"Modern Alpha Male traits" correlate with sexual perversions?

I suppose "alpha male" is a concept that is subject to debate.

When I think of an "alpha male" I think of your "Chad": https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/chad

But Chad is an "alpha male" in a same way that niggers are, or hiphop stars.

I remember there have been discussion on this forum about how stupid is attractive to women, and how in an art of seduction, you certainly can be "too maculine" that prevents you from succeeding in mating game. That's because flirting and being charming is a feminine trait. Those with a greater degree of masculine traits usually don't flirt or try to charm females.

So anyway. In modern times, our "Chad" is the alpha male, no matter how stupid and ridiculous he is, how superficial, and how bad he is in controlling himself, how bad he is at sublimating his exess sexual energies towards something creative.

I know many "Chads" and I must admit, they are very attractive to females. Most of them have children, usually it goes that each child is with a different woman. So, they are successful. They get laid a lot. They spread their  seeds.

I have noticed though, that these "Chads" almost always have some kind of sexual perversion. If nothing else, they are very much into anal sex or oral sex. Also I hear males and females are more and more into S&M.
I have presented this article in this forum before:
Why Are So Many Women Searching for Ultra-Violent Porn
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Have you seen the movie The Believer? (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0247199/)

There is an interesting dialogue between the protagonist and some reporter:

The Believer wrote:

DANNY: The Jews are different.... Blacks are disgusting and inferior, but it's like criticizing a retarded child. The Jews are...a poison in the human well....
GUY: A poison...?
DANNY: Let me give you an example.... Sexuality.
GUY: Sexuality??? What do you mean?
DANNY: You ever fuck a Jewish girl?
GUY: What??!?
DANNY: Did you ever fuck one, Guy?
GUY: What's that go to do with...I've gone out with a, with Jewish women. Why?
DANNY: And? What did you notice?
GUY: Notice? Like what...?
DANNY: Jewish girls like to give head, right?
GUY: I don't know. Is that right?
DANNY: And Jewish men like to get it.
GUY: Everybody likes to, don't they?
DANNY: Yes. It's very pleasurable. But the Jews are obsessed with it. You know why?
GUY: Why?
DANNY: Because the Jew is essentially female.
GUY: Female...
DANNY: Real men -- white, Christian men -- we fuck a woman. We make her come with our cocks. But the Jew doesn't like to penetrate and thrust -- he can't assert himself that directly -- so he resorts to perversions. Oral sex is technically a perversion, you know that, don't you? (as Guy nods) After a woman has been with a Jewish man, she never wants a normal partner again. A normal man.
GUY: Does that mean the Jew is the better lover?
DANNY: You're not listening. He isn't better. He gives pleasure, but that's actually a weakness.

Do you think the protagonist Danny there is right? 

Also consider this. There are studies that show that one third to half of the women are actually attracted to other women. One such source that claims that: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

So, is "modern alpha male", our "Chad", really the lesbian lover of a female? He licks pussy and asshole. He likes to get his dick sucked. He practises all kinds of sexual perversions. His aim is pure pleasure and nothing else. The reproductive success is just a byproduct of all this.

Chad....
If this means possessing genetic markers, yes.
But alpha may also have charm.

Abrahamism, in general, makes males into surrogate females.
With Jews, the symbolism of circumcision is clear.
God is the only alpha, all biological males are his agencies, his extension, because it is an ideal with no reality.
God represents a collective. All males serve the collective...ergo Christianity and Judaism are naturally drawn to Marxism.
Islam is slightly different because of tis hyper-masculine traits. God is the alpha and his aggression, violence, brutality, is performed by biological males, in his name.
Judaism and Christianity went through this developmental stage and return to it when they lose power.

In the wild only a few males would reproduce.
Aryans intervened to include as many males into the tribe,a s possible, so as to increase survivability in harsh conditions.
Paternalism...a limit to male and female sexual impulses.

We are returning to this because of Americanism's gradual decline.
A symptom of deteriorating.
A system cannot survive without a reproductive family.
US got by by importing what it was losing due to its culture of promotion degeneracy. Promoted by Jews to make the US safe and malleable to them.
Now they realize that they were seeding their own destruction, since without white males there is no US army worth shit.
What they have now is what they manufactured....effete, transsexual, gay, non-invested, free-radical men-children.
Without technologies they have no army to fight Russia or China.
Even technologies are a product of male innovations.

Satyr wrote:

But alpha may also have charm.

If an alpha male is defined as adaptation to environment and reproductive success, then alpha males of modern society certainly do have charm.

