Thursday, April 23, 2015

Reader Submission: Feminism as an accelerant of female parasitism (by Marco_Polo)

Marco_Polo just left a comment which I thought deserves to be promoted to the front page. In the current Open Thread there is an interesting ongoing discussion on the transactional nature of male/female interactions. Brent highlighted that some women don't hold up their end of the deal and instead merely want to extract resources (time, money, attention) without giving anything back. I'm sure many "beta providers" and "orbiters" can relate to that. The underlying dynamic is that for men physical attraction is important, while women often bond with guys for their resources, despite a lack of attraction. Of course, they satiate their sexual needs by cheating on their partners.

Marco_Polo responds:

I am convinced those feelings are a large reason why nowadays a lot of women eventually file for a divorce, because they cannot deny their feelings of disdain towards their mate any longer. I wager that this is not a new phenomenon, but has been part of the female psychological make-up ever since. Back then they quenched their frustration by reading pulp romance novels or getting treated for "hysteria" by doctors (which is how the vibrator got invented btw.). The only difference is that today women CAN get divorced without being stigmatized, that they CAN earn their own money and that they are encouraged to show this disdain openly, should they wish to do so. Only, as parasites they don't really profit from any of these achievements.

Of course the reason for this is rooted the parasitic character of female existence. Women rarely "cherish" men for their pure being, but are mainly interested in what men can do for them, i. e. as providers of sex, semen or money/security and/or as emotional tampon. If they cannot get anything of that value from you, you are merely worthless to them and invisible and they will not give you anything of value in exchange. Many a woman is being tormented by that nagging fear of ascertaining whether the current host she's managed to get hold of is really "a good deal", whether he stays that way and whether het emotional grip on him (i.e. "romantic love") is still tight, so he won't leave them even when she's providing miserable sex to him, thereby cutting her off from his valuable "services". Even today women for the most part are NOT able to survive on their own and get anything of real substance done. (I'd say that's a big reason why prostitution still exist, since it benefits those women: making comparatively large sums of money with comparatively little skills or investment.) And even if they actually could, they'd rather take the easy way (because it's their female "entitlement") and have a man ("husband") securely provide for them, because that is the core ingredient of their "princess"-fantasies, to have a man "sweep them off their feet", spoil & pamper them, fulfill all their needs and never doubt that arrangement, so that she can ultimately "relaaaax". (This may sound harsh and unfair, but I swear this is only what I've been able to observe time and again and again. I wish it were different, but it just doesn't seem to.)

Feminism and the encouragement of absurd levels of female entitlement have only exacerbated this detrimental internal impulse.

I would say, that this effect - together with the negative effects of the modern, "flexible" capitalist economy on heterosexzal pair-bonding - is the main cause for the constant decline in Western birthrates, which is impossible to reverse short or mid term-wise.

"Neo-liberal" economic premises in concert with prevalent heterosexual misandry are bringing the West down, since the pyramid/ponzi-scheme of capitalist society requires a constant influx of new suckers. Heightened rates of immigration only serve to increase the problem of genetic colonialization though, so there's no viable solution in this direction either.

This might sound bleak to some, but my very personal opinion is, that "civilization" itself, ever since it got created with the turn to agriculture, has overall been just one big massive failure anyway and never provided the majority of human beings with even the most basic necessities for survival - this seems to be part of its pedigree, so why ever expect it to be the other way around? ;)
We were actually much better off as foragers (not the least in terms if SEX).

What do you think? Let me know in the comments below!

(Also, if you’ve got a comment that is off-topic or only tangentially related to this article, then please post in the most recent Open Thread. Thank you.)


  1. Good post, Marco!

    But I strongly disagree with the last paragraph (although I can see where you are coming from):

    "This might sound bleak to some, but my very personal opinion is, that "civilization" itself, ever since it got created with the turn to agriculture, has overall been just one big massive failure anyway and never provided the majority of human beings with even the most basic necessities for survival - this seems to be part of its pedigree, so why ever expect it to be the other way around? ;)
    We were actually much better off as foragers (not the least in terms if SEX)."

    I'm well aware of civilisations imperfections, but I think it's superior to living the life of a forager in (almost) all regards by far!

    The biggest problem with civilisation I see, is that it's highly fragile.
    And for our western civilisation in gerneral and specifically europe I'm not very optimistic.


