a couple of times recently wrt recreational substances, but the same also applies to fornication: smart college girls know to get on the pill during their senior year, remember to take it every day and don’t have oopies while chasing alpha c*ck while away at school. Girls in PITA populations don’t even think about contraception before the bra comes off, if even then.

      • Faust says:

        Which brings the problem of how to maintain the elite IQ at the top, incentivized to strive for greatness, and allow for varying levels of rigidity in the law as the descent into the lower IQ spectrum is made. How to calculate for the outlier or anomaly? The Good Will Hunting’s who spawn magical genius powers from poverty while not wasting resources on people that can’t or won’t be educated? When looking at higher education it’s obvious that a lot of people should have never been there. Especially those outside of STEM degrees or more specifically, those who don’t require expensive lab equipment to learn. A math professor can function just as well teaching an online course as he can in a university theatre but a chemist cannot.

        At this point no country fully utilizes the internet and entirely too many resources are wasted shipping children back and forth to school. Schools which often resemble day cares for the least bright students, and prisons for the above average as they’re preyed upon by their peers. Instead we ignore the lower classes, the lower IQ, and expect them to operate at functional level.

        The females need some controls placed on their sexuality. In particular they need the notion that a degree in the humanities is worth a good job rooted out of them. It’s not worth much and the looming student loan bubble is a testament to that. The best way to control their sexuality is to have older women shame them.

        When beta male .gov’s coffers run dry you can expect a lot of these women to suffer for their actions considering the myth of the strong independent woman is so pervasive now.. They transferred dependence from a husband to the state. They work public sector jobs, welfare queens, and HR jobs. The majority of elite females in the Ivy Leagues do not enter the workforce in any meaningful way. It’s becoming more and more clear that the only success women have had is in becoming sluts and instituting female quotas in corporations. Their success is a lie built on the idea that women would be just as capable as men in the middle management positions but would unionize less and never go on strike. In return they took a slight productivity loss but endear even more obedient slaves then before.

        Men now are faced with two options. One, become a tradesmen. The few women who attempt these jobs usually quit. The pay is good and there is little to no debt involved. Unfortunately, many men consider these blue collar jobs as low status even though the pay may be superior to many corporate jobs. Two, military life which is facing the effects of feminization, which translates into less rigid hierarchy and lower standards of efficiency but again, I believe the military is willing to accept the lower standards because women are more than willing to kill at the command of an officer. When the military does need a task done right they’ll give it to special ops which women will never be able to enter. The third option is the easiest and the one most men are doing. Living a minimal lifestyle, living with parents, earning little, and spending little. Opting out of the system as much as possible. Men were made for minimalism. They only seem to earn to provide for women and children. A man can live easily on a 25 hour a week schedule. Women seem less inclined to this lifestyle.

        • jim says:

          > Which brings the problem of how to maintain the elite IQ at the top, incentivized to strive for greatness, and allow for varying levels of rigidity in the law as the descent into the lower IQ spectrum is made.

          Monarchic solution:

          People who profile as likely to cause problems have their mobility restricted with communist style internal passports and biometric databases, to keep them away from civilized people. We profile on race, IQ, and legitimacy, though of course individual IQ and individual history of conduct outweighs the profile. I suspect that fatherlessness has more serious effect on criminality than race. If someone’s profile sucks, he finds it hard to get permission to leave his rather small ghetto. If someone born underclass wants to get out of his ghetto, he gets a job outside his ghetto with an employer who will vouch that he is OK, so he is allowed out of his ghetto to the area where he is employed. If he screws up, it reflects on his employer. Too many screw ups by the employees of a given employer, the employer cannot hire from ghetto any more. If, on the other hand, the employee acquires a history of good conduct, paying his debts, and supporting himself by honest peaceful means, and a good credit record …

          The more someone screws up, the more severely he kept away from civilized people, the more his mobility is restricted. If, on the other hand, he has favorable employment history, credit rating, and a history of good conduct, this outweighs his profile, and he can proceed from underclass to working class to middle class. Conversely, a middle class person who gets drunk in public, gets into fights, shoplifts, and cannot pay his debts …

          Our eugenic program is that inferior people are stuffed into ghettos and forgotten.

          Feudal solution:

          Semi hereditary serfdom for people who suck. The people at the bottom are bound to their lord. The gentry can move around. Our eugenic program is that the lords are apt to bang the serfs.

          Anarcho capitalist solution.

          People who can pay well, people who can defend themselves well, and people who defense agencies believe are unlikely to create trouble will obtain rules that favor them

          People who are poor, people who are incapable of defending themselves, and people who defense agencies believe are likely to create trouble will face rules that disfavor them.

          Respectable middle class people will be treated before the law about as unequally as credit card companies treat them today, which is to say that one respectable middle class person who pays his bills is treated by the credit card company in a way that is is similar but not identical the way it treats another respectable middle class person who pays his bills, and very different from the way it treats the broke person who frequently fails to pay his bills.

