Love is for Suckers... Blood Suckers

.

Click Pic for "Sex Sells (Hypergamy Explained)"

In the last section, we discussed the phenomenon of women possessing equal sex drives to men, yet different by virtue of being hypergamous.

The essence of hypergamy is that women are attracted to males who are dominant over them. Dominant males are Alpha males.

But what is it really that “makes” an Alpha male?

Is one “naturally” an Alpha male or does the Alpha male come into existence because of the sum of certain Alpha qualities that he possesses?

I believe the answer is obvious. It is the nature of certain qualities, or features that are Alpha related, which together add up to create an Alpha male. Not all males who are strong and muscular are Alpha males just because of that one feature they possess. In fact, some body builders are the wimpiest mangina Beta males I have ever met. They couldn’t get a woman naked if their life depended on it.
 
All males possess both Alpha and Beta qualities. The more Alpha qualities, the more overall Alpha-like that male becomes. The less Alpha qualities, the more Beta-like he becomes.

Click Pic for "The Suffragetts versus The Truth"

Often when it is discussed why males of the past were placed in positions of headship in the family and society, we declare that it’s because of men’s linear thinking ability. That his natural appeal to reason and rationality makes him better suited for these positions as opposed to women, whose multi-tasking brains are based more on emotion than cold, hard logic.

I don’t disagree with that assumption. However, I would like to propose that there could also be a further motive for such a divide in gender roles.

Perhaps society was also structured in such a way to create more “Alpha qualities” amongst the greater population of males, thus making a greater range of the male population sexually attractive to the females.

With mainly men in the workplace earning money instead of women, a broader spectrum of the male population would appeal to females because of the Alpha quality of money/resources they would possess.

With mainly men in positions of power in society (government etc.), more men would appeal to women’s sexual desires because of the power they possessed.

Who was it that said “Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.”?

Why, it was Henry Kissinger.

Now I’m not sure, but somehow I don’t think that Kissinger is particularly the type of man that could be considered classically handsome.

And yet, he managed to nail uber-fembot, Gloria Steinem.

Poor little Ms. Steinem, despite all that pink slipper stomping, she was still a slave to her biology. Ain’t Mother Nature a bitch?

Click Pic for "Rotating Polyandry - And Its Enforcers" -- by F. Roger Devlin

You see, there is not much genetic diversity in the natural herd-like system which works with women only humping the 20% of males that are Alphas. There is plenty of diversity from the male side of the equation, but little diversity from the female’s side.

It seems that women’s sexual nature has compensated for this by use of Rotating Polyandry, whereby women skip from Alpha male to Alpha male, ensuring that their lifetime supply of 400 eggs get fertilized not by just one male but several, in a rotating mating cycle.

Rotating Polyandry is an interesting concept whereby the whole notion of “love” is based on a mating cycle of a few years – enough for a woman to be protected and provided for during the time when she is absolutely the most vulnerable. This period would be when she gets pregnant, gives birth, recuperates, and then nurses and cares for the child until it is no longer solely dependent on her for survival. (I.e. The child can walk, talk, and feed itself). This should all take around 4 years or so from start to finish.* (See study at the bottom of this article).

Then she moves on to the next male and repeats the process. (Sound familiar?) By going to the next male, she would ensure some genetic diversity amongst her offspring and thereby, increase her chances of passing on her genes throughout the ages.

In fact, the whole way that love works seems to support this theory. Love to men is based on what he gives. Love to women is based on what she gets. Plus, it has been noted many times that women don’t really love men. Only gay men love men. Rather, women love being loved. And since, to a woman, being loved means that she “gets,” it is fair to say that women actually love money and the trinkets that being in love gets them.

Women’s love is parasitic.

Men’s love is the host.

And this would make sense. If women’s love is based on this parasitic function to ensure her and the child’s survival, she would seek out the male with the most power and the most resources. Males with these qualities are Alpha males. They are the prime targets for a woman to wish to be “in love” with.

But anyway, back to the main point of why there might have been a sexual reason for placing men in a position of headship in society and the family.

These positions that men have traditionally held, those of wealth creation, of positions of power in society, that of the “head” of the family and so on, are all positions that naturally add to the Alpha qualities of males – all males.