    1. Ha, what a surprise to see my facetious comment featured. I didn't intend this at all.

      As far as "civilization" & demographics are concerned: just recently I participated (as attentive observer) in a day-long symposion with the leading demographs of the country I live in, which was nothing but stunning. I learned, that demography actually is serious science, that predictions and forecasts e. g. for the world population as well as of several countries when made in the 1960s for our current decade were correct with a stunning error margin ranging between 0,5 - 2%. It is then only cognitive dissonance which prevents people to take in objective facts and draw sound conclusions from that, as uncomfortable as they might be.

      As far as the rest of that blog post reply of mine is concerned: it is mainly Aaron along with Novy and subsequently my own personal experience, which convinced me of the simple truth, that women like to fuck extremely attractive men (or as attractive men as they can get) and that for them most men are NOT even mildly sufficiently sexually attractive in order to like them for purely animalistic reasons. That women will forgive a sexually attractive guy many other flaws, that they will be drawn to him like a moth to the light, that they cannopt help it and that they call this emotion "romance" or "love" or "romantic love". And that this emotion cannot be bought or faked. And that it is in their material interest to tell men otherwise and that men in their loveable gullibility actually fell for this, because it protected their ego. It's ridicolous to read something like this today and remind myself of the the fact, that 10 years ago I even wouldn't have taken someone of that opinion seriously, because I myself was under a serious misapprehension to squarely look into the mirror and acknowledge to myself that I WAS sexually unattractive to females and that I had been brought up this way by a woman and never ever been openly told the truth about that deficiency by other women.

      The way out of this dilemma for men would be to make themselves as attractive as possible just as e.g. Aaron or similar guides have lined out and then reap the benefits according to your specific circumstances. But even then (more) attractive men will not be attractive to "all women". The fact of female hypergamy remains it is one massive cornerstone of the powerstructure of civilization and it is genetical. If we don't wish to return to a life within smaller tribale communities, i. e. comparable to bonobos or chimpanzees and seperated from each other by vast stretches of space, we just have to accept this fact of life.

  2. 1)Women are willing to trade looks and sex for money and attention. It is only parasitic behavior when the guy doesn't have a backbone to make her hold onto her side of the arrangement or dump her for someone else.

    2)Nobody cherishes anyone just for pure being. When man cherishes a woman she is usually young and attractive. You wouldn't give fatties or old women time of the day.

    3)I think you are holding romanticized notions of hunter&gatherer life. People back in those days were probably all dirty, stinky and hairy in all the wrong places. They died early because of diseases, famine or clash with neighbouring tribes and probably had to spend majority of the day looking for food instead of having so much leisure time like we do today.

    1. 1) I have to disagree. It stays parasitism nonetheless IMHO. But of course as a man one has to set boundaries and be careful in whom and what to invest and if need may be rather cut ones losses too soon than too late.

      2) Yes!

      3) Yes! "People back in those days were probably all dirty, stinky and hairy in all the wrong places." LOL :D


  3. probably need some automatic system , that is uncorruptible, that will implement
    "fair economics" and no one will be able to take control to it for his own benefit.

    oh well. bringing ton of people with conflicting interests together and making sure
    they dont run over each other is tough. and also trying to suck value out of them
    for the "elite" by the "elite" with various deceptions.

  4. "Neo-liberal" economic premises in concert with prevalent heterosexual misandry are bringing the West down, since the pyramid/ponzi-scheme of capitalist society requires a constant influx of new suckers. Heightened rates of immigration only serve to increase the problem of genetic colonialization though, so there's no viable solution in this direction either."

    All was good, but I strongly disagree with his view of capitalism as a "pyramid/ponzi scheme".

  5. I might add that the most important "way out" for heterosexual men out of the sexual dilemma of relative (or absolute) scarcity of willing, attractive women would be Sleazy's article "Who came up with the 'sex is the greatest thing in the world'-nonsense?" and his short line of "Since when has pussy been the solution to anything?"

    The main dilemma for us males is that we were born and have been "indoctrinated" during our very first months or years by women. With men raised by single mothers this quasi-symbiotic connection is even stronger, because of the lack of a triangulating paternal male impulse. To break free from those deep invisible ties and take a as neutral as possible look at realities unimpaired by that naive impulse is very, very hard for most men.

    And the uncomfortable fact that the benefit of knowledge is not necessarily "happiness" in a traditional sense doesn't make it easier or more worthwhile for people, who "just want to live their life".