          Middle class heads of households have direct relationships with a defense agency, or a couple of defense agencies. Defense agencies and members of the upper class have direct relationships with several defense agencies. Members of households are connected to a defense agency via the head of household. Employees without a defense agency are connected to a defense agency through their employer and/or union, and possibly through their family. Unemployed people with no defense agency and no family are in deep trouble.

          If someone is an outlaw (no defense agency wants him as a client because of a history of causing trouble), you can just kill him. If someone is a bum, and you are not, you usually get away with mistreating him, but he cannot get away with mistreating you. This makes middle class guys automatically tougher, more badboy, more macho, than underclass boys. Girls then start having sex eugenically, instead of anti eugenically.

          People who really cannot earn an honest living will fail to reproduce. Someone who is poor and supports himself by criminal means winds up with no defense agency. With no defense agency and a bad credit record and criminality record, anyone he causes problems for can probably get away with killing him, again a eugenic outcome.

      • Red says:

        >>Jim has mentioned this a couple of times recently wrt recreational substances, but the same also applies to fornication: smart college girls know to get on the pill during their senior year, remember to take it every day and don’t have oopies while chasing alpha c*ck while away at school. Girls in PITA populations don’t even think about contraception before the bra comes off, if even then.

        Even the high IQ groups begin to fall apart once their women stop being faithful. American elites are just as much in decline as the lower and middle classes, if not even more so. Freedom for women is usually the last stage before the collapse in most civilizations.

        • roger says:

          Mrs. Tamerlan Tsarnaev (who still uses his last name) is the top-of-her-class, all-American daughter of a Yale educated medical doctor who ruined everything with her uncontrolled youthful urge toward the least civilized man in her universe.

      • jim says:

        Even the smart are suffering increasingly delayed marriage, especially smart women – though I have seen statistics to the contrary, that the smartest women are doing OK. Such statistics however, run contrary to my personal observation.

  5. Faust says:

    With the divorce rate so high, it amazes me that people still consider arranged marriages as some great evil. At least it provides some familial and financial pressures to keep a marriage together instead of letting it dissolve at the first difficulties. How many times have people gone to a wedding and said, “I give it six months.” Allowing someone to ruin their lives that way is healthy, and somehow good, but for a father to choose a husband for his daughter who isn’t a degenerate loser, that’s evil.

    • spandrell says:

      Well places where arranged marriages happen aren’t very nice to live in. Just sayin’

      • Thales says:

        Arranged marriages were once part of American culture, but unlike other places, the girl could veto the choice. Ivy League schools (“Mrs. degree”) have replaced this function for middle to upper-class girls, but there is a gaping void for the proles, and it shows.

        • Red says:

          Even in Islamic culture girls can usually veto the choice. Sending a chick to husband she doesn’t like usually ends in the girl running away.

      • Robert in Arabia says:

        Where I live the shopping malls are packed with happy children.This is not what you see in America, France, England and Ireland. What makes life difficult here is the self-hating white expats.

      • jim says:

        Indian middle class arranged marriages seem to work fine.

        Vietnamese aristocracy arranged marriages fairly harshly in order to breed themselves for excellence. The result was that the aristocracy was a least two, and probably three, standard deviations above the mean.

        • spandrell says:

          got a link on that?

          • jim says:

            Personal observation of Indian marriages, talking with Vietnamese aristocrats about their childhoods.

          • RS says:

            I assume you mean the Nam aristoi are far superior in IQ and maybe Conscientiouness, and probably wealth. So were they correspondingly lower than otherwise expected in macho and comeliness? (Those being the traits ungoverned youth are often trying to sexually select.)

            What do you think macho and comeliness are proxies for? Obviously macho is partly a proxy for itself, which is to say a non-proxy. Ability to dominate has direct fitness value. Comeliness sure seems like an index of mutational load, but I find it striking that it doesn’t correlate rather more strongly with IQ than it does. Perhaps it would correlate more potently with health, especially before modernization.

            Both could be bubbles to some extent, desired because they are desired.

            • jim says:

              I would say three standard deviations above the norm in IQ. Conscientiousness was not that exceptional. Aristo girls were way hot. Aristo guys no more handsome than commoners, perhaps a good deal uglier. They did not appear macho, but were more macho than they seemed.

  6. Johnny Caustic says:

    If the guards didn’t have high self-esteem before, they do now. They seduced Tavon, after all.

    • Dave says:

      What do you mean “they” seduced “him”?

      • jim says:

        They are the guards. He is the prisoner. If he was loose, would probably be getting higher quality ass. They are taking advantage of him. See the video of raging hormones in post.

        • Dave says:

          I’m not sure I agree that they took advantage of him.

          If multiple women are breaking codes of conduct just to have your seed then who is in a position of dominance and who is submissive? Who, then, would be taking advantage who?

          Sure the guards controlled the prison, but he was able to control the guards. The prison guard persona lost to the inner cavewoman.

          • jim says:

            Well obviously he was in a position of dominance, but if they had not been guards, and he had not been a prisoner, probably would not have been able to get his seed. Part of the attraction of bad guys in prison is that they are bad guys, but another part of the attraction is that they cannot get away.

Leave a Reply