Thus, with more males possessing Alpha qualities through their societal role of headship, there are more males for the females to be sexually attracted to.
. 
Once this is accomplished, we achieve our genetic diversity amongst the population by bringing more of the males directly into the breeding process, rather than relying on women’s tendency for Rotating Polyandry.

What this model does is it brings more of the males in society into marriage by providing more females who are sexually interested in them, and therefore more men in society also have children that are their own and become motivated to work.

Once men have their own children, men willingly become yoked to them and will do whatever it takes to ensure their survival. This is what Daniel Amneus calls “putting sex to work” in his free online book, The Case for Father Custody

With male headship in society and the family, more females are attracted to more males and therefore more males get put to work.

And, of course, due to the male’s
linear thinking brain, which invented everything around you with more than two moving parts, when all of the men in society start working and inventing and so on, sooner or later you will wind up with that great thing we call civilization.
.
Now, let’s go back to the concept of Rotating Polyandry and the parasitic nature of women’s sexuality.

Women’s sexuality is designed to take resources from the male in order that she and her child might survive.

Men’s “Alpha qualities” are based on his power and resources.

The more that a man gives to a woman, the less he has himself. In a sense, he gives his Alpha qualities to the woman and in doing so he becomes more Beta. Slowly on, his Beta qualities will overcome his Alpha qualities and the woman will find him less desirable compared to other males out there who haven’t had the Alpha sucked out of them yet.

Click Pic for "The Amazon Women (The Science of Why Males Exist)"

We see this phenomenon over and over again. Women are complete sex fiends while dating a man, then after marriage she becomes less interested in sex... Why?

Click Pic for "You're Such a Tool!"

Because she's now in  possession of many of his Alpha qualities. They were transferred to her via marriage. His paycheck becomes her equal possession whereas before marriage, this resource was his alone. His ability to leave is gone, leaving him less negotiating power when she's being shrewish. It goes on and on.
.

Click Pic for "The Suffragettes versus The Patriarchy"

With men in positions of headship in society and the family however, there are certain elements of his Alpha qualities that the woman cannot suck out of him. No matter what, he will still be the breadwinner, he will still be the one with power in society and he will still be the dominant figure within the home. Certain parts of a man’s Alpha qualities were protected from being gobbled up by the woman.

Therefore, he still remains more Alpha in the woman’s eyes and thus her sexual attraction for him remains greater. This would enable the relationship to endure longer than it would naturally and this is something that is needed for the full potential of the “putting sex to work” concept to be realized.

With the runaway feminism we see in the modern day, this destruction of men’s Alpha qualities is even further magnified.

A woman earning $60,000/yr does not find a man earning $50,000/yr to possess an Alpha quality because of it.

With the full force of the corrupted DV Industry behind her, the wife's manipulation of State force far exceeds any physical dominance he previously had. In fact, she is the physically dominant one within this paradigm because State force allows her to push, kick, yell, scream, threaten and intimidate with impunity. He must meekly cower and accept it or the State will come in and beat the crap out of him on her behalf. There is nothing too Alpha in regard to the man in this situation at all.

With the Divorce/Alimony/Child Custody Industry behind her, a man’s paycheck (his resource dominance) becomes hers whether she keeps him around or not. Another Alpha quality removed from men by feminism and the State.

Click Pic for "The Fine Art of TV Repair"

With the television running 24/7 in most homes, even men’s intellectual dominance is under attack. Remember that most women declare they don’t find men attractive unless he is smarter than her? Well, the only males that are portrayed as intelligent on television are single men. Husbands are portrayed as dumb oafs on TV and women are constantly encouraged to scorn their husbands as too stupid to do anything right. Let’s not even get into the subject of D’Oprah Winfrey. 

Click for "Woman: The Most Responsible Teenager in the House"

In fact, most of the Psychology and Therapy Industries support this “stupid husband” attack on men as well. Virtually all couples/marriage therapists attack the husband by default, declaring that the problems in the marriage are his fault because he is too stupid to know how to read his wife’s ever changing emotional state with ESP. She changes her emotional state more times than her underwear, yet men are somehow stupid for not knowing that what she wants now is entirely different than what she wanted a half hour ago.

