What makes a female picky?

There are again many questions here, I hope someone has time to answer them.

Satyr has repeatedly said that women with high IQ are more resistant to nihilism and peer pressure. And so they are more sophisticated in their tastes and more picky about their choices.

Since females are sperm samplers, they don't like the idea about investing in just one target. That's understandable.

Also it's logical that females don't like the idea that their offspring will likely be inferior to themselves genetically. That is, if a female is mating with inferior male.

So a high IQ woman doesn't have as many worthy options as a stupid individual does.

But does this pickiness in females go for other types of extremes as extraordinary intelligence as well?

Would you say, a physically strong woman would be picky too? Would she feel reluctant about going for a weaker male than she is?

But on the other hand, some physically extraordinarily strong females develop kind of masculine attitudes about sexual (and other) behavior. In another thread I gave an example of this Finnish female weightlifter, who is asking dickpicks from guys and who is married, but in an open relationship because she wants to mate with a lot of other males too. And she said that very shamelessly and openly. Not too "ladylike" behavior; more like alpha male.

I know two female powerlifters personally. One is a lesbian, though I wouldn't say very masculine in her outer appearance. Actually she is very beautiful and extremely well-shaped. And she has been with her girlfriend for like 10 years or so. So, monogamous and loyal, ignoring all the males who approach her.
The other is straight and she is very picky; in my knowledge she has only dated other powerlifters or males who are stronger than she is; which are not many.

It could be that I'm wrong, or at least very much simplifying here, but these three women (the weightlifter and other two powerlifters) all have strong masculine traits.

The weightlifter is sexually promiscuous and apparently doesn't really care who she goes with; quantity over quality (which is male reproductive strategy, right?)
The lesbian powerlifter is attracted to females exclusively (as far as I have noticed, though my observations could be of limited value) which is a masculine trait. Also she is very monogamous and loyal (again, my observation, I don't have all the information).
The straight powerlifter is clearly aiming for "directing" the human genes; she is filtering the weak males, only letting in a male that shares exactly the same traits and interests with her, and not only that but who is more strongly oriented to her interests than she is (that is, who is lifting more weight than she is).

Though all of these three examples are in their 30's and none of them have children. So for example the last example, if she never procreates, there will not be any "gene directing". So that's another thing to consider. I don't know if any of those females even want children.

Am I right here so far that all these three have strong masculine traits? I mean, hobbies such as weightlifting and powerlifting are widely considered masculine in themselves.

If I am right that all of these women could be considered masculine; then what determines what type of masculinity is present in an any given individual? One is very promiscuous, the other is extremely loyal?

By the way, is the ability to maintain a long relationship masculine or feminine quality? If women are hypergamous but also playing it safe in a sense that they would like atleast 2 males to father their offspring, not putting all the eggs into the one basket, then it would make sense that females are not, by nature, very loyal or able to maintain a long relationship. Males who have a sense of honor and loyalty, could manage that. But then again there is an alpha male strategy which is not based on maintaining a long monogamous relationship.

If you wanted a good and a loyal wife, would you go for more feminine or more masculine woman? Outside patriarchy, the existence of this type of woman would be very extraordinary, since this would mean a woman wanting to be loyal herself; her loyalness would not be a result of her submitting to the patriarchy. But since thinking for yourself is more of a masculine than a feminine thing, the question is what kind of extraordinary are we talking about here?

Illiterate wrote:

Also it's logical that females don't like the idea that their offspring will likely be inferior to themselves genetically. That is, if a female is mating with inferior male.

Women also like diversity....because they intuitively know nature is change and so diversity ensures one of their offspring may survive.
this happens on a subconscious level. So, even if they have a child with a superior male she will soon lose interest in him.....seeking another, even a male inferior to him.
Diversity is a female ideology.
Feminization of Man - diversity politics ascend - discriminatory, ethnic based ideologies decline.
Males gravitate towards packs of those like them.

Illiterate wrote:

But does this pickiness in females go for other types of extremes as extraordinary intelligence as well?

Difference between male and female high IQ is the ability to compromise. A high IQ male compromises; a high IQ female cannot.

Illiterate wrote:

Would you say, a physically strong woman would be picky too? Would she feel reluctant about going for a weaker male than she is?

IQ trumps all other traits.
But, in general, a female seeks a male that intimidates her by being more than the traits she identifies with.
Self-esteem is her baseline.
Modern females have an unjustified high self-esteeem and so many of them are very demanding and choosey, and bitchy.

Illiterate wrote:

But on the other hand, some physically extraordinarily strong females develop kind of masculine attitudes about sexual (and other) behavior. In another thread I gave an example of this Finnish female weightlifter, who is asking dickpicks from guys and who is married, but in an open relationship because she wants to mate with a lot of other males too. And she said that very shamelessly and openly. Not too "ladylike" behavior; more like alpha male.

