Reader Hector_St_Clare writes,
Re: Humans are a pair-bonding species with polygynous tendencies.
To be more accurate, humans are a pair bonding species with *mild* polygynous tendencies.
To be even more accurate, humans are a pair bonding species with mild tendencies towards male polygyny and covert female promiscuity.
Hector is mostly correct. It’s a myth that humans evolved for lifelong, monogamous relationships, but it’s also a myth that we are sex machines rigged to copulate orgiastically with whomever presents for a ravaging, a la Sex at Dawn.
Humans appear, from the gathered evidence, to be a cross between chimps and bonobos in sociosexual behavior and attitude. There is strategic female promiscuity, but there is also female preference for monogamy. There is male desire for sexual variety, but there is also male jealousy and mate guarding. The glans ridge on male penises indicates that men evolved to scoop out competitor sperm from presumably slutty women, but the flush of oxytocin released in the female brain after sex indicates that women evolved to strongly attach to lovers for longer than a night.
There are many more examples of the inherent contradictory nature of human sexuality like the above. Further complicating the picture is the growing evidence that these sexual predispositions vary by continental race; jealousy, promiscuity, mate guarding, cuckoldry, polygyny, and even female preference all vary in kind and degree depending where you are in the world. There are certainly human sexuality universals, but these universals are modified by unique environmental pressures.
The bottom line is that people who claim lifelong monogamy is the natural state of humanity absent cultural interference are wrong, and people who claim free love is the natural state of humanity absent cultural constraints are also wrong. The truth, as always, is a lot uglier than either side would have you believe.
fuck that shit. i’ve learned from matt king that you can simply will yourself into changing your biological and chemical makeup. the problem here is that more people aren’t worshiping jesus AND hating blacks. ch, you need to learn to pray… PRAY HARD!
LikeLike
Will yourself into changing biochemical makeup? You believe that? You must be one easy sale…
LikeLike
Jesus was a Joo.
LikeLike
but only on his mother’s side.
LikeLike
Shit Yeah!
LikeLike
His mother was from Galilee “of the Gentiles”.
LikeLike
She was descended fron the Aaronic line. Jesus was from the elites of Hebrew society
LikeLike
That’s all it takes.
LikeLike
The jewish establishment didnt really get along with Him
LikeLike
You think Christianity would’ve gotten anywhere if it had NOT been started by the Js?
LikeLike
OK geniuses, let a libtard lecture: Christianity arose during the Roman Empire, when I believe a majority of Romans were slaves.
Its revolutionary idea, a product of the spiritual genius of Christ ( who I consider to have been a schizophrenic genius, not a divinity) was that each human being had a soul and had value.
Let me repeat so you can note it between gun-cleanings, and looking out the window for Muslims:
Each human being has a soul and value.
This was a revolutionary idea at the time, and is exquisitely beautiful and the foundation for all human progress toward the divine.
It is the only idea that doesn’t leave us in a deep, bloody muck of continual, looping retribution.
LikeLike
Straw-man. Outmanned.
LikeLike
Not a straw-man. Here’s a recent quote from Matt:
“I have an attraction to damaged bipolar sluts. But after years of getting to know them intimately, I have developed a gut instinct against their advertisement of easy energetic sex because I have experienced the ugliness such “easiness” presages.
You most certainly can help what you are attracted to, and that help only begins by “exerting control over the expression of that attraction.”
How many times do you have to shock a dog with the invisible fence before he associates pain with a certain patch of territory?”
It is entirely reasonable for me to satirize Matt – as I did above – based on comments like that. Matt believes, in some form or another, that you can “train” yourself to deny your impulses.
LikeLike
For the record, I don’t deny you can “deny” your impulses. But, they still exist. We feels what we feels, man. Here’s what I wrote in response to Matt’s woefully ignorant theory:
“I don’t think that comparison works. I have a hound dog with an incredible pedigree. He is bred to track and to tree large game. He’s very good at it. However, like all dogs, he needs to understand that there is a time a place for the utilization his skills – namely, when the fuck I say it is OK.
So, as part of his training, I utilized a “shock collar.” He now realizes that there are things he is not ALLOWED to do. However, that doesn’t change the simple fact that his instinct will flare-up every time he is confronted with certain stimuli.
That motherfucker’s instinct doesn’t give a single shit that he’s not allowed to jump on the counters or to chase after deer in the backyard. While it is certainly true that he won’t do those things because he knows he will get shocked/I will beat his ass, he still WANTS to do them with every fibre of his being. Each time he sees some food on the counter or a animal he’d like to chase, he has to make a decision to listen to his training rather than his instinct.
In much the same way, if you want to suck cock, but don’t allow yourself to do so, you still want to suck cock. Nothing you’ve suggested here refutes what CH posited.”
LikeLike
You’re splitting hairs for the most tedious of personal reasons. Though it is a sight better than your usual ad hominem, so let me encourage this over that.
Yes, we still get vestigial tingles, but the disciplined man can eradicate even those. It would help if you had a serious, complex discipline to which you might relate my rather basic observation (made controversial only for purposes of sucking the host’s dick). Do you not have one acquired skill you can perform effortlessly, like simple arithmetic without counting fingers and toes or reading without moving your lips?
LikeLike
Here comes yaokcool and the rest of the retard brigade. I’m really beginning to wonder why CH allows you idiots to pollute his comments section.
LikeLike
Perhaps it amuses him to watch mental midgets capering about.
LikeLike
I agree.
LikeLike
I’m a librul tard and I like it here. It’s the only place I can find wingnuts who are even dumber than me. Hey, Red State subsidy welfare recipients, can you take some more of my Californiamoney please?
LikeLike
You really are dumb if you believe that latest of lefty strawman. Drill down on those numbers a bit and see where the money goes. You’re a blue state genius, you should be able to understand that level of subtlety and nuance. You Blue states are the ones with all the welfare. Higher cost of living = higher wages but lower standard of living, and more taxes. Federal retirees leave NY and go to NC because they can live better on the same money.
LikeLike
That really goes for the whole pissing contests. It gets old. Just scroll past it.
LikeLike
He allows pollution because flamers flame themselves out quickly, like cheap firecrackers. When their insecure, unsolicited bleating gains no traction they remove themselves of their own accord. Trolls starve when you don’t feed them, even the most resourceful, cockroach-like ones.
And every now and then, a dedicated hater will realize his animus is more spontaneous and internal than it has anything to do with others. If he’s strong enough, he will shed his anxieties and defect to the right side. I for one try to keep a door open for such honest people.
The truth will out. Once you realize this, you can have great confidence in the face of the hatred which all truthtellers must endure.
Besides, censorship is for weak sites run by frightened webmasters with no identity. A loyal readership is self-policing, as you and others demonstrate in this very thread.
But most important: all the dross of reflexive pipsqueakery is worth the rare genuine criticism that would otherwise be discarded along with the haters’ output. Real criticism is gold, and gold is hard to get. I will take a thousand trolls venting their frustrations over a thousand spam posts for a single instance of genuine critique.
Matt
LikeLike
it is very simple, actually. we are clickbait, matt. that’s it and that’s all.
LikeLike
“His disciples said to Him, “If the relationship of a man with his wife is like this, it’s better not to marry!”
Monogamy is not natural – it’s supernatural – love, being an act of the will, isn’t anything born of our biomechanical socioevolutionary hardwiring.
HERE IS THE DEAL KIDS:
Contemporary “cathedral hivemind frankfurt school” would have us believe that love = ❤ feelings <3. But this is retarded for obvious reasons – feelings come and go and are stimulated by novelty and those who reject us/judge us, and a whole host of other exploitable phenomena that we speak about here.
Thanks CH for reading my mail about MT – I saw you drop the word a couple posts ago. Reframe what you're thinking about in terms of evo-psych into the movements of desire. It's not that evo-psych is wrong – just incomplete. It tries to make sense of a dynamic system with a static structure of observable and plausible phenomena.
Matt King I ❤ you. I ❤ you a lot, but you seem to be on your rag lately. YaRlly is right that you're being a bit of a bitch as of the last few days – probably out of exhaustion in preaching to the heathen. Shake the dust from your feet and get back to the gold. Some will listen, some will look for any excuse not to hear the Gospel – whaddya gonna do?
To blow thy mind a little further – enjoy this controversial premise:
Despite the differences in hardwiring between men and women (inbalances of gray and white matter – sex differences – hormonal differences – etcetcetc) HUMAN desire works the same for men and women. IT ALWAYS WANTS WHAT IT CANT HAVE – AND IT ESPECIALLY WANTS WHATEVER ITS RIVAL WANTS/HAS. For more on this, check this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNkSBy5wWDk – dropping this gold here is surely tossing pearls before swine, but at least a few of you (Matt King, and fellow Jesuits, will swoon before the Truth)
Pax Tecum
LikeLike
No, I’m actually spermulating pretty hard.
