Obamacare is evil masquerading as good, and since this is an evil world it could only be defeated by countervailing evil on the order of civil insurrection.

That is soo wrong. First of all to kill something humanely is not possible. I know a lot of animal rights people. None of them want minimal suffering, they want no suffering, no murder, no torture and no captivity.

As far as evolution goes, you are well ill informed. Take those canines of yours and try to rip a cows throat out with them. Not gonna happen. Nothing about our bodies is evolved to eat meat, your organs don't even digest it properly. Look at the list of illnesses you just wrote down caused by meat. It's not even all inclusive.

Do a bit of research buddy.

Most vegetarians don't eat meat because they don't want animals to die for their table, but don't want to give up cheese.

Red – interesting suggestion, though a little under-described: I'd like to hear more.

I think a couple of other factors are (1) the extraordinarily high compensation for American doctors & nurses and (2) American insistence on mostly pointless end-of-life interventions regardless of cost.

It's much more expensive because our system is fully socialized with 4 separate levels of graft(Government, Insurgence, Drug companies, and medical facility). Most universal healthcare systems treat their patents worse and worse until the people with money travel to another country buy their healthcare on a market rate and they only have 2 levels of graft. Americans have a difficult time doing this because of who our neighbors are.

Addendum II: In case there's any misunderstanding, let me explain this point: "Per capita public spending on healthcare in the U.S. is already HIGHER than in France."

I'm not talking about total public + private spending, here. I'm talking about public spending alone.

And I'm not talking about spending per *patient covered.* I'm talking about spending per *person in the country.*

Capisce?

If you add up all of the USA's PUBLIC healthcare spending and divide it by the population of the USA, the resulting figure is HIGHER, not LOWER, than the one you will get if you repeat the same exercise for France.

So why isn't the USG already doing at least as good a job as the French at providing universal healthcare?

If you've got any thoughts about this, I'd honestly be interested.

Addendum I: routine expenses should be paid out of pocket. Insurance should be confined to its proper role: improbable but expensive (i.e., "catastrophic") situations. Pre-existing conditions should be covered by private or public charity and not foisted off on for-profit enterprises.

If you're libertarian, you'll want catastrophic insurance to be optional; if you're statist, you'll want it to be mandatory.

Whatever.

Obamacare absolutely is NOT a "step in the right direction." It doubles down on the worst and stupidest aspect of the current system: the disproportionate role of third-party payment. Using "insurance" to cover routine expenses and pre-existing conditions is simply insane.

Besides: if the USG is capable of delivering healthcare of, say, French quality at French prices, then why isn't it already doing so? Per capita public spending on healthcare in the U.S. is already HIGHER than in France.

"it's a step in the right direction."

While I agree on universal healthcare, I disagree on this statement. I've worked directly on Obamacare quite closely and I don't think its a net good. People who believe that just want their team to "win".

What, no love for Thomas? Great name, and Tom is a great nickname. If you name a boy John, consider Jack as a nickname.

Timeless English names are great, especially those with biblical roots that are also the names of famous people. Benjamin is another good boy name, and Elizabeth and Ann or Anne are great girl names.

Sounds like you are all squared away namewise. The commenting masses would no doubt nitpick your ultimate selection, but in the end the decision is in your wheelhouse and your decision criteria seems perfectly sensible at this point.

Again, I would push the Montessori for daycare/preschool if it is feasible. Do the research, see what you think.

Install a damn dimmer in the nursery for the lights. It seems obvious, but many don't bother.

And don't sweat the new baby. It's not complicated, and there is nothing that you can't figure out. The maternal propaganda is just that – propaganda. There really isn't that much to figure out about taking care of a baby. BUT, it is freaking demanding and relentless – that is the challenge. It's much more a matter of stamina and stoic calm, rather than being some mystery that has to be solved.

Last point: fuck all that nesting and preparation shit that your wife is programmed to implement. This is your last chance for *years* to take that cruise, or visit Yellowstone, or whatever. To the extent you can, try to squeeze in a bit of adult oriented vacation time while you still can.