Click Pic for "It's Not Marxism Because..."

Feminism supports all of this nonsense because they are married to Marxism, which wishes to destroy Capitalism and civilization.



“Overthrowing Capitalism is too small for us. We must overthrow the whole... patriarchy.” -- Gloria Steinem

They fully well know that destroying marriage will bring us back to this:
.
. 
And they know that when society adheres to this sexual model, men won’t be putting “sex to work” and our civilization will return to this:
.
.
But hey, that’s all fine and good - as long as there's gobs of commitment free sex and women don’t have to feel "oppressed" in any way.
.

Click Pic for "The Keynesian Sexual Marketplace"

Marriage is already a natural “Beta Maker,” and presents many challenges to men and women’s sexuality.
.
Feminism took these problems and intensified them to the point of the absurd.
.
At least with savages practicing Rotating Polyandry in the past, once the woman had parasitically sucked all the Alpha qualities out of a man, the discarded male was at least free from her and could go about rebuilding his resources and his life again.
.
Not so anymore with Feminism. Nope, now after a man is discarded, the woman can keep a leech like sucker attached to him via the State, while she finds another Alpha male to turn into a mere Beta.
.

Previous / Index / Next

.

.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
"When I started researching this book, I was prepared to rediscover the old saw that conventional femininity is nurturing and passive and that masculinity is self-serving, egotistical, and uncaring. But I did not find this. One of my findings here is that manhood ideologies always include a criterion of selfless generosity, even to the point of sacrifice. Again and again we find that 'real' men are those who give more than they take." -- David Gilmore in his 1990 book Manhood in the Making
. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Excerpt from The Handbook Of Evolutionary Psychology (2005)(pages 259-261) edited by David Buss.
.
Comparative primate studies sometimes indicate that humans are designed for monogamy. Among the monogamous white-handed gibbon (Hylobates lar), the average body weight of an adult male is about 1,000 times the weight of the average male’s testes (Dixson, 1998). Among humans, the average man’s body weight is about 1,300 times the size of the average man’s testes (Schultz, 1938), a ratio similar to the white-handed gibbon. In contrast, the more short-term-orientated common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) possesses extremely large testes with a body-testes ratio of only 350 (Dixson & Mundy, 1994), and the polygynous gorilla (Gorilla gorilla) has small testes with a body-testes ratio of over 5,000 (Hall-Craggs, 1962). Contradictory evidence regarding mating strategies exists in comparisons of primate seminal volume, sperm structure, and sperm quality (Baker & Bellis, 1995; Dixson, 1993; Moller, 1988). Overall, Dixson (1998) concluded that human male reproductive physiology is consistent with both monogamous and polygynous mating, providing only mixed support for the view that humans are monogamous. Humans display extreme levels of altriciality compared to other primates, requiring large parental investments and possessing a relatively delayed adolescence (T.M. Mueller, 1999).
.
Mate desertion is generally associated with lower infant survival in foraging cultures (Hill & Hurtado, 1996), another indication that humans are designed for monogamy. Finally, humans possess several neurophysiological systems of attachment linked with pairbonding and monogamy across species (Fisher, 1998; Hazan & Zeifman, 1999; Young, 2003). Fisher (1992) suggests that human patterns of weaning, birth spacing, divorce, and remarriage all point to a system of serial monogamy. It takes about 4 years to wean a child in hunter-gatherer cultures, and birth spacing in a foraging environment averages about 4 years (Blurton Jones 1986). Many divorces occur between the fourth and sixth year of marriage (Fisher, 1989, 1992), and men who practice serial monogamy are more reproductively successful than men who stay married to the same woman for a lifetime. Women who mate serially do not have reproductive advantage over other women (Buckle, Gallup, & Rodd, 1996).
.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Further Reading:
.
Science Can't Stop Proving Me Right -- Chateau Heartiste
.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.

Previous / Index / Next

.

.

The Myth of Tiresias and the Ten Pleasures of Sex

.
Tiresias was a blind prophet of Thebes who told the truth about the past, present and future, although those for whom he prophesied rarely took what he said seriously. Aside from his clairvoyant powers, Tiresias was also famous for being changed into a woman for seven years.