If we use Weininger's ratio of male/female energies occuring in any given individual, then 99% male, 1% female would not be alpha. More like 70% male, 30% female would be the alpha, right? Though I suppose it's way more complicated than representing this phenomena with a single number.

My point is, those males that tend to do well in the mating game in modern society, are not really presenting anything remarkable or extra-ordinary in any area of life. They are certainly not the most physically fit, nor mentally remarkable. They do possess the social skills and their aim seems to be social harmony. They are about pleasures and higher degree of socialization.

You posted this to Rupert Spira -thread:

Satyr wrote:

Necessity, Ananke, being the mother of invention.
What is sufficient need not evolve.

Let me just say first that I don't mean to paraphrase you wrong, or understand intentionally wrong what you say. I'm applying what you say in my own speculations completely. I don't know if you agree with me or not.

Could it be that the modern day "alpha male" has not really evolved in any way because he's sufficient?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Wikipedia wrote:

Many studies, using different averaging techniques, including the use of line drawings and face profiles have shown that this is a general principle: average faces are consistently more attractive than the faces used to generate them.

So, average is the alpha? Not the extra-ordinary?

Let's take male athletes as an example.
The soccer players, or in Finland's case, the ice hockey players are the sex symbols and they are very widely desired sexually by females.
Why powerlifters or weightlifters are not sex symbols? Or marathon runners?

I guess part of the reason is that a soccer game or an ice hockey game both have a strong social dimension built in. I mean just look at how FIFA is very much political organization, spreading the message of football "uniting the world". Social dimensions. Not so much male-male competition. Not so much measuring who's the alpha in a sense of physical fitness or such.

Could it also be that the modern day females, infected with the nihilist virus, do not desire evolved males, because that would be stupid in a sense, because sufficient is enough? Isn't it in some way stupid to make more effort than what is needed? A powerlifter or a weightlifter, using hours and hours to develop as an athlete, is losing a lot of opportunities for pleasures and socialization. Pleasures and socialization are considered to be worth of pursuing in modern society.

Jack Donovan wrote an essay Train for Honor which is published in his book A Sky Without Eagles. In modern society, there are no physical challenges. So nobody really needs to be more physically fit than to get out of bed in the morning and go to work. Aiming for more is just wasted effort, which would be in a sense stupid.

Those who train, lift weights or run long distances, are doing it for honor, in a sense. But since females are pragmatic, they are not about any abstract concept such as honor. So those males that aim to transcend self and others, are doing it just because, which is seen as stupid to modern females? And stupid is not fit, right?

In more harsh environment of course, the type of our "Average Joe" would no longer cope with the challenges of the environment.

So now there would be a shift in the very definition of an alpha male. Now the alpha male would be the one who transcends himself and others.

Illiterate wrote:

Satyr wrote:

But alpha may also have charm.

If an alpha male is defined as adaptation to environment and reproductive success, then alpha males of modern society certainly do have charm.

Some do...other rely on physical markers.
The environment determines what is fit.
So, in a feminized environment more effete males are considered desirable - metrosexuals.
But, the issue is that the mind may affect the environment and change it faster than the body can adapt to.
Example:
Obesity is a consequence of the body evolving in austere environments, suddenly placed in a manmade environment of nutritional abundance.
This create dissonance.
The mind know it is bad for its physical health to consume too many sugars and fats, but the body is still attracted to them because of how rare these were in environments prior to those man intervened upon.
We can transfer this to sexual matters.
A woman may intellectual know that the more effete, socially ideal, metrosexual male is preferable and yet still find that less charming with the right physical markers, indicating fitness, to be irresistible.

I've transferred this across all human affairs. For instance nihilism proposes ideals that contradict all natural identifiers and markers, producing severe mind/body dissonance.

Quote :

If we use Weininger's ratio of male/female energies occuring in any given individual, then 99% male, 1% female would not be alpha. More like 70% male, 30% female would be the alpha, right? Though I suppose it's way more complicated than representing this phenomena with a single number.

Yes, the environment determines which mix will be more effective, keeping in mind what I said before.
So, if we imagine a Mad Max kind of future dystopia environment, then the masculine/feminine balance shifts towards the masculine. In this environment a brute would be more effective and so more desirable intellectually, and if the environment persisted the body would evolve an automated response.
In our present environment large populations, the undesirability of in-group violence, makes a more political attitude, a more feminine male, to be more effective.
We still need violence directed outward, to protect the group.
If this persists for a long period of time then social selection will overturn centuries of natural selection, and a more effete male will be desirable....at that point there will be no difference between the masculine and the feminine.
This will never be the case not only because violence will always be necessary but, also, because the masculine aggression, challenging all order, all rules, is what produces innovation.
The feminine cannot invent, it can only improve or nurture what is given to her.

