Which one of the strategies is occurring in humans in the natural environment? What about in modern society? If neither is occurring, please share your insights on the matter.
He-man in short:
Richard Dawkins wrote:
I now turn to the other main female strategy, the he-man strategy. In species where this policy is adopted the females, in effect, resign themselves to getting no help from the father of their children, and go all-out for good genes instead.
Domestic Bliss in short:
Richard Dawkins wrote:
The female looks the males over, and tries to spot signs of fidelity and domesticity in advance. There is bound to be variation in the population of males in their predisposition to be faithful husbands. If females could recognize such qualities in advance, they could benefit themselves by choosing males possessing them. One way for a female to do this is to play hard to get for a long time, to be coy. Any male who is not patient enough to wait until the female eventually consents to copulate is not likely to be a good bet as a faithful husband. By insisting on a long engagement period, a female weeds out casual suitors, and only finally copulates with a male who has proved his qualities of fidelity and perseverance in advance.
Now, there are interesting sources that claim that humans have significantly more foremothers than forefathers.
Citing recent DNA research, Dr. Baumeister explained that today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men. Maybe 80 percent of women reproduced, whereas only 40 percent of men did.
For much of human history, a greater proportion of women in the population reproduced relative to men, they found. This means "that even though there may be equal numbers of males and females in a population, a larger proportion of the females than the males are reproducing," Stoneking said.
As modern humans moved into Europe more than 45,000 years ago, the number of mothers may have outnumbered fathers by around 100 to 30, according to Stoneking.
So that would suggest that in natural environments, The He-man strategy might have occured. But of course better reproductive success of females than males doesn't necessarily mean that human females tend to seek the alpha male. There are other things to consider.
All of these sources however claimed that females had at least a 2:1 mating ratio compared to males (one source claimed that while 80% of females procreated, only 40% of males procreated, other sources claimed even greater ratio).
So, either any given female individual didn't mind being just one of the alpha's bitches, or women shared the alpha male out of necessity (the rest of the males being dead, for example). It could be assumed of course, that humans lived in a herd. So maybe many beta males thought they raised their own offspring, while it was really alpha's offspring and betas had the cuckold roles. But, in chimpanzee societies beta males sometimes ally and kill the alpha if he gets too creedy and restricts the opportunities of the beta males too much, why wouldn't this been the case in humans too?
Richard Dawkins himself thinks that the domestic bliss theory is taking place more than the he-man strategy, in humans. But in what degree, and is Dawkins even right?
Richard Dawkins wrote:
Could females force males to invest so heavily in their offspring before they allow copulation that it would no longer pay the males to desert after copulation? The idea is appealing. A male who waits for a coy female eventually to copulate with him is paying a cost: he is forgoing the chance to copulate with other females, and he is spending a lot of time and energy in courting her. By the time he is finally allowed to copulate with a particular female, he will inevitably be heavily 'committed' to her.
Now, in my experience, a male who shows the degree of commitment as Dawkins describes above, is considered totally hopeless by females and is not attractive to females in any degree, really. Many, if not most, females are attracted to bad boys.
So, Dawkins' description of domestic bliss theory is not really backed up by our everyday observations. At least not fully.
Richard Dawkins wrote:
I have already suggested that a female might refuse to copulate with a male who has not already built her a nest, or at least helped her to build a nest. It is indeed the case that in many monogamous birds copulation does not take place until after the nest is built. The effect of this is that at the moment of conception the male has invested a good deal more in the child than just his cheap sperms.
Could we say that in modern society, the nest has been built already (by the system)? Men can not really demonstrate their commitment (The Domestic Bliss) or abilities (The He-man) in any way, since all female requires is already there, provided all along? That would explain why women mate very often contradicting their hypergamous impulses and why the males who truly show some exceptional abilities or a great degree of commitment, are not doing really any better than any other males today.
Satyr wrote:
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.
This makes sense and this would be somewhat The Domestic Bliss -theory applied, right?This would also explain why The Domestic Bliss -theory is not applied in modern society, since our survivability is seemingly very good (for now) without any such measures that would be required in harsh conditions.
I said earlier in this post that maybe women in natural environments didn't mind sharing the (alpha) male. But is this really the case? If men are okay to have more than one regular female sex partner, which are all exclusive to this one man (I think this could be the case) and if women are okay to share one man if he's an alpha (I'm not sure if this is the case), then why do women compete with each other, using ornaments and such? Also note how for example the greatest slut-shamers are females themselves. It is very clear that females compete with each other.
Also, as I've told in another topic, in Finland there are Facebook groups of over 100,000 female members, and these groups are made for bitching about men and exposing cheating and deceptive individuals. So, this is kind of a female attempt to make sure that males are put to their places, never allowed to show any traits that are too masculine. So, even though many, if not most females seem to go for a bad boy, it still seems to be clearly the case that these same women are not by any means willing to share one bad boy? It is desired by a female individual that a certain male has had sex with 500 different females, but not that this male has sex with anyone other than this female individual while they are committed.