There are several tellings of the myth of Tiresias, many of them contradicting each other. The gist of the story is as follows:  

One day, the young Tiresias was walking along a path on Mount Kyllene, in the Peloponnese countryside, when he came across a pair of serpents engaged in unashamed copulation. Condemning them for their lust-fulness, he struck them with his walking stick.
. 

The sensuous goddess Hera, wife of Zeus, was angered by Tiresias' actions, as she heartily approved of sexual pleasures, even for animals. She punished Tiresias in the worst possible way: by transforming him into a woman, in both body and mind.

After seven years as a woman, ranging in roles from prostitute to wife & mother, Tiresias again came across the serpents, but this time allowed them their carnal pleasure. Hera was pleased and rewarded Tiresias by restoring his masculinity. 

Some time later, Hera and Zeus were arguing about who had more pleasure in sex, the man or the woman? Hera, the great seductress, had always led Zeus to believe the man was superior in sex, as well as in all other things. To settle their disagreement, they summoned Tiresias, as he knew what it was like to be in both roles. As a man who spoke the truth, he revealed womankind's greatest secret: on a scale of ten, she gets nine parts of pleasure to his one. Hera was furious at Tiresias and, despite Zeus’ protests, she struck him blind for betraying womankind with the truth.
.

***

.
I have spent the last few days studying and pondering on the story of Tiresias. One of the things I have been trying to find the answer to is what Tiresias considered "the ten pleasures" (or parts) of sex, of which he said man enjoys only one, while woman enjoys three times three, or nine pleasures, although some versions say woman enjoys all ten.

Click Pic for "The Truth About Misogyny"

There seems to be no answer to this question. So far as I can tell, there is no listing of the pleasures anywhere in the texts, just the mention that there are ten. When surfing around the web to try and find the answer, all I see are people claiming that it is literal sexual orgasmic pleasure.

Then the modern feminist narrative comes out claiming that this was all from 'misogynist' Greece where they were oppressing women. So it is all just nonsense in an attempt by the Greeks to hold women down - everyone knows men enjoy sex far more than women.

But is this true?

Having a look at the myth itself, we may find a clue.

The reason Tiresias is blinded is because he angered Hera for revealing womankind's greatest secret: that she gains more pleasure from sex than men. Hera, Zeus' wife and seductress, had led Zeus to believe that he was superior to her in sex, as well as in all other things - it was part of her seduction of him. This seems to be the theme that comes forth, not whether the woman orgasms more than the man.

"Woman does not betray her secret." -- Immanuel Kant

Click Pic for "Social Strategy: Why Men Shouldn't Argue with Women."

It seems to me, that either through subconscious deception or unconscious ignorance, the women who join in this debate are coming from the same position as Hera herself - denying that women benefit more from sex than men. "Woman does not betray her secret" is something that many "misogynist" men throughout history have pointed out, so, we should not dismiss them lightly simply because women say we should. That is exactly what Hera, the priestess of womankind and marriage herself, wanted to happen - and the reason she was angered at Tiresias was for betraying her with the truth!

"From woman you can learn nothing of women." -- Nietzsche

What is woman's greatest secret then? And what was it about sexuality that Tiresias was inferring women enjoyed, if it were not literal orgasmic pleasure?

So, I spent some time pondering what the ten pleasures (or benefits) could be, and here are the things I suspect Tiresias was referring to:

1 - Use of Sex for Survival/Procurement of Goods from the Man - Even today, 85% of the homeless are men. Women "somehow" manage to not fall through the cracks as easily as men when they fail at life. What, oh what, could it possibly be that prevents this from happening to women in the same degree as men, even though, as feminist academics continually remind us, "women only receive $0.76 for every $1.00 that a man earns"? When Tiresias was a woman, he was portrayed as both a prostitute and as a wife and mother. (More on motherhood later in point six).

Also, women gain instant status upon marriage. While a man has to work for 10-15 years to become a doctor, the woman he marries instantly becomes part of his social class, no matter her education or past efforts - which is pretty nice for her, eh? 