Quote :

My point is, those males that tend to do well in the mating game in modern society, are not really presenting anything remarkable or extra-ordinary in any area of life. They are certainly not the most physically fit, nor mentally remarkable. They do possess the social skills and their aim seems to be social harmony. They are about pleasures and higher degree of socialization.

they provide the feminine nurturing, support, with a penis.
In modern systems the institution has taken over the role of dominant male - alpha - and all males become betas.
If we study chimp group dynamics we witness this strategy. An inferior male become for the female an ally against her female competitors - helping her in fights or in raising her offspring, which are most often the alpha's.
As a reward - to keep him hanging around - the female gives him sex - in secret - and this gives him the possibility of fathering at least one of her offspring.
Although with humans this must be adjusted of the fact that human female estrus is not as evident as it is for chimps.
A human female has more control over who fertilizes her, because only she knows when she is most fertile.
Another factor to be considered is the role female orgasm plays in determining which sperm will find its way to the ovum.
So, a human female may have sex with a beta - her husband lat's say - 2-3 times a week....and have an extramarital affair with a coworker once, and because of her orgasm have her attractive coworkers offspring without her husband eve knowing.

Quote :

Let me just say first that I don't mean to paraphrase you wrong, or understand intentionally wrong what you say. I'm applying what you say in my own speculations completely. I don't know if you agree with me or not.

Could it be that the modern day "alpha male" has not really evolved in any way because he's sufficient?

He still is because human environments cannot completely exclude nature.
We can say that more technological modern environments have only been a factor for the last century, or so....that's not sufficient time to evolve out of the necessity of a traditional alpha male, who has the physical markers and the mental agility to play the social game.
The option of rape, for example, is no longer viable, as it was in the past.

Quote :

So, average is the alpha? Not the extra-ordinary?

Average is comforting to the female. It indicates a male that will hang around....reliability is important for her reproductive role. Someone consistent, so that she can then sample....

Quote :

Let's take male athletes as an example.
The soccer players, or in Finland's case, the ice hockey players are the sex symbols and they are very widely desired sexually by females.
Why powerlifters or weightlifters are not sex symbols? Or marathon runners?

Because symmetry must be proportional.
Proportionality indicates effectiveness in real world circumstances.
Those extraordinary males are not effective, but only in a few things they are supoer-effective.
The jack of all trades is preferable to deal with life's unpredictability.
Symmetry is sacrificed to chaos - randomness....if we get metaphysical.
Too much muscle makes a man less agile. Hellenic balance is most desirable.
Even for males - well healthy ones - huge breasts are not attractive...or a huge disproportional ass is not desirable.
Fetishes are another issue having to do with psychology.

We also see this in music...a computer generated symphony is not as effective to us as a human symphony with its imperfections, subtle but perceptible on a subconscious level.

Quote :

Could it also be that the modern day females, infected with the nihilist virus, do not desire evolved males, because that would be stupid in a sense, because sufficient is enough? Isn't it in some way stupid to make more effort than what is needed?

Postmodern females - their minds dominated by a nihilistic dogma - may choose the blue-haired effete male, for social reasons, but physically she's still attracted to the same markers.
Here we are entering the issue of how the mind's infection by a nihilistic ideology produces severe mind/body dissonance....usually manifesting fetishes, drug use etc. Some kind of coping mechanism.

In he past this was less possible because, as I said, human technologies were not as effective in creating and maintaining our artificial environments - urban environments.
Today an individual can live their entire life with minimal or no contact with nature - other than parks, or on TV.
Technologies have advanced. Now mind/body dissonance is increasing...as the individual cannot adapt fast enough to changing manmade circumstances.
This produces all kinds of psychological issues, in men and women.

Quote :

Jack Donovan wrote an essay Train for Honor which is published in his book A Sky Without Eagles. In modern society, there are no physical challenges. So nobody really needs to be more physically fit than to get out of bed in the morning and go to work. Aiming for more is just wasted effort, which would be in a sense stupid.

That's true.
And specialization cultivates specific traits, creating disproportionality.
Nerds, for example, may have a high IQ but lack social intelligence, or what they call EQ....and may be physically unfit.

