When is this industry going to have an open, honest discussion about how not getting enough trim in your younger years makes you especially vulnerable to these schemes once you acquire power and wealth?
I've seen 80 variations of this same story over the years.
Gates and Bezos slept around with younger women and lost more in divorces than 99.9999% of men could ever dream of making. Elon has recreated the backstabbing and infighting of imperial harem politics with a bunch of women he didn't even physically sleep with.
Despite his other failings you have to give Zuck credit for genuinely being a wholesome wifeguy by all appearances.
It’s a generational thing. Zuck is about the age when being nerdy became a perfectly normal thing in mainstream culture. When Gates and co were growing up their personality was the butt of jokes, and they’d be laughed at for trying to approach the “popular” kids.
Zuck apparently made a huge statue of his wife.
That seems like either the behavior of an extremely devoted husband or the behavior of a husband who cheats shamelessly and then gives her showy gifts to "make up for it"
More likely he watched "Scarface" one night and got the idea that's what cool people with money do.
With the blowups of 2 prominent "wifeguys" in recent years and Zuck's attempt at being more "masculine", as he called it, I'm suspecting it's the latter.
iirc, it originally was gonna be of himself but he changed it because that looked a bit too…on the nose.
I think the wife hates it.
Many of those with options see it as a badge of pride to stay loyal. One of those, ya I could if I wanted to but hey look I have self control…most of the time.
i know gates did and got a lot of stds. first i am hearing of bezos doing it.
Bezos i dont think is in the same bucket as gates. If you read about it, he was blackmailed for cheating and said f it and that is how his wife found out. Even then, he seems to be into…older women if his new wife is anything to go by.
Both of Bezos' wives are 6 years younger than him (he's 62 and both MacKenzie Scott and Lauren Sánchez are 56). Their ages are only noteworthy for being so completely not noteworthy for a rich guy. It seems like he has age-appropriate taste in women.
I think the implication was older than 18.
That could make sense. I assumed it was a dig at how his current wife has had a lot of bad work done.
I can see it now. A US national security program to get future CEOs laid more. What.
What did you think the Looksmaxxing movement was?
[dead]
I don't understand how anyone could not support that idea.
I mean that probably already exists in the broad sense of counter-intel. A premptive honeypot if you will.
I don't really understand the common wisdom that if you get enough when you're young, you won't want it later. It wasn't espionage, but Shannon Sharpe just lost a $100M ESPN media deal last year for chasing young tail, and he has been fit, wealthy, and famously a playboy surrounded by women since his early 20s if not earlier.
From what I have seen the truth is closer to the opposite; that you don't get it out of your system. You get it into your system. I'm afraid that if one truly wants to avoid these scandals you're better off following the Mike Pence playbook, not the Tony Stark one.
This.
Once you open pandoras box, you dont put it back in. It doesnt matter what age.
The whole, they didnt get enough when younger, sounds like a very strange weird explanation that falls flat when you think for more than 5s about it.
Why think about it and draw conclusions from there? That's not how science works. Why should something like sexual proclivities be treated any different? Do we think about how there must be a couple od basic elements and fire is one of them and it's inside the candle and that's how it all works? I mean, just think about it for more than five seconds! How else could a candle work unless the fire is already inside it!
Anyway, here's an actual study about sociosexuality that followed 288 men and those that got married and had kids showed a decrease in casual sex vs men who didn't.
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/famconfacpub/267/
I have no idea what you are talking about. Sounds like a nerve was struck.
What is the point of the study? I have seen it before. What does it prove?
I think that is a rather simplistic view of what motivates people.
I would at least like to see some statistics on how much early adulthood behaviour predicts particular later life behaviours before making any conclusions.
Rather than characterising things as 'getting enough trim' perhaps a broader education in dealing with the emotions of life might be more productive.
Likely never as that's an ego death many of these guys couldn't handle. They'd implode from shame.
I’m yet to see evidence that getting more in your youth makes you want less as you age.
In a society as transactional as ours (contemporary US culture) one must ask themselves "cui bono?" a hundred times a day. I'd imagine that if the answer is "me" enough times the one develops blind spots such as this one.
On the flip side novels have been written about the lies people tell themselves when they get romantically entangled with obvious troublemakers. Those plots didn't come from nowhere...
> how not getting enough trim in your younger years makes you especially vulnerable to these schemes once you acquire power and wealth?
I don't sure there is any connection. It is the same things regardless of your popularity in younger years.
It's not an unreasonable point, but let's not pretend these are naive chumps who crumble at the sight of a woman. In this case, Jensen could have been coordinating with intel agencies to feed disinformation or a honeypot honeypot. Obvious speculation, but clearly he understands the game on the table better than us. Still, it is a tactic as old as time, so I am sure plenty fall victim to some degree
they are probably gonna target these AI nerds next
universal basic girlfriend you say?
That needs to come with an additional allowance for pumpkin spice lattes.
> not getting enough trim in your younger years
Huh?
translation: not enough sex
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/trim (second noun sense, def #8)
For each of your 80 stories there are probably a dozen stories of former frat boys and Trump/Epstein types also being in compromising relationships.
I think it has much less to do with any individual's sexual history and much more to do with the rapacious/hypersexual elite culture in USA and elsewhere.
Gates and co were/are "Epstein types". They were just honeypotted by Mossad not China via the girls Epstein trafficked.
Don’t forget the Bilderberg Group, Bigfoot, and aliens!
Bigfoot and aliens don't exist. The human trafficking industry is very real. Don't be so dismissive.
wtf would that discussion even look like?
in addition to corporate aircraft, drivers, physicians, security, etc... it's high time boardrooms start provisioning high-performing CEOs with concubines.
i pray that this is a joke
Why? I think it is the most important thing. How can you get peak performance from the men, when they physiologically stop caring about all that important for capitalization stuff when they chasing the woman?
do the women get a say in your legally mandated capitalist harem?
He said concubine not slave. You have to be blind if you believe there aren't enough modern women who would be more than willing to have casual sex with a mil/billionaire for money when most of them already (try to) do that for free.
No, that’s just Musk’s alt account.
Maybe monogamy is not natural for men?
Mostly monogamous marriage is almost certainly a stable equilibrium given that you see it in societies all over the world that had no contact with each other and little in common otherwise. You see monogamous marriage in neolithic europe as well as among native americans.
I suspect that before the invention of agriculture and ownership of land, serial monogamy with occasional fooling around was the most prevalent relationship style. Once people could develop wealth they started worrying about passing it down to their children and that led to more settling down.
because rich fucks can't keep it in their pants? how would that be indicative of anything?
I think you just proved his point without noticing.