Search Box

Sunday, October 18, 2015

Another gay look-alike couple

My deepest, darkest confession is that I read The New York Times wedding section. (The darkest one you're going to hear here, anyway.) My only excuse for reading it is that it's so gratifying to see certain patterns repeated over and over.

One of the patterns is that a bride's looks correlate highly with the amount of money the groom makes. It's not a perfect correlation, but it's pretty close. The really pretty brides almost always get married to a guy who works at a private equity firm, or a hedge fund, or at an investment bank, or maybe a lawyer at a high-powered firm, or maybe a doctor.

After a while, you realize, the pretty ones are essentially just selling themselves to the highest bidder. Yes, the guy's looks enter into the equation, but they don't count for nearly as much as his job.

These good-looking brides usually work at pretty-girl-jobs, which they will undoubtedly quit after their weddings. For instance, they might work for Sotheby's, or as a buyer for Macy's, or as an account executive at an advertising firm, or as a fund-raiser of some sort.

I could reproduce their pictures and wedding articles here, but if I did there wouldn't be room for anyone else. And I don't think the fact that pretty girls tend to marry rich guys exactly qualifies as a huge newsflash.

Another pattern that I see repeated fairly frequently is that gay guys who get married often marry guys to whom they bear a notable resemblance. One such couple, Andrew Hermann and Timothy Poulin, were featured in today's Times:


No one would mistake them for identical twins; but they could easily be fraternal ones.

You'd think that having sex with someone who looks like you would pall quicker than normal, but this is evidently not the case in certain sectors of the gay community.

(I was going to say something about how this way at least we won't have to wonder about whom the children will take after, but commenter "Gardner" recently implied I was snarky, so I'm going to refrain.)

Another pattern it's hard not to notice is how often the gay guys have gay jobs. Andrew Hermann, on the left, "is a digital producer in New York for the website of Bravo, the cable television network. He graduated from Swarthmore College."

That sorta makes him a walking, talking gay stereotype. (Bravo has a lot of gay-themed shows, and Swarthmore is, well, Swarthmore.) Poulin, on the right, has avoided that stereotype: he works for a mutual fund, Lord Abbett.

Both Andrew and Timothy look like nice guys, the kind who would be quite pleasant to be around.

I wish them both happiness. And I hope they never get bored looking in the mirror.

25 comments:

Jokah Macpherson said...

I do stand-up comedy so I see a lot of other stand-up comics perform and one night one of the comedians joked, "I've always wondered: Do gays get turned on by looking at themselves in the mirror?"

Kind of funny but it's actually a pretty legitimate question. I suspect the answer is no since there's no mystery or excitement associated with your actual self. On the other hand, if it's someone very much like you, that's probably a huge plus.

As you've noted before, a lot of heterosexual couples as well tend to resemble each other more than you'd expect, and they grow even more similar over time as they adopt each other's mannerisms.

John Craig said...

Jokah --
You do stand up comedy?! I had no idea. That takes balls. i tried it once, just for the hell of it, in the late 90's at an open mike night in NYC, but I had to have three glasses of wine before I got up on stage(and I'm not a drinker).

I agree with your conclusion, I don't think anyone is turned on by him/herself.

I pointed out recently that Kevin McCarthy and Renee Elmers resembled each other, but I've seen that pattern far more among gays than among heterosexuals.

Jokah Macpherson said...

Good for you for trying stand-up comedy. Did you enjoy it?

I appreciate you saying it takes balls but for whatever reason I just don't get particularly nervous doing it - I actually feel calm and energized - while on the other hand I get paralyzing anxiety even contemplating approaching women. I would gladly exchange one anxiety for the other but no one's ever offered that option.

John Craig said...

Jokah --
I'm not sure if I enjoyed it. I felt a mild sense of accomplishment for having done it, but after doing it, I wasn't dying to do it again.

I guess we all have different fears. I used to be nervous about approaching women too, but I got over it by my late twenties. You know what the secret to getting over it is? Just force yourself to approach a whole bunch of them, get rejected, and contemplate how it really wasn't that bad. I think that fear -- which is a common one -- boils down to two fears: fear of getting rejected, and fear of making a fool of oneself. Neither of those things is fatal, and the more you do them, the less fatal they seem. I'd also suggest approaching women you don't even particularly desire. It's good practice and it's good to know that after a while you build up an immunity to the sting of rejection. By the time I was in my late twenties, I even took a perverse pride in how little it meant to me, and how quickly I could forget about it. Another thing to keep in mind is, the only guys who never get rejected are the ones who never try. Oh, and one more thing: alcohol helps. (It's how I got myself onto that comedy stage.) Just don't make too much of a habit of the alcohol.