Quote :

Those who train, lift weights or run long distances, are doing it for honor, in a sense. But since females are pragmatic, they are not about any abstract concept such as honor. So those males that aim to transcend self and others, are doing it just because, which is seen as stupid to modern females? And stupid is not fit, right?

Yes...too needy.
Overcompensation for an insecurity.

Quote :

In more harsh environment of course, the type of our "Average Joe" would no longer cope with the challenges of the environment.

So now there would be a shift in the very definition of an alpha male. Now the alpha male would be the one who transcends himself and others.

Now an alpha is physically proportional - veering towards the feminine, boyish type - but is also socially fit, charming, socially agile, diplomatic, political....

Illiterate wrote:

Quote :

Postmodern females - their minds dominated by a nihilistic dogma.....

Women who run with Wolves, Clarissa Pinkola Estes is a book about Myths and stories of the Wild Woman Archetype, some excerpts from it.

Deep instinctual nature became endangered through society as it is not regarded as important. Rationality and decision making through the head has become the primal and socially accepted way of things. The wild woman archetype is instinctual knowledge which everyone has deep inside. It is knowing when to stay and when to leave, when to let live, and when to let die. It is knowledge about the natural cycles of life in balance. 

There are high expectations on women nowadays: they should be everything for everyone. 

The female psyche is fertile and life-giving, it is a psychology of women in the truest sense, a knowing of the soul.  We are nature for all our sophistication.
  
Man wants a woman to be only what he wants her to be: perfectly innocent and naive, (Aeon has expressed this many times on this Forum).  

Naive women are prey, to let themselves be captured and not to trust their own instincts. 

How can a woman live a full life under these circumstances.

Satyr wrote:

that's not sufficient time to evolve out of the necessity of a traditional alpha male, who has the physical markers and the mental agility to play the social game.

So, even if male, successful in mating game (alpha), would seem "average" or in some cases even stupid (stupid is attractive to many women, it seems), it could be that this is just a representation of mental agility that this superior male possesses?

Kinda like what you said in Russian Bear topic:

Satyr wrote:

Russia is using American tactics against America.
This is the only way to defeat nihilists.

I once said that against emasculating feminine nihilistic methods one must stoop to their level.
You can't defeat insanity with sanity, not a woman with reasoning.
You must adopt their methods and adapt them to your needs.

So, even the traditional alpha male stoops to the level of nihilists, to play the social game, rather than dropping out the game, would you say?

Satyr wrote:

In he past this was less possible because, as I said, human technologies were not as effective in creating and maintaining our artificial environments - urban environments.

You are right. In Finland, many old people enjoy ice swimming in winters. They have a dip in 0°C water for 30 seconds or so, repeatedly. Young people in general however, think that it is sick and insane. They can not think of why anyone would do that shit voluntarily.

Here again, older people are more traditional (represent the resistance to cold - makes sense - since it is north where we are living) and younger people remain more urban. They want to escape the cold and many families and individuals actually like to travel to Spain during winter or even to such places as Thailand.

Could it be the case that 100 years ago it was considered healthy to demonstrate adaptation to one's environment. Back then it was considered healthy to build resistance to cold in Nordic countries; nowadays it's considered healthy to book a trip abroad, to escape cold, since it's possible and anyone can do it effortlessly.

Satyr wrote:

Those extraordinary males are not effective, but only in a few things they are supoer-effective.
The jack of all trades is preferable to deal with life's unpredictability.
Symmetry is sacrificed to chaos - randomness....if we get metaphysical.

I guess you are right.

But what ought you to do, if you possess kind of Spartan mindset; no retreat, no surrender? If it is too painful to adopt the role of a modern nihilist? Is there any hope for you?

Would you agree with Nietzsche on this: https://philosophynow.org/issues/29/Nietzsche_and_Evolution

Quote :

Nietzsche had assumed that the outcome of Darwinian evolution could only account for the success of inferior (weak and mediocre) forms of life simply in terms of sheer numbers, e.g., the ubiquitous viruses, bacteria, insects and fishes. The philosopher argued that Darwin’s blind speciesstruggle of the masses for existence needed to be replaced by his own discovery of the individual-struggle of a few for selfcreation and excellence.
...
Even so, he saw a natural tendency for the human animal to evolve toward common mediocrity. But, through the will to power, superior individuals have the potential to master their lives (overcoming nihilism and pessimism) and the intellect to actualize creative activity.

Do I have any hope, if I would like to see human animal to not evolve toward mediocrity? Rather, I would like to see some direction in natural selection in humans.