  6. Only slightly off-topic, but speaking of Femenism and entitlement Maddox just posted this video to a lot of hate from feminists (both male and female). They just can't get off of that $0.77 to a dollar idea:

    1. Great link, lol. So true. My gawd, I am so sick of that "stat". How many times do I meet women who make job choices that pay less and then blame the patriarchy. Sheesh. It's not the patriarchy, it's the Stupidity that causes you (woman) to earn less.

  7. Great minds think alike, Marco! ;)

    "In the Politics Aristotle explains the great disadvantage which accrued to the Spartans from the fact that they conceded too much to their women, by giving them the right of inheritance and dower, and a great amount of independence; and he shows how much this contributed to Sparta's fall. May it not be the case in France that the influence of women, which went on increasing steadily from the time of Louis XIII., was to blame for that gradual corruption of the Court and the Government, which brought about the Revolution of 1789, of which all subsequent disturbances have been the fruit? However that may be, the false position which women occupy, demonstrated as it is, in the most glaring way, by the institution of the lady, is a fundamental defect in our social scheme, and this defect, proceeding from the very heart of it, must spread its baneful influence in all directions."


    1. lol, but isnt it a bit too extreme too say that those down falls major reasons
      were due too women, sure its reckless to give women too much power because
      then there are "value sucking" that are dangerous to the groups survival,but
      saying this is the major reason, i mean how can you know?
      how can you test this ?

    2. I'd say it's dangerous and ultimately wasteful, to go down the rabbit hole of analysis to deeply in those matters. I'd also concede, that I'm guilty of that verdict myself sometimes.

      Women give birth to men and from this simple irrefutable fact there arise psychological, biological and behvioural consequences.

      The same goes for women's predisposition to feel the greatest sense of sexual satisfaction and self-worth from sex with the overall most attractive men. This is biological too and just cannot be rationalized away. For every guy, whose personal and physical features are less than attractive, this man will have to exponentially compensate with material and/or status gains for that very same woman to deem him sufficiently attractive in order to be and stay with him. The woman in question of course can only direct this process for as long as she herself remains sexually attractive as well and so on and so forth…

      The key for everything is the insight, that it is women who (outside of paysex, arguably) do control the heterosexual mating process and that for them "love = sex", i.e. women will only unabashedly "open their heart" with almost no additional cost/hassle for those very men she deems highly/most sexually attractive – which is judged by the man's body, face, fashion and the positive aggressiveness of his behaviour. In this regard, "personality" itself is just worthless. And due to the power of pure sexual attraction, she will much more likely overlook shortcomings on the side of the guy, which she wouldn't even consider to allow for less sexually valuable men.

      So, it's the sad lack of sufficiently attractive men, which forces women to engage in the sociosexual barter of sex vs. money, which – from a male standpoint – could be called "parasitic". Due to women's lib in today's Western societies women don't need to engage in this kind of pseudo-prostitutional arrangment any longer, if they don't wish to. Acting like a pseudo-whore surely doesn't feel nice. They can remain single, provide for their independent income and still fuck the occasional hunk, as long as they remain and keep themselves somewhat attractive (which isn't that difficult).

      The bitter truth for men is that even the "decent, nice girls" would rather like to have slutty sex with the hunks/jocks, and romantic relationships, than with "normal, decent men" and will regard them even unfit for other kind of pair-bond relationships, if those men don't increase their sexual attractiveness substantially. Even somewhat attractive women will not find their financiat stability to be sufficient of a compendsation for their lack of male romantic/sexual value.

      Arguably and strangely for most men it might be easier to swallow the painful consequences of this process than for women, since men by default and don't live in a state of comparatively easy access to sex anyway and because internet porn does offer at least some kind of feasible relief.

      The invention and industrialized production of realistic female sex-bots might change this dynamic for men, but the basic dichotomy remains: men should increase their sexual "value" in their own best interest and women should refrain from having overly high and even unsatisfieable expectations for their idea of "romantic love"…

  8. All of what you've stated above Marco, is true. It is a very harsh pill to take in once you've seen the overall picture of it all but, allow me to add a small wrinkle to your message. This may perhaps make the message much more harsher but for the sake of truth, I'll add something to it.

    You stated:
    "The invention and industrialized production of realistic female sex-bots might change this dynamic for men, but the basic dichotomy remains: men should increase their sexual "value" in their own best interest and women should refrain from having overly high and even unsatisfieable expectations for their idea of "romantic love"…"

    I'd wager that the average man cannot increase his sexual value sufficiently to inspire a genuine lust or desire (this distinction is important) in the average woman, no matter how hard he tries. Remember, there's a difference between a woman "willing" to have sex with you and a woman "wanting" to have sex with you.

