Bodybuilding Classic Physique Division Offseason log

"condensed explanation"

"Giant wall of text"

lol

same facking diet past 2 days

meal 1,2, 4
200g chicken breast, 250g potato, 100g green beans 70g guac
meal 3
100g cream of rice, 200ml skim milk, some blueberries, 2 scoops whey

2 bananas and 250g green mangos spread throughout the day as snacks.

My hunger is too high overall even on retatrutide; I need to increase food probably.

I have thoughts on this too, but ultimately instead of a wall of text this one is just "it's fine, don't worry about it. Some people are wired for promiscuity and having strict marriage norms is just going to make them and probably their partner miserable whether or not infidelity even occurs. Some people are strongly wired to pair bond and having societal tolerance for promiscuity is not going to dissuade them from trying to get married, stay married, and have kids".

Another thing that kind of got me to "forgive feminism" and even selectively embrace a few of it's tenets was actually being in a relationship with a 'masculine boss babe', who I met when she was in medical school studying to be a cosmetic surgeon hustling doing underground black market surgeries at age 25 making bank and just generally being a super ambitious go-getter. She was diagnosed with the spergers, had a fairly masculine demeanor, facial expressions, body language paired with being selectively very feminine in other contexts, and although she gave 0 shits about political feminism, if any actual feminists saw the way she lived her life it would have made them beam with maternalistic pride. I actually found it immensely rewarding to be with somebody like that. I don't care if this makes me "beta".

You're not going to catch me going around talking about how there's a gender pay gap because of discrimination against women, a patriarchy seeking to undermine them, demanding women are 50% of CEOs or any of that nonsense. But encouraging them to pursue education, not ridicule them for making the personal choice to do something besides being a married house wife, and to generally pursue independence from men in terms of formulating their self worth and identity? Yes, absolutely.

At that time, I was far less plugged into all of this stuff and was unaware of what normal expectations for Chinese relationships that are marriage-bound even were. What she wanted from me seemed excessive at the time and at the stage we were, but knowing what I know now, she was being incredibly charitable relative to much more average Chinese women. Not really staying on top of all this info and how dating norms and expectations are kind of downstream from it caused me to perceive it as "scammy" so I bailed and I ended up losing what was otherwise a great relationship around 3 years ago now. It's one of my biggest regrets and no, the romcom script of "don't worry you'll meet one just like her" did not happen. Basically every other breakup I do not regret and it was the right choice in retrospect... but not that one....

I'll admit to enjoying the teacher upbraiding his students for coming to class unprepared and not doing the assigned reading.

I didn't read all that nonsense, although I prob will later. But this reminds me of my own schooling (If I can fit this in between shoveling beers in my face and making taters), so I was a young man at a distant point in the past taking a 1v1 Latin class which I hadn't prepared for.The class was a formality. I was going to get an A, and it was something I needed to graduate. (NB: I had to finish the potato. Such is married life.)

Moving on, I was clearly unprepared for a class. And I got the Guy "upbraiding" (25c language noted). Such is life.

I will revisit this for OF whores and the usual.

I don't think what your relationship partner is like has much to do with whether one is or isn't beta. It may make it more obvious that a beta is a beta though.

Fwiw I would not have been too confident that this is the way you felt from reading this log (grunching sometimes, not watching almost any videos fully, but still reading the vast majority of your posts).

How the @#$# are you adjacent to white supremacy if that's your view on women? Or white supremacy only has to do with race and not gender stuff?

Just this experience helps explain why you are a bit dialed into this stuff - it's kind of important to learn about and understand the relationship market you're actually in.

Came for this

Stayed for this.

Still can't post any real thoughts b/c I can't be bothered to watch a 16 minute video (yet).

Is it possible to download the game and experience this and then quit out at the newer content? Or did the new patches basically ruin the availability of this experience too?

Now that I have some whale account yet plan to still be a "low spender" the game I'm playing is going to be a bit boring for me the next couple of months. Is Clair Obscur Expedition 33 good b/c of the story, or the turn based gameplay? Is it like FF tactics or like xcom in terms of turn based? (Yes I realize I can just do Google searches, but I believe your explanation will be more valuable to me before I watch random stuff on it).