Why are there not females in any great degree, that would seek to be part of a harem of an alpha male? Why are there not internet communities around this kind of thing? Sure, there is Sister Wives TV-serie, but most cases of polyamoria I know and have seen in the media, are such that a female is shared by two or more men.
Last edited by Illiterate on Thu Jan 05, 2023 7:48 am; edited 1 time in total
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37224 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Which one of the strategies is occurring in humans in the natural environment? What about in modern society? If neither is occurring, please share your insights on the matter.
He-man in short:
Richard Dawkins wrote:
I now turn to the other main female strategy, the he-man strategy. In species where this policy is adopted the females, in effect, resign themselves to getting no help from the father of their children, and go all-out for good genes instead.
Domestic Bliss in short:
Richard Dawkins wrote:
The female looks the males over, and tries to spot signs of fidelity and domesticity in advance. There is bound to be variation in the population of males in their predisposition to be faithful husbands. If females could recognize such qualities in advance, they could benefit themselves by choosing males possessing them. One way for a female to do this is to play hard to get for a long time, to be coy. Any male who is not patient enough to wait until the female eventually consents to copulate is not likely to be a good bet as a faithful husband. By insisting on a long engagement period, a female weeds out casual suitors, and only finally copulates with a male who has proved his qualities of fidelity and perseverance in advance.
These two strategies are based on to different environments.
In environments dominated by nature females tends to bond into in-group alliances, or to bond with young or inferior males as an in-group strategy. The alpha or superior males is the genetic source sampled and replicated.
In the second the environment has already been intervened upon establishing the technique/technology of monogamy as a method of increasing group cohesion and numbers, i.e., power. These different environments necessitate different mating techniques.
As the environment increasingly becomes artificial the masculine becomes increasingly insignificant - feminization.
Illiterate wrote:
So that would suggest that in natural environments, The He-man strategy might have occured. But of course better reproductive success of females than males doesn't necessarily mean that human females tend to seek the alpha male. There are other things to consider.
Yes, like in-group dynamics - politics. A beta-male's alliance can only be ensured by offering him sex...and a chance to pass-on his genes.
So, in modern dynamics...a single mother of two may marry the nice guy - after years of having flings with bad-boys, and may have a child with him to keep him invested.
Illiterate wrote:
All of these sources however claimed that females had at least a 2:1 mating ratio compared to males (one source claimed that while 80% of females procreated, only 40% of males procreated, other sources claimed even greater ratio).
Female power is sex. Paternalism is despised by women because it takes away or regulates this power. For females male competitiveness is a positive.....for males, who want to establish stable systems, it is a negative.
Illiterate wrote:
But, in chimpanzee societies beta males sometimes ally and kill the alpha if he gets too creedy and restricts the opportunities of the beta males too much, why wouldn't this been the case in humans too?
Yes...alpha does not mean violent totalitarian....it also means politician...someone who inspires loyalty.
Illiterate wrote:
Richard Dawkins himself thinks that the domestic bliss theory is taking place more than the he-man strategy, in humans. But in what degree, and is Dawkins even right?
Yes....the shift in environments is the cause.
But evolution is not as fast as human ingenuity.....so there's adaptation lag. we see this as the difference between younger and older women. Young females are more in touch with their bodies - genes - and so follow the conditioning of the 'he-man' as you call it; whereas older females tend to be more in control - after the wildness of their youth - and adapt pragmatically to the dometic-bliss model....
And, of course, the personae and the intelligence of the female is also a factor: lower IQ females tend to be more r-strategy - more impulsive, hedonistic personalities tend to be more r-strategy. Races are important as these determine the range of potentials for all inherited traits, viz., a lower median IQ will produce more r-strategists; higher IQ more k-strategists.
Illiterate wrote:
Richard Dawkins wrote:
Could females force males to invest so heavily in their offspring before they allow copulation that it would no longer pay the males to desert after copulation? The idea is appealing. A male who waits for a coy female eventually to copulate with him is paying a cost: he is forgoing the chance to copulate with other females, and he is spending a lot of time and energy in courting her. By the time he is finally allowed to copulate with a particular female, he will inevitably be heavily 'committed' to her.
Now, in my experience, a male who shows the degree of commitment as Dawkins describes above, is considered totally hopeless by females and is not attractive to females in any degree, really. Many, if not most, females are attracted to bad boys.
Yes....this is explained as the dissonance produced between memes/genes....or the body lagging behind the mind's creative innovations and interventions on natural processes. another example is obesity. As I said above:
Quote :
Yes....the shift in environments is the cause.