Beware my rag’s wrath, for I will squeeze its bloody poisons over you, and you will be cast about as though a dinghy upon the angry crimson tide. Drown will you in my Johannine Tempest.
LikeLike
Awful fond of Jesuits, eh?
LikeLike
lzozozozozozoz
hey maatt you misssppeleld some thingz
here i have correctted demz lzzozozo:
He allows pollution because flaming matt kings flame themselves out quickly, like cheap firecrackers. When matt kings insecure, unsolicited bleating gains no traction matt kings never remove themselves of their own accord. matt kings starve when you don’t feed them, even the most resourceful, cockroach-like ones.
And every now and then, matt king will realize his animus is more spontaneous and internal than it has anything to do with others. If he’s strong enough, he will shed his anxieties and defect to the right side .matt king for one try to keep a door open for such honest people.
The truth will out. Once you realize this, you can have great confidence in the face of the hatred which all truthtellers must endure.
Besides, censorship is for weak sites run by frightened webmasters with no identity. A loyal readership is self-policing, as you and others demonstrate in this very thread.
But most important: all the dross of reflexive matt king’s pipsqueakery is worth the rare genuine criticism that would otherwise be discarded along with the matt kings’ output. Real criticism is gold, and gold is hard to get. I will take a thousand matt kings venting their frustrations over a thousand spam posts for a single instance of genuine critique.
Matt
lzozozozozoz
LikeLike
What about feministX??:LOL!
LikeLike
RUH-ROH: It looks like the prosecution understands HBD and Game Theory better than the defense in the Zimmerman case:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/20/six-women-picked-as-jurors-in-george-zimmerman-trial/
“The six final jurors are all women – five are white and one is Hispanic.”
Look for the prosecution to push hard on the Stanley Ann Dunham/Lindsay Boehner wet-between-the-legs jungle fever for Saint Trayvon the Martyr.
I sure hope the defense knew what they were doing.
‘Cause unless one of them white chicks is a gun-toting home-schooling evangelical mother of ten, then I’m seeing five votes against Zimmerman before the trial even starts.
LikeLike
> “five are white and one is Hispanic”
BTW, check out the subtle anti-white subliminalism you get even at an outlet like Fox News: “Hispanic” is capitalized, but “white” is lower-case.
LikeLike
Hispanic is a race, as is Caucasian. White is a colloquialism.
LikeLike
No, Hispanic is not a race.
LikeLike
Dollars to donuts says Miss Emma is Tribe.
Or should I say, “tribe”?
LikeLike
That women are permitted on a jury is tragic. It is incontrovertible science that women are incapable of reasoning logically. Even feminists admit as much. Women make all decisions based only on EMOTION.
LikeLike
Fallacy.
You’re conveniently ignoring the millions of women who teach math, do scientific research, practice law, make change at a cash register, etc. Those things require logic.
Furthermore, my wife served on a jury. She was the only one fighting to hear all the evidence. All eleven others, both MALE and FEMALE, just wanted to convict and go home. Seriously, they didn’t give one drip of runny crap.
NAWALT is *not* a fallacy. But sweeping generalizations are.
Try signing your name next time.
LikeLike
successful voir dire requires considerable attention to details and nuances. it is a (very) thinly veiled secret that ALL lawyers engage in some variation of picking juries based on race/gender/national origin. we simply cannot know enough about a juror based on a few questions in limited time, so it really does work to a lawyer’s advantage to trade in stereotypes and racial prejudices. i do it all the time. however, you need to understand that blacks and women respond differently to different kinds of stimuli. don’t count the defense out. i think they know what they’re doing.
LikeLike
> “i think they know what they’re doing.”
Jesus, I hope so.
Jesus Christ, I hope so.
‘Cause if there are a bunch of Stanley Ann Dunhams on that jury, then my man Zimmerman is toast.
LikeLike
“will yourself into changing your biological and chemical makeup.”
Not changing, but repressing.
LikeLike
Then Matt King may be right. Through prayer (meditation) you can actually deactivate some genes. Google “genes meditate”
LikeLike
“Are Humans A Pair Bonding Species?”
YES!!! DEY ARE!! DA GBFM HAVEZ PRROFS! LAST NIGHTZ SHE BONDED WITH MY PAIR OF GONADS ZLZOZLZOZOZZZZO IN HER MEOUTHSZ ZLZOlzlzlozlzozzlozzzoz SHE IS A PAIR BONDING SPEICETESZ!! lzozlzlzlzlzlo
LikeLike
Pray for Zimmerman man, he’s agot a bitch as a judge and the jury is ALL BITCHES >……<
LikeLike
“The truth, as always, is a lot uglier than either side would have you believe.”
Trudat.
And as a master seducer, one would do well to keep this in mind, and protect himself from getting too attached to any particular woman on one end, and completely becoming non discriminating on the other.
LikeLike
I, Subway Masturbator approve of this message and leave my signature on the next mass transit seat on which you will alight.
LikeLike
“covert female promiscuity” simply means hypergamy, right? I’m surprised you wrote that post without managing to use that word.
LikeLike
If I’m not confusing the terms, “covert female promiscuity” means women try to cheat and not get caught. Hypergamy means women are attracted to men of higher social status than themselves.
LikeLike
‘Covert female promiscuity’ means that a woman marries the doctor and has a fling with the 18-year old gardener on the side.
LikeLike
Off topic but this review of Men on Strike could almost be written by CH 😉
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/06/19/why-men-are-going-galt-a-review-of-men-on-strike/
LikeLike
Women are monogamous, if you fall in love with one man and marry him this man becomes your everything, your definition of what is a man, the only man you want and desire. Men I believe struggle with polygamous tendencies, I think men often desire the novelty of something new. But I know a alot of faithful married men, men can be faithful, it will not be easy when you are married for one lifetime but it is possible. I think it is better for men to not marry so young.
LikeLike
“Women are monogamous”
LOL
LikeLike
They are by nature.. It is only changing because in these modern times women are becoming like men and are leaning towards desiring multiple partners.
LikeLike
Are you new here? I think somebody needs to go back to the basics
LikeLike
Read “The Red Queen”.
LikeLike
Monogamy and hypergamy are at tension with one another. And certainly you aren’t denying hypergamy?
LikeLike
lzozozozoz
so why did helen leave her husband for paris in da iliad 2800 years ago?
why did eve suck on the serpents lotsas cockas when she had adam in da very first book of da BIBLE?
lzozozolozozoz
da anceints recognized the base lusting gina and butt tinglezlzoozoz of owmenz
and dey created da GREAT BOOKS FOR MENSZ and HONOR MYTHOLOGY HONOR TEN COMMANDMANETNTS to keep a womans clit in her pants zlzlzozozozoozoz
why are womenz deocnstructing and debauching da GREAT BOOKS FOR MENZ??
why do womenzlzo never cite HOMER nor MOSES nor JESUS nor VIRGILZ in all der rmablingsz and books like TWILIGHT (TWATLIGHT) and EAT, PRAY, BUTTHEX?
zlozlzoz
lzozozozozlozozozlzoz
LikeLike
If a woman is happy with her husband she will not look for another one. I have no interest in eat pray love as I find it quite depressing. but these kind of books depict unbalanced women. its difficult for me to understand your writing .. but I try to answer you the best I can. Eve did no such thing. She ate the apple which was her mistake but she wasn’t unfaithful, there wasn’t even any other men to be unfaithful with so that is not true. I don’t know why Helen left her husband, maybe he was unable to make her happy. If a woman is being fulfilled in every way a husband should fulfill her she won’t look elsewhere. If she loves him anyway she won’t look elsewhere. If she does, it means there is something very wrong and the marriage is as good as over.
LikeLike
lzoozozo
r u a fucking isisididotz?
da serpent in da bible with the apple is METAPHOR for da LOTSAS COCKASAZ womenz buttsz and ginas tingel zlz foror
when adam takes his eyeds off eve, der she goes off listening to da SEPRETN da LOTASSA COCKASZ
what does a snake represent? have u ever seen a snake? or a weiner? do dey not look alike? is it any wonder da GBFM’s nickname was da PYTHON and da VIPER COBRAMAX? lzlzozoozozozozolzo
you write, ” I don’t know why Helen left her husband, maybe he was unable to make her happy.”
have u fucking read the fucking iliad even?
oh wait u HATE DA GREAT BOOKS FOR MENZ and go
“la de da la de da la de da if she’s not happppy den it’s time to start the fucking trojan war lzlzlozozozoozozz”
LikeLike
Classic Female comment: “If a woman is being fulfilled in every way a husband should fulfill her she won’t look elsewhere.”
One has to ask: What if the man isn’t being fulfilled? [Note: see David Petraeus]
LikeLike
If the husband is making love to her regularly, I meant to imply that with my comment(I didn’t really want to say it outright). And also if he doesn’t hit her, and treats her well. She has to meet his needs too. They have to meet each others needs.