I watched that video. Hmmm, he has a few videos from 4 years ago and then a few recently. Did he explain why he started posting them again?

I feel like I'd need to try and go verify more or less the graphs he was using but you are quite sharp so I will just assume that what he's extrapolating from is likely legit or close to it.

There are a few assumptions I don't know if I agree with (I fully expect me being a privileged person not in my 20s current will be a sufficient rebuttal):

1. Having sex is a zero sum game. Imo it is not and never has been. Although we are good at coming up with constructs to make it seem that way. People can have sex with multiple people and an massive amount of times (especially women). I guess it's possible to talk about some finite amount of sex opportunity, but if we did it would favor men (since I'm pretty sure, on average, women can have sex many more times than men per day/week/lifetime/whatever).

2. Incels need sex with women. Do they? I understand there is some massive biological imperative to have sex...but OTOH, as a species, we're kind of overriding a bunch of seemingly biological things to a large degree.

3. We have tons more incels than in the past. This seems completely baked in - I guess I assume it's true but I really have no idea. Is there really a much larger % or is this part of society now able to "band together" and make it seem that way.

4. Population decline is the biggest factor. Doesn't technology has a big role in this stuff too (and other things that aren't this decreasing population stuff he's discussing) - people interacting less physically to begin with. Are men the ones being left behind that much disproportionately to women because of this? If they are, I'm not sure what metrics to use for this or what people are using when making this assumption.

General thoughts/questions:

5. What about reverse harems/polygamy? I'm not sure I've ever felt a whiff of something like this in any similar discussion in this log. If there are fewer women and women have a much favorable position in this dynamic, then why isn't there reverse polygamy (I mean, it's just regular polygamy but with one woman and a bunch of guys). Is this culturally not possible, is our species not flexible enough to move this direction?

6. Is decreasing population some unstoppable extinction thing? It sounds to me like Malthus but in reverse. Either we overpopulate everything and become extinct, or we underpopulate everything and become exstinct. Surely we have enough time between however many billion of us there are and zero of us for there to be options.

7. Darkpilling, or blackpilling or red pilling or whatever pilling seems like massive copium to me at an individual level. Whether or not a young man is going to have an easier time having sex or a harder time having sex in historical context is whatever it is - his predicament or way to success is not going to be assisted by any pilling nonsense.

8. Does anyone talk about how we're still much closer to the likely apex of the maximum % of men in society getting to procreate and/or have sex compared to millennia and millennia where the options for the vast majority of men were much, much, worse?

Bro, these are excellent questions and I strongly agree with 7.

Yugo good student

1. You're not wrong. But most sex occurs empirically in the context of monogamous romantic relationships/marriages, and yes that is a zero sum game. Humans do have some predisposition toward monogamy, even if it isn't lifelong but rather "serial monogamy" and that is very much zero sum.

2. Agree, and this 'need' is more of an emotional/psychological one, not a physiological one. One thing Chris Williamson (sorta semi-normie) says is his "male sedation hypothesis" where corn and video games are pacifying what would otherwise be very aggressive and violent men who feel disenfranchised from society.

3. Along with #8, it'd be better to say "we have way more incels than in the recent past", but examining humanity more broadly since its inception, it's still way less. But it could be argued anthropologically that enfrachisement into mating/marriage markets of a larger share of men is exactly what creates civilization. If everyone is just ruthlessly competing against each other to secure mates/resources, we're in a perpetual cycle of conflict. When we can structure and organization human beings such that cooperation and investment are the path to reproductive success rather than beating up/killing other males and struggle snuggling females, we tend to have a lot more human flourishing. There's an implicit social contract that women of more feminist disposition find very unsettling baked into this in that women are being "allocated" in a way. I can understand why they find this emotionally distressing.

4. Yes absolutely. To what extent it's from technology vs demographic changes isn't clear. There are absolutely a lot more "femcels" and empirically it seems like technology and social media specifically has a much more damaging effect on their mental health and I'd postulate that a lot of them remove themselves (semi-voluntarily) from the mating market partly due to technology.