Testosterone regulates libido.
In experiments species known to be monogamous are given testosterone and the relationship breaks apart.
Women with high testosterone will exhibit more masculine mating practices - or what has been called r/ survival strategies.
The issue with this, for women, is pregnancy - nature's limit to female promiscuity.
This is why abortion is such a hot issue among Desperate degenerates dreaming of a world with no genders or races or any biological identifiers.
Pregnancy is nature's "injustice" towards females....which they demand to be corrected using available technologies.

Illiterate wrote:

I know two female powerlifters personally. One is a lesbian, though I wouldn't say very masculine in her outer appearance. Actually she is very beautiful and extremely well-shaped. And she has been with her girlfriend for like 10 years or so. So, monogamous and loyal, ignoring all the males who approach her.

This is a well-known difference between male and female homosexuals - both are attracted to the same-sex, but the female retains her feminine attitude towards monogamy, and male homos retain masculine promiscuity, so they want to fuck everyone, or be fucked by them.
Male homos are rarely monogamous for long - unless they are extremely fat ro ugly, lowering their options.  

Illiterate wrote:

The other is straight and she is very picky; in my knowledge she has only dated other powerlifters or males who are stronger than she is; which are not many.

Yes, when the feminine dominates it can only be attracted to a male that is superior to her - as she evaluates herself, using the traits she identifies with.
Self-esteeem is a major factor in determining a female's sexual choices; her pickiness.

Illiterate wrote:

It could be that I'm wrong, or at least very much simplifying here, but these three women (the weightlifter and other two powerlifters) all have strong masculine traits.

Weininger simple formula applies here.
Many factors contribute to homosexuality. One of which is hormonal in utero, that may not continue ex utero.
Another is abuse and an animosity towards males - via the paternal figure.
Another factor is self-esteem.
The promiscuous weightlifter seems to have an esteem problem, and the fact that she body builds points to the source of her sense insecurity.
Her promiscuity may psychological - a product of needing constant validation of her femininity or physical attractiveness.

Illiterate wrote:

Though all of these three examples are in their 30's and none of them have children. So for example the last example, if she never procreates, there will not be any "gene directing". So that's another thing to consider. I don't know if any of those females even want children.

Sex always goes through the mind, for females; for males it goes through the body.
Therefore, the woman's mind - her indoctrination - can usurp her impulses - this is why females are easily indoctrinated and assimilated, and why they changed families, in the past, when they married, abandoning their paternal family and wholly adopting that of her husband.
This makes then believe they are smarter than the average male, who is sexually dominated by the body.
Like I've said;
Orgasm, for females, must begin by being inspired by the male. She has to believe the male is amazing, charming, strong, ambitious, funny....superior etc.
She must be "swept off her feet" - and so males developed the bullshit artist method - the playa.
Virtue signaling; self-hadicapping...etc.
Eventually his reality becomes apparent - when the hormones decline - but by then it's too late...and then she looks for another.
No matter how "amazing" a male is, or pretends to be, the female will always see his flaws - when she falls "out of love" (around 5-7 years) - or the chemistry is gone, as they say....or she will tell the man they've "outgrown each other"....you know pop-culture crap like that.
This is why females predominately apply for divorces...and why they despise paternalism.

Illiterate wrote:

If I am right that all of these women could be considered masculine; then what determines what type of masculinity is present in an any given individual? One is very promiscuous, the other is extremely loyal?

I already gaver my perspective.
Homosexuality explains the "loyal one"....and the other requires a more personal analysis - such as her upbringing, her parents etc. but, in general, she needs a male superior to her, in the traits she feels most identify her - and so she cultivates those traits to increase her identifying differences, her separateness. she admires physical strength....there's a reason for this. She may be taking steroids....that could be a factor.
She doesn't want a stable relationship - ergo father issues are a possibility.

Illiterate wrote:

By the way, is the ability to maintain a long relationship masculine or feminine quality?

Feminine.
Yet, in a Feminizing postmodern Americanized environment, roles are reversed - as with everything nihilistic.
So, males become proxy females - wanting to preserve a relationship long enough to have kids, ro to just be part of a relationship in a world of incels, and then to guarantee the child is raised by his values, or that it is his - because it may not be.

Illiterate wrote:

If women are hypergamous but also playing it safe in a sense that they would like atleast 2 males to father their offspring, not putting all the eggs into the one basket, then it would make sense that females are not, by nature, very loyal or able to maintain a long relationship. Males who have a sense of honor and loyalty, could manage that. But then again there is an alpha male strategy which is not based on maintaining a long monogamous relationship.