2 - Sexual Gate-keeper - A woman's sexuality is in demand and she can easily replace a man - women have "orbiters' or "men in reserve" who are waiting in the wings, hoping she will call on them - when women leave a man, there is no shortage of men vying for her attention, trying to replace the previous man. She plays the passive role, the male is the motive, or active agent. There is enormous power that is conferred upon her simply for being in this role.     

3 - Sexual Power to Manipulate Man for Woman's Own Purposes - Power by Proxy - "Let's You and Him Fight"

"Who cares whether women rule, or if they rule the rulers? The result is the same."-- Aristotle.

Ask yourself, exactly how powerless is that woman on the side of the road with a flat tire? Her "helplessness" inspires countless men to pull over and change the tire for her, thus, her "helplessness" is actually her power, and since it controls the power of those "with more power," her power is greater. After all, her batting eyelashes accomplish the same task as a grunting and sweating man does - they both change the tire! 
.

4 - Social Power as a Gender - Shaming and social manipulation is an enormous part of female power. It derives from womankind's sexuality and is not just expressed individually, but also in the aggregate, from women as a whole in society. Everywhere in nature, the male serves the female. (See point 6) "Nature has given women so much power that the law has wisely given them little" -- Samuel Johnson

5 - Male Protection & Sacrifice - Helen of Troy's beauty was powerful enough to launch a thousand ships, remember! Men will readily risk their lives to save women. It does not occur nearly so frequently the other way around. Think of the Titanic.

"Nobody's a feminist when the lifeboats are being lowered."

6 - Fulfillment of Biological Clock/motherhood -  Tiresias has three daughters: Manto, Historis & Daphne - While it is true that men also enjoy fatherhood, the parental instinct is different between men and women. In women, the parental instinct is due to her biological clock - it happens to her before having children, and comes from somewhere within. With men, they do not have a biological clock, or at least not one so strong as in women. Men's parental instinct kicks in after the child has been born, and they fall in love with it and will protect and provide their brains out to ensure the child's survival. The only thing that could really be said to be a "biological clock" in men would be their acknowledgement of "time." What I mean is, a man who is 45 and has never had children thinks of it in terms of raising a child to 18 years old (plus four to six years of post-secondary education in, heh, institutions that don't adhere to the truth) which places him into his mid-sixties before it is all over.

This is much different than the way women's biological clock works, which is much more like a flower, where the entire existence of the plant's energy ultimately culminates in a bloom, demanding reproduction takes place when it is ready. And, when she is ready, she demands the fulfillment of her readiness immediately, thus the female is the passive cell, while the male is the motile cell - always at the ready to do her bidding.

"Contrary to the general opinion, there is no difference in the total sexual impulses of the sexes.../...Any such idea comes from a confusion between the desire for a thing and the stimulus towards the active part in securing what is desired.../...It is important to distinguish between the intensity with which sexual matters are pursued and the proportion of the total activities of life that are devoted to them and to their accessory cares. 
.

7 - The Pleasure of Letting Someone Else Lead - The woman no longer has to worry about making money, providing food and shelter and so forth (or, at least not as much as when she is alone), allowing her to focus her time and energy on the children she bears. Many people reminisce of how good things were back at Mom & Dad's after they have become adults. As children they might have resented it, but as adults, they realize how fortunate they were, both in a literal/physical sense, and also in a psychological sense. It was nice to not have to worry where the food was coming from or if the heat will still be working next month, wasn't it?

Click Pic for "The Suffragettes versus The Patriarchy"

8 - The Tyranny of Weakness (can shirk responsible and claim victim-hood) - The Buck Stops Here. As man's subordinate in "misogynist" cultures, any time that something goes wrong, all the blame ultimately turns back upon the man. For example, if a man cheats on his wife, he is a lout for doing so. And if a woman cheats on her husband, he is a lout for not keeping her happy. "Heads she wins, tails he loses," or,

"The worst form of tyranny the world has ever known is the tyranny of the weak over the strong. It is the only tyranny that lasts." -- Oscar Wilde.

This is still happening today, where everything in society that is not to women's liking is blamed upon men, even though we are decidedly not living in a patriarchy, but rather a matriarchy. (Over half of all children go to bed at night without a biological father in the house. Maria Shriver reports that America is "A Woman's Nation" because after the 08/09 Great Recession, women now outnumber men in both university degrees and in the workforce. Hannah Rosin of The Atlantic further rubbed salt in men's wound by declaring "The End of Men." And yet, heh, men are still to blame for everything wrong in the world rather than women.)  
.