5. Empirically women just crave novelty a lot less than men, so these are pretty rare. Women optimize, men spread far and wide. That said, it still exists. The first time I read about this was actually in a Chinese language textbook and I found it fascinating and started asking the teacher a lot of questions that were less about vocab and more about the evolutionary science concerns over such a societal structure and she was like "Wtf I don't know this is a language class, sir".

Another n=1 example: I matched with somebody I later discovered was an adult actress who had such an arrangement. (陈思妍 if you're curious, she has some western social media presence but doesn't speak English really) But even she expressed desire for a more sort of permanent or longer term monogamous arrangement. Unfortunately she's 178cm, objectively way better looking than me (not me being modest or excessively self critical, go have a look. Please do not repost her pics in this log), and has an untaxed income several fold higher than mine (they're all self-employed, there's no studio and they often don't pay male talent or even get paid by male talent), and access to almost any man she wants shy of a few CEOs and government guys. She's also frequently traveled abroad for work so being a foreigner isn't much of a novelty. Needless to say, I was not exactly a catch in her eyes. That said, I don't think I'd want to be with an active or even retired mattress actress.

Then we have to consider that male sexual jealousy is just way too high for this to work out for most people.

6. Nobel Peace Prize humanity saving question. I don't know. But I speculate our apocalypse will be subtle and "with a whimper" so to speak. It'll probably involve birth rates plummeting and extreme escapism into AI facilitated digital worlds such that less face to face interaction with other human beings occurs and in fact becomes so rare we just sort of die out. Impossible to tell. Maybe it'll be something more exciting and dramatic like a pandemic (imagine we had a lab leak of something that was actually deadly for a large % of people who contract the disease) or just a conventional kinetic war that escalates into nuclear fallout. I suspect the "amusing ourselves to death" with technology we ourselves created is more likely, but obviously nobody knows. Just since 2008 we've see how technology can actually result in the sort of social decay that taken to it's logical extreme could result in depopulation.

7. While I agree fully, you really need to distinguish between red and black pill. They are very much ideologically opposed. The fact that Adolescence missed this basic and easily researchable fact and just lumped everyone who offers “answers" to men into one tent is what autists like myself got their panties in such a bunch over. Let's start by differentiating between the two but then explaining why most men end up worse off.

An illustrative example: We've got a pretty young 23 year old white girl 7/10 in the west. She has a physically abusive boyfriend who is a serial cheater and despite the repeated assaults and infidelities, she's deeply in love with him and can't leave him.

The blue pill (default life script): "There's something wrong with that woman. She's traumatized. Just make sure you don't pick one like her. Once she goes to therapy and fixes herself she will break up with him"

The red pill (******ed delusion cargo-culting): "Bro, that's female nature. Women are attracted to dominance, a man with options, and somebody who treats her like **** because then she knows he's above her and that satisfies her hypergamous instinct. You have to treat women in a way that reminds them you are above them for them to get turned on by you and respect you. Buy more course to become an alpha like that guy and you'll have endless hot babes behaving like that toward you. It's about having good GAME bro."

The black pill: "You're both wrong. He's 6'5 and very handsome. It barely matters how he behaves, she's going to love him whether he's the perfect boyfriend or a violent disloyal abuser. If he were 5'9 with a 5/10 face, she'd leave for far less severe infractions."

Most (not all, yours truly is certainly an exception) men who find the black pill end up giving up hope and saying **** like "oh well I'm 5'10 and not good looking. Money can't buy attraction. I'm just going to give up and NEET and post on the internet complaining about foids being as looks driven as I am. Looksmaxxing is just coping. The only viable solution is to give up.". That's Rehab Room's channel with it's nauseating library of terrible videos in a nutshell

Most "red pill" men end up aping anti-social tendencies, over the top dominant masculine behaviour, and "game" hoping it will create attraction and they end up doing FAR worse with women than if they'd never found the red pill and just followed the sort of being nice to women and hoping for the best.

There's probably some % of men who find the science of how central looks are to attraction, optimize accordingly, and end up with much better dating lives. This was me. But most people have pretty poor self-efficacy and are lazy and short sighted. Some 19 year old kid isn't going to be able to think about what he can do to set himself up for a better dating life at 26.

