Online Poke Her

I found this interesting:

[An] experiment with Tinder that claimed that that “the bottom 80% of men (in terms of attractiveness) are competing for the bottom 22% of women and the top 78% of women are competing for the top 20% of men.”

A couple of years back I saw another analysis of one of the big dating sites which showed that most men considered something like 70% of the women to be attractive enough to date, whereas most women saw only 20% of the men the same way. The two studies suggest women who go on dating sites are unrealistically fussy, especially considering they’re on a dating site in the first place. Men, being men, appear to be more open to compromise on looks if it means getting laid and (possibly) having a relationship. None of this will be new to those of us who are over thirty and walk around with our eyes open.

The trouble is, I’m not sure women quite understand the dynamics of dating sites, which the statistics above confirm. I recently had occasion to watch a couple of young women swiping away on one of the dating apps, and they got all giddy over a dashingly handsome young Italian complete with a tailored suit and designer stubble. I expect they imagined the possibility of a romantic relationship, but what I saw was a chap who’s probably having a whale of a time ploughing through those 78% of women dumb enough to think he’s boyfriend material. Unfortunately, anyone who didn’t match this guy’s looks got immediately discarded. What’s even more unfortunate is one of the girls was about hot enough to attract a guy like that. I suspect this has always been a problem for pretty girls, but it’s likely to be accentuated in the era of dating apps: they’ll attract the attention of the best looking guys, who will find them average rather than special and have few qualms about ditching them in favour of the next one. While many women talk about their disappointment with dating apps, I’d imagine for good looking women it’s a rollercoaster of flattery followed by inexplicable rejection.

I’m not sure even those who run dating apps quite know what’s going on, or if they do they pretend they don’t. One of the biggest problems is men who sit there all day carpet bombing women with “hi how r u sexy?” messages or dick pics. Any woman will tell you that within weeks of joining a dating site in London or Paris, her inbox is full of vulgar messages written in atrocious English from manual labourers in Turkey, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates. Tinder attempted to deal with this by limiting “swipe-rights” to 100 per day, or something. Bumble took it one step further and made it such that only women could initiate a conversation, but as the statistics above show, all that does is fill up the inboxes of the top 20% of men while the other 80% wait in vain for the slightest interest, unable to chance their arm even with the biggest hound on the whole platform. In other words, they’ve sold rejection to the already rejected. The simple solution is to restrict men to initiating two or three contacts per day, but the business model is to get men using it for hours at a time and pestering them with ads, so they’re not going to do that. But if they were serious about hooking people up, which they’re not, that’s what they’d do.

I also get the impression women like their inboxes full of unsuitable proposals because it gives them an excuse for not making an effort. Every woman I’ve spoken to about her experience on dating sites says “Oh, I don’t have time, I get so many messages I can’t be bothered to go through them all.” From what I’ve read on blogs which cover this stuff, the sort of women who go on dating sites have a habit of not responding to genuine proposals for days or weeks, and only then grudgingly agreeing to a date because their days are crammed full of work, weekend breaks, yoga sessions, or after work drinks with the girls. One of the most peculiar aspects of modern dating is middle aged, professional women citing as a priority their desire to find a lifetime partner, but refusing to make the slightest effort to find and accommodate one. If women joined dating sites and found one or two serious, well-written introductions dropping into their inbox each week, they might be forced to accept their reasons for not responding were shallow indeed. Better to hide behind the avalanche of dick picks and conclude they’re above all that. By contrast, even the most eligible, suitable men who fall outside the top 20% must spend considerable effort writing thoughtful introductions only to receive a response once in every fifty or hundred attempts (I’m not exaggerating here).

If we are to believe dating sites aren’t the best way of showcasing your suitability as a mate, let alone finding one, the problem is compounded by the fact that most people below a certain age don’t know any other way. A few weeks ago on the recommendation of William of Ockham I listened to a Spectator Radio podcast which discussed the impact dating apps are having, and they speculated that da yoof spend all their time building online personalities at the expense of those they display in real life. This not only makes them reluctant to meet people in the flesh, but also pretty useless when they do, i.e. they have no idea how to flirt and interact romantically in the offline world. I can’t claim to understand the younger generation but I do meet a few of them these days, and I occasionally wonder if they put as much effort into developing communication skills and an interesting personality as they do their Instagram feeds, they may not need dating apps at all. One of the more amusing aspects of this era is when you hear a couple say they met in real life and they make it sound like a freak occurrence. Unfortunately, you more often hear a girl say she met her last five boyfriends on Tinder, without any idea of what she ought to deduce from that statement.