Is symmetry necessarily, in the end, always sacrificed to chaos, since nothing is ever perfect?

Illiterate wrote:

So, even if male, successful in mating game (alpha), would seem "average" or in some cases even stupid (stupid is attractive to many women, it seems), it could be that this is just a representation of mental agility that this superior male possesses?

There are many variables.
A woman's IQ, is one; her self-esteem, is another.

A high IQ woman, for instance, will be dominated by the social ideal; whereas low IQ could be more primal.
High self-esteem would be attracted to what is more like her - in whatever way or level she knows herself; a low self-esteem woman would be attracted to a mate that compensates for what she acknowledges as her faults, and to the degree she evaluates them.

Quote :

So, even the traditional alpha male stoops to the level of nihilists, to play the social game, rather than dropping out the game, would you say?

He must, if he hopes to be effective among the average - increasing the probabilities of success.
If he's going for the rare one, then probabilities are low.

Quote :

You are right. In Finland, many old people enjoy ice swimming in winters. They have a dip in 0°C water for 30 seconds or so, repeatedly. Young people in general however, think that it is sick and insane. They can not think of why anyone would do that shit voluntarily.

I like cold baths.
I went to a local spa named "Finlandia"...coincidentally, and got into one of those ice-cold bahts, in the middle of winter. It was outside.

Quote :

Here again, older people are more traditional (represent the resistance to cold - makes sense - since it is north where we are living) and younger people remain more urban. They want to escape the cold and many families and individuals actually like to travel to Spain during winter or even to such places as Thailand.

I'm not a fan of heat and humidity.

Quote :

Could it be the case that 100 years ago it was considered healthy to demonstrate adaptation to one's environment. Back then it was considered healthy to build resistance to cold in Nordic countries; nowadays it's considered healthy to book a trip abroad, to escape cold, since it's possible and anyone can do it effortlessly.

Sheltering lowers tolerance to pain and suffering.

Quote :

But what ought you to do, if you possess kind of Spartan mindset; no retreat, no surrender? If it is too painful to adopt the role of a modern nihilist? Is there any hope for you?

Find those of your own kind, if you can.
If not...adapt or die.

Quote :

Would you agree with Nietzsche on this: https://philosophynow.org/issues/29/Nietzsche_and_Evolution

Quote :

Nietzsche had assumed that the outcome of Darwinian evolution could only account for the success of inferior (weak and mediocre) forms of life simply in terms of sheer numbers, e.g., the ubiquitous viruses, bacteria, insects and fishes. The philosopher argued that Darwin’s blind speciesstruggle of the masses for existence needed to be replaced by his own discovery of the individual-struggle of a few for selfcreation and excellence.
...
Even so, he saw a natural tendency for the human animal to evolve toward common mediocrity. But, through the will to power, superior individuals have the potential to master their lives (overcoming nihilism and pessimism) and the intellect to actualize creative activity.

Nietzsche proposed the Aristocratic ethos.
Adaptation requires a compromise of these values.
Lowering yourself to the mediocre is degrading.

Yet, for me, it is this:
If I wanted to build a boat, would I wait to find the ideal wood, or make due with what was immediately available?

He died childless.
If you are okay with this, then do not compromise.
If not, make a short term compromise. These days there is no 'death do us part'....marriages last, seven years, at the most.
A sacrifice to your ancestors of a few years would not be so bad.

Like hunting.. a man lowers himself to the animal he is hunting - wearing tis pelts, covering himself with tis urine to mask himself.
The imitation is temporary.

Also consider the implications of this movie scene from the movie A Beautiful Mind

feminization is returning western man - temporality - to primal mating practices, multiplied by technologies that make females even more formidable a factor.
Males are forced to adapt, returning to competitions and the practice of seeding as many females as he can afford - instead of quality quantity.
Niggers practice this consistently - they fuck anything that they can get their hands on.
Higher IQ males are more disriminating...so they often die childless...like Nietzsche, and Schopenhauer and many others.
They, at least, seeded future generations memetically - with their ideas.
So, it becomes a issue of how much you want it and what are you willing to do to get it?
Going against your core values is not healthy. it will lead to disaster and the loss of your self-respect, so it's a personal matter...and chance, and taking advantage of opportunity when it comes.

Quote :

Do I have any hope, if I would like to see human animal to not evolve toward mediocrity? Rather, I would like to see some direction in natural selection in humans.