Just staying with the default life script (blue pill) is probably better and more likely to find and maintain satisfying relationships for the large majority of men. This is especially true if they are either naturally good looking or guys who have a more feminine urge to "looksmax" in the first place without even considering it's sexual marketplace effects consciously. Like there's plenty of dudes out there who like making themselves look better in the mirror, accessorizing with jewelry, trying out cool looking and fashionable haircuts, skin care routines, fashion, etc. And they aren't consciously doing it to attract a mate but just because they enjoy putting effort into their presentation and looking good. A guy like this just following the blue pill default life script is going to clean TF up. If I have a son, I'm not going to teach him anything about this **** explicitly, but I am going to strongly encourage the same sort of metrosexuality (grooming, fashion, jewelry, hair, skin, training for aesthetics over performance, lower bodyfat, even cosmetic interventions etc) I adopted more consciously for the purpose of better social outcomes generally (including with women) and eventually found enjoyable later in life. The guy who is "disney nice", phenotypically slightly feminine to where he's occasionally mistaken as gay but not way too often, behaviorally slightly masculine but not excessively so, somewhat ignorant of the fundamental drivers of mating decisions in either gender, has genetic good looks, and enjoys putting a lot of effort into his physical presentation and appearance is going to have the best romantic life. FAr better than some idiot red pill larper. It is fundamentally a "blue pilled guy" who is going to be optimal.

I am not joking when I say red pill is actively sabotaging men trying to have romantic relationships. By listening to and taking to heart the guys like Andrew Tate, Rollo Tomassi, Rich Cooper, Fresh and Fit, etc, a man greatly diminishes his probability of finding and retaining a satisfying romantic relationship. They would claim that they're also reducing the # of men who enter bad marriages or ones that end in divorce by enlightening men about the dangers of getting married from a legal standpoint, and I guess they're technically not wrong?

Most men will similarly end up worse off from finding the black pill, but there's going to be a sizable portion who react to it in a more positive way like myself and just take it as feedback about what women are optimizing for and cultivating those traits to the best of their ability.

8. Yes, they do talk about that. In the early agricultural days or late hunter-gatherer era they estimate it was something like 17:1 women to men reproduced. However, it's probably less because of higher female selectivity as it is from much more male death. Some of this death was over mate competition, some just higher risk taking due to differing hormonal profiles. Some less intellectually honest people use this number to make claims like "see bro!? Women only like the top x% of men bro! All the other ones selected out of the gene pool by women bro!" while ignoring the brutality, disease, violence, higher metabolic requirements making it easier to starve to death, etc.

Long video on AI Apocalypse. A lot less dramatic than the Eliezer Yudkowsky depiction of how AI could cause our end. Overall interesting exploration of "The Eliza Effect", the dark side of the singularity, the nature of consciousness, and human/AI symbiosis. I loved it.

It does not directly touch on how AI or tech has changed human mating behaviour specifically, but human social behaviour more broadly.

5. What about reverse harems/polygamy? I'm not sure I've ever felt a whiff of something like this in any similar discussion in this log. If there are fewer women and women have a much favorable position in this dynamic, then why isn't there reverse polygamy (I mean, it's just regular polygamy but with one woman and a bunch of guys). Is this culturally not possible, is our species not flexible enough to move this direction?

--As Evo implied, there is very simple evolutionary fitness reasons why this doesn't really work. If we accept evolutionary fitness, behavior (at the individual and population level) that increases genetic fitness will be selected, and behavior that doesn't wont be. So it is pretty easy to see that "marriages" that maximize a male's chance to have his own offspring would be selected for; and reverse polygamy is pretty much the opposite of this.

If you boil things down to their roots, the main impetus of "trad" culture is a set of customs that restrict female sexuality and promiscuity, and maximize the chance that a man's children are his own. Islam is probably the social arrangement/religion which accomplishes this task the best; which probably explains in large part why it is so popular throughout the world. As it aligns so well with male evolutionary pscyhology.