Paternalism impose limits on both male and female sexual behaviour. For males they had an interest in maintaining a family because all had their own, and all were related genetically - ethnically homogenized.
So, even another children carried your genes.
This si no longer the case in heterogenous systems of multi-racial, multiculturalism.
Also, current laws inhibit males from playing the field, unless they are rich and can afford to pay multiple child-supports.
Females can now play the field because fo technologies and laws, castrating masculine behaviour; reducing male options (free-will)
Feminine sexuality is celebrated - Feminization of Man - and expected to be emulated by males.

It is given technologies to reduce risks and costs of female sexuality - essentially "correcting nature injustices".
Now pregnancy and her weaker body is no longer a factor - not as much as it was in more natural environments.

Illiterate wrote:

If you wanted a good and a loyal wife, would you go for more feminine or more masculine woman?

At this point, more feminine and oriental, or Indian.....Asian.
Soon.....Russian women.

Illiterate wrote:

Outside patriarchy, the existence of this type of woman would be very extraordinary, since this would mean a woman wanting to be loyal herself; her loyalness would not be a result of her submitting the patriarchy. But since thinking for yourself is more of a masculine than a feminine thing, the question is what kind of extraordinary are we talking about here?

Without patriarchy - Traditionalism - there si no monogamy.
Sure, you may win the love lottery and find that one in a million....your soul mate...but the odds are against it.

Americanized man has reverted to primal sexual dynamics, multiplied by technologies and institutions, that promote the feminine and criminalize the masculine.
Finland choosing to go with the US, already sealed your fate, I fear.
But, the US will collapse, such a self-destructive system cannot last for long - it did because it never practiced the bullshyte it preached -....but not anytime soon.
Like I've said:
All nihilistic dogmas, ideologies, must self-contradict if they hope to survie in a world they denounce and attempt to negate with their words - ideals.
Christianity survived because it remained obscure, mystical enough to be reinterpreted every century, or so; and it never practiced what it preached, inventing all kinds of techniques to justify this failure - as did the Jews.
Christians have their sin and confessions; Jews explain all the bad things that happen to them as a produce of their god's disapproval of their performances - a god they believe is also evil.
Obscurantism and mysticism allow all nihilistic dogmas a way to reinvent themselves, depending on the circumstances.
Like, currently Catholicism is reinventing itself as a LGBTQJEWLMNOP+ friendly faith.

Satyr wrote:

The promiscuous weightlifter seems to have an esteem problem, and the fact that she body builds points to the source of her sense insecurity.
Her promiscuity may psychological - a product of needing constant validation of her femininity or physical attractiveness.

Yes, this is the case. I brought it up in another thread:

Illiterate wrote:

Note how she is there like "oh look at me, I'm just "casually" showing some training tights" but she is flirting by twirling with her ass @ 1:55 and @ 3:28

Now this woman is married with another Finnish weightlifter, they have been married for 5 years. But after being married for two years, she suggested that they continue their relationship as an open relationship, so both can have sex with other people. She has admitted that in her previous relationships she has cheated her boyfriends, and "that's why I suggested an open relationship, because I don't want to hurt my husband."

Satyr wrote:

Soon.....Russian women.

Good answer.


Thank you Satyr for a long and thorough post!

Be very careful illiterate who you mess with.

I feel bad for all the young European women who are duped by Western Marxist Liberal poison, to end with dried-up egg cartons for Uteruses. European should have expansive, 7+ children per woman, expand expand expand. The fact that so many have 2, 1, or 0, with such abundant resources, demonstrates the attack on our culture (memes) and our souls (genes).

Isn't it interesting that it takes Fundamentalist Mormonism and Amish to expand the European gene-pool?

Aeon wrote:

Quote :

........to end with dried-up egg cartons for Uteruses.

that is inevitable for all females, whether they are European or otherwise.

Quote :

European should have expansive, 7+ children per woman, expand expand expand.

How many have you sired Aeon? That is something we will never know truthfully, my guess is none.

I've already planted seeds. You worry about yourself. Menopause is right around the corner I'm sure.

"or otherwise"

Last I checked, Moslem immigrants, Africans, Chinese, Mexicans, all their women pop-out babies like mad and rake in Welfare checks. It's European/White women specifically (you, if you're really even white and not pretending), who are targeted for destruction by them. You should know this fact by now.

The problem with white/european women in USA and other Western countries is 1) conceit and 2) disconnect from tradition—liberalization. She knows no humility. She has been sold a lie (Feminism), and that she ought to be 'equal' with Man, far & above that she should become a Woman / Mother / Matron. This lie was/is concocted through Marxism and their Globalist handlers. There are numerous motives, disconnecting woman from her heritage/tradition.

