In the hindbrain of every woman throbs an autonomic neuralgorithm that mimics their genitalia and splits the female soul in two. It’s a sexual dichotomy which women are fated to reconcile into a teetering balance between the limbically juiced pursuit of alpha fux (a sexy charming jerkboy for sex) and the cortically lubed yearning for beta bux (a reliable if boring family man for resources).
Gatekeepers of the prime directive will necessarily be contradictory vehicles for genetic survival. To fulfill the only Darwinian duty that really matters, women have evolved an intricate cognitive system for accommodating their internal contradictions. CH has dubbed this system the “rationalization hamster”. This head-cased hamster ensures that women never think too hard or too closely about the concessions or the exploitations they personally abide on their quest to birth and raise the fittest, healthiest, and most productive kidlets in the merciless sexual and survival markets.
Unsurprisingly, the sexual dichotomy that animates women’s subconscious is overlaid by a conscious moral dichotomy which provides plausible deniability to the amoral compulsions of the subconscious.
On this topic, Cynthia speaks a great truth,
There is nothing that satisfies us ladies more than the knowledge that we are superior to another woman. I know women who’ve based their entire existence around the pursuit of this feeling.
This explains why women can at once happily jump on the Freak Acceptance bandwagon while secretly satisfying their selfish urge to have their egos diddled and their social status elevated as a consequence of the favorable distinctions they will irresistibly draw between themselves and the freaks.
CH Maxim #91: The irony is that just as women are cloying sympathizers for their lessers, they are also avid pursuers of vaulting their lessers.
The female moral dichotomy is “declare inclusion, indulge exclusion”. The former gives license to the latter.
Do men have sexual and moral dichotomies within them? Yes and no. Certainly not any dichotomy at the same advanced developmental stage that women possess. Men haven’t evolved truly dichotomous natures because men aren’t the primary gatekeepers of reproduction. As the chosen sex (although this formulation isn’t absolute), men are Nature’s experimental guinea pigs and come born compartmentalized into a variety of sexual and moral configurations women choose from among, according to the fitness demands of the currently operative environment.
I would say the closest approximation to a male sexual dichotomy is the classic madonna-whore complex — or in modernistic bantz, Marry-Fuck-Kill. Men want the slut for the zero-effort instabang, and the virgin for marriage and mother-of-heirs. But the comparison is limited, since the sexually dichotomous drive is much weaker in men, who as a sex are generally less selective than women and will make easy compromises if a woman is sufficiently desirable (i.e., hot, young, and feminine). For men, women’s looks trump every other consideration so profoundly that any innate male dichotomous compulsion will often be drowned under the deluge of desire.
Likewise, a male moral dichotomy usually amounts to nothing more than spun up pretexts for guiltlessly pursuing NSA sex. The female moral dichotomy greases the id-skids to indulge intra-female status contests and ego gratification; in contrast, the male moral dichotomy has a more pedestrian job: to convince himself and the women who don’t immediately write him off that his love is unconditional, while pursuing the accumulation of sexual market capital that enlarges the scope of his mate options.