Click for "Testing, Testing, 1,2,3, Testing"

9 - Sexual Pleasure - for man and woman - the one pleasure the man gets from sex. I hope this is self-explanatory enough for me to not have to discuss the birds and the bees - this is not an X-rated site, after all. However, if you're a beautiful, available young woman, send me an e-mail along with several photos, and I'd be willing to discuss it privately with you in greater depth.

10 - Duality - Everything in regard to Tiresias is about duality, or the completion of the Yin

Click Pic for "The Masculine Principle"

and Yang, of the two opposites becoming one.

Tiresias was both man and woman. He was rewarded with long life (either seven generations or seven lifetimes), but starts his knowledge when he was young - thus the duality of young and old is connected through him. He was also granted the full memory of his life on earth after he died and went to the underworld, thus connecting the duality of life and death.

Click for "Rites of Passage: Making Boys into Men"

I suspect that of the ten pleasures, where man receives one pleasure to woman's nine, the pleasure that neither receives is duality - That is something that can only be achieved by embracing the opposites within themselves; by the man embracing his masculinity and the woman embracing her femininity. If men try to behave like women and women try to behave like men, they become competitors rather than a synergistic force that is greater than the sum of the two parts.

Some stories, however, do say that woman enjoys all ten pleasures, and if we take that tack on duality, I have read before about the concept of duality existing in women when they have a son. The woman creates the son, who becomes the man who takes care of the woman. This is why the mother & son, represented so often with the Virgin Mary, is such a powerful and recurring theme in various artwork throughout history. (The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world).

Well, these are my suspicions of what the Tiresias Myth is about. Of course, there is no way to prove it, and these are just my ponderings. But I think this is a much better interpretation than thinking he meant women get nine times the orgasmic pleasures which men do.
.

Previous / Index / Next

.

.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
"It is pathetic to note that in today's society, when a woman marries a doctor or a lawyer or a corporation executive, she automatically procures the same status and income which took her husband years of hard work to attain. No exertion is needed on her part, outside of buying the right clothes and applying cosmetics-in other words, slipping on the right mask. So a brainless bimbo who drapes herself on the arm of a movie star is accorded greater respect than a female librarian or scientist." -- Matthew Fitzgerald, Sex-Ploytation (p.11)
.

You're Such a Tool! (Briffault's law)

Click Pic for "The Amazon Women (The Science of "Why Males Exist")"

"Feminine traits are called weaknesses. People joke about them; fools ridicule them; but reasonable persons see very well that those traits are just the tools for the management of men, and for the use of men for female designs." -- Immanuel Kant, Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View, Southern Illinois University Press 1978, originally published in 1798

One thing our society struggles with as it continually fails feminism's cultural fitness tests is the silly notion that men and women are "equal" and thus we are essentially coming at each-other from the same point of view regarding our interactions with the opposite sex. This is the wrong way of thinking. We are not "blank slates" who are different merely because of society's externally imposed social constructs upon us.
.

Click Pic for "Testing, Testing... 1,2,3... Testing!"

In fact, anyone who believes in evolution would scoff at the idea of men and women being essentially the same. Natural Selection is what "evolves" us. Sharks mate with the fastest swimmers and the sharks best able to feed themselves. By selecting those with the genes which display these traits, they continually evolve to become better swimmers and better predators. Animals evolve to do the tasks which they are best suited for. Thus, the sharks of today are likely "better" sharks than the sharks of 10,000 years ago as the genes of those best at survival continually get passed on more often than those who fail to survive.

Between the sexes, we also evolve to do the tasks which we are best suited for. You can see that men and women are physically different, each being designed for what they do best. Certainly there are some social constructs that society imposes upon men and women, but they are based on our biological natures, not upon the blank slate.