LikeLike
God ur dumb
LikeLike
so why did helen leave her husband for paris in da iliad 2800 years ago?
Because Paris gave Helen gina tingles and Red Haired Menelaus, Lord of the Warcry, did not, although ten times the man Paris could ever hope to be.
LikeLike
Yes a woman deeply in love is monogamous. A woman who has an ALPHA MALE, who takes care of his family, leads others when it’s needed and benefits the community and more importantly, his family, is loyal to him. There just happens to be a very small amount of men like this, especially in this era, in the western world.
A true Alpha would have little trouble maintaining a few wives, and other women would be desperate for him.
“And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.”
LikeLike
Personally, and I haven’t read much on the subject so take it with a grain of salt, I’m just going by my experience here, but I would say women do tend to be monogamous.
The catch is they’re monogamous to who they believe is the highest value man…aka Hypergamy, always looking for the higher value. But once they HAVE that man, they tend to be monogamous to him. It’s why I don’t worry about my GFs cheating and the vast majority of my fuckbuddies over the years don’t fuck other guys…because to them I’m the highest value man, and they aren’t looking to rack up quantity, they want quality. It’s why I can set an Open Relationship frame but know that my girl won’t fuck other guys…she doesn’t want a bunch of cocks, she wants the best cock. So as long as you stay high value to her, she’s monogamous to you because her Hypergamy means she has no interest in fucking lesser men.
The problem that fucks it all up and creates the whole “cock carousel cheating whore” thing we have now is that value is variable. It changes over time, it can change in an instant like a boyfriend failing a shit-test and his girl cheating that night, or a girl on a date sees a higher value guy walk in the room, or it can change over years as a badass alpha man lets his girl beta’ize him and he becomes lamer and lamer until she cheats on him with the dominant alpha boss at her office.
I think a lot of men think “once I get money and a 6-pack and a car and a wedding ring on her finger I’m set!! I won!!” And they think their value will stay there with their girl…they don’t realize that she’ll keep shit-testing him even after marriage (bossing him around, not having sex anymore, etc) and he has to actively continue working on himself as a man and not slouch and just become a vegetating couch potato watching reality TV.
That’s the main reason marriage is a shitty deal…getting legally tied to a woman in a lopsided contract where she has nothing to lose and you have everything to lose, is voluntarily removing your ability to soft/hard next her for shitty behavior AND it encourages her to whittle you down and leave you once she has…and you can’t do anything to prevent that whittling because it means losing your money, kids, etc and possibly going to jail if you can’t pay child support on kids she brainwashed into believing you raped them.
Like, getting married is giving her all the power that she needs YOU to have. She needs you to be able to soft/hard next her when she tests you because she needs to know that you’re still the solid oak tree of a man that she fell for so that she can continue to be attracted to you.
I think if more men understood that their value is something they have to actively maintain, and that women will go for the highest-value man, and that marriage is giving away your ability to be a high-value man, we’d have either less men marrying or more married men figuring out how to keep their value in marriage, and either one is a solid path. The whole MMSL method of turning your marriage around is based around restoring your value that you let slip.
Once again I link these two clips:
LikeLike
Those are some solid videos from RSD Julien
LikeLike
if you’re not careful, you just might learn something from YaReally
great post
LikeLike
Just curious, how do you KNOW the girls aren’t fucking other guys?
LikeLike
When their behavior shifts to being “above reproach”.
When they don’t go out partying, dress modestly, wear whatever jewelry you bought them that makes it obvious they’re in a relationship, and stop hanging out much with single friends who might get them into trouble.
Some sneaky women may still do what they do, but if you choose women who are submissive, it’s unlikely that they’re going to stray unless or until a higher status man offers them a more solid commitment.
Having an ambiguity phase is a pretty good test. If she starts the shift when you’re talking but not sure if you want to be in a relationship with her yet, then you can fairly safely assume this will continue once the relationship solidifies.
Again, some women are just wrong and play a good game, but this is what normally happens.
LikeLike
This.
Also I have a lot of experience being “the other guy” so I know what to look for. My girls might cheat if they meet someone they consider higher value than me, but there IS no one they consider higher value than me, because I am fucking awesome.
LikeLike
Also remember its not whether I’m objectively higher value than another man in your eyes or society’s eyes, it’s only in her eyes that it matters. I have higher overall value in her eyes than her favorite celebrity does (who might be higher in certain categories but not overall). The same dynamic is why women stay with drug dealing shitty men etc. despite their friends telling them he’s shitty…his value is low to everyone else but to HER it’s high.
LikeLike
“…marriage is giving away your ability to be a high-value man.”
This can be true or not true.
It depends on a number of variables — the wife’s character, her society’s culture, social pressures (or lack thereof) that shame adultery.
We forget now, but there was a time when a woman who shagged outside her marriage was shunned and shamed as a whore. These days she’s more likely to get accolades for being a strong, independent woman whose husband wasn’t meeting her needs. Given women’s sensitivity to social pressure, this was a powerful disincentive.
I married in Asia. It’s possible to keep hand in a marriage relationship here due to a more favorable cultural, social and legal environment. It would be way harder (impossible?) to do it in the US.
LikeLike
I’m Orthodox Christian but I know in Islam if a women commits adultery it is punishable by being stoned to death. But my sister is marrying a practicing Muslim and he’s great.
LikeLike
lol your sister is a fucking moron.
LikeLike
If you think it is fine that she is marrying a Muslim and there isn’t a mention that of HIS converting, then you aren’t really a christian your just going through the motions. All religions are not equal.
LikeLike
I don’t think it is fine but what can I do? This is a long story in my family that I would prefer not to go into to. Ultimately she is my sister and I love her and I cannot change her mind. This is not a recent development.
LikeLike
Have you confronted him with the “stoning” detail? Maybe he isn’t narrow and dumb enough to have her stoned to death if she gets drunk one night and has a fling. BUt you just TRUST that shit to you impressions?
Religion infects mind in the low-level BIOS realm and can take over the “mind” of a religious person in a way that highly contrasts with their everyday behavior.
LikeLike
My sister does not touch alcohol she is a very pious woman. She dresses very modestly and has very strong religious beliefs. My sister was always like my best friend but this religion thing has come between us on some occasions. I am a Christian but I have no interest in politics.. but I believe as Christians we need to pray for Israel as it is our Holy land. So one day when I mentioned this my sister got angry because of the whole Israel/Palestine thing and I told her “you are my sister, I’m not talking about politics/religion with you anymore because I don’t want to lose you over our differences”. My sister is well aware of Koranic scripture and the consequences of infidelity etc. But she would never be unfaithful anyway. I can’t talk about this things with her anymore, I won’t leave Christ and she is a Muslim now so she obviously disagrees with me. But as far as her marrying a Muslim one, at least he is a good man.
LikeLike
“We forget now, but there was a time when a woman who shagged outside her marriage was shunned and shamed as a whore.”
I agree. THAT’S when marriage was a good deal for men. But:
“These days she’s more likely to get accolades for being a strong, independent woman whose husband wasn’t meeting her needs.”
That’s my point. A guy willingly signing up for marriage right now is insane and tossing away the ability to keep hand in his relationship…the hand that his woman’s hypergamous instincts NEED him to keep. If men understood this concept it would change society…but the blue pill world rejects it despite how obvious and logical it is lol
LikeLike
The first clip is partly true but also partly bullshit.
Unless you are born into money or can make good money fairly easily and without working stupidly long hours then the vast majority of men have limited choices as to the pursuit of what the clip covers.
Money; if anything, gives you options.
On the other hand, say that you don’t have money, then sure, when you are young (20’s through to mid 30’s at best) then you can play the game but your lack of options due to lack of $ $ $ and/or the ability to make it will soon become obvious and hit home, hard.
Finally, not considering what a woman is bringing to the table and what she is bringing and offering “the relationship” and you as a man is naïve at best and fraught with future disappointment.
LikeLike
I would also say that this is why it’s tough if not impossible to pick up a girl who’s deeply in love with her man and believes he’s super high value. Doesn’t matter what tactics I use, that chick won’t fuck me if she’s happily in a relationship. Even if she finds me attractive, if I can’t come off as higher value than her man she’ll stay loyal to him.
I think we get an illusion of women being promiscuous simply because we don’t look at the men in their lives and how their value goes up/down over time and in various circumstances. We assume its the women at fault but they’re following logical Hypergamous programming.
If a hungry lion eats antelope and the other lion he was chilling with and had no plans to eat, turns into an antelope…well, he’s gonna follow his programming lol
LikeLike
A married woman shouldn’t be out running around conversing with other men who have questionable intentions with her anyway. So it shouldn’t be an issue.
LikeLike
Ya of course, I forgot married women are to be chained and locked in a basement. Lol
LikeLike
When you use “should” you know your reasoning has disconnected with the real, external world and has fallen apart.