The most severe mind/body dissonance is created by nihilistic ideologies/dogmas....currently it is postmodernism, liberalism, Americanism. The necessary adaptation is a contradiction of an organism's entire evolutinoary history. Here the past - nature as the sum of all past nurturing - is entirely negated....or "transcended"....liberation they call it, freedom. this is the only way they understand 'freedom' - see how they deal with freew-ill' all those brainwashed Americanised imbeciles on ILP. For them 'free' is a metaphysical concept, that usurps and inverts the relationship of mind to body, or of physics to metaphysics. In brief: Instead of mind extending form body, the body extends from mind - is the creation of a mind - if not god's then man's. Instead of physis being the foundation of metaphysis, metaphysis becomes the foundation of physis....so 'freedom' refers to some imagined mental state of absolute independence, disconnection, indetermination...and if it is not that then there is no freedom at all.
Like 'freedom' and 'god' and 'value' the concept of 'male' and 'masculinity' has also been defined out of existence, by converting it to an idea with no external referents. Now a biological female can declare herself to be 'masculine' and a 'male'. Masculinity is abstracted as an institution...which can be represented by anyone and anything. All, including biological males, are feminized - forced to subordinate sexual roles - first all are betas, then gammas, then omegas...and then they are entirely unnecessary and males must 'adapt' by becoming surrogate females, feminine, women - easy when the concept of woman is also defined out of existence and abstracted into a pure idea. All becomes a mental performance - pretence - which gradually manifests physical changes. The body evolving in accordance with mental ideals.
Illiterate wrote:
Could we say that in modern society, the nest has been built already (by the system)? Men can not really demonstrate their commitment (The Domestic Bliss) or abilities (The He-man) in any way, since all female requires is already there, provided all along? That would explain why women mate very often contradicting their hypergamous impulses and why the males who truly show some exceptional abilities or a great degree of commitment, are not doing really any better than any other males today.
Yes....just as in Abrahamism all children belong, first, to god, and then the biological male...so too all children born within modern nihilistic systems all children belong, primarily, to the state.... A biological male's importance is now a remnant of the past - and women still being affected by masculine presence, and physical interactions. They haven't sufficiently adapted - evolved - out of their primal impulses. Ergo female confusions and them 'wanting to find themselves' as part of their midlife crisis. It's the dissonance between their physical impulses - genes - and their ideological indoctrinations - memes. They know the nice, ambitious, rich, or established male is a good mate choice, but their impulses still pull them to the bad-boy.
Illiterate wrote:
This makes sense and this would be somewhat The Domestic Bliss -theory applied, right?This would also explain why The Domestic Bliss -theory is not applied in modern society, since our survivability is seemingly very good (for now) without any such measures that would be required in harsh conditions.
If Americanism dominates and continues even this will be phased out...as it is currently in the US. The very idea of 'family' is being redefined.
Illiterate wrote:
I said earlier in this post that maybe women in natural environments didn't mind sharing the (alpha) male. But is this really the case? If men are okay to have more than one regular female sex partner, which are all exclusive to this one man (I think this could be the case) and if women are okay to share one man if he's an alpha (I'm not sure if this is the case), then why do women compete with each other, using ornaments and such? Also note how for example the greatest slut-shamers are females themselves. It is very clear that females compete with each other and
Female promiscuity bonds them to one mate for no more than seven years.....or around there. Then they want another.....if the costs of bad genes are kept low enough to be insignificant....as in modern systems where the costs are distributed.
Illiterate wrote:
Also, as I've told in another topic, in Finland there are Facebook groups of over 100,000 female members, and these groups are made for bitching about men and exposing cheating and deceptive individuals. So, this is kind of a female attempt to make sure that males are put to their places, never allowed to show any traits that are too masculine.
Feminization... Bad boys had it easy....now a "playa" will face the costs of spreading his seed.
Illiterate wrote:
So, even though many, if not most females seem to go for a bad boy, it still seems to be clearly the case that these same women are not by any means willing to share one bad boy?
Isn't it ironic, that women breed the kind of male they then bitch about? Women have minimal self-knowledge....and this makes them perfect filtering agencies....and preferred by all systems as a means of keeping males under control. A feminized man, they are not filtering into the gene pool, will be the kind of male future females despise and eject - turning them into lesbians.
Illiterate wrote:
Why are there not females in any great degree, that would seek to be part of a harem of an alpha male?
Because they've been educated/trained not to....and this would be a loss of power. Harems are paternalistic.
Illiterate wrote:
Why are there not internet communities around this kind of thing?
Some marginalized groups dare not admit what they desire...others, like transsexuals and paedophiles, are gradually being normalized.
I've heard of polyamory as being a part of LGBTQJEWLMNOP+....but it's usually multiple males and one fat, ugly, cow.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Illiterate
Gender : Posts : 152 Join date : 2021-09-14 Location : In a state of flux
I've heard of polyamory as being a part of LGBTQJEWLMNOP+....but it's usually multiple males and one fat, ugly, cow.
Exactly. Here's one example from Finland. It's a minidocumentary where this phenomena is presented. Exactly like you said. Fat, ugly cow. Also the males are not usually very presentable as you can see:
Satyr wrote:
Because they've been educated/trained not to....and this would be a loss of power. Harems are paternalistic.
Satyr wrote:
For females male competitiveness is a positive.....for males, who want to establish stable systems, it is a negative.