Everything goes in cycles.
We were unfortunate to be born during the down turn...when the dominant empire is dying.
A generation from now the upturn will begin.....or it is occurring elsewhere.
In Russia, for example, I think they will enter an upturn after this tumultuous war period.
Demographics will improve.

Quote :

Is symmetry necessarily, in the end, always sacrificed to chaos, since nothing is ever perfect?

Yes....the further we drift from the near-absoltue event - Big band - the more symmetry will be sacrificed to proportionality - functionality.
One sacrifice is individuation - specialization can compensate, necessitating he reduction of independence and valuing the median as a way of all-inclusivity.

I see an end if and when space becomes accessible to the average man....then this Behavioural Sink planetary enclosure will cease to be a factor.

Satyr wrote:

A high IQ woman, for instance, will be dominated by the social ideal; whereas low IQ could be more primal.
High self-esteem would be attracted to what is more like her - in whatever way or level she knows herself; a low self-esteem woman would be attracted to a mate that compensates for what she acknowledges as her faults, and to the degree she evaluates them.

Could we say that this modern nihilist dogma is very much designed to weaken and demoralize especially high IQ women? And through them, the rest of mankind, by influencing how high IQ women behave and make decisions.

What I'm presenting next is a very gross generalization; but do you think that physically smaller, weaker and most petite women are more prone to be seduced, since almost any mate would compensate for what she acknowledges as her faults, since almost any male is superior to her?

I'm 184cm tall. And I tend to feel attraction towards women, who are taller than average women, sometimes quite a bit taller than average women actually. Women who I have admired the most in the last few years have been 177, 181 and 182cm tall. Sadly for me all of these three were and still are taken, so my relationships with these women have been platonical only. Though I respect them a lot, mainly because in them, I can see the filtering happening in mate selection. So each of these women are downright ladies compared to 98% of modern women who I consider to be disgusting cum guzzlers.

One "Chad" once tried to hit on one of these women. He said to this woman: "Wow, you look very hot. Do you go to the gym?"
This woman replied, with a tedious voice: "What business is it of yours if I go to the gym or not?"
"Chad" here seized up completely. He was totally awkward. Sure, he did not think of this incident for long, since he always has ten other women to fuck to. I have witnessed this "Chad" here succeeding many times with women, always using some sleazy one-liners and females tend to fall for it every time. But I'm kind of glad that there are a few women who do not.

So I like women who are coy, in a sense. And I like to see aggressive filtering happening in mating game on women's part. 

In a sense, I feel very attracted to strong women. But strong here doesn't mean what feminists mean by it.

It's one of the most common criteria for women, that the male should be taller than her. So a 180cm tall woman would filter out pretty much most males just because of that criteria. That's probably one reason I tend to like taller than average women. I suppose it's kind of a fetish.

You said to me in another thread, that I was mixing male and female attitudes towards sex.

Satyr wrote:

This is also about feminization.
Western nihilistic norms force males to become more like women in sexual matters.

Also, modern systems hold the male accountable for pregnancies, so having sex with a sub-stadad female risks a longer commitment, reducing all his future sexual probabilities.

I recognize this in myself. I also recognize that I don't possess much of the "alpha male" qualities in how I behave sexually. Perhaps there's a somewhat feminine dimension in me about this matter. Don't know if it's the product of the environment or is it that I have inherently quite a bit of female energies in me.

But could it be that if I have a somewhat strong feminine side in me inherently, it's another reason why I find taller women attractive?
Also I find physically strong women attractive, and in my eyes, if a woman is not tall, being strong is the only way to compensate.
I am also stronger than an average male myself, using kind of an objective criteria and comparison, such as with this tool: https://strengthlevel.com/strength-standards
Though I am much more distinguished in endurance sports. So I'm not that strong (though I am much stronger than an average Joe), but I am that enduring and durable.

For example I find Joanna Łochowska very attractive though she is only 158cm tall.

But I would absolutely never find such a petite woman attractive if she didn't possess a great degree of physical potential and has harnessed it also.

So, I find females who possess same attributes and qualities than me, attractive. I don't want a stronger or taller woman than me, but almost as tall or almost as strong. About strenght I am talking relatively; I don't mean the woman should absolutely lift almost the same weights as I do.

If you want Satyr, you could share your positions about fetishes analyzing my preferences here. Thank you!

Attraction to stronger females is about being attracted to less feminize females.
You like a woman who can take care of herself, and stand up against the average male.

A way of finding that high IQ, or quality, female that reduces the probability for straying.