    Now, as for the average man, can he still have sex with some? Sure. But chances are, he will not inspire that feral lust and "romantic" desire in a woman. How is that so? Well, for one, women have developed many ways of filtering men with good genes and this is something that has been fine tuned by evolution. For anyone not in the know, women feel more romantically attached to men with good genes and this is hard to fake by "confidence" or any other nonsense other PUAs say. It has been found that women will orgasm more deeply and frequently with men of high phenotypic qualities such as high facial/body symmetry. Men with high symmetry also emit a pleasurable scent during sex (at least to women) and this actually helps facilitates conception (since, chances are, she'll be more likely to orgasm). And as you succinctly put, "For women, Love = Sex."

    Just look at Honest Signalling. Many other animals abide by this form of sexual selection because it is difficult to falsify. Females in particular, can appraise facial attractiveness in a glance! I know, right? That's not what the PUAs have been saying for all these years.

    I could write more on the subject (and I intend to) but for now, I'll leave you with some studies to read whenever you get the chance.I'll only post the title and author(s) since the links may end up causing my comment to dissapear. See below:

    The Orgasm Wars by PT Staff (psychologytoday)

    Facial Attractiveness Is Appraised in a Glance.
    Olson, Ingrid R.; Marshuetz, Christy (2005)

    Attractive men induce testosterone and cortisol release in women.
    López HH1, Hay AC, Conklin PH. (2009)

    What leads to romantic attraction: similarity, reciprocity, security, or beauty? Evidence from a speed-dating study.
    Luo S1, Zhang G. (2009)

    1. What most studies fail to address is subjective aspect of looks.
      If you play the numbers game you are bound to find one chick you like and who will lust after you because you are her type.

      Misconstruing the meaning of Cronbach’s alpha, experts on facial attractiveness have conveyed the impression that facial-attractiveness judgment standards are largely shared. This claim is unsubstantiated, because information necessary for deciding whether judgments of facial attractiveness are more influenced by commonly shared or by privately held evaluation standards is lacking. Three experiments, using
      diverse face and rater samples to investigate the relative contributions of private and shared taste to judgments of facial attractiveness, are reported. These experiments show that for a variety of ancillary conditions, and contrary to the prevalent notion in the literature, private taste is about as powerful as shared taste. Important implications for scientific research strategy and laypeople’s self-esteem are discussed.

    2. or in more simple terms, not Globally attractive features.
      features that attractive for one girl and not for other
      its determined by individual differences in genes btw females(?)
      so girl who your specific features work will not only be attracted to height but to your say white skin, her attraction will be higher based on the addition of white skin .
      girl who say dont like white skin will attract to you now only based on height.
      assuming everything in the girls is the same except for like ness in white skin,
      the first will be more wet from you.

    3. Awesome comments, thanks guys!

      @ Icarus: Yes, I'd concur to your assumption as far the average male is concerned. It seems that marriage once got introduced and enforced with draconian measures for precisely this purpose: to safely pair-bond as many males with as many females and to thus ensure the stability of society. One could argue, whether marriage benefitted men or women more, but the impulse to quench and deny the strong impetus of female horniness leads me to the conclusion, that overall marriage maybe benefitted men a bit more (I know this is a debatable aspect).

      If the premise for heterosexual relationships continues to conform to the "romantic ideal" with all the dire consequences for most "average" and/or sexually unattractive men, what will the consequences look like?

      To keep it short, maybe either:

      1.) most men remain without females. Women don't have to rely upon men as provider$ and women don't need to fake "attraction" for men they don't feel attracted to. Open prostitution gets banned due to feminist ideology. Collective male sexual frustration needs to find outlets either inwardly as a "Sexodus" (als has already been diagnosed elsewhere), or as men abandoning the social and economic sphere (e.g. like the male "grasseters" in Japan) or as violent outward impulses (Eliot Rodger shooting spree, even though he was physically attractive only emotionally damaged, but the quality of the rage and hatred behind his actions is what I'm thinking of here). I'd also say that the massive influx of Muslim men to ISIS is also part of this. Disregarding all the religious mumbo-jumbo, I'd say taking part in such kind of fighting enterprise is for those men also an outlet of their raw masculine energies, the domination of women and their sexuality in general, enforcing strict rules for a society, raping female prisoners etc.. Just a thought of mine… but still…

