Modern Sexual Dynamics

Illiterate wrote:

But why are they so stupid?

When young males and females are young naive and full of hope they think they are indestructible and that anything is possible....
Young women tend to be more primal in their sexual choices.....always going for the male with natural fitness markers.
Their true nature remains unblemished and uncompromising.
As they get older it starts to dawn on them that everything is not possible and that they may have to compromise.
Monogamy is a restriction they cannot factor into their romantic idealism.
As they get older, they have a 'reality check' - depending on their IQ - and their unyielding demands begin to yield to necessity.
Now they are more willing to settle for a male with social fitness markers.
Their settling standards decrease over time, in proportion to their attractiveness.
As long as males approach them, they feel empowered. The quality of male determining the quality of their empowerment.

Illiterate wrote:

Women can't help themselves? They quite literally lack all the tools to make rational decisions? But how can it be, that even watching other women fail in their big goals, women will make the same mistakes all over again?

Women use intuition and then rationalize their instinctive judgements and choices.
They are also easily indoctrinated into any 'reality' that provides them with a stable, safe environment to carry out their reproductive role.
They shift from genetic filters to memetic filters.

Illiterate wrote:

Are perhaps the Asians superior to whites in some sense?

Two factors....populations with lower on-average testosterone levels and strong traditional cultures still relatively unaffected by Americanism and Hollywood degeneracy.
The American domain thoroughly dominated the Anglo-Sphere and western-Europe but had minimal to no effect on nations behind the Iron Curtain, and the far east.
Their Hollywood, Media, pop-fArt was focused there.
We see the differences between 70 years of American brainwashing and those that were not exposed to it or were exposed to a minimum degree, due to linguistic and cultural factors.
We see this in how these regions that did not experience the full force of Americanism have different attitudes towards race, gender and homosexual issues.

Asians do have a higher, on average, IQ....and they also have cultures that go back thousands of years.
Cultures that cultivate dripline, so they are more inclined to remain loyal to their cultural standards - less anti-authoritarian and individualistic.
Individualism was a western thing and it is reaching the apex of its absurdity in Americanism where individuals are now convinced that they are totally liberated from all collective identities, including biological.
To not be part of any collective is a bragging right. These are the easiest to exploit and manipulate by American capitalism, having no resistances, no grounding to deny its seductive lies.

Women treat beta males the way they wish the alphas would treat them [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— CHASE AUSTIN (@imchaseaustin) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Would you show a girl your bank account balance on a first date? [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Clown World (@ClownWorld_) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

'Modern,' like 'western,' always refer to the American model, i.e., Americanism.

I believe this is what young women think is called "sexual empowerment". Sigh. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Julia Hartley-Brewer (@JuliaHB1) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

JustPearlyThings wrote:

And when we look at the average woman who is about 170 pounds, 5'5"...
One out of three has had an abortion.
One out of four has had an STD.
And 90% have been on birth control at some point in their lives...

Could it be that birth control pills make women make bad mating choices? For example birth control pill usage in women causes changes in their facial preferences as stated here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Birth control liberates women from natural limits.
Her psychology begins to imitate masculine judgements and choices.
But she lacks the psychology to pull it off, so she becomes a caricature of a male, usually imitating some pop-cultural icon representing, for the system, the ideal male.

Satyr wrote:

Her psychology begins to imitate masculine judgements and choices.

I think that's a great insight.

This would explain why women are not too selective about their mates nowadays (at least this is my experience). Masculine behavior.

If the (natural and healthy, that is) reproduction strategy is quantity for males and quality for females, this is going horribly wrong in modern societies... because what we see a lot is this:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

JustPearlyThings wrote:

Girls wanna sleep around in their 20's and then at thirty run to a man and like... but you have lost the thing men value by the time you are thirty; you're no longer pure, you're no longer youthful... and so men are kinda tired of it because what happens is they'll date the bad boys, the rappers, whatever in their 20's, then they hit 30. One guy thinks like this is his lucky ticket, this girl is super into him but she just wants kids, and like she really feels like she settles for him, she gets the kids and then half the time leaves.