Let me get this straight. After all that, you came up with 'August' as one of your options? The only August that comes to mind is the playwright, but I doubt the average person would get that reference. Moreover, the first association that comes to mind for 90% of the population when hearing 'August' is the month, not awe-inspiring. It sounds like all the other silly, pretentious names that you have pooh-poohed.

To get an honest opinion, ask someone who doesn't know you are expecting a child about the name 'August'.

BTW Audacious,

Congrats on the kid thing. Despite the era we live in … still the most marvelous magical experience of life.

I’ll be down at Key Arena this evening watching my third and final graduate high school. I’ll miss her terribly when she joins her older brother and sister at UW come September. If I had a reset button I’d happily press it to hop back to 1995 and do it all again.
I had some good times at school, and did some good work and made some good friends at work, but nothing is in the ballpark of seeing, helping, sharing your children growing up. The very best experience of life.

Enjoy,
jim

BTW Audacious,

Not sure I’ve got this right, but sounds like a bun’s in the oven, but the papers aren’t yet signed. If this be so—or even if the baby is just prospective—this is a great time to use this leverage for a prenup.

Having contemplated our civilizational disaster, it seems to me that the key thing to get is hard mandated joint custody. What I’d want written is that custody is shared, no money changes hands, each parent supports the children while they have them and additional expenses (eg. Boy Scout summer camp—comes to mind as I collect each year for our troop including handling the a rancorous divorced couple) are split. Secondarily that both parents remove from and sell the family home.

The key idea here is simply that your prospective wife does not think there’s an option to kick you out—stop polishing the family silver—and yet go on living exactly as before.

We have a highly feminized and female favoring state and a completely lawless judiciary, so even if a completely solid pre-nup the judges will do what they want. It’s extremely unlikely they won’t make you pay—that’s what the divorce industry does, thrives off of. But the joint custody idea, down in black and white probably has some sway. And if your wife does not *believe* that she can just steal the kids and keep living as before … then she’s way, way, way less likely to try it. And in fact, way less likely to even entertain thoughts of doing it. Or even start down the road of believing that she’s “unhappy”.

So putting the joint custody thing down in black and white seems pretty critical to me. Remember everyone has a pre-nup, if you don’t right your own you get the state’s version which is “bend over boy!”

jim

Audacious,

I think you have this more or less backward. The girls name can be fairly unique and as long as it's suitable feminine, that's fine. If a guy's name is goofy, sounds weird, then that's an issue. (Guys names cluster a lot more around common names than girls.)

"August" to me does not flow naturally off the tongue. And the nicknames are unimpressive. (Historically guys like to get down to a mono-syllabic nickname—Jack, Rob, Bob, Bill, Jim, Dick, Rick, Matt, Mike, Dave, Al, Ed, Sam, Chuck, Jake, Pete, Frank …) August has Gus? Furthermore while the actual meaning of August is awesome, the month names are owned by girls—April, May, June, and I’ve heard of January Jones. Summer is a girl’s name. I can imagine if August starts getting some positive more boy action, some mom’s will name their August born girls, August. Has the same vibe as “Summer”.

Like many of these commentators, I’d go family, nationalethnic, preferably both, and either masculine standard or unique and associated strongly with Euro-male champion against the dark forces. (Charles Martel does rock.) And if longish I’d have a short dynamic nickname at the ready.

BTW, when there are so many beautiful girls names … Sidney? Always reminds me of kidney, and nicknames as “Sid”.

jim

Girls' virtue names can be very nice and feminine such as:

Grace, Faith

But Temperance is for another another era.

Oh, how that reminds me of pilgrim names. Talk about wacko. Kid born on the way over, named him Ocean.

http://thehairpin.com/2012/01/your-2012-baby-name-guide-puritan-edition

I think the nickname is up to you.
I was stuck with Augie, but that is because that is what my parents called me. The hispanic side of the family called me Augito, and tend to continue to do so, long after I got taller than Dad.
But, I call myself August, and pretty much keep the nickname stuff out of my immediate life, since I live six hours away from anyone who would use the nickname.
So, if you don't do the nickname thing, it probably won't come up. If I get called anything other than August, it is Austin. Some people do that by mistake.