Me, I’m kinda glad I was born in 1977.


Beta O’Rourke

I’ve got my fifth and final exam of the week today, so I’ll keep this short. In case anyone is interested they’ve gone well so far, mainly because I’m not dumb enough to fork out for an MBA then flunk the exams because I’m too lazy to study. My observations tell me that if I were 22 and my wealthy family were paying for it this might be the case, but alas it isn’t.

Anyway, here’s a video of presidential hopeful and darling of divorcee Democrats Beto O’Rourke:

He comes across as one of those corporate types you meet who’s waited ten years longer than his peers for his first chance at management, and when it finally arrives he takes his subordinates to the pub and gives them a rousing speech without realising he’s addressing seasoned, middle-aged professionals not teenagers.

In fact, he looks and sounds an awful lot like my ex-boss.


Robinson Screwed So

Yesterday while in the car I listened to James Delingpole’s podcast with Tommy Robinson. Unless Robinson is lying through his teeth, which I doubt, it appears he has been the subject of highly illegal treatment at the hands of a panicked ruling class acting in concert with the police, courts, and media. What’s worse, the government gets away with it because they can count on the support of the middle classes. Nobody’s going to stand up for a far-right, racist thug, right?

Hence when he was wrongfully imprisoned, rather than the darling lawyer of the internet pointing out the gross injustice, he or she used the situation to signal their own virtues while slandering Robinson’s supporters. When the truth came out and he was proven wrong, the Secret Barrister wrote four thousand words to the effect of “Well, who can blame me for assuming the worst about this kind of man?”  Some barrister. The media’s handling of the subject is even worse, littered with smears, falsehoods, and libelous accusations as they play their assigned role as propaganda organ for the ruling classes. Not without reason does Robinson believe the upcoming BBC Panorama programme accusing him of child abuse is a last-ditch effort by the authorities to make him impossible to support. The campaign led by BBC staff and British politicians to get him banned from social media platforms looks carefully timed to ensure he has no way of responding to these allegations.

Two things sprang to mind when listening to the podcast. The first is that not a single MP, newspaper, or public figure questioned the treatment of Tommy Robinson. Contrast this with the way Labour politicians, Guardian columnists, and other Establishment figures fall over themselves to prevent jihadists, child rapists, and knife-wielding thugs from having to face justice. Apparently Sky News can travel to Syria and give sympathetic interviews with ISIS brides aimed at swaying public opinion towards repatriating them, but are uninterested in the fact that the state conspired to throw a British man who has broken no laws into solitary confinement for two months. When we are unable to deport hooked-hand lunatics inciting terrorism in London mosques, the chattering classes stroke their chins and deliver earnest sermons on the importance of human rights. But when Tommy Robinson is chucked in jail they say nothing, except perhaps to remind us of his real name and his highly suspect mortgage fraud conviction. Who do you think this inconsistency will harm in the long run? And where are the Conservatives in all this? That’s a rhetorical question.

The second thing that sprang to mind is the ruling classes had better be sure of their position here. Things are changing fast; the government is on the verge of collapse, the streets are boiling with anger, and the status quo is looking shaky indeed. If things get really chaotic and British politics flipped on its head, there is a reasonable chance Robinson might find himself in a position of power before he hits retirement age. It might seem unlikely now, but history is littered with pariahs who were jailed by failing governments and found themselves in charge a few years later. Now I doubt Robinson is ever going to be Prime Minister, but who knows where power and influence will lie if the current system is upended by a populist revolt? If even half of what Robinson says on the podcast is true, he will be fully justified in finding those politicians, judges, policemen, prison staff, and CPS agents who were responsible for his treatment and holding them to account. What form that will take I don’t know, but I’m not sure I’d want to rely on principles of human rights to save me if I were being fixed with a blindfold. That ship sailed in May last year, and the chattering classes were fine with it.

Go and listen to the podcast, and tell me I’m wrong.



Back in 2015 The Federalist ran an article by a Sara Burrows on her new-found polyamorous lifestyle. Titled Polyamory Is Next, And I’m One Reason Why, we learned:

Four years into our relationship, we found ourselves in the typical rut of co-dependence, resentment, boredom, and fighting over the grocery bill. We’d had an unplanned baby, I’d quit my job to do attachment parenting full-time, and Brad was working long hours in a dungeon of a warehouse. I was stuck at home washing dishes, folding laundry and talking to a two-year-old, bored out of my mind. If we didn’t have anything to fight about, we’d find something, just to make life a little more interesting.