Sex developed for the purpose of reproduction rather than our pleasures. But like JustPearlyThings says, today most women are about thirty when they give birth to their first child (for example in Finland the average age for a woman giving birth for the first time was 29,6 in 2022). That description given by JustPearlyThings is largely accurate, according to my observations. So for many 30-year old women, the case is, they just want kids, and they no longer care how or who the father might be. Also, when the case is that half the time the woman leaves, we might reason that the partner who this woman had the child with, was someone with whom she would not have wanted children originally. That was a compromise she had to make out of necessity.

Of course everything we do is a compromise of some sort. To gain one thing is to sacrifice the other. But you know, we could ask rhetorically: What was the purpose in this woman's life in her 20's? Endless hedonism, animalistic behavior? To discover herself? And why was discovering herself necessary? In order to give a birth at 30 and to a male that she really wouldn't want to give a child to?

You know, at some level I understand the cases where a 20 year old woman gets pregnant by fucking the alpha male and she decides to keep the baby. Sure, she will be a single mother, but at least she would be happy that her offspring is of (genetic) quality. But more commonly we see this behavior where women spend their 20's in the cock carousel but absolutely nothing results from it.

When she had a chance to get quality, she passed up the opportunity. I think realizing that would be very disastrous to a female psyche, which is about being a filter agency?

Don't tell them they are nature's filter agencies. They prefer to believe it is magical, or mystical....otherwise their performance is compromised.
They fall in and out of love easily and with no reservations.....
Swept away by their hormones and quickly cold and brutal when the intoxication subsides.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

JustPearlyThings wrote:

What I see is that when women don't get the attention that they want, we just tend to take off our clothes. Some women are prettier than others so they don't have to do it, you know?

Do you think JustPearlyThings is right in that statement?

I mean, is it to some (emphasis to the word some here!) degree true that the more beautiful the woman is, the less she reveals?

It just occurred to me when I watched that video, that in the gym I go to, I feel some sort of attraction and interest to two of the women who regularly go there as well. One of them wears a very long and loose shirt as a training shirt that covers her ass completely. Though she wears tight leggings, nothing is ever revealed under that extra large shirt. And the other woman wears always exclusively very loose outfits, mainly college materials. This is on the contrary to those women (which is pretty much all the rest of the women in the gym) who are wannabe fitness models and dress in a way that their tits, ass and cameltoe are popping out. 

Though for me it is kinda hard to consciously judge the beauty of women in cases where I have to pick the most beautiful from a large group. It would be even harder to make some kind of order of them, like from most beautiful to the least. So I'm not saying that these women who reveal their body in the largest degree, strike as ugly to mee. Also I couldn't claim that I could objectively say if these two more "modest" women are the most beautiful women in the gym. But I can say for certain that these are for some reason the ones I feel most attracted to.

So I wanted to ask this because it would be interesting to know what is the reason behind my feeling of attraction... Because if JustPearlyThings is right and indeed there is a phenomenon that prettier girls usually reveal less, then it might be that I subconsciously feel attraction to actually the prettier type of a woman. But it could also be the fact that consciously I always go for the more sweet and modest type of a woman.

So the question is... is this subconscious or conscious mind speaking in my case? Though I understand it might be impossible to say based on this very narrow amount of data.

Sluts are unattractive because it signals that you can never be certain she's exclusively yours, and if there are kids that they are your own.
Also, women exposing themselves is a sign of need/desire.....she's either desperate of attention or signalling her availability, which is cringe if she's in a relationship.

JustPearlyThings wrote:

I started looking at basically every problem in society; homelessness, mental health, school shooters... all that shit is linked to promiscuous women because they tend to leave marriages

This is an interesting insight.

The other day I was watching a Finnish talk show, where they discussed "human rights".

Basically what I thought the whole 45 minutes was: "Alright, so human rights equal women's right to be promiscuous". Seriously, every little aspect that the debaters thought was human right directly or indirectly required sexual liberation. Withouth sexual liberation there apparently is no human rights.

Women can only be promiscuous - beyond the seven-year rule - with the aid of male technologies, e.g., contraceptives, abortions.
Whenever humans intervene upon natural processes all sorts of problems occur - collateral effects, e.g., pollution, obesity, degeneracy...
Nature limits to female promiscuity.

