The four kinds of love

I am reading a book called "Why Marriage Matters" by Glenn T. Stanton.

The author explains how there is not just one, but four different kinds of love: eros, philia, storge, agape.

Eros is physical attraction and passion, but it can also be more than that. It need not necessarily be a blind attraction to just anyone. Its object can be a specific person.

Philia is friendship that you feel towards your friends. Philia may be the same as "platonic love". When those who we love in this way are absent, we find life less fulfilling. We feel this way about those special people who we would choose to watch a movie with, walk on the beach with, or share our joys and troubles with.

Storge is familial love. It is love between family members, neighbours, and community. It is a kind of "glue" that keeps the tribe together.

Agape is unconditional love, or love under will. This is distinct from the other three, in that it requires effort to maintain. It cannot spontaneously happen - it can only be created and sustained by a conscious act of will. It cannot be sustained by emotion. This love often acts against emotions, which are transitory. It goes against human nature. This is the kind of love that sustains a marriage through thick and thin, in good times and in bad. He quotes Eric Fromm:

"In contemporary Western culture ... love is supposed to be the outcome of a spontaneous, emotional reaction, of suddenly being gripped by an irresistable feeling."

"One neglects to see an important factor in erotic love, that of will. To love somebody is not just a strong feeling - it is a decision, it is a judgement, it is a promise. If love were only a feeling, there would be no basis for the promise to love each other forever." (1)

He continues:

"A true promise means something only in the context of the possibility that we would not naturally produce the thing promised. We promise our love and commitment to our spouse because we recognize that it is not likely to sustain itself upon our original emotions. Our love is sure to be imperfect because we ... are imperfect. In this context, we make a commitment to our beloved to continue the hard work of refining and cultivating our love."

"The recognition of this aspect of marriage is imperative because it goes right to the heart of why so many marriages don't last. Marriage is hard work and takes a commitment to our spouse and to the idea of marriage." (2)

---

References

• 1. Eric Fromm, The Art Of Loving (pp. 55-56)
• 2. Glenn T. Stanton, Why Marriage Matters (pp. 166)

Why employers should only employ married men

Many social science studies have consistently shown that married men (on average) earn more than either single men or single or married women. In fact, this is the earnings order:

1. Married men
2. Single women
3. Single men
4. Married women

Dr. Warren Farrell documents this in his book "Why Men Earn More" which thoroughly debunks the "wage myth" that feminists use to reinforce their victim status.

The most reasonable explanations for the wage gap are motivation and specialization. Married men, especially with children, are found to be more dissatisfied with their wages and put in extra effort to earn more money to support their families. Single men without children simply don't have the same level of motivation to work, simply because their basic needs aren't being met. They are much more motivated towards other, more fundamental, things instead - like trying to have sex regularly.

Consider the other basic needs. When you are hungry, you can't really concentrate on other things like going to the gym, watching a movie, going to a concert, etc. Likewise if you need to go to the toilet, you can't concentrate on other things. Sex is similarly a basic need that needs to be met just like the other needs.

While work does have a direct relationship with hunger, it has only an indirect relationship with the fulfillment of sexual needs. That is, we satisfy our hunger by working. If we don't work, we don't get paid, and we starve. But most people do not work to get sex. Yes you can work and earn money and spend that money on prostitutes, but for the vast majority of men, such relationships are deeply unsatisfying because this lifestyle is not conducive to having children. Or you could work and earn status and power and wealth and these things increase your ability to get sex, but for most men this is too great an investment to make for a delayed and uncertain reward.

It follows that single men are less motivated to do work, because they've got nothing to work for. To them, life seems meaningless and empty. And they're constantly thinking about sex. They won't admit this of course, yet it's true.

Married men on the other hand, are more motivated because they have a wife and children to care for. Life doesn't seem so meaningless and empty anymore. Also, you don't just have the man's work - you have a woman's work behind it as well. Because a married man is simply more available for work, because his wife frees up significant amounts of his time by taking on domestic responsibilities that the man would otherwise have to do if he was single. In a sense, his wife invests her working potential in her husband's career for mutual gain.