      2.) OR the inept elite realizes that with the current dysfunctional structures of heterosexual relationships entire populations are bound to slowly fall into their demographic demise and destroy the foundations of traditional capitalist economy and power structure – that this cannot go on any longer and they pull the plug. "New" strict rules get enforced, the power of nasty religious (sexual) dogma reinstated, everything to ensure new "stability" in the reproduction of e.g. European populations. This would also mean, that women get taken away all their rights and bonuses and we're back in Calvinist Geneva 2.0.

      The only problem is, that the secret has been let out of the box: that women only really "romantically love" the hottest men, the guys with the absolutely best genes they could get hold of. And that it is biological. That human sexual nature has always been subversive in this regard working against the build-up of "stable" human societal power structures. Being in the know about this might make it impossible to unievoqually neutralize the negative male retaliating impulse of 1.), because the reason for it would still exist. And creating a new "cover story illusion" to hide the truth behind would become a ludicrous undertaking.

      And realizing something along the lines of 2.) would also require of men to believe in genuine female love for the "John Q. Publics" – which would require massive amounts of self-denial on the male part of the equation.


    4. @ Anonymous: That is also highly interesting. I'd still say that the basic characteristics for attractive men (i.e. the Graeco-Rpman statue) remain applicable, but the variantions and the range of variations to it are strongly controlled by personal taste, by fashion, by cultural influences in general.

      It is here where the dangerous aspect lies: if more and more women share the fad of the unshakeable conviction that they deserve men and sex symbols and of a kind, that is enforced by the mass media and simply impossible to meet by most average men of average resources, then that's a catastrophe for those men.

      Of course women could also embrace the idea of a less exclusive beauty standard as sexually attractive, which more men could realistically meet. But I don't know how women themselves would honestly and voluntarily accept that.

      See, in my social circle there's a very cool 29 yo girl, who is intelligent, sporty and attractive, but certainly not "a beauty". She comes from a male dominated family background and of course desires strong masculine, traditionally attractive men. And she is convinced as hell, that she only deserves the absolutely best guy, "… because I'm worth it." So she gets fucked by really cool hunks and they enjoy the detour but they are I no way interested in staying with her. So she got massively conflicted and finally (before getting 30! It really bothered her…) got a less aggressive, relationship-oriented guy into staying with her and now she's really busy in consolidating their connection, going on shared holiday trips, posting the photos online for everyone to see, planning into moving together/relocating and always talking about this guy and self-reinforcing, that this is really a guy she finds attractive: "I always thought I only found those masculine guys attractive, but since I got acquainted with HIM it seems it is quite different…". But the vibe she's giving of when she talks about him and describes him is not "romantic" or emotionally "overwhelmed". So I'd say she accepted the deal between taking a good guy, who likes her and can be controlled in order for her long streak of sour singleness to finally come to an end AND on the other hand trying to tie down some hunk, who fucks her well and risk getting older and remaining single. But with her current choice her sexual desires are still there below the surface and they might remain unsatisfied, even more so the more she tries to severs the ties with her BF. So if even an intelligent women, who is in control of her own life, isn't able to really reprogram herself sexually, how likely is it that most "ordinary" women would be able and willing to do so?

  9. While talking about society as a whole this old article from 1992 (!) comes to mind: "Whose Values?" ---

  10. Honestly , I think we have it better that women, at least we can change our attractiveness. It is absolutely insane how diffedent a person looks going from scrawny to ripped. Then there are thing like fams status money . The only option a woman has is surgery and breast implants.
    Their sexual attractiveness is way mor fatalistic.I don't understand why guys have all these " hard pills to swallow". What else did you expect from life? Being born super duper beautiful , tall ,big dick ,high IQ?
    You can go from average to above average by working on yourself. It may be not enough for a "perfect" ten but surely for a cute gal and content life. Digging to deel on faciak symmentry will get you to the asylum aka puahate

    1. Women can also massively alter their appearance and assume different styles and rolemodels. I'd also say that it's easier and quicker for women to lose weight and thereby become universally more attractive than it is for men to quickly build an equivalent amount of muscles or to maintain a low body fat ratio throughout the year. Female fashion is also much more varied. And men will honestly find women sexually attractive and willingly mate with them, who don't conform only to a narrow margin of "high sexual attractiveness".