Without this limit there is no family structure, because a woman is the heart of a family unit.
Without families we get other collateral effects, like criminality, drug use, psychological issues etc.

Satyr wrote:

Nature limits to female promiscuity.

Without this limit there is no family structure, because a woman is the heart of a family unit.
Without families we get the other collateral effects, like criminality, drug use, psychological issues etc.

Very nicely and elegantly put.

A while ago I made a topic about tattoos (especially on women) and what they mean.

Well here's a great take by Rich Cooper on the matter: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Rich Cooper wrote:

Everybody that I've talked to; doctors, psychologists... these guys all make the same observation: every woman that comes in to their clinic with issues; they've created the drama of their circumstances that they are in, and there's direct correlation between tattoos and the markings on their body and the bullshit that's going on their life.

Tattoos imitate war scars.
Can't be sure, but I think they started as a way to conceal scars - beautify what has been damaged.

So, women exhibit their internal scars externally - they want the world to see that they are damaged.
Both the presence of damage and the fact that they want it to be seen, expose the individual's personality, and how it was warped by life's experiences.
Intentionally scaring the body is also an indication of hatred of the self, as it manifests this past with tis presence.
A desire to replace it with an artifice - a desire to fabricate an alternate identity.

This is more significant with women, because their body is a sex organ, and beauty is their only source of power.

He was scared to lose her [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Untamed Human Race (@FunnyHumanRace) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Sadia Khan wrote:

If I'm just a pretty face I'm gonna end up with a man who only likes pretty faces. Now the reality is that man is so easily distracted with the next pretty face, and the next 25 year old, and the next... So what will happen is you're in a constant competition with people you can't compete with for the rest of your life. And similarly if I was somebody who just sold sex, I'm going to find a man who is addicted to sex and men that are addicted to sex will always want novelty. You'll never be enough. So reality is when you create your identity on something so fragile, you attract somebody who is also very fragile, and then you end up in a lonely cycle unfortunately. Whereas when you develop something deep, you attract someone deeper and your connection tends to be more long lasting.

I guess that is why they say that less attractive ones find lasting love more likely than the stunning ones?

The connection has to include a common objective.

Eros = sexual attraction - goal: child
Agape = emotional attraction - goal: connection
Philia = intellectual attraction - goal: objective

Satyr wrote:

The connection has to include a common objective.

Eros = sexual attraction - goal: child
Agape = emotional attraction - goal: connection
Philia = intellectual attraction - goal: objective

Yes.

Although something goes wrong with fulfilling the goals in modern days, because what we see alot is this:

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

JustPearlyThings wrote:

Girls wanna sleep around in their 20's and then at thirty run to a man and like... but you have lost the thing men value by the time you are thirty; you're no longer pure, you're no longer youthful... and so men are kinda tired of it because what happens is they'll date the bad boys, the rappers, whatever in their 20's, then they hit 30. One guy thinks like this is his lucky ticket, this girl is super into him but she just wants kids, and like she really feels like she settles for him, she gets the kids and then half the time leaves.

So we have a lot of 35-year old women who are former life sluts. Regular customers of the veneral disease clinic. Cum guzzlers. And they have the child at the late age, so often not with a man they felt the sexual attraction to (so they don't get the attentiont from the same men who they used to, when they were in their 20's and spinning in the cock carousel).

Now I'm not an alpha male by any means; but I would never submit to be that guy who finally helped/symphatized the woman in any way who was used by dozens or in many cases... hundreds of men.

I live in an area where there is very active Pentecostal church operating. And I know some of the church members. In Pentecostal church they have this thing of adult baptism. This seems to be very attractive to such women who have had depraved life (to say the least) and are now seeking to be born again. These women are very urgent to marry pretty much any man they could think of. Even I have had couple of marriage proposals from such "fine ladies".

But of course, we see also women in their 20's who are single mothers (so, the child is of alpha male's). Now, single motherhood is despised phenomenon in the society and for a good reason. Also, single mothers are not generally wanted by men of quality for a relationship. But atleast they operated in such a way that in the end they got the offspring of genetic quality. So in a way, those young single mothers, though despised, were smart in one of the major fashions. Same cannot be said about these "born again 35-year-old virgins". In my opinion.