LikeLike
Of course married women aren’t supposed to be locked and chained in a basement. But common sense is necessary, certain surroundings are asking for drama.. a married woman shouldn’t be going out to clubs and bars for men to hit on her.
LikeLike
monosyllabic maybe.
LikeLike
bitch is you retarded???
LikeLike
Unnecessary to call me that word
LikeLike
my bad, didnt mean to insult retards everywhere
LikeLike
Lol
LikeLike
Embracing, you are a better catch than any of these guys are ever going to find. They must know this on some level. I see that they like to bully you at every opportunity even when there is no sensible cause for such behavior. They really want to talk to you, but they only think that behaving within the expectations of normal civility would be “white knighting”, so they don’t want to lose face by being nice to you (and if one of them were nice to you, the others would mock him as beta for it).
I ladore you, so I hope you leave this place. You live in a world of ideals and purity, and I would hate to see this place of bitter pathetic men turn you into one more cynic in the modern world. You want to be female, and you want to be feminine. The process of striving for that makes you warm and welcoming and beautiful. And you want a man to be masculine, which means he should be strong and dominant and romantic and protective and even chauvinistic, but in the all the charming ways. And this place is somewhere where men strive to be masculine, but they do not look strong and admirable in the pursuit of that. The successful accomplishment of masculinity is attractive, but the mechanics that underlie it are as ugly as possible, apparently. Boys here want to be dominant, so they childishly bully the warm and kind with no cause as they either cannot conceive of a better way of becoming dominant or they are not motivated to try.
I wish men who fancied themselves as masculine were as beautiful as you fashion them to be in your mind and not the angry offensive brats they actually are. I fear that it may grow harder for you to hold on to your ideal of maleness as admirable and strong if you remain in a pit like this, constantly exposed to their petty viciousness.
I can stay here because I was godless and amoral to begin with and always happy to acquaint myself with the real nature of things, no matter how ugly. But you are sweeter than that. You are like an angel that doesn’t belong on the ugly and littered little earth.
LikeLike
you’re taking this whole internet thing a little too seriously
LikeLike
Yet here you are.
LikeLike
In other words, stay away from your man.
LikeLike
Excellent example of how a lesbian hits on a woman feministx, well done. Guys, this won’t work for you.
LikeLike
Thank you. I have bi crush on embracing, but I like her as a person in general. I have hetero crush too.
LikeLike
Thank you Fem that was so sweet to read. Thank you for the compliments. I understand what you mean, that guy Adam shouldn’t have called me b*tch but I didn’t really allow it to upset me because I think hey, this is the internet, he has no idea whether I am a b*tch or not, so it renders his insult kind of meaningless. Unnecessary and disrespectful definitely, but not of much consequence to me because I do not know him and he does not know me so his analysis of me is not based on reality so doesn’t reflect on me negatively in any way. I am quite passive in that way, however if it were based on fact, or if a man called me a bitch in real life I would feel upset.
I agree that there is such a confusion between what is a real masculine man and a boy who is desperately trying to be masculine, but doesn’t really know how to so he just acts like a mean bully in the mean time. I will never give my time to those kind of boys, only my prayers, that they will one day and grow up and realize that a real man who is strong and masculine, doesn’t have to be a bad person, a real man is a protector and wouldn’t dream of stepping on the feelings of a woman in order for him to feel like a man. Instead he will appreciate her gentleness and she will allow him and encourage his masculinity and his right to be in charge. Contrary to what others may believe, I am lucky to know alot of good masculine men exist. They know they are dominant, they know they are strong, but they are also good men.
I comment on here if I see something that catches my eye, I am in the house most of the time, and having recently started trying to write on a blog, I thought I would check out some other blogs too. If I see something too offensive, I just choose not to comment. Maybe I will continue to comment, maybe I won’t. It depends. Now I have free time after my housework and cooking and gardening is done so I spend some time on the internet, but I’m also aware that the internet is often times not a correct interpretation of the real world. People hiding behind their computer screens can call me what they wish, but thank God I have never been verbally abused for no reason in reason. So that’s good.
I thank you again for your sweet comment, I strive to be the best woman I can be, as I think we all should. There’s always room for improvement, but we can all get there, one day at a time. You also are so pretty, and more intelligent than I could ever imagine being. I am more of a simple person, I am not stupid but I was also never going to be a doctor. But that doesn’t matter to me, because I am happy sewing and cooking and taking care of others when I can. You on the other hand, are something special because you have brains and beauty which is a wonderful combination.
LikeLike
Will you give your prayers to the millions of spoiled brat princess white girls who won’t be real women, who are the reason for this country’s fall and zillions of tons of hurt and pain among good, decent, normal white men who can’t find a woman to give them children? Or is it all men’s fault?
LikeLike
“I thank you again for your sweet comment, I strive to be the best woman I can be, as I think we all should. There’s always room for improvement, but we can all get there, one day at a time. You also are so pretty, and more intelligent than I could ever imagine being. I am more of a simple person, I am not stupid but I was also never going to be a doctor. But that doesn’t matter to me, because I am happy sewing and cooking and taking care of others when I can. You on the other hand, are something special because you have brains and beauty which is a wonderful combination.”
Thanks Embs. Though you may call yourself simple, I think you have a high degree of self awareness and access to your emotions, which is very valuable in life. I find you likable, not just because you are of such kind temperament, but because you have an openness that lets you freely express all your layers of intuition.
I am glad you are my e-friend now. You help me feel better each day.
LikeLike
Oh man, these two are ready to “do it”, clear the subway car…
LikeLike
She has a point, a lot of guys here mistake masculinity for being an asshole. Cad game has its limitations.
LikeLike
Shhh.
LikeLike
However, to be fair, the cad gameists have a point. Of course the lifestyle “has its limitations,” but our culture has exaggerated those limitations so comprehensively that pro-caddists’ All Asshole All The Time policy can be regarded as simple redress. In a world of publicly venerated (and secretly despised) niceguys, the asshole is the balancing factor.
The danger, though, is mistaking means for ends and taking our eyes off the endgame, which this site often does. Its dumber and more enthusiastic acolytes then begin worshiping throwaway observations like a cargo cult, and suddenly they think it’s cool to be “Dark Triad” to little old ladies.
It’s like the trashy celebrity culture fucking everything in sight, marrying divorcing marrying divorcing, crashing their sports cars, telling cops to fuck off, sexdrugsnrocknroll livefastdieyoung. A celebrity usually has the resources for lawyers, alimony, rehab, and all the many bailouts required by hedonism, whereas the everyman practitioner of that lifestyle is stuck strung out in his trailer with six obese kids cutting on themselves. No class. They don’t understand that the Hollywood lifestyle creates the Jerry Springer life for everyone except celebrities (and sometimes even them too, Lindsay).
But like every discussion on the ADHD internet, nuance gets lost. Subtle disagreement = ur sucha beta lol
Matt
LikeLike
The only time being an asshole is not masculine is when you do not possess enough brute force to back it up.
LikeLike
Good luck fighting against the world your whole life, soldier.
LikeLike
On any blog the commenters likely have 1/10 the potential of the blog master they worship and here is no different. There’s nothing complex about it. Half are still desperate for pua strategies and would be happier watching rsd videos learning to mimic the behavior of drunk party girls instead of understanding something about civilization and how to further it.
LikeLike
Gay
LikeLike
50 shades of ghey
LikeLike
Nice counter-punch!!! I say sock it to these leering, mocking paleoturds. Long live romance! Even if it’s false, look what the cynics have in comparison. “Truth”? Yes, I’m sure it’s just as great as being in love. Really.
LikeLike
This is true if the woman really loves her man. Game for me, is about putting out the signals that will make her love him in this way.
LikeLike
That reason has always seemed like complete BS to me. A significant portion comes out all by itself pretty quickly.
LikeLike
Yuck. Reminds me of Sam Kinisons hilarious “Leper Sex” skit. A leper is fucking a woman and his dick comes off;he pulls it out and lo and behold he discovers,”Hey wait a minute,its not MY dick! Leper whore! Leper whore!”
LikeLike
It’s all tautology.
Unlike every other science, the “science” of bioevolution (and especially evolutionary psychology) takes the truth of a thing and retrofits the evidence to the theory.
In every other science, fact generates theory. One observes facts which circumscribe any explanation for why those facts are the way they are. To the evo-psycho, he already has in his possession the infallible explanation, and all that remains is the clever/artistic conjecture for how to cram the facts in there. Theory drives fact. Any sufficiently creative person can play that game. But there’s no observe-control-experiment-theorize, i.e., science, going on anywhere.
So you get penis-cumscooper stories and cleavage-buttcrack hypotheses and hogamus higamous man is polygamous. None of it provable or falsifiable by experiment, which, before the cult of Darwin, was the mark of the scientific method.