Alright now this subjects starts to really open up to me. Thank you again for your great post. So THIS is the reason why women are not typically loyal or faithful, even to the alpha male or the superior male? Women ALWAYS seek options?
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37224 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Women find power through the powerful - via proxies. Their commitments and loyalties last only as long as they evaluate power to be superior, or the highest in the immediate environment. Females sample sperm....quality over quantity....but they also diversify. keeping their options open. This 'diversification' is based on changing environmental circumstances - whatever happens one of their investments will pay off. This occurs subconsciously....and if you tell them this is what they do they will become upset and deny it.
Their only stable, long-lasting commitments are to their investments - their children, with which they share genes.
This adaptability makes them perfect gene/meme filtering agencies. Their resistance to prevailing powers and circumstances is minimal. This means they are easily integrated into any group dynamics - any system, any ideology/dogma.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Illiterate
Gender : Posts : 152 Join date : 2021-09-14 Location : In a state of flux
The first national study of the prevalence of multiple partner fertility shows that 28 percent of all U.S. women with two or more children have children by more than one man.
Quote :
She found that having children by different fathers was more common among minority women, with 59 percent of African American mothers, 35 percent of Hispanic mothers, and 22 percent of White mothers reporting multiple partner fertility. Women who were not living with a man when they gave birth and those with low income and less education were also more likely to have children by different men.
But she also found that multiple partner fertility is surprisingly common at all levels of income and education and is frequently tied to marriage and divorce rather than just single parenthood.
In natural environments this rate of women having children with more than one man is perhaps even higher?
Satyr wrote:
Females sample sperm....quality over quantity....but they also diversify. keeping their options open.
Do women find males who tend to restrict the options of women attractive?
In natural environments, if there is some pair bonding happening to some degree, surely a male wants to make sure that the child is his, by restricting a woman's activities and who she socializes with. It was said in The Selfish Gene that males would sometimes wait for a woman to menstruate one time before he copulated with her, in order to make sure that a woman were not fertilized by other male already when these two bonded. Also a male would keep an eye of her, so that she doesn't try anything like get pregnant by another, better quality male and then use the cuckolding services by another male.
So Dawkins presented the evolutionary reasons for jealousy in both, males and females. But since male jealousy clearly evolved to restrict woman's power (of choice), is apparent male jealousy attractive to women, in any degree?
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37224 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
This is very interesting and a little bit surprising, but apparently you are right.
During the war stories of men fighting on the front while their wives were fucking Germans, were known.
Also, inferior males tend to side with inferior males of other tribes - ethnicities, races - finding communion in a shared plight. It is the psychology behind Marxism - nihilism, in general - and Abrahamic victimhood. "Victims of the world Unite!!!" To this we must add a subcategory that strives to stand apart, while sharing the same psychology - the 'rebel' or the 'anarchist,' rejecting all ethnic/tribal identifications, pretending to be unique and superior - parasitical, or opportunist.....or "hustlers." Such creatures could only survive in modern/postmodern Americanized environments.
Worshipping individualism - Americanisms detachment from past - serves systemic interests. The elites practice nepotism, and networking....cooperative strategies to preserve shared interests, while promoting individuality among the mediocre masses, to prevent push-back, i.e., divide & conquer. Money is the messianic equivalent of the Abrahamic saviour that liberates only the "worthy" independently; money is, also, how inferior males compensate for an inferior physical/mental inheritance.
Illiterate wrote:
In natural environments this rate of women having children with more than one man is perhaps even higher?
Yes....and females establish in-group cliques - precursors to human political parties.
Illiterate wrote:
Do women find males who tend to restrict the options of women attractive?
Yes...there's an innate attraction to power. Females are aroused by males that intimidate them on some level - physically and/or mentally/psychologically. This is why demystification of males leads to the loss of female sexual interest....and them complaining that "there are no 'real men' around", meaning there are no males that intimidate or arouse their interest by remaining mysterious, incomprehensible, to them.
Illiterate wrote:
In natural environments, if there is some pair bonding happening to some degree, surely a male wants to make sure that the child is his, by restricting a woman's activities and who she socializes with. It was said in The Selfish Gene that males would sometimes wait for a woman to menstruate one time before he copulated with her, in order to make sure that a woman were not fertilized by other male already when these two bonded. Also a male would keep an eye of her, so that she doesn't try anything like get pregnant by another, better quality male and then use the cuckolding services by another male.
In systems where monogamy restricts male/female promiscuity - freedom, options - investment in offspring increases. In nature males fertilize what they can get, and females sample and diversify from what is available. This is, still, our human impulse - primal. And when sexual dynamics shift - as they are currently - we revert back. Look at negroes - despite the laws forcing them to pay for every child they father they still have multiple kids from multiple "baby mommas," as they call them in their Ebonics jargon.
Illiterate wrote:
So Dawkins presented the evolutionary reasons for jealousy in both, males and females. But since male jealousy clearly evolved to restrict woman's power (of choice), is apparent male jealousy attractive to women, in any degree?