I remember reading somewhere that when the British first started doing genetic tests on Arabs, they were astonished at how little genetic variety there was; which was a result of first cousins marriage being so common, on top of a culture which minimizes any instances of cuckoldry and illegitimate offspring. So in the short term we can see how this would be a very successful evolutionary strategy (for males at least). Although in the longer term one does wonder if all the inbreeding and lack of genetic variety might have depressed collective IQ and general fitness, making it a inferior strategy in the long term. Which could explain in part why Islamic society has so much less dynamic and innovative than Western cultures the last 500+ years.

I would also say historically there was probably much more male incels than now (as a % of total population), but it was less of a deal because low status males would generally die so young. A lot of low status males probably died as teenagers (where they would already be considered adults) doing something physically dangerous (war, hunting, dangerous labor); so they had less time and opportunity to be problems.

The problem is that they take this too far and end up studying until they are late 20's start working hard to get ahead in their early 30's, to the detriment of everything else.
They think that education and work is the most important thing in the world.

They are correct when they are in their 20's
Questionable when they are in their 30's
Wrong when they are in their 40's
I see them all the time when I am doing my daily walks. They are the middle aged ones walking by themselves (sometimes with a partner), pushing a little dog around in a baby stroller. I have even seen them carrying the dog in a baby sling.
I assume they have an unfulfilled need to care for, and nurture something.
Sigh.

Jeez, here I go sounding like a feminist again, but I don't blame them honestly. Most men are straight up failing to optimize for what they find physically attractive (often times because they literally don't even know and our society does a poor job at communicating this to them), nor are they really able to offer them the social status or boost in material well being they once were. Another upsetting black pill that red pill grifters refuse to accept and even try to invert despite the fact that empirically it's true: Men need women more than women need men. If I were a woman in that situation and locking down a man I found attractive felt so unrealistic and hopeless because of how scarce they were, regardless of the cause of that scarcity, I'd probably focus on career/hobbies/pets and how to have a happy life without following the conventional script of lifelong monogamous attachment too...To me that sounds like a very psychologically healthy way of addressing this problem. As I write that out, I realize I'm literally doing exactly that in my own life, but I guess the scarcity of compatible partners is for a very different cause in my case.

My before thinking impulse is that if education were more equal and there was less DEI in the job market, men would be able to compete with women on the job market a bit better, harvest a larger % of that status and income, and thus be more attractive to women.

But look at South Korea and Japan... does it really work out there? They have even bigger mating market crises. How much of this is just the fairer job market/education systems being offset by east Asian cultural factors? I don't have an answer to that and I'm unsure how much rolling back DEI and optimizing education for males would help combat this marriage marketplace disequilibrium. It's flattering to just say 'oh the policies that will help my gender are the ones that are going to fix these other problems', but that's engaging in the same sort of intellectual dishonest political feminism does.

Hong Kong has an enormous male advantage in their mating and marriage market among locals/hk citizens (I got a first hand taste of this being able to date somebody 10 years younger than me, higher after tax income, with natural F cups and slim; that would just not be possible in mainland probably), but it is one of the places with the worst birthrate collapse on planet earth. But in that case the offsetting factors are easy to see with extreme population density, wealth (but not necessarily income) inequality, and economic stagnation.

I'm not sure how to answer the question "To what extent would a less imbalanced marriage and mating market that favored males more result in changes in fertility" nor can I answer the question "to what extent would rolling back female favoritism/DEI and more favorable education system for males result in combatting male disadvantage in mating markets in WEIRD countries". They're interesting questions to ponder, none the less.

Modern medicine is powerful and AI is likely to speed up progress in medical innovation. What if we figure out a way to slow down the rate of fertility loss in women? A sort of "reverse birth control" pill? What if it was actually perfectly normal to have healthy pregnancies into one's 40s through non-invasive medical procedures and an oil based injection women could slam into their right glute with a 3cc syringe? That would go way further in solving this problem than any social, cultural, or legal changes.

They probably thought "a pill where you can't get pregnant" was inconceivable in the 1920s...

To clarify, there's a huge genetic/evolutionary advantage for a man to have multiple partners. There's no similar advantage for women. You can argue "yeah but she can get resources from multiple men", but the men willing to accept this arrangement will quickly have their genes outcompeted by those who pursue to "genes far and wide" strategy.

