Look at these girls......
A 'secret'?
Whose secret?
A secret to picking up girls?
Whose secret?
A secret to picking up girls?
Ah, his secret to picking up girls....
Wait, who is this second guy?
And that's when it all came together: 'second guy' is on the sidelines, watching the smug, powerful-looking guy lure in all the women. The smug, powerful-looking guy is killin' it; look at all the women he has in chase - women of nearly every background, no less.
By contrast, the second guy comes across as boyish, innocent and non-intimidating. He's wearing what might as well be his sister's pink soccer jersey. The clip is making fun of him, or at least suggesting that he's undesirable in his current form.
If people have such a problem with the consequences of masculinity and testosterone these days, why are they still encouraging women to ignore/make fun of soft men? I know, "it's ancestral" for women to be into muscular, dominant men. But the "it's ancestral" excuse certainly didn't stop society from pushing men to abandon their drive to chase after anything with breasts and a pretty smile, calling it 'rape culture'. Nor did traditional attitudes towards homosexuality prevent anyone from trying to change the way people react to homosexuals, calling all opposition 'intolerance'. So here's an idea: maybe instead of pushing women to want broad-chested, assertive-walking, amateur athletes and encouraging men to be them, how about we push women to prefer the kind of men whose children society could really benefit from? Unless there is a conspiracy to prevent humanity from moving forwards, it makes no sense that the culture does not encourage women to compete to date rocket scientists and molecular engineers. There is absolutely no reason for the culture to not portray those who have advanced cognitive abilities as cool and desirable when they already design all the products we find cool and desirable, from our entertainment systems to our computers and onward. But it is almost as if the culture does not allow for this portrayal, or want it. Instead, it tells women to become scientists themselves and to go through a roulette of broad-chested, asserting-walking, amateur athletes. Why?
Another point concerns the obvious racial overtones of the ad. The guy all the ladies want is black, the unappealing soft guy on the periphery is white. Yea, we get it; our culture is obsessed with portraying black males as some kind of aphrodisiac. I know what you’re thinking: “oh, author of this article, you just hate blacks.” That assertion is actually quite funny, because next I want to draw your attention to the racist, sexist bullshit in this commercial’s attitude towards black females. It is as if black females don't even exist - and it looks like the black man does not mind the slightest bit. If ever there was a racist statement to be made, this one takes the cake.
Yes, it is just one ad. But when was the last time you saw a commercial try to do what this commercial does not try to do? When was the last time you saw encouragement for women to go for smart men? When was the last time an advertisement showed us a black woman who has the pick of the litter, or a white man who has a black woman in tow? And what about Asian women? When was the last time our society applauded the idea that white men should be with Asian women? The last time the public had any television or print exposure to a white-Asian couple, it was when Stephen Paddock’s mug with his Filipino girlfriend surfaced in the news in connection with the Las Vegas shooting. How romantic.
Our gender and racial roles for presentation, it seems, are predetermined in front of the camera. And yet it is not clear for what reason. Because let's say that - mirroring the advertisements we see - every woman who is not Black grabs a Black man to bear her child, and Black women, Euro and Asian men attract nobody's interest and disappear. What will have changed? Obviously, most children will end up being not light or dark as now, and race will become much more uniform. People will probably stop suggesting that the races are different or that race-culture communities are superior to diversity-based everything. And the lib-left will enjoy all of this. But apart from that what will have changed? Property inequality will still be present, and the gap between have and have-nots will still be as large as before; haplogroups will continue to form, creating unique genetic mutations and subgroups among us; and, all the reasons that recent wars have been fought will still be present, so it is unlikely that we will have achieved peace by doing what we did. So then, what is the point of messing with lives and partner preferences? What is the point of elevating and lowering the perceived value of people so arbitrarily? What is the point when the only outcome is the left no longer has to hear that ethnic communities function better than diverse communities and that the lib-left's understanding of the European, Asian and African people is flawed? Why is there such a concerted effort to create a racial reality but not to encourage women to universally breed upwards in a real sense - by going for brainy, inventive men? These are the questions people should be thinking about. It is important to think about what controls the culture, and why because culture affects our entire lives.