Such a practice already has a name, and it isn’t science. It’s called religion. The cult of science is science’s worst enemy. Rather than preserving its idol’s unique explanatory power and integrity, scientism puts the Great Method on the shelf next to all the world’s faiths with some creepy zoologist as its forever-proselytizing Pope.
I mean, this list should give an honest observer pause:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_cleric%E2%80%93scientists
Keep in mind, those are just the clerics, not the laymen faithful. For the love of Darwin, the first geneticist was a monk (Mendel). The big bang theory that “disproves creation”? First proposed by a French priest (Lemaître).
The faith that created not only the modern scientific method but modernity itself is now seen by amateur evopsychopaths as their mortal enemy. Well, when you set yourself up as a rival religion, you do make yourself an enemy. Which, by the way, has no chance to prevail.
Brahmin “empiricist” and exhibitionist chanteuse, the floor is yours
Matt
LikeLike
I just saw this.
“Such a practice already has a name, and it isn’t science. It’s called religion. The cult of science is science’s worst enemy. ”
You have this backward. Evo psych is not usually a science. You have correctly surmised that evo psych theorizing does not typically follow the requirements of science because science requires an experiment to validate or refute a hypothesis.
I have no experiment that can show me why penises without glans ridges are less effective. I certainly can’t replicate the conditions of the last 100,000 years and create test group A with penis ridges and test group B without to see if there is some noticeable advantage of them.
But evo psych theories are also not a faith. It is simply what the secular mind does to fill in the blanks when presented information about our nature. If you are correctly educated, you should take evo psych theories with a grain of salt because they are essentially invented rationalizations to fill in blanks and not objectively measured replicatable findings. And this is exactly why it is not a religion- because you are not supposed to have faith in it.
Science is what is reliable. It is science that gave us the cure for small pox and the discovery of the electron. Intuitive rationalizations are not reliable. They are what can lead us to astrology because it somehow seems oh so convincing.
If I say that men evolved to prefer virgins to sluts because virgins were less likely to cuckhold them into wasting resources on other people’s kids, then I am making up a rationalization. I do not have faith in that- it’s a conjecture with some level of logical structure.
A religion is the opposite of this. It requires you to have faith in something that has no experiment to back it up. It is the made up rationalization that you are actually supposed to believe even though there is no proof.
LikeLike
Ha! This is almost the precise definition of faith. “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Faith is the “fill-in-the-blanks” for the things we not only do not know but can not know. And by plugging those gaps in the dam, the reservoir may fill with vast depths of knowledge.
It’s interesting to find you reconstructing the absolute dependence of reason on faith without using the R word, religion.
Take a look at this photo and come back:
No peeking now. Without referring back to the link, tell me which of her feet was going forward. Our faulty measuring devices (in this case, our vision and memory) lead to the phenomenon of accidental fabrication in court witnesses. We make the weird mistake of believing (i.e., having faith in the fact) that our sensory information is empirical. Our memories are reliable, but are they reliable enough to speak to the truth?
In the same way our faith in reason is reliable: we have massive empirical evidence to deduce its its truth (including the exercise I’m doing right now). But is it enough to say without doubt it is absolutely reliable in every case?
The typical modern answer (supplied by the faithless Hume) to this conundrum is relativism: “We can never say anything without some doubt, therefore truth does not exist.”
The ancient and correct answer to this conundrum, however, is faith: “We acknowledge the possibility of doubt but actively choose to put that doubt aside so that we may proceed beyond all infinitely regressing paradoxes.”
Science, for example, places its faith in the idea that observation, experiment, and repeatable results will yield truth. But try proving, once and for all, that underlying assumption to be true, and you will never look up from your navel, you will never proceed to the microscope or bunsen burner, because that assumption is unprovable. It is better to simply say, “I’m pretty sure, indeed almost positive by deduction, that the experimental method will yield true results, I’ve seen it a thousand times myself, so I will have faith that the 1001st time will not yield to false results.” This level of inquiry is called epistemology.
Even when you are empirically convinced by a fact in front of your face, you must have faith that 1) your memory and senses are not faulty, 2) empiricism is universally applicable, and 3) reason itself is dependable. Your powers of deduction seem reliable, but can you say absolutely reliable? Familiarize yourself with Hume and Popper on this controversy so we can dig deeper.
No, the difference between you and me is that I am fully aware of what I place my faith in while you, in a modern superstition against the semantics of “faith” and “religion” and “trust,” imagine yourself more intelligent to deny the logistical practicality of faith. That doesn’t mean you are faithless and empirical. That simply means you are not aware of the idols in which you already automatically place your faith, preferring to pretend yourself above the need.
Minute to minute, second to second one cannot put himself “above the need” for faith. To progress at all, to build upon what you already know, is to rely faithfully on the wisdom you gathered the moment before, or the year before, or way back in high school, when you learned differential equations. You are not relearning all you know every minute you apply that knowledge; you are depending on the faith that everything you’ve learned is still operative.
All wisdom proceeds from the Socratic dictum, “All I know is I know nothing.” But once you attain that necessary humility, you must then acquire the faith that it is possible to know something, and to retain it. Otherwise you will be forever trapped in stasis: if it is impossible to know, then why make any effort to know? And that’s where the third leg of the progression comes in. By faith we may assume it is possible to know, therefore we may make efforts toward knowledge in the evidentiary “certainty” those efforts will pay off.
This is why the massive, modern, exponential, and self-fueling explosion of knowledge occurred in the West and nowhere else. Our God declared by fiat that it is possible to know. And the scientists and philosophers, following this theological revelation, took it from there.
Matt
LikeLike
What the hell Matt?! This wasn’t even a fair fight. Did feminstx’s head explode?
LikeLike
what do you mean?
I don’t have much of an appetite for series of essay posts, but I can respond to this at some point if you are interested.
LikeLike
if you fall in love with one man and marry him this man becomes your everything, your definition of what is a man, the only man you want and desire.
Isn’t this beautiful and heartwarming? It’s not true, it’s idealistic, romantic and naive, but it does sound good, doesn’t it?
LikeLike
Seems right to me. That’s how my 2 LTR gfs treated me. Granted, the only caveat is that the feeling won’t last forever and you can fuck her perception of ‘ya this is the BEST man I can get’ up in one way or another.
LikeLike
“The bottom line is that people who claim lifelong monogamy is the natural state of humanity absent cultural interference are wrong, and people who claim free love is the natural state of humanity absent cultural constraints are also wrong. The truth, as always, is a lot uglier than either side would have you believe.”
Something I have trouble understanding is that there appear to be aspects of male and female sexuality that are not complementary. For example, female sexuality appears to exist almost entirely on one single spectrum ranging from not interested in sex with men (frigid) or with a sex drive and a preference for dominant men. The higher the sex drive, the stronger the preference for dominant men.
Females I understand. I can see the advantage of frigidness in that it increases the likelihood of fidelity and helps a woman have higher future time orientation in choosing partners, thus I can see why it is there and why it was selected for.
Male sexuality, does not exist on a single spectrum. Most men appear to have very bland preferences beyond preferences for physically attractive women. They do not tend to have an instrinsic drive to be sexually dominant in general. They just want to stick it in something hot. Beyond that, there predilections are all of the place from wanting to dress up like a girl to be with landwhales. Being that there are virtually no women to cater to a number of hetero male fantasies (aside from those who are paid), how did men come to prefer these things?
Another thing that puzzles me is that pron shows an extremely strong preference for indiscriminate women. It doesn’t inherently have to be that way, but it definitely leans towards showing women who are desperately desirous for anyone and everyone, which does not correlate well with what men actually want even in short term partners. There must be 1000 times more stuff out there focusing on multiple black partners at same time than there is stuff focusing on deflowering virgins. Is that not odd?
LikeLike
Fem you’re so clever.
LikeLike
A bit OT but,by the by, a new study demonstrates–hold on to your seat this is a shocker!!–that white women who push out mulattoes are fatter,lower in IQ & education,and more prone to lie,cheat and steal than white women as a whole. Whoa. Did NOT se that coming!
LikeLike
Oh I get it. FeministX has an alter-ego now.
LikeLike
Pickiness doesn’t help when trying to pass on your genes. A man can impregnate 5 women a day if he’s healthy enough.
An inability to get laid by quality women on demand, as well as past abuses at the hands of other men incapable of getting quality women, or ANY women, leads to sick perversions. And I imagine some of these perversions pop up naturally. A SMALL NUMBER of them. Can’t have billions of people without a few of them coming out wrong.
Males from most species will fuck each other when no females are around. Humans are the most advanced so it’s natural we’d be the most perverse. We’re the most imaginative. We have more complex brains. More can go wrong with us.
As for porn..deflowering a virgin is something personal. It’s something you like because you’re the one who did it. I’m not living vicariously through the men in porn. that’s some dumb bullshit psychologists like to claim. I don’t see a woman getting railed by 6 niggers and think “Yeah guys. do it for me!” I’m just looking at a hot woman enjoying being fucked. the sounds, her body, her faces. It’s hot. The band of half-tamed niggers, I can do without.
in fact, I’d prefer to not hear the men at all. I hate porn where I can hear the men speak or moan. it’s a huge turnoff and annoys my ears, like nails on a chalkboard.