      Fame, status and money will not buy you genuine "female romantic love". But some women will certainly fuck men based on those assets, so that may be a good thing. ;)

      I think the point we're trying to make is that people in general can only "improve" the cards they're were dealt to a certain extent. Of course maxing out one's own potential over time will definitely effect real gains and should most certainly fulfill the individual sexual needs of most men.

      What we're talking about is the deceptive narrative of "romantic love", which is propagated by Western culture. The influence of this lie on heterosexual relations is strong, it is shared by so many people conciously and subconciously, not the least because it is comforting, but it excludes most men from finding genuine female affection (should they wish for it).

    2. Its about the same for men and women.

      A woman can go from fat to thin and look better. A man can go from thin to ripped and look better.

      But a thin ugly girl is still ugly, and a ripped ugly guy is still ugly.

      You can't cheat nature. An ugly, short dude with 6% body fat and big muscles will be out competed in the mating game every time by a 6'2 handsome guy with a 15%-20% body fat and average muscles.

      Things only change when you get too fat (over 20% body fat), or too thin and un-muscular.

      A guy with, say, 17% body fat and average muscle tone (not scrawny) - i.e an average young guy - will get more attractive by going down to 12% body fat with bigger muscles, but probably not by as much as he'd expect. Maybe 10%-15% increase in attractiveness I'm guessing. Bringing it below 12% might give him another 1-2 % points.

      As long as you're in a reasonable muscle/body fat range you're just playing the margins. It can help, especially if you're got little else going for you, but it ain't gonna save you. Only guys who are super un-fit might see a dramatic improvement in their attractiveness.

      The comforting myth that extreme muscles and extreme leanness will transform you is just that, a comforting myth told to those who want to believe.

    3. Where are you getting these numbers? How do you know getting a great body is just a comforting myth? Do you have one?

      And there aren't that many 6'2 handsome guys around in the first place. Especially if you know how to pick your niche well.

      Most people aren't ugly, they are plain. So your logic "ugly guy will be ugly even with great body" doesn't apply to most men.

      If you are just plain average guy then getting a great body and sense of fashion will definitely put you in top 20% of attractiveness. Add some money and you become very attractive dating prospect.

    4. Romantic love is taken way too seriously. It began as a game played by bored aristocrats in 12th century Provence. The forms it took were grotesque - gynocentricism taken to an extreme, grotesque form that even todaya's feminism cannot match. The game was that Knights were literally the servants and slaves of women and the imagery and language reflected the extreme abasement and servitude of a knight before his "lady", and his need to "prove" himself worthy. Its real shocking stuff for anyone who wants to look it up.

      But the thing is it was just a game - a highly ritualized, stylized game that was never meant to be taken seriously. Kind of like bowing used to be popular as a form of respect - the imagery of the bow is that the other person is "superior" to you, but it is just a symbolic way of showing respect. It doesn't really mean that.

      But upper class fashions are inevitably imitated by the neuveau riche and eventually everyone else, so the game of romantic love spread across all classes began to be taken seriously. It didn't make sense in a non-aristocratic context.

      As for love between the sexes, it is selfish on both sides. It is based for both sides on reproductive advantage and offspring. Nature isn't idealistic. A womans' love that is based on a man's ability to privde and protect doesn't seem to me any worse than a man's love that is based on a woman's ability to provide him with healthy and robust offpsring.

      The idea that a man's love is somehow "purer" and more noble than a woman's has no place in an intelligent person's thinking. Its just idealistic bullshit to console men who fail in love.

      Biological imperatives exist for both sexes, but the interesting thing is that they exist in different strengths for everyone. Most men have a strong instinct to protect and provide for women and to be slightly in awe of women and consider women to define their value. This may be uncomfortable for people here to admit, but that's the majority of men. A guy like roosh has no interest in being "free" of the power of women. He likes his servitude. And most men are like that - the respect and value of women means everything to them. Most women strongly desire a man who can provide and protect for them.

      But for instance my biological imperatives in this regard are weaker than most men. I have come to accept that. I suspect most guys on this site have weak "male" biology when it comes to women. Women's judgements have always had some effect on me, but never that much - I never really took them seriously, was never in awe of them, and never felt that I had to "serve" them. Reading Aaron Sleazy or anyone else didn't make that happen - that's my biology. Sleazy doesn't change anyone's mind people read because he reflects their biology.

