I doubt it's only rednecks and working-class kids who get written off as having peaked in high school, if that's what you're referring to. I think it's entirely plausible for some midwit and otherwise unremarkable guy to come from a comfortable middle-class suburban household and suffer the same fate.
I suggest that we delineate female perishableness, which is a biological reality that cannot be addressed in polite company without the penalty of cancelling, from the peaking-in-high-school concept that does exist within the Overton window and is thus safe to discuss. I’d also argue that it’s a bit over the top to argue that girls are often at their prettiest at 16-18. Realistically speaking I think female fertility and beauty usually peaks at the age of 21-22.
Yeah, for some people high school never ends, as they say. Alternatively, not everyone who graduates from high school actually leaves it behind. Others have also observed that the Great Awokening and SJW tendencies are also partially driven by resentments developed in high school and getting nurtured later on.
High school is notable because although you still have some decent latitude in terms of who you spend your time with, you are still surrounded by the same set of people every day, forced into constant, recurring proximity.
This social dynamic also occurred to me. It’s a unique life experience. For men, I think the only comparable experience they used to have in the past was the draft. I’m guessing there’s a subset of teenagers that are helped out by this, namely those who do have a normal level of social skills but find it difficult to socialize voluntarily for whatever reason.
And not everyone makes that jump. If you go straight into the workforce, it's probably even more stark.
It’s a usual lifestyle change which isn’t exactly voluntary. For the average college-educated man, graduation entails the dissolution of his only existing social circle. If he moves to another place to start working, which is a usual course of events, he’ll soon find himself socializing only with his colleagues and with family members, should the latter even be present at that place. Everything else, he’d have to build up from scratch.
How does college make it so "you are still surrounded by the same set of people every day, forced into constant, recurring proximity"?
I have the same question. The social situation where college fills this role but high school doesn't seems to be rather peculiar.
As someone with a moderate interest in sociology, despite that field of science generally being captured by leftist activists I cannot really stand, I’m somewhat intrigued by the American concept of ‘peaking in high school’ which I wasn’t even aware of until recently. I tried to dissect what it actually means but I feel like I’m not getting that much closer.
Before I continue I’d like to state two assumptions on the subject, based on what limited information I’ve gathered. One is that the concept, or accusation/dismissal if we want to be more honest, is almost always applied to men only. The second is that it doesn’t really exist as a subject of any conversation outside the jock-vs-nerd dichotomy as a wider concept. It’s a subconcept, if such a thing even exist. It's also inseparable from the idea that your high school years are the best years of your life.
As far as I can tell, the concept basically describes a high school guy who’s a midwit and largely without ambition or intellectual curiosity in life but also has street smarts and some level of charm, plus genetic attributes that are to his advantage (muscle mass, height, jawline etc). Whatever he goes on to do after graduation, wherever he moves to and whatever choices he makes, his social status will never be relatively higher than it was in high school. He’ll never be more popular in his social circle or at his job than he was in high school. Whatever level of success he goes on to have, it’ll never surpass the success he had in high school in terms of noteworthiness within his social circle. The things that made him popular he probably is not even aware of, and he just doesn’t know any better.
Is this an accurate description or am I missing the point?
Sounds interesting. The buddy cop novel actually has its own wikipedia page:
I'd argue that any propaganda advocating unfettered access to abortion and the morning-after pill, and any propaganda messaging about there not being tangible risks to late pregnancy and childbirth i.e. propaganda advocating for the indefinite postponing of breeding, counts as anti-natal psy-ops.
What I had in mind is the simple social reality of overtly frail, senile, potentially demented people not being able to look after their grandchildren at all, which severely degrades the quality of life of those children and their parents.
There's also the evident effect of social isolation. If you're a child with older parents, they are unlikely to socialize with the parents of the children you want to, or otherwise would be, socializing with, there being a significant age gap, and the adults your parents do socialize with are unlikely to have children of your age. Both are significant barriers to socializing.
