The Dating Scene

It should be more accurately called the “hook up” scene. I spent the better part of yesterday evening/last night witnessing the demoralizing superficiality and gullibility of young women. Normally this doesn’t bother me, I’ve become acclimated to it, but this one incident in particular left me despairing for the future of the fairer sex. I found my more mature, adult instincts uneasily revolting against my sexual appetites. I remain unsettled by the experience.

Young women these days have been stripped of all culture, taste, and refinement. The last traces of respectability are quickly vanishing. It is harder and harder to find a mate who is intelligent, somewhat interesting, and isn’t a whore. Increasingly, I find myself entertaining the dark thought that women are only good for one thing, which is sex. Most of my friends have already arrived at this conclusion.

Hence, this post. Young women are suckers for cads. They deliberately seek out exactly the guys who are most likely to use them, treat them like shit, and dispose of them. They all entertain the same fantasy of being able to control males of this sort; often times in full knowledge of what they are getting into. The unfortunate issue of these “hook up” relationships grow up in broken, low investment, single parent households. I’ve lost count of how many times I have seen this happen.

As these women grow older, most of them divorced with small children in tow, they morph into gold diggers. They are unable to hold their marriages together because their expressivist, “me first” attitudes rebels against any form of restraint. So they end up pinning their hopes on landing a rich guy with an established household; the sort of men they would have overlooked ten years earlier.

Really, it is sad. Any of this sound familar?

About Hunter Wallace 12380 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent


  1. Hunter Wallace:

    Enjoy the ‘free’ pussy. Make sure you wear a rubber, so you don’t get caught in the pussy trap.

    That said, you are best looking close to home to find the younger sisters of your good friends, someone who shares your particular class and background without ‘issues’ and who wants to raise children living the same sort of life you both grew up in.

    That means that you cull out drunks, dopers, sluts, nutcases and anyone who is not compatible with your family and friends. By all means know who you are wanting to marry and that may take a year or so. By all means, pick someone you can be comfortable with and want to live with and can trust to have children with. Just as there is no ‘royal road’ to learning, so too is there no shortcut to choosing someone worthy of having children with and living together for the rest of your life.

    You might have some women in mind, like the younger sisters and classmates of your friends and family.

    Pastor Martin Luther Dzerzhinsky Lindstedt
    Church of Jesus Christ Christian/Aryan Nations of Missouri

  2. “Francis Marion Braidfute:

    Is it possible, you guys are digging your own holes?. Why is your priority ‘attractiveness’? instead of character or loyalty, or honour, or faitfullness, or sincerity???

    Why do you follow the brainwashing dictum, for whom you should find attractive? If you know they are brainwashing you with concepts of ‘whiteness’; how come you don’t know that they are brainwashing you with concepts of ‘beauty’?

    I gave up on zirchonia’s a long long time ago. And I found myself my rough cut blue diamond, whom to me is the most beautiful, gorgeous man alive. Because of his character, and his values. He is truly a blue diamond thoroughbred. A treasure.”

    Let me guess, the point at which you started looking for your rough diamond is the same time you started looking older and less attractive to the bad boys? What a convenient morality.

    The perception of beauty is not from brainwashing. It’s been established that infants can perceive and prefer beautiful faces. Symmetry and smooth, clear skin being two of the most important factors.

  3. “Hunter Wallace:

    My cell phone has been buzzing all evening. The girl my best friend was screwing last week is tired of his shit. She wants to hang out with me now. I’m not really keen on seconds.”

    This is going back to my previous statement about predators. Guys like your friend ruin or contribute negatively to the potential relationships of better men, such as yourself.

    Typical story… the girl wants a good man, a superior man, once she has tainted herself with inferiors.

    “In terms of qualities, she is a 5/9: attractive, good in bed, has a good attitude, lives close by, and likes to have a good time. Not smart, interesting, or respectable; doesn’t have money/career.”