Illiterate wrote:

JustPearlyThings wrote:

Girls wanna sleep around in their 20's and then at thirty run to a man and like... but you have lost the thing men value by the time you are thirty; you're no longer pure, you're no longer youthful... and so men are kinda tired of it because what happens is they'll date the bad boys, the rappers, whatever in their 20's, then they hit 30. One guy thinks like this is his lucky ticket, this girl is super into him but she just wants kids, and like she really feels like she settles for him, she gets the kids and then half the time leaves.

and this makes even good men use women, without feeling anything for them.
There's nothing left to do, but adapt.

Illiterate wrote:

So we have a lot of 35-year old women who are former life sluts. Regular customers of the veneral disease clinic. Cum guzzlers. And they have the child at the late age, so often not with a man they felt the sexual attraction to (so they don't get the attentiont from the same men who they used to, when they were in their 20's and spinning in the cock carousel).

Adapt....don't marry them.
Try to have a kid, if possible, and don't get entangled with them.

Illiterate wrote:

Now I'm not an alpha male by any means; but I would never submit to be that guy who finally helped/symphatized the woman in any way who was used by dozens or in many cases... hundreds of men.

Necessity.
There are still good women out there, but most are taken early, leaving only the sluts.

Illiterate wrote:

I live in an area where there is very active Pentecostal church operating. And I know some of the church members. In Pentecostal church they have this thing of adult baptism. This seems to be very attractive to such women who have had depraved life (to say the least) and are now seeking to be born again. These women are very urgent to marry pretty much any man they could think of. Even I have had couple of marriage proposals from such "fine ladies".

If an old-school woman is not available, you must make compromises.

Illiterate wrote:

But of course, we see also women in their 20's who are single mothers (so, the child is of alpha male's). Now, single motherhood is despised phenomenon in the society and for a good reason. Also, single mothers are not generally wanted by men of quality for a relationship. But atleast they operated in such a way that in the end they got the offspring of genetic quality. So in a way, those young single mothers, though despised, were smart in one of the major fashions. Same cannot be said about these "born again 35-year-old virgins". In my opinion.

If you don't mind raising another's sperm.....go for it.
Single mothers have fewer optinos....their desperation makes them easy....even as a fuck-buddy.
You don't have to wine and dine them.....just service them...and be a shoulder for them to cry on.
Maybe help her a bit with the costs, shopping etc.
She may give you a child to keep you around.

Harsh, but the environment dictates our options.
We can't change what decades of feminism and Americanism have done to them....all we can do is adapt.
The objective determines our choices.

Satyr wrote:

Harsh, but the environment dictates our options.
We can't change what decades of feminism and Americanism have done to them....all we can do is adapt.
The objective determines our choices.

You are right Satyr.

Here's a statistic from Finland, released yesterday.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
It says right at the beginning:
"73 percent of Finnish women aged 20-34 have not given birth to a child. The number of women who have not given birth has increased by eight percentage points since 2017."

So atleast in Finland, many women around who were not too far-sighted. And now they are bitching about how "they wish they could go back in time" and how "they didn't know".

What women actually care for the most? What do they go for?

Satyr wrote:

The connection has to include a common objective.

Eros = sexual attraction - goal: child
Agape = emotional attraction - goal: connection
Philia = intellectual attraction - goal: objective

You'd think that as biological entities with biological drives, women would care most about having children. But it seems not (though this could be for many reasons) if we look at this statistics I provided:

Quote :

73 percent of Finnish women aged 20-34 have not given birth to a child. The number of women who have not given birth has increased by eight percentage points since 2017.

The Eros is obviously the most base of these types of desires.
And women are more base and primal, right?
So... My thinking is, even when women are involving in Agape or Philia, the underlying goal is the well-being for the child. Or am I wrong?
But what if there is no child? Women fucked up in their strategy in 20's. Women got involved in Eros, but nothing came of it. Being on birth control pills and anti-depressants certainly didn't help.

So for women, is there even such a thing as Agape or Philia separately without the Eros, or shall we say, the potential result of the Eros?