Male jealousy is a sign of weakness, and weakness is unattractive to females. It is a sign that the male can be manipulated and exploited because he has no options.
Female interest in males - alpha or omega - does not last longer than 7-8 years - period of time a human child requires to become relatively self-sufficient. Then, pragmatic issues - such as monogamy and social etiquette etc. - force women to make compromises. Males adapt to this. So, sexual dynamics shift according to a female's maturity and her intelligence, under the protective shield of institutions that remain provider & protector - restricting male options. Females are, essentially, married and belong to the State...as they belonged to god, under the Abrahamic system. Now, as the disease evolves the system can no longer self-replicate as it promotes ideals - lifestyles - that subvert its cohesion and self-maintenance. We are in a period of decay...forcing the system to import males/females who are still productive/reproductive.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Illiterate
Gender : Posts : 152 Join date : 2021-09-14 Location : In a state of flux
I don't bring exactly any new insights in this topic, but I just had to post this here.
Satyr wrote:
Young females are more in touch with their bodies - genes - and so follow the conditioning of the 'he-man' as you call it; whereas older females tend to be more in control - after the wildness of their youth - and adapt pragmatically to the dometic-bliss model....
Your words came to mind when I discovered this today:
Quote :
But I got a little wiser, and I realized the guys that I was putting to friendzone, those are the guys you wanna date and you wanna marry... they will cherish the golden ticket, and not take it for granted
But of course I would like to ask: What male would date or marry this kind of wretched woman?
Satyr posted this in my other topic:
John Nash wrote:
If we all go for the blonde and block each other, not a single one of us is going to get her. So then we go for her friends, but they will all give us the cold shoulder because no one likes to be second choice. But what if none of us goes for the blonde? We won't get in each other's way and we won't insult the other girls. It's the only way to win. It's the only way we all get laid.
In my experience though, many - even beta-males - think the same way: they do not want to be second choice. So, would even a beta male date this woman happily, let alone marry her? Wouldn't even the beta males have some sense of pride, to not to interact with this kind of woman for more than one night? I know I wouldn't.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37224 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
But of course I would like to ask: What male would date or marry this kind of wretched woman?
Yes...and here the factor of a male's self-respect relative to his desire enters the picture.
Romantic idealism....
Illiterate wrote:
In my experience though, many - even beta-males - think the same way: they do not want to be second choise. So, would even a beta male date this woman happily, let alone marry her? Wouldn't even the beta males have some sense of pride, to not to interact with this kind of woman for more than one night? I know I wouldn't.
Most males are, like most females, romantic idealists, and believe in this crap about "soul mates" and being the "only one, for someone and they for you". Ironically....they would rather be a woman's secon-choice because they cannot settle for their second-, or third-choice.
If a man overcomes this romantic dribble - a product of feminization - and starts to engage the world objectively, pragmatically, then a woman is but a means to an end, not a life altering, identity determining magical event.
Women are choosey because they are nature's agencies filtering out of the gene pool males that do not make the curt....but males being just as choosey, justifying it with the same romantic excuses, is a sign of feminization. Of course the life-time commitment of mariage is the issue......but marriage is no longer a lifetime commitment, because women destroyed it, indoctrinated into a new paradigm that promised them freedom and relief form their 'mistakes'. But, males have yet to adapt...
The system, using females, has made paternalism obsolete; marriage is not what it used to be... but males insist that it ought to remain as it was, and so they wait for the "perfect one" - itself a naïve expectation since there is no such thing as perfection. marriage was a settlement....and in the best case scenario it was a method of unifying families into larger, more powerful, support groups. Americanism has returned us to pre-family sexual dynamics - in the interest of a nihilistic system that is proving to be self-destructive (see US). It is the model promoted in American media and Hollywood - its entertainment industry. There's a reason why traditional families are a threat to Americanism - which I've analyzed all over this forum - and women are now supported in their sexual empowerment - multiplied by technologies and institutions that reduce the natural limits (costs, risks) to female sexual power, and by highly regulating and criminalizing masculine responses to said sexual power - ergo feminization is what we have. Feminization means the obsolescence of traditional families and of masculinity itself. We are going through a period of traumatic reaction to emasculation - hypermasculinity (see cRap musac and tis displays of a caricature of masculinity; also see the myth of the 'strong independent woman' and how she unsuccessfully attempts to imitate masculinity). Children are raised with a Hollywood, or pop-music depiction of manhood - so beautifully depicted by our man-child visitor who equated it with big dicks, and violence....and, perhaps, Latin X machismo.... Absence of real life father figures does that. So, now, the institutions - controlled by nefarious, genitally mutilated, individuals practicing collectivism but selling individualism - are in control of how children learn how to behave, and think....through icons and idols - through celebrities that sell lies and pretences.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37224 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
The irony... Money is messiah. A method of compensating for an impoverish genetic inheritance; the amount of money being proportional to man's evaluation of his genetically impoverished state.