In my essay "Tentative Defence of Monogamy" I say that high IQ females are more monogamous because females are only attracted to superior males - males that intimidate them, to a degree- and it is difficult for a high IQ woman to find such males.
Unless they suffer from some kind of psychological issues.
These athletic super-fit women are also less promiscuous mainly because of reduced options.
Female's are human filtering agencies.
They filter out genetic unfitness and memetic unfitness, according to their meme's ideals.
This is gradually producing ideological based tribalism.
Gyms and clubs and jobs is where these ideological tribes meet and mingle.
More so in nihilistic systems - western, Americanised - where ideology replaces culture - using semiotics, e.g., fashion, grooming, jargon, to signal which ideological tribe you belong to.

Quote :

Could we say that this modern nihilist dogma is very much designed to weaken and demoralize especially high IQ women? And through them, the rest of mankind, by influencing how high IQ women behave and make decisions.

Nihilism is meant to offer a defence against self-awarness and how one compares to other.
But there are variants.
Americanism also demoralizes males, reducing their threat to the system
Woman are not a threat, unless they nurture ideals in their offspring that are contrary to the systemic ones.

Woman are indoctrinated and become systemic agencies for filtering out and disciplining males.

As males are emasculated females begin to fill in the void left in receding masculinity.
We see a convergence between male/female behaviour, until gender becomes interchangeable - Transsexuality is a symptom of Americanism - its ideal of the self-made, self-creating man.
This is founded on Locke's delusion of tabula rasa.
We are all born equal - blank slates - and we construct or are given a construct of an identity.
In this theory all are interchangeable - there are no races, no genders, sex is physical and not mental/psychological...and a superficial marker.
All is nurturing...all is a product of environment, which, in the west, is the American model.

So we get these ideologically based tribes.
I claimed that modern day comic book superheroes/supervillains are idealized representations of these urban tribes, organized around a shared lifestyle, musical tastes etc...and common mutations.
Sheltering propagates and protects almost all mutations.
This is where females filter out the socially acceptable, ideal, form the not ideal and acceptable.
Within what is acceptable and ideal there is a range...within which we have these tribal congregations of of the likeminded.
The jocks, the nerds, the rebels, the yuppies etc.
All variants of nihilism - all sharing core ideals - like race sex are social constructs, all are equal, appearances are superficial, etc. - and differ in the particular niche they gravitate towards corresponding to their mutations, determining their inclinations, their sexual orientations, their fetishes, etc.
If the variant does not contradict these shared core ideals, anything is accepted...now paedophilia is becoming acceptable.
If this persist for a sufficient time period - and doesn't implode, as I predict it will - then we will eventually evolve into ideologically based sub-types, each with its own extraordinary physical and mental markers...each unable to reproduce or even tolerate the others.
But we aren't that far down that path, yet.
Nor will we ever go there, because such a mutational loaded system implodes, unable to reproduce the types it needs to preserve and grow.
But we already see these sub-groupings emerging across the American sphere of influence.
A member of one ideological tribe having more in common with another member across the world than with someone next door, of another ideological tribe.
Females play the role of keeping the groups distinct and separate by choosing along ideological lines.
So, a woman heavily into bodybuilding will tend to mate with someone of her kind, even if he may have other issues.
A counter-cultue female will find another male of her kind, even if he may not have physical fitness markers....his physical (genetic) unfitness is compensated by his ideological (memetic) superfitness....so males are always ideologically signalling with much more passion than females.
A feminist male, for example, will be super fanatical about feminism.

Americanism = no-culture, no traditions, no races, no sexes, no genders...all is a product on the open markets.
Changeable, recyclable...Global.
Culture = fashion, trend.
Americanized females are creating this as we speak, through their sexual selection of males, forcing males to adapt to their preferences.
This is why masculinity is "toxic" and Paternalism is "totalitarianism" - especially European paternalism.

It's the coming of the cyborg.
Humans enhanced by technological prosthetics will choose which race, sex, they are.
As long as their choice doesn't threaten the system offering these prosthetics for a a price - offering payment methods to make them affordable.

A particularly beautiful woman is obviously a source of terror for both of you.

Freyja wrote:

A particularly beautiful woman is obviously a source of terror for both of you.

Well, if that's true then we certainty nothing to fear from you.

Reread the text.
Beauty is power.
Feminization multiplies feminine power.
She's not powerful the institution, backing her up, is powerful.
Institutions become protector and provider.

In nature males have a response to female sexual power.
This is criminalized in modern systems - especially those based on nihilism.