Phyllis Schlafly would often speak at women's colleges in the late 70s and early 80s. She explained to them that even if they worked just as hard, and put in as many hours as their male counterparts, there is one advantage a man has that they'll never have; namely, a wife. And, of course, the response would come back, `Why can't a woman have a house-husband?'. Schlafly would respond, `Good luck finding one'. It's not impossible, but it's very improbable. (1)

If you are an employer, you would be wise to employ only married men. Your second choice would be single men, but only those who are planning to get married and have children in the near future. But if single women are more motivated and hardworking than single men, then why prefer men? Because if these single women are of childbearing age, then they are unreliable and potentially expensive employees - we must assume that they will get married or pregnant at some point in the future and you will have a higher employee turnover or other high costs (maternity leave, job sharing, etc) as a result. If you pass on these high costs to your customers, you will lose business to your more efficient competitors who don't employ women. If you pass on these high costs to your employees, you will lose your best employees to your competitors.

If instead perverse incentives are put in place that makes it "profitable to be inefficient" by penalizing companies that refuse to employ women, and by rewarding those who do employ women, then society as a whole will lose business to more efficient societies. Companies may move overseas, workers may choose to emigrate, etc.

1. Reader reviews of book "The Flipside of Feminism"

The case against women's right to vote

I watched a documentary today called "I Want Your Money". An excellent documentary that explains the reasoning behind conservative (USAmerican) fiscal policies. It is an excellent documentary that is worth watching.

Near the start of the film, Mike Huckabee (former Arkansas governor) describes what he read in a book many years ago called "Why Democracies Perish". He says:

"Democracies perish when people begin to understand that they can vote for themselves largesse out of the public treasury. And once they begin to recognize they have the ability to take away other people's possessions and vote it for themselves, they will begin to do that increasingly to the point that they take more out than they put in."

This makes perfect sense. It's exactly what's been happening in the USA (and other socialist countries). Democrats (liberals, progressives) in particular have repeatedly been trying to increase the number of people dependent on the government, and they do this by increasing the scope of welfare. Why would Democrats try to get people dependent on the government? Because that way, they can get votes from them. After all, it is perfectly understandable that those on welfare are more than happy to vote for the party that provides them that welfare, by taking money from those earning it and giving it to those who aren't. This is done with the noble intention of helping the poor, but as someone once said, "If you pay people to be poor, then you will never run out of poor people."

Under the US system of government, each person gets one vote, regardless of whether they are contributing (paying taxes) or non-contributing (not paying taxes) citizens. Even those who pay no taxes get the same opportunity to vote as those paying taxes. A citizen will effectively not be paying tax if the government gives him as much or more money (in the form of welfare, tax deductions, tax credits, etc.) than how much that person paid in tax - he is a net non-contributor.

But what has all of this got to do with women's vote? Consider this parallel:

"Democracies perish when feminists (largely single mothers, "independent" women, career women, etc) begin to understand that they can vote for themselves largesse out of the public treasury. And once they begin to recognize they have the ability to take away men's (and married women's) money and vote it for themselves, they will begin to do that increasingly to the point that they take more out than they put in."

 Ann Coulter understood this very well, and she has said this publicly:

• Youtube: Ann Coulter explains why its better if women didn't vote
• Youtube: ANN COULTER ON HILLARY AND WHY WE SHOULDN'T LET WOMEN VOTE
• Ann Coulter: Take away women's votes because "women are voting so stupidly"

Your immune system is more reliable than you think

My housemate (landlady, actually) thinks I have a stomach of cast iron. Here are some of the things it can do:

1. I went to Nariel Creek Folk Festival during the last Christmas & New Year holidays, and existed solely on tinned food, bread, fruit, etc. It was really hot at that time of year and the interior of the car often got quite hot. As is to be expected, the bread turned moldy with about 4 or 5 different varieties of fungi. The patches of mold were quite large and furry. I deliberately ate the moldy bread, just to see if my body could handle it. The bread tasted sickly-sweet. I gagged several times while trying to force the stuff down and washed it down with unfiltered water from the creek.
2. I made some chicken wraps using roast chicken on a thursday night before the Jane Austen Festival, fearing that there might not be enough food containing protein provided at the festival. As it turned out, the event was more than adequately catered for, unlike in previous years. The wraps sat in the car for a whole week, unrefrigerated, until I ate them the friday night (of the week after the festival) after working out at the gym. The wraps were visibly moldy, and smelled and tasted as much. It was quite an effort trying to get them down.
3. I've eaten roast chicken that had been left on the counter unrefrigerated for more than a week.
4. I've drunk spoiled milk on several occasions.
5. I have a packet of pasta with seasoning sachet that's been "expired" for more than 10 years. I plan to consume it at some point in the future.
6. I've eaten various curries that had gone sour, simply because there was a lot of it and I didn't want to refrigerate them.
7. I defrosted some chicken thighs and cooked half of it. The other half sat in the refrigerator (not the freezer) for about 1/2 weeks. I had forgotten about it, and my housemate complained that the fridge had started to smell. Upon finding the chicken there, I proceeded to cook it in a curry. The chicken had visibly started to decompose, and it had a rather bad smell. The resulting curry also spent some time outside a refrigerator and the last of it went sour. Still, I ate every bit of it.