I was observing the whole thing from a more practical point of view. Apart from building and maintaining a world empire, what else did unite the English, Scots and Welsh? What else did they agree on?
is the advancing age of parents worse for children than we think, or are these fears unfounded?
Definitely worse for the grandchildren, if there any.
Mostly peaceful.
"We can’t afford, economically or socially to draw from only half the population," said CIF CEO Andrew Brownlee
That's a rather bold claim to be made by a CEO in the construction sector.
Target rich environment indeed, for flings, hookups, short-term relationships and plate-spinning. Not for marriage. See my reply above to The_Nybbler in the same chain.
Doctors are normally from middle-class, relatively affluent suburban families, I imagine. In these circles assortative mating has been the norm for decades. For such a doctor to marry a nurse, for example, someone who does not and will not have a college degree and is of a lower social status than him, is not considered socially accepted behavior. It’s suspicious, sleazy toxic male behavior, and his family and friends will not approve of it. Most middle-class people have no stomach for social ostracism.
Please note that I'm referring to strictly marriages only.
the women who make this their top priority from the time they're 19
I'm pretty confident that no such women exist anywhere. Either they don’t make this a priority because it doesn’t even occur to them and would find it icky were it to be suggested to them, or their family make it a top priority for her with her having little choice in the matter because she lives in a patriarchal culture. What does happen in reality is that some women pair up in high school or college and remain committed, usually cohabiting for long years before marrying and having children. But it’s a matter of convenience, not personal strategy. If this does not happen, her chances of mating successfully will start quickly diminishing in the current social reality.
I thought it would make sense to quote what actually happened. But noted, thanks.
You can have a concept of Britishness as a civic identity shared by a closed class of English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish (or Northern Irish) people, although there isn't an attempt to actually do that until modern right-populist movements, and it goes down like a lead balloon with the Scottish and Welsh.
I think the one shared identity of those peoples was empire-building.
I'd argue that when a foundation of a state as a process entails the expulsion of ethnic minorities, it can be considered an ethnostate. Post-1945 Czechoslovakia and post-1995 Croatia, for example.
from the 1934 Montreux Conference of the NSDAP and its allies
Notable in their absence were any representatives from Nazi Germany. The conference in Montreux occurred only six months after the assassination of the Austrofascist Austrian chancellor Engelbert Dollfuss by Nazi agents and the resulting diplomatic crisis between Italy and Germany. Likewise, Mussolini did not allow any official representative of the Italian Fascist Party to attend the meeting, ostensibly in order to see what the conference could achieve before lending full official support.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1934_Montreux_Fascist_conference#Participants
This is eminently practical from a leftist point of view, as people unwilling to oppose communist revolutionaries with force will inexorably end up being ruled by those very revolutionaries, resulting in their dispossession, deportation and eventual destruction, thus removing them as a potential right-wing threat and permitting future leftist to sing their praises as principled, moderate conservative martyrs. Either way it's the leftists who win.
Mussolini specifically did not even bother to attempt to comprehensively define it for good:
The essay was written in 1927 by Mussolini, with the help of Giovanni Gentile. It was first published in 1932, in the 14th volume of the Italian Encyclopedia (Enciclopedia Italiana), as the first section of a lengthy entry on "Fascismo" (Italian for 'Fascism'). The entire entry on fascism spans pages 847–884 of the Enciclopedia Italiana, and includes numerous photographs and graphic images. The entry starts on page 847 and ends on 851 with the credit line "Benito Mussolini". All subsequent translations of "The Doctrine of Fascism" were derived from this work.
[...]
In 1940, Mussolini ordered all remaining copies of the document, which had different editions and translations, to be destroyed "because he changed his mind about certain points".
There are no women who get no attention at all, and none that have zero access to sex. In that sense femcels factually do not exist.
- Prev
- Next

The real war probably seems more relevant now.
More options
Context Copy link