The solution is humiliation. White women must be humiliated on the grounds of "Equality" and "Feminism". Gavin McInnes is particularly effective at this throughout his career. It's obvious that women, like Freja or reasonvemotion, wish that they could be Mothers, have a brood of healthy, virile children. This reaffirms a Woman. It reaffirms her Gender, her Being, her Becoming. It demonstrates that any so-called "Equality" could come by leaning the other direction, into the fray rather than against it. It demonstrates the lies of Liberalism, Feminism, Marxism, etc.

What does a Western woman do with her "self-made", "career" assets, money, and wealth? She buys more shoes. She buys cosmetic surgeries. She flaunts herself on social media. She brags.

What does she NOT do? She doesn't save. She doesn't seek-out a worthy male. She doesn't plan her own marriage or future family. She only complains.

She would rather her ovaries dry into sand, then to take the Reigns and Leadership of her own life.

Self-accountability? Self-responsibility? Not in Modern or Postmodern women... this is why the female 'Minorities', Chinese, Mexican, African, etc. all pop out babies by the dozen, and the white woman dies-out and goes extinct. Except for the Mormons, and the Amish, who tightly and vigorously defend their Tradition / Culture / Heritage / Family / Religion. All the Secularists cannot genetically reproduce their ideology, which is why it must memetically parasitize others'.

White women are the most racially loyal. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— TeX Southron X (@Southron_X) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

If so, then IQ is involved.
Women cannot settle for what is inferior to their own self-estimation.
But when their self-estimation is degraded then their choices become more inclusive, less discriminating.
Brainwashing - indoctrination - adjusts the value standards of their judgments and subsequent choices.

If women are becoming more picky, is this the fault of men, or women? Whose responsibility is it to change, to get what they want?

Maia wrote:

If women are becoming more picky, is this the fault of men, or women? Whose responsibility is it to change, to get what they want?

Women have always been picky.
Their reproductive role is to select what is more fit within a given environment - they are genetic filtering agencies keeping a species healthy.
But women are also very subjective, emotional, and easily indoctrinated into popular values, and morals, and ideologies, making them perfect memetic filters, as well.

Sheltering raises individual's self-esteem, including females.
This means their filtering - judgements of who is above and who below them - moves upward, becoming more discriminating.
Add to this the ideological, socialization factor, i.e., memes, and females become stringent selectors of what is collectively idealized.

Paternalism eliminates female agency imposing monogamy, forcing many females to settle for males they consider beneath them.
They resented this, until feminism returned them back to their natural role, but this time multiplied due to technologies, such as strict and effective policing over masculine options, contraceptives, abortion availability, which eliminated natural limits to female sexual power.
Feminine promiscuity ends, for at least seven to eight years, when she is impregnated.

Feminization follows.
Our system idealizes the feminine because it is more easily indoctrinated, more prone to defending the status quo, less challenging to power...forcing males to adopt feminine attitudes, and behaviours - metrosexuality, homosexuality, transsexuality, is the outcome of multiplying incels, or males excluded or with limited sexual options.
Also, rampant reproduction multiplies unfit mutations, affecting both males and females.
Mutations produce all kinds of bizarre psychosomatic effects.

Consequently an increasing number of predominately males are not invested in the system, and do not care about the welfare of the group they participate in.
They become freeloaders or are radicalized - becoming communists or anarchists, revolutionaries, anti-goverment, anti-institutions, anti-the dominant group, e.g., whites in the US, if they are not institutionalized completely.  
Such a system cannot survive for long.
Those excluded from sexual options turn to other groups for support, or for alternatives.
So, a female that would normally not settle for what is inferior to her will choose an inferior from another group to avenge herself upon her own group's exclusion of her.....same for males who have no sexual options within their own group.
This is easier for males because they are not as picky, because males sexual roles are about seeding as many females as possible.

Women cannot long tolerate a male partner with lower IQ than her. She may keep him around, for various reasons (such as physical protection from threats), a useful tool for her. But she doesn't respect him, and must hide her superiority from him. In this, she can easily fool most men. But her loyalty is reserved for men well above her IQ, whom she secretly longs for and considers her 'Authority' on matters of actual importance.

Females cannot be sexually aroused by those they consider inferior - based on their self-esteeem, which these days is inflated and narcissistic.
Subjective emoters - like most females are by necessity - always use themselves as the standard.
If their identity is cultivated, indoctrinated, by an ideology - promoted systemically - then this ideology affects their self-esteem.

[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.]

Well....female incels have their own excuses.

Judgements expressed through choices determines fate.
These women made their choices.