Remnant said...

Goes to show that a big component of male homosexuality is simply narcissism: male gayness is at heart self-love. They look (probably unconsciously) for themselves in their partner.

John Craig said...

Remnant --
Long time, good to hear from you.

I wonder if that's it. I can't think of any other explanation.

Remnant said...

Hi, John. Yes, apologies for the long silence.

The phenonemon John points out in this post is also illustrative of the huge difference between ancient "homosexuality" and the modern expresssion of it.

I am increasingly of the view that ancient "homosexuality" -- which, regardless of culture, Greek, Arab / Persian, or Chinese, mainly invovled a much older man and a much younger man -- was a social mechanism to accomodate several important social needs and was of a fundamentally different type than modern homosexuality: men wanted outlets outside of marriage, society wanted to ensure that young women remained chaste and were virgins at marriage, society wanted to preserve and maintain existing marriages. Older men going after younger men was the best solution: it offered the attractiveness of "youth" to the strayer, it ensured that no virtuous women were defiled, it did not encourage men to actually break up their marriages and it was usually done only after a man had his own progeny, and it had the possible benefit of establishing mentoring relationships between older and younger men (from what I understand, there was actually very little sex going on). Most important: it was _never_ an "identity": it was something men did, not something they thought of themselves as "being". One sees this today in Arab cultures, where the ancient model is still practiced, and most of the "tops" would think you are crazy if you said they are "gay". Just to be clear, I am _explaining_ this phenomenon, not justifying or agreeing with it.

Contrast this with the modern phenomenon of homosexuality, which is characterized precisely by a destructive narcassism: it is a total identity, which has the effective result of shutting down a lineage (no progeny). It is highly "self" focused. It most definitely does harm marriages (those who never have them or those who ruin their marriages over it). It really is more the mark of a decadent and corrupt society than of any true underlying biological reality.

Note also that the modern homosexual movement has coopted ancient homosexuality for two perverse ends: 1. to justify the modern decadent version by equating the two and failing to draw the distinctions I have made above; and 2. when they do note the differences, to form a prelude to trying to gain acceptance for pedophilia.

Oscar Wilde is a good example of this. He is now held up as a "gay writer." The fact is he was a (pretty happily) married man with two sons. The daliance that led to his downfall was along the Greek model (of which Wilde himself was well aware: he was exceptionally well versed in the classical tradition), with a much younger man. If you read his De Profundus, you may come away (I certainly did) questioning whether his relationship with Douglas was sexual at all. In any case, this is just one example of how modern homosexuality has coopted and changed the narrative over history in order to further justify their own narcassistic decadence. (One could also argue that Wilde's case was a kind of transition point that had elements of both: Wilde was nothing if not narcassitic...)

One needs to really go off the beaten path into the alternative right in order to find interesting theories about homosexuality. Those interested may check out James O'Meara's "The Homo and the Negro" and Guillaume Faye's "Sex and Deviance".

Just to be clear: both the ancient and modern forms of homosexuality are distasteful at best, repulsive at worst, to me. But clarifying their differences is still an important intellectual exercise.

John Craig said...

Remnant --
Thank you for that analysis. We certainly see a surviving example of aha you're describing in Afghanistan today; that's gotten a little publicity recently. Some US soldiers had expressed disgust with the child molesting that was going over there -- among our allies, not the Taliban -- and had their careers suffer for it. My son said that when he was over there he saw "tea boys" whose obvious function was to service some of the Afghan National Army commanders.

But I take issue with your analysis on one count: i think for these older men to have relations with younger men, they had to be somewhat naturally inclined that way to start with. You say you find both forms of homosexuality repulsive; I do too. And I suspect our natural instincts are fairly widespread, and I also don't think that most human instincts have changed all that much over the centuries. So while society may have condoned homosexuality of the type the married Afghan national Army commanders display, or of the type that was exhibited in Sparta, I doubt that a high percentage of men necessarily partook of it.