How does a man hope to make enough money to compensate? By submitting to the system that, then, rewards him with money; by submitting to money as his only method of finding salvation from his impoverished past. So, a man strives to dominate through submission - through being dominated.
Here the dissonance between genes/memes - body/mind - becomes so severe that it resonates across the social environment, manifesting in drug use, fetishism, sexual dysfunction, confusion...schizophrenia... A sense of unease.....because what is said contradicts what is being done, forcing individuals to self-deceive and do what is contrary to what they say, and then come-up with creative ways of justifying themselves to others and, primarily, to themselves.
When it comes to sex, I filter it through intelligence. Females seem to have either very high intelligence, or just normal. While males have three levels, low, medium, and high. Female high-intelligence finds it very difficult to romance and mate. She does not respect, and therefore cannot tolerate, most of the male population. She does not want to debase herself with most men; the thought of this disgusts her. She seeks-out higher intelligence, and usually does not find it. She may very likely die alone and childless. She is not to be confused with the lower-intelligent spinster/hag, who has a large amount of negative traits that turns men away. Men are attracted to intelligent women, but the attraction is not reciprocated. A spinster/hag is attracted to men, but men cannot tolerate her negative traits for long.
Low-intelligent men are simple. They are ruled/dominated by "muh dick!" Negroes, Wiggers, generally the low class of males. They will fuck anything that moves, and somethings that don't move, because they have No Choice. They'll take anything, like a starving dog.
Medium-intelligent men want a "better woman" or, at least, somebody alike and akin to their own values. This represents the average human—most of humanity mate within ethnicity, within race, within culture, within society, within religion. Most of humanity do not take great sexual risks, but instead go with "Normality". Medium intelligence, "Midwits", are concerned with Self-Respect. Men know that social value and perception are important. Men should not marry "the slut", but the goodie-goodie women are also pretending their Madonna/Virtuous status. At the mid-level, men and women compare each-other for sexual exploits, measuring each other by their mating "value". At this level, men who score a lot, and easily, are perceived more valuable. Women who are choosy, discrete, low body count, are perceived more valuable.
The higher-intelligence is concerned with the consequences itself, a matter of Pride. Sex has a consequence: Children, reproduction. This is because of Cause and Effect. High-intelligent men are adverse to sexual perversion and sex-for-recreation. Sex is more of a 'chore', once the mystery of youthfulness (first sexual experiences) pass over. Sex becomes a matter of Pride, reflection of self-love, because will you or will you not, become responsible for your own progeny, your own sexual choices in life? Will you leave your children as Bastards, or raise them, and how? High-intelligence opens up greater Choice.
Furthermore, high intelligence is more aware of Mortality. You will die. Your sexual drive precludes that your progeny will live. Will you become responsible for that? Will you do better than your own parents? What legacy will you leave? Will you honor your ancestors? If yes, then yes, you must find a woman, but as a means-to-an-end, to an ideal, to an objective, to a goal. Women do not have such haughty Ideals, and are more pragmatic, which is why Paternalism usually dominates, and Maternalism is rare.
Fathers lead the family, not the Mother.
Illiterate
Gender : Posts : 152 Join date : 2021-09-14 Location : In a state of flux
High-intelligent men are adverse to sexual perversion and sex-for-recreation.
This is another topic I would like to hear insights from you and Satyr. I tried to catch them in topic I created earlier about sexual perversions correlating with Modern Alpha Male.
If we speak technically, then oral sex and anal sex are perversions, right? But how come they are so widely practised, and especially by males who tend to do very well in the mating market?
For example, another video from this lady:
She says "eat some banana" and "leave the backdoor open". So she advocates to women that they should suck dick and take it up to their asshole, since men want it.
Why do men want it? It does strike to me as odd, since I'm not into anything wild on this matter. I know many men want it, since I know a guy who doesn't like conventional, vaginal sex anymore, but instead practises with women anal sex only. And he does very well with women. I know another guy who likes his face to be sat on by women. When discussed about one certain woman, his first note about her was: "Man, she gives a good facesitting!"
Apparently on social media there have been for couple of years trend called Vanilla Sex Shaming. So people who are not into kinky fetishes gets shamed. See also 50 Shades Phenomenon.
Are women into such perversions in the same degree? Are there many women who would like a man to sit on their faces? Are the sexual perversions more of a male thing or a female thing?
Æon wrote:
Will you leave your children as Bastards, or raise them, and how?
I wouldn't want my children to be bastards, I would like to raise them, oversee them, directing them, trying to make sure they live up their full potential. So I'm aiming for the K-strategy for now, since I still have time (I'm 27 and don't have children). I think in 5-10 years, if I didn't manage to reproduce (and start a family) and I'm still alive, I apply more straightforward tactic and shift my thinking to that I can reproduce through any (white) woman, or several. Preferably several since at that point it would have been made clear to me that there are no women worth starting a family with. So if my time is about to run out, I have no luxury of aiming for quality.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37224 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Perversion has to do with the loss of power - vengeance against the other. The act demeans oneself, before the other, or the other before oneself.