Now I believe that I'm not fundamentally different from anyone else, so it must be that the average person's immune system is actually capable of feats like the above. For example, many poor people scavenge for food in dumpsters. We are led to believe that our immune systems need all the outside help they can get. Why is this? Perhaps some industries depend on our ignorance:

1. Would refrigerator manufacturers sell as many refrigerators if people knew that food can last quite a long time at room temperature?
2. Would the food industry sell as much food if people knew that food that's past the expiration date is mostly still safe to eat?
3. Would food-safety related government departments still have as much work to do and thus get as much funding if people knew that food-safety is largely a non-issue?
4. Would pharmaceutical companies sell as many drugs if people knew about the "hygiene hypothesis"?

It is important to realize how our immune systems work. It learns about new bugs when we ingest small quantities of them. Then when faced with subsequent invasions of these bugs, the immune system is quick to respond and eliminates them. What I've done is to deliberately introduce new pathogens to my immune system, in a way immunizing myself from them. The immune system is very effective at eliminating biological threats in this way.

Not all threats to the human body are biological in nature. Many are chemical in origin. Some bugs that infect food produce toxic chemicals that causes problems in our bodies that our immune systems can't do anything about. Our main defenders against these chemical threats are our kidneys. They filters out most toxic chemicals from the blood, and excrete them into the urine. However I don't think the kidneys "learn" to break down new chemical toxins, but still they are capable of eliminating most chemical threats.

Ironically, it is those who are the most diligent about food-safety who suffer most of the food poisonings which are often life-threatening. I have made a deliberate choice and acted accordingly to protect myself from food poisonings by deliberately consuming food that's not fit to be eaten.

On a related note, it is truly staggering to know just how much food goes to waste in more developed countries. When I was at Woolworths supermarket choosing the previously mentioned roast chicken (for the wraps), I noticed that a worker had come and was waiting close by with an open bin. I realized then what was about to happen. I chose two roast chickens and as I was walking away, I muttered "Shame... that's a real shame!" while he proceeded to throw the 4 or 5 remaining chickens into the bin.

The cost of the thrown-away chickens is recouped from the sale of the sold chickens. What if they reduced the price of the chickens in the first place? Perhaps then more chickens would be sold, and there would be less waste.

An impending shortage of women

I predict a massive shortage of marriageable women in the near future, if there isn't one already. My prediction may seem a bit strange, especially since in many western liberal democracies, there are more women than men. But the key word here is "marriageable".

Generally speaking, in any monogamous society, it is expected that most men and women who are born in some generation should pair off with each other, even taking into account that men are generally attracted to women a few years younger than themselves, and women are generally attracted to men a few years older than themselves. Over the long term, this system should more-or-less reach an equilibrium. For most people, there will be a man for every woman, and a woman for every man.

Over the last few decades though, women's liberation 'liberated' men from having to commit, 'freed' women from marriage, and often 'unshackled' women from having a family. Regardless of whether it is men or women who are at fault, the end result is that this situation has made a very large number of women unmarriageable: older, less attractive, emotionally damaged, less fertile, less feminine, cynical, jaded, career-driven and less able to devote time to family.

What's less apparent is the fact that while feminism has left huge numbers of women of the last few generations unmarriageable, men were often not affected to the same degree. A 40-year old single woman is unmarriageable. A single man of the same age is eminently not. Often a 40-year old single man is objectively more marriageable than a much younger man, even if we are socialized to believe otherwise.

Unfortunately, under the current feminist regime, women start to become unmarriageable rather early in their lives. Inappropriate sex-education, hormonal contraception, pre-marital sex, casual sex, cohabitation, higher-education, career, etc. take their toll and all of these put women on the slippery slope to unmarriageability. They are only able to get off that wild ride once they reach their thirties and their biological clocks start ticking loudly enough.