Girls' virtue names can be very nice and feminine such as:

Grace, Faith

But Temperance is for another another era.

I like Matthew. The diminutive is "Matt" . Both are reliably and strongly masculine. It's bibical.

I have a good friend named Matt, always sounds good to me.

My two cents, and congrats on your new child!

My younger son's first name is a family name but also conveniently is the hero of the battle where the Muslims were driven from Europe. Yeah, my older son enjoyed that epic poem.

Have you considered anything truly audacious like giving him a first and middle name of someone famous like Charles Martel? Charles means strong, and the Martel was added because he hammered his opponents.

I think flowers are terrific for girls.

I've got a Lillian and a Rose. My sister has a Violet.

also One gift you can give your child is anonymity. they will pressure you but you do not have to get them a social security number at birth. You may lose the tax deduction I did but felt it worth it. Perhaps a high powered tax attorney could even have salvaged that.
Oh I dont really care for those names why not a feminine name for a girl Claire means about the same for instance unless you want to signal some masculinity. personally i think women have an equal but different power have her watch 30s and 40s films with stars like Hepburn,Stanwyk,Grable,Crawford,Bacall,Dietrich. I remember explaining how to my Viking Princess how if you want to show a man whos boss just pause when you get to a door, once he figures it out he will never forget it and ladies dont get date raped. you can deconstruct some amazing female game in those old Noir films. The same goes for how a gentleman should act and be treated.

Well I think it ought to do with your own ethnicity. Ones name is the first thing a child learns of their culture.If you family has been doing this a family name can tie him to a sense a family tradition which connects to an ethnic tradition.I am of Irish Celtic descent I choose Aiden and Dierdre I could have gone even more hardcore on the Boys name but Dierdre at least has a great legend to go with it.I will say its not the same sending them to an upscale suburban school than a catholic school for imprinting. the genetic faces of your clan are simply not there in sufficient numbers to make an impression neither are your cultural markers those schools I went to no doubt are long gone though. sadly my daughter is much less Irish than I despite being genetically just as much so. She thinks Blacks are the coolest and feels sorry for the poor Hispanics who are hated for stealing jobs. Yet this was the public school in one of the top three wealthiest zipcodes in America so good luck Id home school

Rex:

http://www.babynamewizard.com/voyager#prefix=rex&ms=false&exact=true

Latin, inherently male, dominant (can't get much higher than "king"), still not very common. I would use this but it doesn't go with my last name well, so feel free to steal.

I like Augusto or Augustus myself. With a name like Augusto, your firstborn can even get default Hispanic bonuses.

August is an awesome name. Denotes good character etc. Since Carter means cart maker, it is kinda prole.

I named my sons after their uncles and grandfathers. German names, the meanings of which appealed to me. One uncle's first name is his own grandmother's maiden name.

My husband wanted my oldest to have his name as his middle name.

My son has already chosen to name his first son after his own great great grandfather because it showed up so many times among so many of his more prominent early forebears.

Personally, I prefer names with some dignity. Ancient names are cool, too. Stuff like Theobald and Aethelred.

Also, please don't name your kid something with a stupid meaning. I always feel sorry for girls named Madison which means son of Matthew.

Carter means cart maker.

Gunnar means warrior.

Seriously, think about what the name means.
Just 2¢.

Haha, I can vouch for Steve Sailer's comment. My real life name falls into this category.

One other consideration is how the name flows together with the last name. August Epigone, for example, sounds better than Carter Epigone.

RE: August vs Carter*,

One thing to always bear in mind is nicknames/diminutives. For August, the more common ones would be Augie and Gus. Do you find either/both appealing?How will others react to them, etc.

*Does Carter have a "pet" form? I can't think of any.

Boys's names are wonderfully uncomplicated. Simply stick to the tried and true:

Robert
John
James
David
Joseph
Joshua
Mark
Paul
Alexander
Edward
William
Jacob

Biblical/Classical/English names like these have endured for centuries. None of them are going to go feminine.