I also suspect that there were homosexuals back then of the type who exist now, i.e., those for whom women were completely unattractive. If they married at all, it was only for show, and their desires would have remained pretty much exclusively focused on other men. Maybe they masqueraded as being of the "Sparta model" of bisexual man; but in fact I have to imagine that they were far more similar to today's homosexuals.

Rifleman said...

I read The New York Times wedding section.

Notice the high percentage of Jewish or half Jewish marriages? NYTimes very Jewish, very Democrat. Big surprise.

Goes to show that a big component of male homosexuality is simply narcissism.

Writer Christopher Hitchens seemed to be completely full of himself and a narcissist who apparently had gay relations in college. Later married with kids, would let his wife "work".

Another pattern that I see repeated fairly frequently is that gay guys who get married often marry guys to whom they bear a notable resemblance.

Maybe more of a male homo vs female homo issue. Seems to be a high number of lesbians where there is great difference in looks. Among black lesbos there is often the "stud" who is an ugly dude wannabe and the cute girl.

Most lesbians look like hell obviously but when there is a decent looking one she often can be seen with someone who is not so cute.

Steve Sailer has an interesting 20 year old article on Why Lesbians aren't Gay.

Also:

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2013/10/modern-family-venn-diagram-of-why.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_ZHP55gdjs&hd=1

Rifleman said...

Just found this commenter over at unz , smart guy.

Here is one comment on Saudi Arabia and gays:

I worked in the magic kingdom for a bit.

And the above article mirrors my experiences. The preferred method to get guys is for the cruiser to honk the horn. You can be standing on a street, waiting to cross and get honked at, multiple times. I had a coworker in his sixties who was propositioned by a taxi driver who offered him a rose. They are shameless about it.

I will also add, that there were a lot of men and boys there who were effeminate, not so much in their manner as in their physical appearance, lots of males with female hips and build to the point of real ambiguity, if they lived in less gender-segregated societies. Think of “Pat” from Saturday Night Live.

And thats just the tip. Saudi Arabia aids the argument that harsh punishment is not a deterrent for crime. (Not that I’m against harsh punishments. Punishment for punishment's sake is ok in my book)

John Craig said...

Rifleman --
I had noticed the high percentage of Jewish people getting married, though I'd say the percentage of Jewish people who get their obituaries published is even higher. That said, keep in mind that NYC in general has a much higher Jewish population. And that disproportion is nothing compared to the recent proportion of gay marriages reported on, which is way out of proportion to their numbers in the population. But the explanation of that is that gay marriage has just recently been legalized in various places.

Yes, I remember that Steve Sailer article. Very clever, very true. And while most lesbian couples feature two women who look like lesbians, the rich and successful lesbians still generally prefer a femme partner, as I wrote about here:

http://justnotsaid.blogspot.com/2014/08/what-type-of-women-do-lesbians-prefer.html

Just read several of Anowow's comments, yes, he is always on target. I'm amazed men are that open about it in a repressive society. I guess the laws against homosexuality aren't enforced all that strongly.

Anonymous said...

Never refrain from being snarky.

- Gardner

John Craig said...

Gardner --
Thank you, now I will be full throated.

Steven said...

Funny. I was accused of being snarky recently too...by chateau heartiste. I think he said I sounded like a snarky millenial. I said I'd like to put it on a t-shirt. I was trying a bit of agree and amplify ha.

John Craig said...

Steven --
Shhh!! (The above commenter hates CH.)

"Snarky" to me has overtones of "bitchy," though I suppose it can also mean witty.

Anonymous said...

Snarky = bitchy + clever.

So, yes there is a distinction.

- Gardner

Steven said...

Yes, that's what it means to me too John but I guess she's right that it involves some cleverness too.

If you see this Gardner, I'd be really interested to hear your opinion of CH. I wouldn't put much stock in a liberal feminist woman's predictable dismissal of him but a woman with your intellect and views and maturity, I'd really like to get your take. (not trying to flatter)

John Craig said...

Steven --
She's already expressed her view of CH (without actually naming him) on this blog, so I think I can answer for her: she basically despises him for his constant, unrelenting denigration of women.

I find him amusing and generally accurate myself, but I can certainly see how a woman would find him off-putting.

Steven said...

I'd still be interested to hear her analysis, if she's got something slightly more to say about it than that. Presumably she has reasons why he is wrong to denigrate them in that way or why some aspect of his philosophy is wrong or misguided. He's not a gangster who will track her down, is he?