LikeLike
“… There must be 1000 times more stuff out there focusing on multiple black partners at same time …”
Yes there are more and more of those videos where a white female is being f*cked/sexually dominated by multiple black men
there is even at least one website ( Darkcave.com if memory serves ) I am aware of where whites can find blacks to f*ck/sexually dominate their white wife
A Canadian female judge ( Lori Douglas , caucasian) got caught with naked pics of herself on that site where her and her husband ( a caucasian ) were looking for some black males to f*ck her/sexually dominate her
They were going to pay many thousands of dollars for that
Our civilization is in very serious decline, I find it quite depressing that we have gotten to that point
I wonder if we will ever recover?…
LikeLike
Its not weird if you keep in mind that in humanitys past only 40% of men reproduced, which means that men evolved to fuck everything and anything if times were harsh enough.
LikeLike
“Male sexuality, does not exist on a single spectrum. Most men appear to have very bland preferences beyond preferences for physically attractive women. They do not tend to have an instrinsic drive to be sexually dominant in general. They just want to stick it in something hot. Beyond that, there predilections are all of the place from wanting to dress up like a girl to be with landwhales. Being that there are virtually no women to cater to a number of hetero male fantasies (aside from those who are paid), how did men come to prefer these things? ”
Why do you think only men have these odd tendencies(like dress like a girl), when you have tomboyish girls, that crave feminine men. Also you have perversions like girls wanting to be with a disabled person too, though nobody can be too sure why they really do it, but from my knowledge of women, no pity will ever make her be with such a man if there is no attraction, and in the examples i saw these men are beta(how wouldn’t they be; being helped all their lives), you can argue that these women are the frigid ones, but than i can apply similar categorization on men, to range from femininity to masculinity, and we again have nothing.
I’ve seen uniformity on many things in women, and uniformity on many things in men, but some people that may fall out of that uniformity, are only mixing traits form various positions of the feminine – masculine bell curve, and add to confusion, while in general they aren’t off the curve, they are just mixed characters. No matter how much it may even impose to me that men are off all definitions and norms that is bullshit. It’s just is that you haven’t caught the patterns yet.
“How did men come to prefer these things?”
When you can’t go and do what you naturally should, you still have to waste that energy on something or it drives you crazy, so they waste that energy on whatever things comes to their mind be it pc games, or sexual fantasies.
Needles to say these aberations mold you, and to return into reality is a bit hard once you embark on that path of spilling your energy into nothing.
“They do not tend to have an instrinsic drive to be sexually dominant in general.”
Though we do tend to crave for competition, and to be the top dog (we all want it, some are not aware of it, but if chance presents itself they would have seized it without consideration). And when it comes to sexuality we have been brainwashed that you can’t or better, shouldn’t compete with a woman, because they are angels living on Earth”, and also it is very wrong – not to appease girl’s needs(or whims)… What you see today is the result of the culture we’re in, not the natural way men are. I’m not about to bitch in here just stating the fact.
We’re presently in a situation that women were most of the human history.
Now we’re being told to suppress what we crave for and act civilized, and that is why you can’t see our will for sexual domination. It’s suppressed. Just as most of the people even today don’t see the very existence of female hypergamy. And now try to imagine it in Victorian England, or Chinese society, where it was suppressed harshly. You couldn’t see it not nearly as much as you would today. And yet it was there, as ever.
The point being; social constructs under conditions CAN and DO have major influence on sexual behavior of the humans, to a degree that human subconsciousness suppresses it so much that it appears like it’s never been a part of you. And than you have situations where your subconsciousness tells you one thing since it’s trained that way and your mind – with new knowledge and understanding – the other, and thus frustrated men on this blog insulting without second thought.
The thing is with social constructs that they dissipate and weaken over time along with their often demagogues ideologies that once suited their political or other agenda. When these constructs weaken as we have witnessed in our time the result is: the old nature of human is “puff” magically returned.
It doesn’t happens over night, but for most people it happens long before they’re able to understand that it has started to happen, and the result is that – to them – it actually does happen overnight.
If men were taught that you need to strive to keep the marriage or relationship, and that the wife is not a second mother – that accepts you unconditionally – they surely would strive to dominate the relationship.
LikeLike
P*rn is a fantasy of _access_. The women in p*rn vids are shown as aggressively horny because the fantasy is that the viewer/faceless surrogate dude _will_ score. The vids never waste time with seduction scenes more complex than “look, I’m not wearing pants!”
LikeLike
I see that p*rn is a fantasy of easy access, but I am surprised that it is. It could be a fantasy representing any male desire, but what it shows does not reflect my understanding of typical male desires. It doesn’t chiefly value the prettiest girls under 30. It values the easiest looking girls, often wearing a bunch of fake stuff- big fake nails, fake blond, fake tan etc. It surprises me that white men are even capable of watching a bunch of black guys and a white girl, but not only are they capable of beating to it, that genre appears particularly popular.
Taking a virgin might be intimate, but why isn’t it considered that arousing for p*rn purposes? It is arousing, isn’t it?
LikeLike
No no no there is plenty of porn that shows what men want: beautiful women aged 20 to 25, natural cute little boobs, perfect legs, and ass, and light bondage, blow jobs, one man in the scene, no black people. The fantasy is that the woman *enjoys* the light bondage. It is not rape because it’s approved of by the woman. AS in real life, most couples use things like pink fuzzy handcuffs and such. Normal men do NOT like stereotypical porns stars who look like weird freak MILFs with fake plastic boobs, scars, gang bangs, stuff that looks like it would hurt. Fake nails?? This is an example of women not knowing what men really like. Same concept applies to how cute brunettes with cute little B-cup boobs, natural, wrongly think that men like big blondes with big boobs. lzozlzozllz. The “girl next door” is cuter than the big-boobed blonde to 9 out of 10 men.
LikeLike
As official Curator of Masturbation techniques, I concur.
LikeLike
All women are freaky, yet few women want to think of themselves as freaks. It’s an aspect of anti-slut defense. It’s like frigidity, it melts away pretty quickly in the right company. You can see traces of their perversions expressed in fiction, the female equivalent of porn, but I’m speaking from experience. No woman I’ve known for any length of time has failed to reveal some kind of psychosexual quirk. They may seem tame by the standards of internet porn, but lion cubs seem pretty cute when they’re little too.
LikeLike
In ye olde days, men were men by age 12 or so. Hypothetically speaking, a woman could have had maybe 2 children from 2 different fathers, assuming the first left when the son was old enough…but this is just not at all realistic. The kids would have died, or she would have died, or they would have had to try 5 times to get any of their children to live to 12 and be healthy. Only in this age is the “woman with 3408305308 kids by 24084305345308503058 fathers” even remotely feasible, and even then, its on the backs of men. Women can’t do jack shit without a man. Let’s imagine a woman living in the woods. She meets a man, he fucks her, and for whatever reason sticks around, she shits out his baby. if he leaves, what is she going to do? She’s weak, emotional and pretty much worthless, and has a baby to worry about. I’m sick of these stupid studies.
This world was built by men, it’s maintained by men and it will die with men.
LikeLike
Most humans demand that their lover to be monogamous,
but they give themselves permission to be not so monogamous
I said most, not “all”
LikeLike
Alpha Up Zim-Zim. Your life depends on it!
http://www.breitbart.com/system/wire/DA71L7N02
LikeLike
He’s screwed.
LikeLike
All women jury?
You got to be fucking kidding me.
He was a marked man the second the media caught whiff of the story.
Another straw on the camels back.
LikeLike
“The glans ridge on male penises indicates that men evolved to scoop out competitor sperm from presumably slutty women”
What kind of gang bang society did we live in where we’re scoopin’ fresh monkey juice outta a t**t?
Also, doesn’t the foreskin kind of debunk that theory? I don’t know about you gents but my excess makes the little guy akin to one of the worms from Dune. My ancestors weren’t scoopin’ nothin’ out with our family’s flesh armoured clog mongers.
LikeLike
Evolution says: YOU DON’T EXIST
LikeLike
:O
LikeLike
“The glans ridge on male penises indicates that men evolved to scoop out competitor sperm from presumably slutty women”
I haven’t seen that since Sperm Wars, published in ’93, and even the author was skeptical of that hypothesis.
LikeLike
Love is forever, until it isn’t.
LikeLike
Does anyone really think that monogamy is natural? Something can be an ideal — as a monogamous and stable relationship is ideal for having and raising children — without being a natural state. From a religious perspective, I think the predominant belief is that promiscuous behavior is natural yet sinful, and that is what makes self-discipline a virtue. Restraint is something that is learned, not innate.