Surnames as first names:

Very tricky for boys.They can go feminine very fast. I know a guy, for example, who named his son Jordan, and he is starting to regret it (his son has two classmates named Jordan, both girls…)

Pity the popular baby names thing doesn't go back to 1974- though I know the answer. August was pretty rare as a name, and I got it because I am the fourth of the line, so to speak. My folks are Catholic, and after giving me my father's name, the baby naming for my siblings came from various saints. Most of us experienced having the unique name at school, so we were prone to getting crap, but I think we ended up feeling a lot better than the kids with made up or misspelled names. In the end, I think unique names are a plus, assuming they've got provenance.

You're totally overthinking this and most of your commenters belong back chasing morlocks in the fucking realm.

If you're having a boy, go to Babynamewizard.com, check out the most popular names from the 1980s (Michael, Christopher, David, Joshua, Matthew) and grab one from a simpler, less divisive time. You'll can't go wrong (even better if an old relative in the family tree shared a name, which is highly likely). All names are masculine and timeless, like a Polo oxford or pair of Allen Edmonds. Fire and forget, that's what you want. Oh, yeah – also, congratulations. Raising kids is pretty great and is the ultimate cure-all for "me-first" SWPL-ism. But you knew that already.

I think it's appropriate to award names like Carter, Logan, Taylor, etc. if in fact they are family names; otherwise stick to Christian or biblical names. For what it's worth, my name is Carter and while it has definitely moved up the charts in recent years, having such a name has not always been easy. Also, keep in mind that it is not as masculine as you think: I already have one female cousin named Carter.
Why not troll the HRE? Maximilian, Otto, Rudolph can be quite impressive indeed!

Is it wrong that "Carter" made me think of the asshole from Aliens and not the President

It's all about ancestry and roots

Look at the old traditional names of your race and ethnic group(s)…and names your family has used in the past that are part of these traditions.

Go for an old Northern European name (assuming you're of Northern European ancestry) that has a Germanic root: Anglo-Saxon, Frankish, German, etc.

If you're mostly of Celtic ancestry, choose a traditional celtic name.

I'd say your parameters are right on target. At least they're pretty much what my wife and I did for our 2 sons names.

However, don't inflict Carter on a child. He was an embarrassingly shitty president and is the worst ex-president in US history. No idea why you'd want your kid associated with that.

Aside from your good advice, the other thing my wife and I did was avoid any name that either of us had any bad associations with (i.e. knew a jerk with that name once, etc.). Carter is that in spades if you're not clueless.

Name him August. That's an awesome name.

More reactionary is better – go through your family trees, choose an ancestor, and name the child after that person. Alternately, a name from history that means something.

Ground the child in the past to prepare for the future.

Also, any name that looks contrived is contrived.

Can't go wrong with George's suggestions for boys names: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oo8CrY_ZfFk

Rock or Stone. If you want to nudge a son in the direction of the Dark Triad, Godric. His nickname will be God.

Keep in mind that if you choose a very common name like John, Katie, etc., the child will always have to be identified by both first and last name.

I like names like Ethan and Austin (for guys); they are traditional, not weird, but not super duper common either. Avoid Trendy names like Aidan, etc.

Think of how the name sounds when linked with the last name. Is there a good flow?

Is your last name Hunt? If so, don't choose Mike. Even if it is not Hunt, Mike is still a way too common name IMO.

I'm sorry, but Carter is already a girl's name.

No, No and No. Try to find a name is relatively unpopular, but still sounds completely conventional. I know you are trying to do that, but you are in the baby bubble, and inevitably you are compelled to pick a name that you will find that is surprisingly popular among your social peers. I bet you a beer that no matter what you do, there is going to be another Carter or August in some activity group or pre-school class.

Consider some old-school family names down the family tree. They tend not to be post-modern (Carter!), and have some retro chic appeal and normality. (Nathan, Tobias, etc.)

Consider Montessori pre-school for the kids. Most of your parent peers will be hippy-dippy liberals, but if you do your research you will find that Montessori does excellent training in executive function, and tends to nurture genuine exploration, learning, and creativity.