    How is she not smart? Are we talking high school dropout?

  4. I should have referred to you as a none-thinker.

    So you would explicitly define the process of thought, and its expression, by the moral teleology it proposes? Which would make all classification of phenomena worthless, thus all science. A habit of mind fit for an under-thinker! 😉

  5. Guys like your friend ruin or contribute negatively to the potential relationships of better men, such as yourself.

    I doubt his friend has contributed to a general adaptation by females, or even that female. She wouldn’t have been involved with him if she were better, simple as that.

  6. I simply disregard your attempts at showcasing the psychic apparatus as, well, worthless. Boring, you might say.

  7. “Typical story… the girl wants a good man, a superior man, once she has tainted herself with inferiors.”

    Typical story: The American girl wants a beta as soon as she satisfies herself with the alphas. Because not only will her fading looks make her less attractive to the alphas and reduce her value on the market, she might also want kids for which a provider-beta is more suitable. Unfortunately, too many betas obligingly play along with this scheme.

  8. Since there are some people here who are enamored with Nietzsche, remember that he and others have noted that marriage is incompatible with a life of true deep-thinking and philosophizing:

    “Thus the philosopher abhors marriage, together with all that might persuade him to it, – marriage as hindrance and catastrophe on his path to the optimum. Which great philosopher, so far, has been married? Heraclitus, Plato, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Kant, Schopenhauer – they were not; indeed it is impossible to even think about them being married. A married philosopher belongs to comedy, that is my proposition – and as for that exception, Socrates, the malicious Socrates, it would seem, married ironically, just to demonstrate this proposition.” – from ON THE GENEALOGY OF MORALITY (Third essay)

  9. From Schopenhauer’s “Of Women” —

    + “Women are directly fitted for acting as the nurses and teachers of our early childhood by the fact that they are themselves childish, frivolous and short-sighted; in a word, they are big children all their life long–a kind of intermediate stage between the child and the full-grown man, who is man in the strict sense of the word.”

    + “The nobler and more perfect a thing is, the later and slower it is in arriving at maturity. A man reaches the maturity of his reasoning powers and mental faculties hardly before the age of twenty-eight; a woman at eighteen. And then, too, in the case of woman, it is only reason of a sort–very niggard in its dimensions. That is why women remain children their whole life long; never seeing anything but what is quite close to them, cleaving to the present moment, taking appearance for reality, and preferring trifles to matters of the first importance.”

    + “The weakness of their reasoning faculty also explains why it is that women show more sympathy for the unfortunate than men do, and so treat them with more kindness and interest; and why it is that, on the contrary, they are inferior to men in point of justice, and less honorable and conscientious.”

    + “Hence, it will be found that the fundamental fault of the female character is that it has no sense of justice. This is mainly due to the fact, already mentioned, that women are defective in the powers of reasoning and deliberation; but it is also traceable to the position which Nature has assigned to them as the weaker sex. They are dependent, not upon strength, but upon craft; and hence their instinctive capacity for cunning, and their ineradicable tendency to say what is not true.”

    + “…Nature has equipped woman, for her defence and protection, with the arts of dissimulation; and all the power which Nature has conferred upon man in the shape of physical strength and reason, has been bestowed upon women in this form. Hence, dissimulation is innate in woman, and almost as much a quality of the stupid as of the clever. It is as natural for them to make use of it on every occasion as it is for those animals to employ their means of defence when they are attacked; they have a feeling that in doing so they are only within their rights. Therefore a woman who is perfectly truthful and not given to dissimulation is perhaps an impossibility, and for this very reason they are so quick at seeing through dissimulation in others that it is not a wise thing to attempt it with them…”