LikeLike
Macroevolution assumes that what is = what ought to be.
LikeLike
More the fools, them.
LikeLike
Thank you, Ella. A whole bunch of our natural inclinations have to be suppressed and we are required to exercise a great deal of constraint in our day to day lives.
Learned restraint is what kept me from punching the cunt who spilled her fucking latte on me and then gave me the “why don’t you watch where you’re going look” this morning at Starbucks.
I also know that if I decide to punch someone, there will be consequences. Rather unpleasant ones.
Also, we’re using the word “monogamy” incorrectly here. Grammar Nazi says “monogamy” means “married to one person”, and “fidelity” means sexually faithful to one person.
I don’t think women are naturally faithful anymore than men are, and there are huge variations between individuals. I see men I would like to fuck ALL THE FREAKING TIME. I don’t because A) I’m capable of restraint; and B) the punishment will be brutal, and I won’t be the one who has to suffer it.
My three children will be the ones to suffer the most if I am unfaithful to my husband. The likelihood of me hurting my children (and anyone who thinks divorce doesn’t utterly traumatize children is stupid, plain and simple) is approximately zero.
And it’s not like I’m starving at home. I have a great relationship with my husband. Doesn’t mean the lifeguard doesn’t look totally tantalizing, but the fallout would be nuclear!
I don’t cheat on my husband for the same reasons I don’t shove a dozen cupcakes down my throat every day: sounds good in theory, but in practice my ass will be sorry.
Restraint + punishment
Both things are missing in our culture, for women, mostly. Why be faithful when you can walk away with everything?
LikeLike
Well, I hope you realize that this observation makes you a secretly jealous religious freak who hates fun, or an omega who can’t get any, or both.
If the true believers worshiped the god of biomechanics consistently, they would have to acknowledge that millennia of civilization’s selecting for monogamy must have had some effect on the Almighty Genome.
But, no. You have to understand that their very definition of what is and isn’t “natural” was fabricated to rationalize certain antisocial behaviors, like feminism itself, which, by a stroke of irony, plays the devil in their manosphere theodrama.
The common root is Rousseau and his insistence on the “nobility” of the “savage,” that before civilization came in and screwed man up, he was purer, healthier, and closer to the truth. So the prior evolutionary stage of man, homo sapiens, is irrelevant to the predicament which concerns us, that of homo sapiens sapiens or homo civitas, the man who must live among and with and dependently upon other men.
With Rousseau, civilization itself became the villain to be vilified as the obstacle to our thriving. The cultural Marxists regard every hurdle between them and their utopia as a “social construct.” For socialists, the construct is capital or ownership. For feminists, the construct is “gender.” For CH and other heirs of positivism, the construct is morality. And they’re all here to arouse us from our dogmatic slumber.
Perhaps polygyny is as natural to us as overeating or masturbation or territorial pissings. So what? What’s the point? That we eliminate the “constructs” standing in the way of our animal nature to be more true to ourselves? Forget class, refinement, art, and the good life. When do the barest prerequisites for civilization get to have their say?
The reason we are monogamous isn’t because we were too dumb to realize our chains until CH inaugurated his blog. We are monogamous because every other way doesn’t work. Even polygamy doesn’t work, much less the elimination of impulse control.
And before the neosavage chorus thinks they solve this through a secret aristocratic separation of alpha from beta — well, you need civilization for that, and sooner or later the pussy-deprived masses cease channeling their frustration into soccer, porn, video games, and other vicarious divertissements. That’s when they come for the women, quickly realizing that seven dry-dicked insurgents only have to kill one man with a harem of seven: and they can do simple division better than the trust-fund AINOs (alphas in name only). That’s when they come for their oppressors’ balls.
Matt
LikeLike
It’s very complicated, but I sort of deviate a bit from Hector’s viewpoint, only in that men were and are promiscuous creatures. There is no time in history, over millions of years, were men ever monogamous except these days where feminazis are on a rampage.
LikeLike
Some good pointers on evolution although I’ve always steered far from the topic.
LikeLike
[…] heartiste.wordpress.com […]
LikeLike
I think it has a lot to do with the environment a people inhabited. Eg in colder climes there was more need for restraint of sexuality, due to the need to manage resources for the multiple seasons.
LikeLike
Likewise in warmer climates less clothing was worn and limbs etc were exposed leading to more ready sexual arousal and less of a physical barrier to intercourse. This may even have been the original driving force that led to the invention of the burka.
LikeLike
That, and I think it was intended to cut down on competition for females and resulting social discord in a very polygamous society.
LikeLike
Heartiste, I actually do think the ppl who say that humans, in their natural state, are complete sluts/manwhores who will fuck anything. I mean, we did evolve from creatures who could take care of themselves without help, even the females with infants. Also, the ancestral human environment was a lot more food-rich than present day Europe or East Asia. As a species, we’ve spent far more time being complete sluts/manwhores than being mostly monogamous. Monogamy and the nuclear family are social constructs and I am THANKFUL to whomever invented these constructs.
Millions of men and women on this earth today are living in life-long marriages, are faithful to their spouses, and have 100% legitimate children becauwse they were taught by their parents, community members, religious figures, and so forth about the VALUE of monogamy and the nuclear family.
Now, there are also millions of men and women on this earth that fuck whomever they want, have illegitimate children, cheat on their partners, and are generally incapable of pair-bonding for life. This is because they were taught by their parents and community members to do such things.
I strongly believe in the value of nurture over nature. By nature, humans are violent, sociopathic, clannish, dishonest, inattentive, lazy, and promiscuous. But in good societies humans are taught from day one to overcome their natural instincts and act better for the sake of society. Some cultures do a better job of this than others. It is interesting though, that it is the most and the least developed countries in the world that have the most chaotic mating and family patterns. North America, Oceania, and NW Europe have chaotic mating/family patterns…so do the most primitive indigenous tribes in Africa, North/South America, the Pacific Islands, Australia, and Papua New Guinea. The most stable/orderly mating and family patterns occur in East Asia, Southern and Eastern Europe, South Asia. Why is this? Why is it that the middling countries in terms of development are also the least slutty?
LikeLike
Re: Also, the ancestral human environment was a lot more food-rich than present day Europe or East Asia.
Not really, the African savannah (except for certain regions like the volcanic areas around Rwanda and Uganda) is not a particularly food rich area. Certainly not for agriculturalists, probably not for hunter-gatherers. There’s a reason why Africa has today, and always has had, more than its fair share of human misery.
Also, ‘food rich’ is a slippery term, because populations tend to grow until they’re in equilibrium with their environment. The better metrics would be how variable the environment is, how great the returns to labour are, etc.. China and Vietnam have high returns to labour and low environmental variability: West African savannahs have lower returns to labour, high environmental variability.
Southern and Eastern Europe are *not* characterized by ‘stable/orderly mating’, at least not in the modern era. And for what it’s worth, the Pacific Island tribes with high promiscuity traditionally lived in very productive environments, probably not too dissimilar to modern northern Europe in terms of nutrition, ability to support children, etc.. Supposedly, calorie per acre yields from taro, sweet potatoe, etc. in some of the Pacific Islands were comparable to those achieved by modern agriculture.
LikeLike
The simple fact is that lifelong monogamous relationships are the most practical balance between male and female sexual preferences. I.e. we didn’t evolve to be monogamous, but we evolved in such a way that monogamous marriage is the best practice for mankind.
LikeLike
I’m sure you know this quote:
“Any human society is free to choose either to display great energy or to enjoy sexual freedom; the evidence is that it cannot do both for more than one generation.”
From the same guy:
“The whole of human history does not contain a single instance of a group becoming civilized unless it has been absolutely monogamous, nor is there any example of a group retaining its culture after it has adopted less rigorous customs.”
LikeLike
By the way, this shit is hilarious:
“In his senior year, each member of Bones goes through an intense
two-part confessional experience in the Bones crypt. One Thursday
night he tells his life story, giving what is meant to be a painfully
forthright autobigraphy that exposes his traumas, shames, and dreams.
(Tom Wolfe calls this Bones practice a fore-runner of the Me Decade’s
fascination with self.) The following Sunday-night session is
devoted exclusively to sexual histories. They don’t leave out
anything these days. I don’t know what it was like in General
Russell’s day, maybe there was less to talk about, but these days
the sexual stuff is totally explicit and there’s less need for
fabricating exploits to fill up the allotted time. Most Sunday-night
sessions start with talk of prep school masturbation and don’t stop
until the intimate details of Saturday night’s delights have come
to light early Monday morning.
This has begun to cause some disruptions in relationships. The
women the Bonesmen talk about in the crypt are often Yale co-eds
and frequently feminists. While it might seem to be a rebuke to
Bone’s spirit of consciousness raising, none of these women is
too pleased at having the most intimate secrets of her relationship
made the subject of an all-night symposium consecrating her lover’s
brotherhood with fourteen males she hardly knows. As one woman
put it, “I objected to fourteen guys knowing whether I was a good
lay…It was like after that each of them thought I was his woman
in some way.”