Freyja wrote:

Quote :

A particularly beautiful woman is obviously a source of terror for both of you.

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

Well, if that's true then we certainty nothing to fear from you.

Why me?

I don't recall ever meeting you in person, or speaking with you for that matter, somehow you insinuate the opposite.

If we have crossed paths and I missed meeting you, my disappointment knows no depths.

In evolutionary environment males don't participate anal or oral sex, I suppose. Also they don't cum in a female's mouth or on her ass or tits.

That's because when resources are scarce and survival uncertain, for a male it's important to try to fertilize, right?
Sperm production is energy consuming. 


As I said in the topic title, sexual perversions correlate with modern day "alpha male" traits. Atleast this is my experience. Or should we say, sexual perversions are modern day "alpha male" traits? I don't mean the really "sick" and "twisted" kind of perversions but such acts that are technically perversions such as anal or oral sex.

I know couple of guys, who have said that they would participate exclusively anal sex, if their female sex partners are willing. Normal vaginal penetration would be, and many times is, a price to them. They give certain females what they want (normal vaginal penetration), if they in return give these males what they really want (exclusicely anal sex).

But like I said, I know only couple of this kind of males, who have said that they really like anal sex so much, that they would do only anal sex if it were up to them. Anything else (such as vaginal penetration) is just a compromise on their part.

Even so, many males say that they like regular oral sex, anal sex, handjobs, footjobs, titjobs, assjobs, facesittings etc...
And these males that do participate in such sexually perverted acts, tend to do well with females. 

Also, females are into sexual perversions. Probably to a greater degree than males. Have you heard of "Fifty Shades Phenomenon?" [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Quote :

The most interesting thing about the Fifty Shades phenomenon is that the overwhelming majority of its readers are women. Why interesting? Well here we are half-a-century after the apparent emancipation of women, and millions of women are eagerly lapping up a pornographic book about a girl who submits to an overbearing, domineering deviant and lets him do pretty much whatever he wants to her.

Also watch the link that I presented in my opening post.
Females look 1,5 to 2 times more such porn genres as "double penetration", "gangbang", "rough sex", "bondage" etc... Of course we need to keep in mind that there are much more females that don't watch porn than there are males that don't watch it. So, maybe it's like most females are not even watching porn, but those that do, tend to have a strong preference for kinky stuff.

Is this phenomenon, especially in male's part, connected to the handicap principle? Males signing virility by splashing their sperm there and there. Most of the sperm doesn't end up even close to vagina, but that's the point - sing that there's plenty more where that came from?

Alpha male today is the male that produces the greatest amount of excess sperm; and who squirts most of it from his dick, who is the most creative with his bodily fluids?

Women suffer from mind/body dissonance to a greater degree if they are indoctrinated into nihilistic dogmas/ideologies.
They are also more likely to indulge in all kinds of sexual acts because their entire body is a sex organ and, more importantly, they've evolved the ability to enjoy being penetrated.
Sex is an intoxicating experience, for them.
Otherwise the act of being penetrated is an affront, as it is for healthy males.

Intercourse is a violent act, so both sexes must evolve the ability o violate and to be violated.
Lesbianism comes more naturally to females.

The entire process, including gestation, is a process of deception and tricking the female's automated self-preservation processes.
The vagina is hostile territory for male sperm and then when fertilization occurs the female has to trick her autoimmune system so as to not reject the foreign element.

This gives us an idea why females approach sex differently.

Satyr wrote:

Lesbianism comes more naturally to females.

Satyr wrote:

They are also more likely to indulge in all kinds of sexual acts because their entire body is a sex organ and, more importantly, they've evolved the ability to enjoy being penetrated.

It seems to me that nowadays it's the case in many males too, that their entire body is a sex organ. Also note how it's becoming more and more popular for males to be penetrated too in porn. In Louis Theroux: Forbidden America (2022) documentary serie, there was a popular male porn actor, who was shooting a scene where three women penetrated him with big-ass strap-ons. (And yes, I know that Theroux is one of (((them))) but I have heard that this kind of porn is not promoted only by Theroux)

But I suppose if lesbianism comes more naturally to women, then many women are attracted to feminized males? Or is this the case?

Illiterate wrote:

Also consider this. There are studies that show that one third to half of the women are actually attracted to other women. One such source that claims that: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Would you say that a female who feels attraction towards other females, would feel attraction more to a effeminate male than masculine one? So, even the biologically heterosexual relationships tend to be more like lesbian relationships?