My readers are generally very smart, but I still feel the need to write "evolutionarily advantageous and good for spreading genes =/= justified or morally good".

Being a HK local woman would be way more brutal in terms of your mating/marriage marketplace than being a western male in America/UK/Canada, JFC.

Basically they get tons of SEA/Mainland women radically undercutting them and taking local men off their marriage market, but the SEA and mainland men, despite often have common languages, aren't attractive to women in the same way SEA/Mainland women are to HK women. Widespread and legal "transactional activities" too so you will even have a hard time getting the desperate ones who don't actually want marriage or relationships but want to stick it in any woman. It's not remotely surprising that the direction of dowries reverses in HK compared to most of China. JFL at the bluepillers who say asinine **** like "bro this is people's feelings and loooveeee, you can't approach it like economiiccsssss" even though doing so perfectly explains situations like HK.

I wonder if there are secret HK femcel online communities... surely...

I will see if I can find it, but Richard Hanania wrote a thought piece speculating why Asia specifically seems to be having the hardest time navigating the modern sexual marketplace, despite having less political feminism. His basic argument that I can remember is that their cultural (and possibly genetic?) predisposition towards conformity makes things worse. Asian nature is to be more conformist towards whatever the prevailing cultural norm is. Even if it creates dysfunctional mating dynamics, which the modern condition does.

She is older now and in regular public school, but the preschool my daughter went to was EXTREMELY progressive, and a lot of the kids had same sex lesbian parents. Which, given technological advancements and social progressivism, is a perfectly reasonable mating/reproductive strategy for women. Interestingly, the kids were generally very blond and tall (for their age), which means the women were selecting for sperm of tall, blond (and presumably high IQ) men.

I (and many others) have made this point before over the years in various ways, but in some ways progressive elites that do the most counter signaling, are actually the most trad in their personal decision making.

I skimmed through the last page and the only interesting part I found was the part where guythatgoestothegym found a slim girl with F cups. Tell us more about that, like how did you find her what occured and are you still together?

There we go, now we talking ChanY.

Thread is unreadable. More J cup skinny Chinese woman, less incel redpill crap.

As far as I can tell, everyone here is talking from the point of view of a westerner.

There is another factor that nobody has talked about which leads me to think (all western thinkers here.)

2 items:
When you marry a girl in China, you are marrying her family. You may not only have to carry her financially, but her parents and grandparents as well.

Because of the One child policy from 1980-2015 the majority of Chinese families now have a 4-2-1 structure.
If your girlfriend (born 1980-2015) is that 1 with 2 parents and 4 grandparents, AND she is a decent wage earner, how are You going to support all of them
and Her when she gets pregnant And your kids?!? What happens when the government now pressures you to have 3 kids. Can you carry all of that on
your shoulders? This pressure is one of the factors causing the lay-flat generation.

Lying Flat
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ulCr_6g...

Perfect spot for reverse polygamy. Find 3 other bros and now it's reasonable.

Tbh, that sounds kind of awful in terms of responsibility. In USA#1 the grandparents would take care of the kids, no? So your wife would keep working...in China that's a no-go? Or is it shifting that way?

One of the other problems that goes with the hypergamy is that women only want men on their level or above. So if they paired off 1-1 that is fine.
The problem is with men (like me) who do not pick women using the same categories as women. (Earning potential, height, intelligence/degrees)
We pick women who are beautiful, loyal and caring. My second GF was a practicing pharmacist and lawyer. She was super ambitious and industrious.
She described herself as a drug dealer that knew her rights. I broke up with her and married a much prettier girl with no degree.
The lawyer/pharmacist's earning power had 0 influence on my decision if I was going to marry her. I tell myself that I broke up with her because she
would not stop arguing about everything. It was like I was opposing council and had to make a case for ... (insert any topic here.)
I remember having an argument over her not allowing me to eat the icing on a piece of cake!!! We broke up shortly after that.

Assuming there is a 1-1 relationship with women/men in high level paying and intellectual jobs. (not sure if this is true or not),
where does that leave all the girls that are super accomplished, if 80% of the guys on their level pick beauty/youth instead of intelligence/income?
20% make a great match, and the other 80%.. they either have to settle or be alone.