The saying that "men either breed children or ideas"... Does this apply for women too?
Isn't being childless more devastating for women than men; since women are more primal?

The second part of my wondering about what women actually care is:
Have you ever noticed that if an alpha male insults a woman, calling her ugly, whore, disgusting, undesirable or something like that, then she might seem hurt.
But if a beta male insults a woman, there is no visible effect. Many cases in the end this insulted woman turns out to be the one who actually hurt the beta male's feelings.

So, on some level, it seems that women care for the opinion of the alpha males, but not the opinion of beta males. Yet, it is the beta males that save women in every possible way. Because most good men that I know, despise modern women. But inferior men appreciate all kinds of women. No good man would marry a modern slut that has a high bodycount, is a regular customer of a venereal disease clinic and has done a couple of abortions. But inferior men would marry this type of woman.

As women are more dependent on social relationships, it seems logical that at least on some level they do care what people around them think of them.
How do modern women feel knowing that the men they desire biologically, despise them? Sure, women have the safety net that consists of biological beta males and the institutional alpha male... but do women still regret that their actions made them seem disgusting to certain males?

As I continue to wonder this... Doesn't it seem that if all the beta males would man up, so to speak, the society would run smoothly? Every man would get a decent and respectable woman, and therefore all the males could feel like a man? If simp males would have higher standards on women, women would change their behavior, since if for women it is important what people think about them... If ALL males would take a stand that being a loose woman equals worthless woman who no man would want to invest to, then women would turn a little better... maybe. Atleast on paper and atleast in this simplified take.

I guess that's why preaching masculinity is so noble pursuit.

A face on a face before a first date [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Josh Lekach (@JoshLekach) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Increasingly modern sexual dynamics are based on pretences.

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

JustPearlyThings wrote:

Do you understand what the world is gonna look like in 10 years? 50% of women between the ages of 25 and 45 are gonna be single and childless. Like I mean think about it if you're married, there's gonna be so many women throwing themselves at your husband if he's half good looking, decent earning guy. And over a certain age women accept being a side chick. I mean they won't publicly say that. I think it's around like 35, they'll accept being a side chick because they would rather be with the top guy than be with the guy they don't like.

I remember reading a few months ago on Finnish media that the popularity of male escorts have been increased.

Perhaps at some point it's going to be a trend that good looking males with no income or job start to mate, marry or simply have sex purely for money.

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

Some of the OnlyFan models and such "online sex workers" make shitloads of money. Perhaps they will use it at some point to improve their mating choices... just like men do... or used to do.

Perhaps here we see once again the shift of sex roles.

If we look at modern western woman... We can say with clear eyes that such a creature is not very attractive to too many males.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Check out that video about "Passport Bros". Males are increasingly going abroad to get a quality woman as a wife; because western ones are disgusting.

Alright, so western women are disgusting. They behave in such a way that they decrease their options... atleast in the end. So how they can increase their options? With money - just like men.

Perhaps that's the reason why feminism is much about women getting better financial freedom and options. Feminism is trying to grant females compensation (money) for their bad life choices.

Sexual dynamics, in the west, look grim.
The number of psychotics being nurtured, today, will explode in the future.
Demographics will plummet pressuring governments to import more immigrants of questionable genetic quality.
Crimes will rise, especially sex crimes, forcing stricter laws....
Males will be afraid to approach women; women will be looking for the social ideal they will have been given as the "perfect man". Some emasculated soy-boy, with sexual issues.
Women will dominate, backed by institutions.
A few males will be impregnating most of them. The state will become protector and provider, forcing most women in into insufferable loneliness, turning to hedonistic excess to self-medicate themselves, bitching about how there are longer "any good men around".

There will be a backlash, but how soon and will it be enough?

The turning point will be determined by the fall of Americanism and the rise of this multipolar world order, promoting traditionalism.

The US will resist until the bitter end, but at some point, it will become an issue of survival.
This Woke postmodernism cannot survive for long. It promotes that which undermines its continuance, like all parasitical memes.

Pearl SCHOOLS them with stats! [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— whatever (@whatever) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Are men SCARED of commitment? Well, when women DO get commitment -- they seem to overwhelmingly END relationships/marriages. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— whatever (@whatever) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]