Anonymous said...

I'll bite.

I am happily married to a great guy. If my husband showed me an iota of the disdain that I read on that blog our marriage would never last.

Man+woman = joy, but hard-earned joy. You go through tough things together. Life throws illness, death, money issues etc. at you. You rely on each other. You create something stronger than either of you could be individually. If you're lucky, you have children.

Referring to women as intellectual midgets incapable of rational thought, prone to incessant solipsistic "hamster" musings, lazy, vain, shallow who long to be "negged" (and even raped) is offensive to me. I see women do incredible things for their families and community every day. The things that, as cliched as it sounds, make a house a home and lives worth living.

Yes, modern culture has performed some strange voodoo on (especially young) men and women, entrancing them in such a way that they believe the opposite of what is plainly before them.

Are women FUNDAMENTALLY warped, inferior beings? I don't think so. But I am one.

However, if a guy thinks that, how can he possibly ever hope to attract a quality, decent woman? With magikal *game*? I don't think so. And would said guy know how to be a good man to this good woman? Doubtful. You become the things you do every day.

I enjoy the piercing of the veil on CH. Bullet holes of light illuminating the truth about modern society. Some of it is so spot on, and so funny, it's bracing and refreshing like a stiff drink on an August day.

But the relentless anger and insults make me sad for humanity.

Are these our choices? Brave new world or CH game? Yuk. I'll go carve pumpkins with my kids and hope that by the time they enter the dating market a third way has emerged.

- Gardner



Steven said...

Thanks Gardner,

I'd like to see your third way too.


The way I conceptualise it is this: men and women are ying and yang. They have opposing qualities or tendencies but their strengths and weaknesses are complimentary- the strengths of one balances the weaknesses of the other. Together they make a whole.


Physiologically, testosterone has a hardening effect on the mind and body; estrogen has a softening effect. Women tend to be more empathetic, tender, sensitive. Men are a bit more hard headed, aggressive, concerned with rationality and systems. The group needs both sets of qualities and is best when they are in balance.

Women do desire a manly man but men also desire a feminine woman. Even alpha males are driven to pair bonding and paternal investment...(whether they want to be monogamous is another question.) We need each other. Men need the care and tenderness, the softness, of the female side. Divorce's have more of an adverse effect on men than women and even alpha males want to be loved, want a caring woman, want companionship.

I think maybe a woman yearns for some of the qualities of the father in her husband while the man yearns for some of the qualities of the mother in his wife.

I also think female flaws can be exaggerated- I know enough women to know how rational and level headed they can be.

I don't want to make assumptions about anyone but I wonder if somebody who harbours hostility to women has really experienced the most positive and unconditional part of a woman's nature- motherly love and devotion. I like hard truths but there's also a maternal softness and love that makes the universe feel more hospitable.

In our society, women are encouraged to be more like men (including sexually) and men are encouraged to be more like women. Its underpinned by this philosophy that gender is socially constructed. At the same time, there is no religion to provide absolute morals, standards of behaviour and sacred value- traditional values are breaking down. The result is that society becomes more hedonistic and free of moral constraints. Its in this milieu that somebody like CH can be successful, delivering some hard evolutionary psychology/HBD truths and teaching guys how to make the most of the ample opportunities for casual sex.

Lastly, I have a baby niece and when she grows up, if young men think they can disrespect or mistreat her, they've got another thing coming! Precious goods- handle with care. Which just goes to show, we have a certain emotional attitude to women, and we all have a rationalisation hamster.

Steven said...

oh, his advice probably works, plus his intelligence is clearly remarkable, so there's that too. He's really worked some things out. Its just the whole world view....not really for me.

Steven said...


Also, I don't want to be manipulative. I might keep in mind one or two tips but I wont go all out manipulative. That sucks.

Anonymous said...

Are we hijacking your blog, JC?

I agree with your points, Steven.

We should always ask ourselves what our ultimate goal is in any given search, conflict or endeavor.

I would hope with relationships the goal would be happiness, but reading some blogs it seems the goal is revenge.

Of course, the old saying tells us that living well is the best revenge -- I believe living well is another way of describing "happiness."

- Gardenr

John Craig said...

Gardner --
FINALLY, a question directed at me.

No, you're not, always happy to hear your voice.