    + “Nature has appointed that the propagation of the species shall be the business of men who are young, strong and handsome; so that the race may not degenerate. This is the firm will and purpose of Nature in regard to the species, and it finds its expression in the passions of women. There is no law that is older or more powerful than this. Woe, then, to the man who sets up claims and interests that will conflict with it; whatever he may say and do, they will be unmercifully crushed at the first serious encounter. For the innate rule that governs women’s conduct, though it is secret and unformulated, nay, unconscious in its working, is this: We are justified in deceiving those who think they have acquired rights over the species by paying little attention to the individual, that is, to us. The constitution and, therefore, the welfare of the species have been placed in our hands and committed to our care, through the control we obtain over the next generation, which proceeds from us; let us discharge our duties conscientiously. But women have no abstract knowledge of this leading principle; they are conscious of it only as a concrete fact; and they have no other method of giving expression to it than the way in which they act when the opportunity arrives. And then their conscience does not trouble them so much as we fancy; for in the darkest recesses of their heart, they are aware that in committing a breach of their duty towards the individual, they have all the better fulfilled their duty towards the species, which is infinitely greater.”

    + “And since women exist in the main solely for the propagation of the species, and are not destined for anything else, they live, as a rule, more for the species than for the individual, and in their hearts take the affairs of the species more seriously than those of the individual. This gives their whole life and being a certain levity; the general bent of their character is in a direction fundamentally different from that of man; and it is this to which produces that discord in married life which is so frequent, and almost the normal state.”

    + “And you cannot expect anything else of women if you consider that the most distinguished intellects among the whole sex have never managed to produce a single achievement in the fine arts that is really great, genuine, and original; or given to the world any work of permanent value in any sphere.”

    + “Polygamy is therefore a real benefit to the female sex if it is taken as a whole. And, from another point of view, there is no true reason why a man whose wife suffers from chronic illness, or remains barren, or has gradually become too old for him, should not take a second. The motives which induce so many people to become converts to Mormonism appear to be just those which militate against the unnatural institution of monogamy.”

    + “There is no use arguing about polygamy; it must be taken as de facto existing everywhere, and the only question is as to how it shall be regulated. Where are there, then, any real monogamists? We all live, at any rate, for a time, and most of us, always, in polygamy. And so, since every man needs many women, there is nothing fairer than to allow him, nay, to make it incumbent upon him, to provide for many women. This will reduce woman to her true and natural position as a subordinate being…”

    + “That woman is by nature meant to obey may be seen by the fact that every woman who is placed in the unnatural position of complete independence, immediately attaches herself to some man, by whom she allows herself to be guided and ruled. It is because she needs a lord and master. If she is young, it will be a lover; if she is old, a priest.”

    — FROM:

  10. Kindly have your mental breakdowns offline.

    Fuck you, loser. I’ve tolerated bullshit from you and your ilk far too much.

  11. Mark, the other one, imagines himself at the vanguard of pro-white politics. He’s a moron. He thinks, like the retard jew-fellator FB, that being some kind of jew-whore will make WN respectable. LOL! What a stupid fucking conceit! Hey dipshit, we’re all peasants in the eyes of our masters. And your ignorant bullshit won’t change that. Have fun being a thrall/jew-whore for the rest of your life. Cunt.

  12. Btw, “Mark” is from VNN. As soon as this misfit realized the VNN’ers wouldn’t tolerate his bulshit he jumped ship and, quick as Pan, he became an anti-anti-Semite. What a piece of shit, it doesn’t surprise me in the least that this disgusting excuse for a “human being” is posting here. Bla, bla, bla.

    You care about the “quality” of WN? Why not start with yourself, you ingrate maggot?

  13. Is commenter ‘uh’ the same person as ‘wintermute’?

    I am not aware of wintermute’s previous writings because I am rather new to the pro-White/White nationalist ‘scene,’ but do ‘uh’ and wintermute seem similar?

  14. Richard Spencer of Takimag is now a Nazi, his hopes of reproducing are dashed:

    “…as revealed by Andrew Neather’s recent tell-all column in the Evening Standard, when the Left, even the moderate Left, concocts immigration policies, it’s all about race. As a friend remarked to me this weekend, average conservatives may not be interested in race, but race is interested in them.”