Some women have discovered that their lovers take their vows to
Bones more solemnly than their commitments to women. There is the
case of the woman who revealed something very personal – not
embarassing, just private – to her lover and made him swear never
to repeat it to another human. When he came back from the Bones
crypt after his Sunday-night sex session, he couldn’t meet her
eyes. He’d told his brothers in Bones.
LikeLike
Sounds kinda insane, but I think this is something Scientology actually does.
LikeLike
Quite so, quite so. As we know, women never discuss their relationships or sex issues with their friends. And a woman always takes any secrets to the grave. No wonder they’re on edge.
LikeLike
Current doing some risk management consulting at a privatised Sydney prison. Over the last 4 years most common item on the incident register. Female staff having relationships with crims. From 30k cleaners to 150k psychiatrists 26 cases so far. Old time management telling me its been very common for decades.
LikeLike
Don’t post stuff like this, it’s too easily traceable. Could come back to haunt you in several years when IP tracking of every post everywhere is automatic. You probably have some kind of professional license.
LikeLike
Your concern is noted.
LikeLike
That’s pretty interesting. What if this turns out to be common, not just a freakish one-time thing, move along nothing to see, like Baltimore?
LikeLike
Anti-Game: http://i.imgur.com/mNcfFTo.jpg
LikeLike
Monogamy is what creates a functional society.
Since women are naturally hypergamous, they’ll all go for the highest value man they can get. This is the perfect other side of the coin of men’s love for variety. Female hypergamy + male variety = pockets of soft polygyny. This leaves the vast majority of men in states of involuntary celibacy. Having lots of young, undersexed men leads to social problems (gangs, theft, etc.).
The answer to humanity’s predilection towards soft polygyny and unproductive/destructive young men was monogamy. The alphas didn’t hog all of the women so there were more women around to placate the betas and make them functional members of society.
Of course, with feminism, hypergamy has been unchained and we will regress back to a state of soft polygyny with young, undersexed males being violent again (school shootings, anyone?)
LikeLike
How many Cathedral feminists are just scared little girls?
LikeLike
Thank the angels in heaven that humans lie so much about their own sexual feelings. I mean, are you ready to hear a Middle Aged Priest describe his idea of a dream-date with a terrified, yet complaisant, 9 year old Alter Boy? Are you ready to hear an honest account of your wifes true feelings about what she is planning to happen right after your agonizing death from ball-cancer?
Or, why not just go the the nearest lamb butchering facility; study and admire the knife-mans skill, and luxuriate in the unique Atmosphere it offers? The lessons there might come quicker, which is ok because the lessons are the same.
LikeLike
Fisto Offline
True Player
*****
Posts: 2,351
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 61
Post: #38
RE: A guy is fucking your girlfriend at your house, what would you do?
I was on the other side of this situation 2 times.
The first time I was home from the army, hanging out in Atlanta to see my grandparents when I heard a girl I used to have a lot of chemistry with was also living there after college. I got her cell from her parents and called her up. She invited me to go out with her boyfriend. I was disappointed but I had nothing better to do so I went.
She was looking better than ever and he seemed pretty cool but it was obvious who was in charge. As the night went on she started doing the classic foot touch under the table. I ignored it thinking she had to be just screwing around. We all go back to her apartment and the guy says he’s going to sleep because he has to be at work.
As soon as he’s out the door we are at each other, we make it to the bedroom and I’m fucking her doggy style. He walks into the room and I felt horrible. I just stand up, rock hard and step to the side, she’s trying to cover herself and he starts yelling at her while she says I’m sorry over and over.
They go out into the living room and I throw on some jeans.
I hear him start to lose his temper and she starts crying hysterically. I decide to go out there. I tell him “look I’m sorry, this is my fault, I seduced your Gf and I’m the asshole here but you can’t hit her, this isn’t getting resolved tonight, go home, I’ll sleep on the couch and you two can sort it out tomorrow.”
The guy actually leaves and we lock the door and go back to fucking.
Later she tells me all she wanted was for him to go so we could get back to it.
I leave feeling guilty since I think I ruined things but later I find out they’re engaged. A c years after that I get a message from her on Facebook trying to reconnect. She’s got 3 kids and looks fat as fuck. Double chin, the whole 9 yards of undeoderized fat. I didn’t even reply.
The 2nd time I met 2 girls in Santa Monica during my friends bachelor party, a blonde and a brunette, the blonde was a little older and the brunette was 21. They kept saying “choose who you like” and I kept saying “I choose both” and would kiss them each. Later I started making out with the blonde in the back of the car on the way to a strip club and the brunette left pissed off.
That next morning I got a text from the brunette and the next thing I know I’m on my way to the valley. I get in and start fucking this girl within minutes
Afterwards we’re laying there when I hear a door open and close. I look over and her eyes are wide open and scared. I look torwards the door and a guy walks in with a jack Daniels ball cap on. He yelled something like “that’s just great!!!” And I could tell he was thinking of trying something but instead he slams the door and starts throwing things down in the other room. I’m just laying there and she says “you should probably get dressed”.
She puts on a robe and walks out and they start arguing. As I’m getting dressed things are escalating.
I go out there and basically tell the guy I had no idea he existed and that he needs to calm down because he’s going to have the cops called and they’ll arrest his ass.
He starts talking to me and crying and I’m at a loss, I exit the situation saying “you two need to work things out in a calm manner, I can tell you both care for each other” and leave.
I go downstairs and some classically crazy cat lady that probably spies on everyone is asking what’s going on, I start to tell her and she just pulls me into her apartment. She’s got the longest fake eyelashes I’ve ever seen and I’m staying to make sure nothing to crazy happens upstairs plus she’s serving me coffee.
I leave and I here from the brunette a week later, she wants to get together for coffee. I agree and when I get there she tells me her boyfriend is dead. Apparently he got up in the middle of the night saying he can’t sleep and went for a drive in his mustang. The official story is that he feel asleep at the wheel and hit a telephone pole but the speed he was going was about 90mph or greater.
We go back to my place and fuck.
That one stuck with me and to this day bothers me. I know it was her fault but I can’t just wash my hands of it either.
Anyway, if that happened to me I hope what I would do is say “both of you get the fuck out” and not say another word about it. If she said she had no place to go “not my problem”.
LikeLike
Behold the hamster rationalizing with starting a relationship with a prisoner who bashed his last girlfriend.
http://blogs.news.com.au/bossy/index.php/news/comments/i_think_im_falling_for_a_con/
LikeLike
Well put.
Dawkins thinks we’re more polygamous than monogamous. He may be right. I certainly think there is more cultural pressure towards monogamy than polygamy.
LikeLike
Genes likely play a large role.
LikeLike
CH is going to have some fun with this —
Grazia magazine revealed:
“Rihanna is still desperately in love with Chris. It’s like she’s obsessed with him and, although he’s told her it’s over, she just can’t get over him. Rihanna is now considering doing a 12-step program to get rid of her demons.”
LikeLike
A russian female bus driver -road rage with a crow bar.
And don’t tell me about “real feminists”in the USA haha
(watch from 4:14)
http://www.yapfiles.ru/show/639331/91956face6748ecafc2867eae1cac58b.flv.html
LikeLike
Teen Fatally Stabbed Over Piece of Chicken
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Man-Dies-from-Stabbing-Wounds-in-SE–212257081.html
When chickens are outlawed, only niggers will have chicken.
LikeLike
Chicken hanging from trees?
LikeLike
And it only took 50 years for Detroit to go from 4th wealthiest city in the country to a fucking war zone 3rd world countries would laugh at…
LikeLike
I love all the people who don’t believe in God but also think that morality was imposed on humanity from some artificial or non-human force. It doesn’t just-so-happen that more successful societies prefer monogamy (or “soft polygamy”). It is what makes a successful society.
LikeLike
The bottom line is that people who claim lifelong monogamy is the natural state of humanity absent cultural interference are wrong …
No, CH, you are wrong. Most people who love their children know that it’s best for their kids when they have two loving parents who also love and respect each other. People who are not monogamous probably don’t really love the children they have.
LikeLike
Monogamy may not be natural, but it is necessary for civilization.
Just look at what the lack of monogamy has done to create a feral jungle society in the urban centers of most countries, thanks to a welfare payout system.
Liberalism: it fucks up everything it touches.
LikeLike
The capacity to control one’s desires is as “natural” and as “true” as the desire itself. The only question is which will rule, the instincts or the deliberate mind? Slave or Master?
LikeLike
[…] Are Humans A Pair Bonding Species? – “The bottom line is that people who claim lifelong monogamy is the natural state of humanity absent cultural interference are wrong, and people who claim free love is the natural state of humanity absent cultural constraints are also wrong.” – from heartiste. […]
LikeLike