People who complain of a dull life rarely consider that they, not their circumstances, are the problem.

I had freed myself from the grips of government, religion, and parents.

As everyone knows, self-fulfillment is dependent on external forces and cannot be derived from within.

Enter polyamory. Polyamory means “many loves.” It is the practice of engaging in several emotionally and possibly sexually intimate relationships simultaneously, with the full knowledge and consent of everyone involved.

If polyamory is the answer, you’ve not understood the question.

We’re both nervous and don’t know what to expect. I’ve pushed Brad to “go first” in dating and sexually exploring other women. He’s been on two dates so far, and we even arranged a crazy one-night stand to sort of break the ice and test our feelings.

Nothing screams maturity and responsibility like arranging a crazy one-night stand.

Since we’ve discovered polyamory, we don’t care about new houses or new cars or vacations.

As we’ve learned, polyamorists consider themselves on a higher spiritual plane to the rest of us.

We’re actually looking forward to the rest of our lives together now. When we were monogamous, our future seemed pretty mapped out: have a baby, get a better job, buy a house, get a promotion, buy a better car, start our own business, buy a better house, make more money, go on vacation, make more money, buy an even better house… grow old in it together.

All because of being able to shag around? Who knew something so simple could deliver such wide-reaching benefits?

We’ve gotten a lot of warnings and admonitions from well-intentioned friends and family members that we’re going to destroy our relationship and hurt our daughter, but we feel exactly the opposite.

Pah! What do they know?

For us, this is the perfect opportunity to save our relationship, spare our daughter from the heartbreak of a broken family, and give her the blessing of happy parents and extended family.

Quite. There is absolutely no reason to believe psychological issues such as loneliness, boredom, and detachment can’t be addressed through meaningless sex with strangers.

In her spare time, she blogs about their new journey into polyamory at

So let’s have a look at the entry for the 11th January 2019, shall we?

It’s time to set the record straight. Most of this blog is bullshit.


I was no longer in love with the father of my child/partner of 4 years, and he was clearly not in love with me.

The newfangled concept of “polyamory” was just a trendy excuse to play the field and see if I could find any better offers.

As many have observed, polyamory is often used as cover for people who lack the courage to get divorced.

Either I’d find someone who’d love me better… or Brad, out of fear of losing me, would shape up and start meeting my needs for emotional and sexual intimacy. Either way, I win, I thought.

But my subconscious plan backfired.

The only thing missing from a plan this bad is an appearance by Roadrunner at the end.

I didn’t find a man who loved me more than Brad did, I just found a man who was more excited to put his penis in my vagina because I was novel and he’d gone without sex a lot longer than Brad had.

This is someone who, in a fit of childish pique, bragged of throwing off the shackles of family and religion. She’s now learned the hard way what her granny could have told her aged 16.

I was “in love” in a way, but it was the kind of love you fall into, like a trap, not the kind of love that you rise into, that has the potential to last and grow.

Is she a grown woman, or a high-schooler lamenting a one-night stand with the captain of the football team?

Because I couldn’t empathize with Brad’s pain over this betrayal, because I couldn’t even fathom it, he subconsciously set out to teach me a lesson.


He had to make me feel the pain he’d felt firsthand, so I could know it. So I could have sympathy and compassion for what I put him through.

So he went out and fell just as hard in love as I had, and rubbed it right in my face, until my soul was bloody and bruised and begging him to stop.

This doesn’t sound very subconscious.

Someway, somehow, we made it through the  two most awful experiences of our lives, and came out a million times stronger on the other side.

Maybe you’ll want to hold off on the grand pronouncements for a while, eh?

I think society should encourage and celebrate sexual freedom and exploration among teenagers.

I think because society does not do this, and instead represses our sexuality, we wander around still starving for that kind of passion as adults.

Someone whose life is an utter trainwreck thinks society should encourage teenagers to be more promiscuous? Should we ask the drunk sleeping under the railway bridge what he thinks of trade tariffs while we’re at it?

Now you’re caught between a rock and a hard place.

You’re in love with two people.

By now, they are both jealous of your affection and wanting you to choose.

Apparently this is a drawback of polyamory. Who would have guessed?

But you have more history, trust and deeper friendship with the old partner, not to mention a child or two.

Ah yes, the children. Let’s include them in a flippant afterthought.

As Osho says, it is the one we develop a spiritual friendship with who becomes our lasting soulmate.