If you are of English ancestry, I'd look at old Anglo-Saxon names…

Here's are some food choices, which you can order while blasting the mp3s on your iPhone:

http://www.exoticmeatsandmore.com/

Apparently it is impossible to keep up with demand for lion meat.

Locally raised of course, on the brand new lion farms that are cropping up in places like Illinois.

Kangaroos are still in stock.

It must suck to be a liberal, kind of like whack a mole.

Smoking is an interesting example. It turns out that it has a good chance of giving you a painful early death. Surely that is the main reason for the decline, no? And isn't part of hedonism avoiding pain?

The number of animals I have eaten continues to grow and I imagine my experience is similar to most urban dwellers. It is the country bumpkins with little cultural influence who are probably sticking with standard fare.

To be a stylish restaurant or hipster grocery store, you offer the novel. Urban hipsters are too spoiled to eat the same food twice. Back in the 80s, nobody in the west ate sushi for example. Ranches more and more are raising animals for meat that are not cows, pigs or chickens, the usual American staple.

I've recently have enjoyed frog legs and various new seafood, even though I am just a thirty-something mortgage-paying dad. We are all now Fear Factor contestants in restaurants, looking to prove ourselves and ubiquitous Asian restaurants are all too happy to oblige us, for a small fee.

I bet the average educated young person has eaten twice as many kinds of animals as his parents had at the same age.

SWPL culture means little to to American Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, or people in flyover country. The countries of the world that are rising, such as China, are just barely getting started on meat and there is nothing they will not eat, especially if it is labeled endangered. Do you think anyone can tell Africans in Africa what to eat? Vegetarianism mostly doesn't exist in Europe.

But the biggest reason I do not see Vegetarianism taking hold widely is because it ascetic and not Hedonistic. As for Sailer's example of dogs and horses, actually it looks like horses are back in! Yum! Apparently horse is big in France, and the culinary world calls France daddy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/horse-meat-consumption-us_n_1120623.html

And at Fuddruckers, you can now get Buffalo, Ostrich, Boar and Elk.

http://www.fastcasual.com/article/95398/Fuddruckers-introduces-ostrich-wild-boar-burger-lineup

All of the liberal left's successes have been in pushing people toward Hedonism.

There are many examples where the left's desires for society fly against consumption and Hedonism, and they make little progress, largely because they can't help their own consumption desires:
– gas taxes
– Suburban sprawl
– SUVs

Is there one example of the left successfully pushing people toward asceticism and restraint?

I think Ed's point actually makes the analogy work better rather than worse. A lot of changes in morality only take place once technology exists to make them practical. Examples:

-Slavery was at least grudgingly accepted until combustion and automation made it not worth the cost. Why make the war prisoners row your ship when you can just stick a motor on it?
-Women's role as homemakers was accepted as a given until technology advances made it require much less labor to manage a home, freeing up time (at least in the relative sense) to enter the labor force, which simultaneously was relying less on physical strength as a result of technology, eliminating another barrier to entry.
-Relative chastity was the official moral code until effective birth control and antibiotics made all sexual lifestyles equal.

Regarding raising brainless meat: however humane it may be, it is going to be a tough sell to the anti-genetically modified food crowd. I have to admit I find it a bit icky myself and may wind up being a late adapter while I watch to see if any nutritional problems result.

LL,

I agree with most of what you say, but there are those vegetarians out there who claim meat is murder. They will not be appeased by "humane" treatment of animals and kinder, gentler slaughtering.

AE,

The only issue I have with your post is that, if we someday consume synthetic meat and no longer slaughter animals, that transition will owe as much, if not more to technology than changed mores. Hence, although many folks are uneasy will killing animals for food, we're not about to cease doing so unless the technology makes it palatable–so to speak.

Most animal rights activist have an issue with the treatment and slaughter of animals. They want the meat packing industry to slaughter the animals through minimal suffering and they hate GH since it causes unnatural growth that puts strain on joints and ligaments that leads to cruel suffering.