The sexual act itself, is a form of submission - an agressive act made possible through the intoxicating effects of hormones. A female's personhood is, literally, intruded...and this makes consent a factor. It is rape when consent is not given - but when it is given the agression is endured and experienced as pleasure, i.e., relief from oneself, surrender of oneself to another - synthesis of two distinct entities, culminating in the production of the ultimate synthesis of their genetic continuums. For the female this is a tenuous, high risk, state requiring erotic intoxication, and a preparatory process of testing the male's worthiness - of her surrender, her risks and subsequent costs - and of his trustworthiness. A female must feel intimidated - aroused, but also safe - confident that the experience will not result in permanent damages. So, there's a lot of negotiating....called flirting....and bullshyte, where the male pretends to be more than he actually is, and the female less than she actually is. The loss of lust, over time - eroticism - is what exposes the bullshyte - the hyperbole. Love is blind....literally, love is like alcohol, it blurs reality, numbs the senses so as to go through the process.
The state places a female in an intoxicated condition where she wants to literally envelop, consume, the male - merege with him. It is said that oral sex is a way of sampling the lover's essence, before vaginal penetration - the female is engulfed in his essence, externally and then internally, so as to make the sperm survive the arduous voyage up a toxic vaginal canal....habituating her body to his, so as to not reject the growing foetus.
Anal sex, if it is not meant to avoid pregnancy, is a demeaning act signaling possession. Homosexual acts, in the wild, between males signal dominance.....like, 'you are my bitch'....and I will penetrate you like a female, otherwise I will have to kill you as an antagonist, a threat. These displays happen in species where males are not killed or run off, as lions do. Lion prides can only have one alpha, or, in rare occasions, a pair of genetically related males.
So, anal penetration is a display of dominance, demeaning the penetrated....and so the act, for males, is very symbolic and devastating. When men prefer it there can also be the issue of size - the anus being smaller, tighter, than the vagina....but it is mostly psychological, sending the message that the male can have his way, and demean the female in any way he chooses - treat her, literally, like shit.
All forms of fetish have an underlying psychological weakness - sex itself is a product of the limits set upon life by mortality. Mutational loads - left un-culled - are the primary source - manifesting psychologically, and sexually.
Why sex? Because sex is primal....exposing the very nature, i.e., spirit, of an individual; his/her personae, underlying the cultivated caricature, i.e., character, he/she performs. They say you don't know a man until you fight them....well you don't know an individual until you fuck them - if they abandon themselves to the experience and are not held back by training. Any state resulting in a loss of ludic control is revelatory.
I've used the method of inciting rage, to make others expose their inner essence - beneath all the pretences and controlled image building.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Illiterate
Gender : Posts : 152 Join date : 2021-09-14 Location : In a state of flux
All forms of fetish have an underlying psychological weakness - sex itself is a product of the limits set upon life by mortality.
So there's an underlying psychological weakness apparent even in male who penetrates a woman anally?
What about the type of a cuckold fantasy, where a male likes to watch from the side when his wife is being penetrated by another male? I've heard this phenomena explained by some sort of sperm competition thing, where a male produces more sperm if he feels there is an instant competition for a woman, i.e. a man watches a woman being penetrated by another male. So supposingly this production of more sperm feels good.
But I don't know if that is true, and I can't identify to it at all. Same way I don't understand compulsive preference to anal or oral sex.
I feel like sex itself should be a reward, not a form of competition. So if a woman have had 100 sex partners, or even 50, I feel a strong sense of disgust towards her, because she would no longer be a filtering agency; well I suppose if she didn't reproduce, then technically she still remains a genetic filtering mechanism, but in my opinion, there's no way 100 males were "worth" of copulating with this woman in the first case: she should have been filtering them already memetically, and before she went and opened her legs to all of these males.
Sex, after all, is what these 50 or 100 males wanted all along. And they got it, clearly without any great effort demanded by the female. If I get to penetrate that slut too, how would I feel superior to these other males that managed to get to do the same? Alright, I have heard men bragging about how they got to fuck some woman in the ass, and cum on her face. Maybe, if the conventional, vaginal sex is pretty much granted with a certain woman, then the competition is about who gets to fuck her in the ass. If her pussy is granted for everyone, you don't need to compete for it, right? There is no need to compete for something that is already granted. But maybe her asshole is something she doesn't grant for everyone. Therefore males start to compete who gets to defile the woman in the greatest degree.
But of course, this is only how I feel. Maybe my mind is twisted here.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37224 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
So there's an underlying psychological weakness apparent even in male who penetrates a woman anally?
Don't all actions, all choices, expose a need/desire? Aside from the circumstantial, a preference would indicate a psychological issue.