As I’ve noted before, there’s a peculiar habit of modern, western women to loudly declare they’re rejecting Christianity before plunging headlong into the nearest weirdo cult.

The good news is there can be healing and deeper intimacy on the other side. Brad and I have been more in love in the last 6 months of monogamy than in our entire 8 years before that,

There’s nothing like 8 years of meaningless sex with a succession of insincere strangers to shore up a failing marriage.

and I KNOW it’s only going to get better from here.

Presumably on the grounds things can’t get a whole lot worse.

I don’t know if he’s 100% there yet, but I dream of the day Osho talks about, when we rise so high in love with each other that everyone else disappears.

She’s mentioned Osho 3 times, whereas all she says about her child is:

The sad part about option B is that children’s hearts are often needlessly torn apart along with their parents.

Which is why mature, responsible, functioning adults don’t engage in polyamory. From start to finish, this entire story can be condensed to “me me me”. Everyone else’s concerns are just a side-issue, to be ignored or reclaimed as necessary at her own convenience. And in case anyone thinks such selfishness is limited to female practitioners of polyamory, here’s a post on Reddit:

I’m a 34 year old man who is married to a 33 year old woman and we have a 13 year old boy. I recently went poly with an 18 year old girl, primarily for sex, but we have become increasingly close and she will be moving in soon. My son is very close to his mom, my wife, and I’m not sure how he will react to this. How can I introduce my girlfriend to my son?

What’s the betting this 18 year old has severe mental problems, possibly caused by an absent father and/or sexual abuse at the hands of an adult? Remember people, polyamorists are perfectly normal, just like you and me.

(Burrows story via Michael Story and several readers on Twitter. Reddit post via Robert Mariani.)


Mixed Martial Arts

I’ve written before about how some modern women, probably empowered by sassy, go-gurrrrrll feminism and watching too many films, seem to think physically assaulting men is a good idea. Here’s another example:

Note that everyone only got outraged when he picked her up and dumped her on the floor. Until then, it was all a bit of a lark. However, you slap a man in the face like that and he’s likely to lose control in some way; this young lad is actually pretty restrained, and did just enough to neutralise his crazy classmate. You can see for a brief second where instinct takes over and he draws his fist back ready to knock her head clean off her shoulders, before he understands the consequences and relaxes. She was fortunate. A man in this state – especially a young, fit one – is a dangerous beast which is why it’s best not to provoke them like this. Men know this. Women used to know it instinctively, but modern society appears to have absolved them of simple common sense. They now seem to think they can go around physically attacking men with no consequences. Whether it’s feminists to blame for this mindset or someone else, there will be some women who pay a real and permanent price for it.


No Defeat, Whole Surrender

An article in The Spectator – the magazine for Britain’s centre-right political classes – contains a telling passage:

[T]here is no one to lead Britain through a no-deal Brexit and not enough MPs to support it. This is what Brexiteers have to accept.

Apparently British citizens just have to accept the fact their rulers are hopeless incompetents without an ounce of leadership skills among the whole lot of them. There is no other option, it seems. They are in the same position as Abraham Lincoln who said after the Battle of Antietam:

“There is no one to lead the Union armies to a decisive victory over the Confederates. This is what Americans have to accept.”

Actually no, he didn’t say that. Instead he fired the hapless George McClellan and (eventually) appointed the rather more capable Ulysses S. Grant.

The British people delivered a mandate to its rulers to negotiate, organise, and execute an orderly departure from the European Union in a manner which would maximise the long-term benefits for the country. What that precisely means is open to dispute, but the results of negotiations are rarely known in advance; a large part of the skill is being able to recalculate as positions shift. What is not open for dispute is the fact the British political leadership has utterly failed to deliver their mandate. It’s difficult to think of a single part of the process they’ve managed to get right; it’s just been one bungled catastrophe after another. The best they’ve come up with is an embarrassment of an agreement more akin to those signed by nations defeated in war, with the other option of simply exiting on 29th March being forced on them by virtue of their own incompetence. Even if you think No Deal is a good thing, it’s an indicator of how useless our politicians are that this is the most likely outcome. It’s like meeting for peace talks which drag on until everyone’s dead. Nobody’s going to get a Nobel Prize for that.