The main argument for vegetarians is that eating red meat causes obesity, cardiovascular diseases and high blood pressure. They also hate genetically modified meat and GH since those could potentially be carcinogens.

I'm sure if animals were treated "humanly" and were raised organically, all these SWPL animal/vegetarian activists would have nothing to complain about.

Biologically speaking humans are evolved to consume both carnivorous and herbivorous, since we have the capability to digest both and our we have both canines and molars. Canines were used to hold or tear meat, while molars are needed to grind tough fibers found in green vegetables.

My boyfriend is 6'6 and I notice other men noticing him all the time. They turn and have to twist up their heads to see his head height. That brought to my attention that men immediately assess other men as a threat or not by how big they are. I have had older women comment to me in front of him that they find him scary and they don't believe me that he is totally kind.
For me, I look to see friendly they are but can't help noticing if they are handsome/pretty. That's it, I don't rank myself or look to get something from them. Of course if its an aggressive male then i would be looking to get away from them as fast as possible so I am not immune the the threat thing either.

A common source of failure for those wishing to add muscle is calorie intake. One easily needs 4,000 to 5,000 calories most days if he's really hitting the weights.

If you eat relatively healthy, it takes a lot of food to reach this.

Of course, its also easy to overlook the fact that you've adapted to your workouts, and have been spinning your wheels for a few weeks.

Not to be argumentative or detract from your posting, but I'm genuinely curious for someone as data-driven as you appear to be: How did you arrive at the idea of 2 Gallons of water a day? Have you read any studies to this tune? Do you feel better when you drink this much? I personally just visit the bathroom all day at that rate.

As an M:TG player, I definitely know the feeling, believe me!

"M:TG" is "Magic: The Gathering", right?

You're beta as hell, man. Aren't you like in your late 20s or 30s too? So it's not like you have the excuse of being a kid or something.

Do you really do that to every man and woman you meet? Perhaps you feel insecure or you have OCD?

I'm confident that I can beat most men in a fight so it's taken for granted. The only time I think about it is if the male is a big, alpha type and aggressive. In that case I'm already strategizing.

Likewise with women there has to be a stimulus, I don't find most women attractive. I'm only attracted to Nordish women of a fertile age who are at least above average in attractiveness. The more attracted I am to them the more I think about it. It's certainly not something I'm preoccupied with or scanning the room like a pervert undressing all the women.

However in Lithuania or Latvia I'd be in trouble! I don't know how the men get any work done.

I look at older men to see how they're holding up. Same with older women. I check out younger women for "fit and "finish". As for young men, teens especially, I wonder how conplicit they will be in their own death.

Yes, now that you bring it up, it seems like I do think "can I take him?" when I encounter a strange male in the age range of late teens to middle age. It's a very brief, almost unconcious thought; and not always. By "take him," I mean win a fight.

Yes, if a female is attractive, a first thought is often sexual.

"How about women when they see another woman?"

i'm not your typical woman so i'm probably not the best gal to answer this question. but even i have some girlie traits, and i think the answer to your question is: "Is she more/less attractive than me?", i.e. where do i stand in the ranking compared to her. and after that: "Is she someone I should ally myself with (to help me get a man/men/social standing/whatever)."

am in full agreement with silly girl — most women are intensely boring!

I don't do this. Not as a first thing, anyway. With men the first thing I am doing is trying to judge how smart they are. That actually sounds very much like what you are doing – just a different trait. With women – yes, first thoughts/analysis are sexual.

I don't do this… sounds very 'Fight Club'. But I didn't get into a lot of fights as a kid and was never beaten up, so I expect that it was never impressed onto my unconscious mind as an important matter.

I always size up people by whether or not I can learn something from them or whether I know more than they do about everything, literally. So, I could even find a carpenter or concrete contractor interesting to talk to, but most women are intensely boring.

How much social prestige he has? How wealthy he is?

Never crosses my mind.

I read that guys are supposed to be all hierarchical and compete with each other in all sorts of ways. I'm competitive in games/sports, but other than that I don't rank myself vs other men.