Illiterate wrote:
What about the type of a cuckold fantasy, where a male likes to watch from the side when his wife is being penetrated by another male? I've heard this phenomena explained by some sort of sperm competition thing, where a male produces more sperm if he feels there is an instant competition for a woman, i.e. a man watches a woman being penetrated by another male. So supposingly this production of more sperm feels good.
I've come across a study where a couple that separates - even if it their relationship is strong, produces some unexpected physical reactions in males. The male, even if he is consciously certain that his wife will not cheat on him, produces more sperm, in anticipation of competing sperm when he returns. An example of the body's judgments usurping the mind's.
But cuckoldry has to do with a male's resentment of the female - wanting to demean her, or prove that she desires other males and will be unfaithful, so why not be so in front of him; or a male's sexual insecurities, concerning the sexual satisfaction his mate.
Illiterate wrote:
I feel like sex itself should be a reward, not a form of competition. So if a woman have had 100 sex partners, or even 50, I feel a strong sense of disgust towards her, because she would no longer be a filtering agency; well I suppose if she didn't reproduce, then technically she still remains a genetic filtering mechanism, but in my opinion, there's no way 100 males were "worth" of copulating with this woman in the first case: she should have been filtering them already memetically, and before she went and opened her legs to all of these males.
A female's sexual history indicates her filtering stringency, which indicates her faithfulness, or mental discriminations. Like Christian love being universal....it reduces the value of love if all deserve it, and all are forced to offer it.
[quote="Illiterate"Sex, after all, is what these 50 or 100 males wanted all along. And they got it, clearly without any great effort demanded by the female. If I get to penetrate that slut too, how would I feel superior to these other males that managed to get to do the same? Alright, I have heard men bragging about how they got to fuck some woman in the ass, and cum on her face. Maybe, if the conventional, vaginal sex is pretty much granted with a certain woman, then the competition is about who gets to fuck her in the ass. If her pussy is granted for everyone, you don't need to compete for it, right? There is no need to compete for something that is already granted. But maybe her asshole is something she doesn't grant for everyone. Therefore males start to compete who gets to defile the woman in the greatest degree.[/quote]When sex ceases to be about reproduction then it must find alternate reasons to justify itself, and the effort it necessitates - or the submission, for the female. When all is made meaningless then the individual seeks meaning in the extremes....in hyperbole..
Other factors: Superfluity produces boredom. Porn industry promotes excess and extraordinary expectations, making regular sex dull. Men are now competing with idols/icons in the porn industry, just as they are trying to live-up to celebrities, and their movie personas, and their reported lifestyles etc. These pop-cultrural icons/idols - including cRap and porn, and Hollywood - become the standard all ought to emulate and use to evaluate themselves, e.g., cRap music offers idols/icons to mostly miscegenated males, with no family structure, no traditions, no sense of identity, no power, finding it in pop-cultural imagery and money, and mostly miscegenated females with no farther figure, looking for a way to increase their sexual power, their sexual value on the Americanised market place...
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Illiterate
Gender : Posts : 152 Join date : 2021-09-14 Location : In a state of flux
One more thing that popped up to my mind when I read your post.
Satyr wrote:
But cuckoldry has to do with a male's resentment of the female - wanting to demean her, or prove that she desires other males and will be unfaithful, so why not be so in front of him;
Is it about similar thing when there is 4 or 5 men penetrating one woman and in the end ejaculating her face... or such things. I think this sort of thing is very popular in Japanese porn industry. In fact I think it's the most popular porn genre there.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37224 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
With the Japanese it's historical. Something to do with the loss of their paternalistic, warrior culture - replaced by Americanism, with a sudden atomic jolt; replacing Hara kiri with Hikikomori. Self-degradation through the feminine - recognizing their emasculation and resenting what they've become.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37224 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Why are there so many creeps at gyms that stare at women (who are keeping to themselves) and trying to work out? [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
— Felix Rex (@navyhato) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Woimen...so innocent....all they want is to be free to dress as they like - as they feel. Not surprisingly they choose to provoke and display themselves sexually...all innocent-like, and then they are bothered by all the unwanted attention, and men looking at them. The most ironic thing I ever saw...a young Muslim girl wearing skin tight pants - her camel-toe on full display - but with her hair covered up....according to sharia law.
Feminization unleashed feminine power - supported by institutions and technologies created and maintained by males; masculinity constrained and strictly regulated...forcing it to adopt feminine methods of display and social competition. What's left to males other than virtue signalling? What's left but passive-agression? What's left but pseudo-intellectualism and fArt - cRap - implying what they cannot openly say...hoping someone will notice and appreciate them.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Illiterate
Gender : Posts : 152 Join date : 2021-09-14 Location : In a state of flux
The most ironic thing I ever saw...a young Muslim girl wearing skin tight pants - her camel-toe on full display - but with her hair covered up....according to sharia law.
I've seen that too on social media. A muslim girl took an "OOTD" (outfit of the day, I've learned all these shorthands by watching from the rear) picture from behind. Skin-tight jeans and her long shirt even drawn a little bit up so that the ass is fully presented in the picture. Her hair was also covered up.