  15. Mark,
    Let me guess, the point at which you started looking for your rough diamond is the same time you started looking older and less attractive to the bad boys?
    Was that a question, or have you already made up your mind? The answer is no, i looked for character from a young age. When I was 19, I met an incredibly beautiful woman, in her 30’s, who lived in the same block of flats i did. We became friends, becuase she thought I noticed her, at the pool, but did not fawn over her. She was curious why not. i eventually found out she was an escort. She was so beautiful, and her beauty had brought her only misery. She wished she wasnot beautiful, that if it is was possible, she could meet a man, who would love her for her character, not for what she looked like. I thought allot about that, and spent allot of time observing men around her; and the type of men who were attracted to her beauty, she was stunningly beautiful; and I concluded in agreement with her that her beauty was a curse. The men she attracted were unbelievably superficial, and totally uncapable of an intellectual conversation with a woman.
    What a convenient morality
    Appears it was not a question, you have already made up your mind? Let me guess: Have you ever met an honourable woman? When you meet a woman, and you are in doubt about a statement that she makes, where she could be sincere, or not; do you always assume, the worst of her? what if you met one that was being sincere, and you have programmed yourself to only interpret evrything she says, by the lowest interpretation possible?

    The perception of beauty is not from brainwashing. It’s been established that infants can perceive and prefer beautiful faces.
    I was talkiing about ‘conscious’ individuals; not unconscious babies, whether infants, or psychological and emotional infant adults. I am quite capable of telling you Charlize Theron, and Brad Pitt are symetrically ‘good looking’; but there is a difference between a symmetrical observation, and a conscious decision, about character and values, and qualities of a persons personality; about what consists of a beautiful person; and people I consider worthy of my time and effort, emotions and ideas.
    If you find that attractiveness works for you, and you meet quality girls, worth spending time with, who value you, not just as a walking penis, but your ideas, your dreams, your values, your fears, your humour…. then I’d advise you to stick to your formula.

    But if your formula is not working; why do you keep repeating it, only to get the same result? I was lucky, someone gave me the idea, when I was young, and questioning, that there were many different values, to create a formula from. Sure I run into the majority, if not 90% or more, for whom my formula don’t work, cause they are into Symmetry and I am into character. 😉

  16. Sounds like Hunter is a real chick magnet. He better be careful or he might make Roberto Lindsay green with envy. I believe Bobby claimed to have slept with over 100 women. Better get cracking Hunter this is about bragging rights!!

  17. Mark IJsseldijk,

    You clearly need anti-psychotic medication and extensive psychotherapy.

    I’m not “from VNN,” I occasionally looked at the site and forum during the past 3 years. It’s where the losers and mental defectives go to rant. It exemplifies everything that is wrong with white nationalism. I never had a bad opinion of the movement until I experienced the banality, degeneracy and anti-social behavior typical of VNN forum members and Linder. They’re the real ‘kwans.

    You have no argument so you create straw men and go on vulgar tirades. I am not and have never been philo-Semitic.

    Hunter, I encourage you to disallow profane posts that have no merit.

  18. This is great. Not the facts, b/c that sucks, but the fact that someone has put it out there! The facts are depressing, and I think you did a good job of voicing these problems with the society we live in. Not to sound as if I’m trying to be “cool” by stating this statement, annonymously; but now being 27 years old, I never had any trouble getting the girl. However, since I reached my mid- and later-twenties, I began looking for “life-long material”. I quickly realized that this girl is nowhere to be found! (And to further explain the statement I made earlier, I did not mean that I “got girls” as in one nights or the such. I actually had girlfriends mostly. And really shyed away for 3 years or so, after finding out a long relationship ending secret my ex had). Anyways, back to my comment. I just thought I should acknowledge this writer for bringing up, and out to the surface, what I see is probably the biggest problem in our dating culture now.

Comments are closed.