Is this normal?

I don't know. I do it, but my dad had a habit of slapping me around and I assume that's what made me hostile and suspicious to other men.

Related to what SoBL said, one good thing about being in academia, I know I'm always the toughest guy in the room.

Depends on context, I was bouncer for 3 years and studied martial arts most of my life as well as street fighting as youth until the martial arts training got through to me that that was a bad idea. So I tend to enjoy imagining fights. However I only tend to to it in social isolated scenarios, walking down the st. meeting large groups of people etc. In informal small group settings I am more interested in whether that person would be interesting to talk to or train with. I don't tend to imagine most women in bed either though. Again I do that primarily in situations were I don't know anyone like walking at the beach in summer.

To The Audacious Epigone, do you happen to be a woman? If so, are most of your readers and visitors women?

Richard Dawkins in the "Selfish Gene" talks about how each gender has to use a gender specific survival strategy and tactic.

Men having more testosterone and physical capability in general can and will get into physical confrontations more often than women, who has to worry about protecting her sexual organs and valuable eggs.

Also since most women are weaker physically, it would make more sense for many of them to employ words and negotiation rather than direct confrontation. I suppose this is why gossip is highly important to many of them, since women can exchange valuable information between each other to enhance their reproductive success with "desired" men.

Women generally looking for protection and resources in the form of social power or fitness, while men look for reproductive success, hence attracted to younger healthy body types.

I do that in general at parties. I always feel I can take care of myself, but I shouldnt be the toughest guy anywhere, so if I am at a party and dont think a single guy could beat me up, I know I am at a SWPL or artist party (my wife is an artist).

I think: Can this guy do anything for me?

Generally speaking, I don't mean in this in the sense of directly serving me or putting money in my pocket but in the sense of "does he have anything to say that will enrich my life"?

If the answer seems to be "yes," I say "Hi" and start talking. If it seems likely to be "no," I pretty much forget his existence immediately.

Ah, that reminds me of a good Carlyle quote I stuffed in one of my essays ( http://www.gwern.net/The%20Melancholy%20of%20Subculture%20Society ), which went:

“the ultimate question between man and man is ‘Can I kill thee, or canst thou kill me?’”

I don't know if Carlyle was using it in the context of the initial physical interaction, but it would certainly fit.

You're freaking out because you're approaching thirty. Frankly, once you get there, you'll realize that it's just another day in your life, and "crossing that threshold" really doesn't change anything that substantive about you. Yeah, you're getting older; so is everybody else. That nubile 21 year old you're lusting after is going to be 29 pretty quickly, and before she know's it, 39.

Face up to the fact that, apart from the taboo-breaking appeal, you're bored witless the black chick. In my experience, screwing women you feel that way about is ultimately a drag for everybody concerned. You'll wind up feeling worse about yourself than you do about her, if you have a sort of traditional moral perspective, which it seems you do.

As a far as the cheerleader, I pretty much agree with Peter; it may just creep her out to see you as anything other than an older brother figure. Deal with it.

When I was considering getting married (which I now am), I went out with a group of friends and mentioned that my then-girlfriend and I were talking about this. One guy (now divorced from his first wife) simply asked, "Does she want to marry you?" I said, "Yeah."

That may not sound like a very significant question, but when the person you're with makes it pretty clear that they want to marry you, a lot of the game-playting falls away. Not all of it, of course, but nothing's perfect.

It sounds like you're realizing that you're not a kid anymore. Eventually, a woman will come along who will see that as well, and snatch you up. When it comes to marriage, women do most of the choosing anyway, which makes sense, since they devote a hell of a lot more time and energy to thinking about it than we do.

Jesus Christ you're pathetic.

I wish I had your problem!

1. Push a little harder and make it with Chanara at least once or you'll be kicking yourself for the rest of your life, trust me. If you're gonna dump her, dump her after, not before. (Don't worry that you're going to "ruin" her, she's not a virgin, or if she is, you're a lot better for a first than the syphilitic brute who'll pick her up on the rebound.)