What the future holds may be this: men of those generations that suffered under women's liberation (lets call it Generation A), seeing that there are slim pickings of women in their own generation, will look to the following generation's women (Generation B). And these women of Generation B (the intelligent ones anyway) may happily oblige. And where will Generation B's men look for women? Their own women are pairing off with the men from Generation A. And a lot of the other women in Generation B are fast becoming unmarriageable thanks to feminism. Large numbers of men will face a life of singledom, and society will face significant costs associated with having large numbers of single males who have no chance of having a family.

I suppose there is also an impending shortage of men, because even unmarriageable women do want to eventually marry. But the men may not happily oblige. This is not as serious a problem as the shortage of marriageable women, however, because single women are capable of leading more functional lives than single men are.

What should a woman do with her intelligence?

I received a book in the mail a while back called "Monkeys On Our Backs". The author at one point questioned the common idea that women should use their intelligence and potential to benefit society.

All men and women are born with intelligence. But they are so different from each other that intelligence benefits them differently.

What the science shows is that a man needs to use his intelligence in order to reproduce (have children). A man who does not have intelligence to gain status, wealth, and power will have trouble finding a wife. In evolutionary terms, a man who is intelligent and who uses it will enjoy higher fertility. A man who is not intelligence will have more trouble finding a wife and having children.

On the other hand, it is exactly the opposite for women. Women who "use" their intelligence to its "full potential" must necessarily have lower fertility. This is not idle opinion - it is a scientific fact, backed by empirical observations. A woman has a limited time, part of which she can allocate to career, and the other part to family. She cannot give 100% to each. A woman who divides her time between family and career will have less fertility than a woman who gives 100% to family. It is only possible for a career woman to match the fertility of a housewife if:

1. there are perverse incentives that artificially boost the fertility of career women (tax breaks, socialized day care, socialized fertility treatments)
2. there are perverse disincentives that artificially lower the fertility of housewives (tax codes that penalize families, higher taxes to support career women's choices, etc)

Note that I'm not saying that women should not be intelligent. Rather, I'm saying that women are better off not "using it to its full potential" in the modern sense ie. pursue a career. From an evolutionary standpoint, women can effectively use their intelligence to further their reproductive success in only one way: by passing it on (via genes) to their children.

1. Their sons will benefit, because they will be able to attract a quality wife and have children. The more intelligent he is, the higher status, wealth, and power he will likely enjoy, and the more likely that his wife will be able to be a housewife and enjoy higher fertility. It goes without saying that he will have intelligent sons (see #1) and daughters (see #2).
2. Their daughters will also benefit, because they will themselves be more intelligent, but more importantly, they will be able to have more intelligent sons of their own (see #1)

Society may "lose" out by not utilizing all this female intelligence to its "full potential", but:

1. If we don't know what we are losing out on, then why should it bother us? People living 2000 years ago couldn't concieve of space travel, but it didn't seem to bother them.
2. Perhaps our modern society could have been achieved 2000 years ago. But so what? Are we really better off now than we used to be? And who would be around who could appreciate the fact that modern society had been achieved 2000 years earlier than scheduled? Instead there would only be people complaining that modern society hadn't been achieved 4000 years ago instead of 2000 years ago.
3. Perhaps global warming might have happened 2000 years ago. And it could have been fixed 1900 years ago. But how is it different from global warming happening now and being fixed in 2100 AD?
4. Is it better for a woman to use her intelligence to benefit society, or is it better for her to have 2 sons who will inherit her high intelligence and benefit society?

Falling in love vs. planning to love

The prevailing notion among women is that the only real and worthwhile kind of love is the kind that you "fall" into - essentially stumble into.

I think that men and women have different perspectives on this issue. Most men (those who are not extremely physically attractive anyway) don't "fall" into love. Consciously or unconsciously, they have to work for it. They have to plan it, sometimes over a period of several years. Most men do this in many different ways. Some go the pretend-alpha route, which takes years of study and practice. A lucky few are born psychopaths or born with ambition, leadership qualities, intelligence. All of these carry more risks than rewards. Only a few are physically attractive. These attractive men can wait to "fall" in love. Those men who are only of average attractiveness can't.

In contrast, very few women in history have ever needed to plan in order to get a man. They are just born beautiful. So of course, when they see a man planning to get the woman he likes, they cannot understand it. Don't you just "fall" in love? Why can't you just "be yourself"? Yes, you can afford to wait for that kind of love, if you're a woman. If you're not an attractive man, you'll most likely die alone and childless, especially in today's serial-polygynous societies.