A term I sometimes hear to describe the current political philosophy, particularly in Europe, is “managed decline”. Our current crop of leaders have no interest in doing anything worthwhile beyond that which will elevate their personal status, power, and privilege. They are wholly uninterested in the future of the country beyond the next month, and treat the whole thing as a game where everyone’s on the same side except the general population who doesn’t even get to play. They have no standards, no self-confidence, no vision, and no ambition beyond that of a teenager singing into her hairbrush in her mother’s high heels. When Sadiq Khan glibly stated that Islamic terror attacks were just part and parcel of living in a big city, he should have been driven from office and into obscurity. He wasn’t, because for too many people this craven, pathetic, mediocrity is what they’ve come to expect from their leaders. That The Spectator is now endorsing this mindset speaks volumes. I’m beginning to think even “managed decline” is overly generous.


Canada Goof

I think anyone who’s spent time on social media knows that men who describe themselves as feminists and spend half their time white-knighting and virtue-signalling to women are the sort you’d want nowhere near your daughters.

Last summer Canada’s manchild of a Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stood accused of groping women:

The self-described feminist, who has said he has “no tolerance” for sexual harassment, said he did not recall the event.

“I remember that day in Creston well. It was an Avalanche Foundation event to support avalanche safety. I had a good day that day. I don’t remember any negative interactions that day at all,” he said, nodding and smiling to reporters.

But on Thursday, he told reporters that he apologized to the woman in question “in the moment,” although he also said he is confident he “did not act inappropriately.”

Now it’s likely the allegations were invented by a deranged lunatic, but what’s interesting is how quick Trudeau was to dismiss them given he spends half his time blathering on about gender issues. As is common with male feminists who chant “believe all women”, he carved out an exception for himself. However, Trudeau is now in a lot more trouble in part due to his treatment of another woman:

Mr Trudeau has been accused of pressuring his former attorney general to cut a deal with a company facing corruption charges – and retaliating when she refused to play ball.

The revelations could cost Trudeau the October general election, some pundits say.

The former AG, Jody Wilson-Raybould, says Trudeau and his staff spent months trying to convince her that taking the company to trial would cost Canadians jobs, and their party votes.

She also says she was subject to “veiled threats”, which she believes were made good when she was shuffled out of her department.

Now another minister, Jane Philpott, has quit saying it was “untenable” for her to continue due to “serious concerns” raised by the case.

So a gurning SJW who’s never missed an opportunity to virtue-signal and polish his feminist credential turns out to be a corrupt, bullying, nasty piece of work especially to women who won’t do as they’re told. Now there’s a surprise, eh?


Slow Rogan

I do like Joe Rogan’s podcasts, mainly because he is able to get the best out of the many interesting guests he has on. I reckon he’s able to do this because he’s a genuinely nice, friendly bloke, but also because his guests are usually a lot smarter than him (Bari Weiss being an obvious exception). This means he asks a lot of questions but doesn’t get into lengthy arguments.

However, I’ve noticed his opinions tend to drift between shows, aligning with those of his guest, and he is infuriatingly unable to connect dots. He frequently lambasts Trump’s comments about Mexico and his proposed wall, and appears to be in favour of large scale immigration. Two weeks back he had on a chap called Ioan Grillo, a journalist who has spent years in Mexico reporting on the drug war, cartels, and accompanying savagery. Rogan once again mentioned Trump and the wall in a negative context, before Grillo told a few stories about the cartels which sounded like something out of Game of Thrones. Rogan then said words to the effect of:

“Isn’t it strange this is all happening just over the border from Texas, which is as safe as can be? It’s as if there’s an imaginary line in the sand across which everything just changes.”

Well yes, it’s almost as if Mexico is an altogether different country than the US populated by people with a very different history and culture. Taking this radical idea a little further, one might argue that it might be a good idea if this separation was maintained by a robust border – maybe a wall? – which would keep the populations apart and stop Texas and the wider US becoming more like its southern neighbour.

He’s also fond of asking why the US government doesn’t declare war on decrepit housing projects and miseducation in the ghettos (meaning, sort out African American problems) by spending millions of dollars in a targeted campaign. None of his guests has yet pointed out that billions have been spent trying to do just that for decades, to absolutely no avail. He genuinely thinks it’s never been tried.

Like I said, his podcasts are great but he can be infuriating at times.


The Underclever Economist

Am I being dumb here?

Let’s say they’re bicycles. Effect on domestic consumers is 0.6m of them paying $30 extra for an imported bicycle = $18m loss

Domestic producers get to sell an additional 0.2m bicycles @ $300 each = $60m gain

Government takes in $30 on 0.6m imported bicycles = $18m gain

Overall effect = $60m + $18m – $18m = $60m gain

The exercise is supposed to show tariffs damage the overall economy, so what am I missing?