(Don't want to bring her to your place? Invite her on an overnight trip; book only one hotel room.)

2. Don't marry Chanara, because you don't want reversion toward the mean to give you disappointing children. Also, blacks mature faster and age faster, so while she's incredibly hot now she won't last you as long as a nice white girl. (That sort of pneumatic figure with lots of T&A and lordosis is irresistible, yes, but only until it gets buried in lard which it surely will after the second kid if not the first.)

3. If you can't get the attention of the cheerleader promptly, move on. Sure, she's good looking, bubbly, athletic in a feminine way… but if she's not interested and you can't spark some interest promptly you're wasting your time. She must have friends: go after them. You may get one or envy may prompt the cheerleader to pay attention to you.

Bonus suggestion: arrange for the cheerleader to see you with Chanara! (Be sure your hands are on the lovely Miss C.) This will have three good effects: (a) the cheerleader will see you as a stud, not a babysitter; (b) the cheerleader will be deeply impressed by the fact you're simultaneously so studly you can get a black girl (implicitly competing with black men, who the cheerleader knows– from associating with ball players– are very masculine if not very smart) AND you are so politically advanced you can get a black girl; (c) the cheerleader will become jealous and competitive (cheerleaders usually have a competitive streak) and will pay more attention to you.

Who in their right mind would let a male babysit their 12 y.o. daughter?!?!?

"Yeah, it changes you into a pretentious dork."

Only in the eyes of those who aren't marriage material.

Besides, a nice girl feels the exact same way. She wants to get married too, and agrees that it is hard to find a good person.

Chicks who have been rode hard and put to bed wet know they aren't the quality person that another quality person wants and naturally resent those who prefer quality.

Chanara talks like most 18 year old girls these days, unfortunately. "Class" is the last thing on their mind, in more ways than one.

I think you're probably giving off too many beta vibes.

> Whereas indicating that you want to get married, but you have such high standards it is tough to find a person of good character who would be acceptable totally changes the atmosphere surrounding the topic.

Yeah, it changes you into a pretentious dork.

Looks of good comments already. Tons of cliches forthcoming: if you're a bit of a mess right now, you're not ready for a serious relationship. You need to do what you want, not what you think is expected of you. Thirty is not the end of the world, and seriously, who cares if an old HS gf got married and had a kid. If you measure yourself vs. others, you will never be happy. Be happy that as a man, you can still date 22-25 yo women in your 30s, which you say you are a few years away from.

I'm married & 30, but I dated plenty prior to meeting my wife. I was always 'myself' and now reading sites like Roissy's I see I did enough Alpha things to keep women interested. One thing to keep in mind is: will you do these 'game' things with the all-american maiden? When would you turn it lower? Didn't you post a while back about hooking up with some sweet young thing after a concert? Yeah, the rest of us married guys are 'so happy' those days are gone.

Figure your sh*t out now and the right one will come along. I enjoy your blog. Thanks for posting.

"Its not that i dont wanna fuck you cause i do. Its just that i need to know you have feelings for me"

"Now that's creepy. That doesn't indicate relationship material at all"

"That doesn't sound creepy at all. It sounds instead as if she wants to have sex only in the context of an actual relationship rather than a pump-and-dump situation."

No, not creepy at all. It is refined and lovely. Positively charming. A clear indicator of good upbringing and discernment.

Chanara sent me the following text last night after a silly one that asked if I was mad at her (neither of them prompted or responded to by me):

Its not that i dont wanna fuck you cause i do. Its just that i need to know you have feelings for me

Now that's creepy. That doesn't indicate relationship material at all

That doesn't sound creepy at all. It sounds instead as if she wants to have sex only in the context of an actual relationship rather than a pump-and-dump situation.

Her race also might be a factor. She could be worried that if she agrees to sex too soon, you'll consider her some sort of wild ghetto ho.

Peter

I'd describe myself as an agnostic with Pascalian sympathies.

I'm assuming you're referring to Pascal's Wager – a statement concerning the utility of God belief not the veracity.

I think most atheists would agree, not that it would sway me even the tiniest amount though.