      The thing for me is to find a woman with similarly weak biological imperatives - she doesn't take the whole protector/provider thing seriously. Sure, neither of us will be entirely free from our biology, but it'll be weak in us.

    5. @Anonymous

      You can't cheat nature. An ugly, short dude with 6% body fat and big muscles will be out competed in the mating game every time by a 6'2 handsome guy with a 15%-20% body fat and average muscles.
      The comforting myth that extreme muscles and extreme leanness will transform you is just that, a comforting myth told to those who want to believe.

      While you're completely correct, I don't see why you felt the need to post what is essentially a straw-man. I've never seen a person who'd disagree with what you just said.

      To summarize, you're basically saying:

      - A dude with an ugly face who's SHORT (a three), but has perfectly chiseled physique

      will attract less women than a

      - Dude who's really REALLY TALLand has a super handsome face (a nine), but average physique

      Have you ever met anyone who'd disagree with this extreme example? If anyone ever has debates on this front, it'd be more in terms of less extreme differences. Such as whether a male six can get similar results to a male eight by improving his physique.

    6. @ Anonymous: great, great breakdown of this issue. Yes, in the end we cannot escape the limitation of this material existence, no matter how much we'd love to or how much false hopes we like to nurture and self-deception to believe in.
      This is the basis for universal self-acceptance (also called "self-love") which ultimately is unavoidable for any human.

    7. i think that some of what the anon user said is biological but some are cultural
      things your grow up with, and formed corresponding memories accordingly
      which can make go more out of your ways for female.

      like the confusion btw female duality
      i think marco said you will be better off that women have the FUCKER
      response to you at the very least.
      because if its the pure provider resposnse your value is determined purely
      of the things she gets, and she has all the interest to keep lying to get it,

      if you think female can get the fucker response from PROVIDING
      its defentily makes sense to provide, but if you realize its based on look
      on its own, there is no sense to provide, but instead to confirm first if she
      has the fucker response for you first before you go about providing or something along those lines.

      so what should be taken is not to change your behaviour around women, but instead to be selective with what women you make contact with, and then you can go on about being "a caring man" as usual.
      after you made sure isnt harmful for you(lacking fucker response)

    8. @ "Anonymous May 1, 2015 at 2:04 PM": when I used the term "romantic love" from a female perspective it's what women mean, when they try to describe "hot steamy sex" in more polite terms. That gynocentristic idea of "romance" is for losers.

    9. @Anon talking about the origins of romantic love and biology-
      Thank you. This was the most concise and to the point breakdown of the whole male-female relatuionship I ever read. This should be a separate article and on the front on every website dealing with dating.

      I find dating themes sites ,like the manoshphere, l laughable in general.
      The supposed ideology is that "women are not a mans priority" yet all they talk about is women.
      Take a look at rollotomassi, which became a popular book.
      They make it into a science-philosophy, what in reality, is just that, mechanical friction of two reproductive systems against each other.

  11. I think a point, also, that isn't being made or it might be but needs to be said more, is that one can become more attractive and date girls out of their leagues but girls will still feel RAW sexual attraction for guys who are genetically handsome or sexy. You either have the face and body or you don't. Women are too sweet but they know what they truly lust after.

    1. Yes, very good point. Well put. The good thing about it is, that it fosters self-acceptance. Because self-acceptance and (ultimately) self-love is the only way to deal with this issue for almost any man.
      Besides: not all women are sweet. ;) They just have the pussies.

    2. but then i had hotter girls who liked me , and less hotter who didnt,
      so women have tastes which means, every female has a different dream guy in mind.

      so one women would love brad pitt but would like george colooney more, other will go the otehr way around, and the third might not like them both above a little minimal lust.

    3. also its not that you either face or body, more like its a varying degrees of face and body, one has more and one has less, of course you then get the top hottest
      and the lowest hottest and the average ones too. this should be though globally
      attractive features shared by all males to various degrees if it doesnt shared by all males it cant be really rated(one group will like other wont). so unique tastes dont get covered in this.

    4. women are rational to a degree as well. they do have expectations and realize the reality of their situation (they don't live somewhere where they can get a brad pitt or george clooney or they're not that hot themselves), so they adjust. Yes on a biological level they may always in some ways lust after those types of guys, but I lust after hotter girls i see in the street or in the media, so what....

      You really got to make the best out of every card your dealt and leave everything else outside of your sphere of control and worry.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.