In women's case, their entire bodies are designed for giving birth and caring for children. They have wide hips to give birth and have breasts to feed children with. Note that it is also these traits - women's "curves" - that are a large part of what men find sexually attractive in women. It is their "reproductive features" we find attractive. Further, even a woman's mind has evolved to make her more suitable for rearing children, thus a woman's "multi-tasking brain" is more suitable to care for children - or to do other tasks while also caring for children. But it goes even further than this multi-tasking feature. Women are somewhere in between that of a man and a child. Often times, the men of old observed women were merely children of a larger growth:

Click Pic for "Woman: The Most Responsible Teenager in the House?"

"Women are directly adapted to act as the nurses and educators of our early childhood, for the simple reason that they themselves are childish, foolish, and short-sighted — in a word, are big children all their lives, something intermediate between the child and the man, who is a man in the strict sense of the word. Consider how a young girl will toy day after day with a child, dance with it and sing to it; and then consider what a man, with the very best intentions in the world, could do in her place." -- Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women

Women have mentally "evolved" to be something intermediate between the child and the man. We have all heard that women are more emotional than men and are more "in tune with feelings" than men. And this is correct, for tell me, how do infants communicate except through the language of emotions and feelings? How does a baby indicate it needs to be fed? It is through the emotional response of crying - certainly not by saying, "Hey momma, bring those soft, round milk thingies over to my mouth." Children communicate emotionally, and since women have evolved to become "better carers of children," they have also evolved to be more in tune to the language of children, which is emotion.

"... Because the female connections link the left hemisphere, which is associated with logical thinking, with the right, which is linked with intuition, this could help to explain why women tend to do better than men at intuitive tasks, she added. “Intuition is thinking without thinking. It's what people call gut feelings. Women tend to be better than men at these kinds of skills which are linked with being good mothers,”..." (Source)

We also often hear that girls mature faster than boys. This is also true, and to refer back to Schopenhauer again, he acknowledges this as well:

Man reaches the maturity of his reasoning and mental faculties scarcely before he is eight-and-twenty; woman when she is eighteen; but hers is reason of very narrow limitations. This is why women remain children all their lives, for they always see only what is near at hand, cling to the present, take the appearance of a thing for reality, and prefer trifling matters to the most important. -- Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women

The reason girls mature mentally before boys again goes back to their biological function as the bearers of children. Everywhere in nature, when an animal is physically capable of giving birth it is also mentally developed enough to care for its offspring - at least in the most primal of ways. This is also true of human females. When they reach puberty, they are mentally mature enough to give at minimum the basic care to an infant to keep it alive. Even though we don't encourage girls to have children as soon as they reach puberty, we do see in our culture that adults begin to trust girls at the age of puberty for tasks such as babysitting, thus lots of girls in the 12 to 14 age group begin to earn some pocket money in this manner - they have become mentally mature enough to adequately do the task. Why does Schopenhauer indicate women reach the maturity of their reasoning and mental faculties at the age of eighteen? Well, what would be the evolutionary advantage to women growing out of this phase of relating to children and beyond it? There is none.

But then, what is it that men have evolved to become?

Once we realize that everywhere in nature the male is the sexual servant of the female, it's pretty easy to see the plot of evolution: Men have evolved to become the best providers and protectors we can possibly be in order to meet the needs of the female - especially during her most vulnerable time, which is when she gets pregnant, gives birth, recuperates, and then raises the child until it becomes self-sufficient (ie. It can walk, talk and feed itself). This whole process takes about four years to complete, and then her rotating polyandry cycle kicks in and she discards the male in order to seek out a new man to repeat the cycle again. This is the primitive method of assuring genetic diversity amongst her offspring, which increases their overall chance of survival.

Click Pic for "The Fraud of Modern Marriage (Women as Chattel)"

So aside from merely being sperm donors, men have also evolved into being the best at what we do - and these are also the things women find attractive in a man: our protecting and providing skills. We have developed upper body strength which is vastly superior to the female's, and so it is tall, strong, broad shouldered men which women find sexually attractive. Men have developed linear thinking brains which help us figure out how to perform specific tasks as efficiently and productively as possible. No matter what men set out to do, aside from raising children, women cannot compete with men on a level playing field because we have evolved to best perform our tasks in order to make ourselves useful to women. Most women admit that they are sexually attracted to men who are more intelligent than they are - this does not mean that all men are are smarter than all women, but merely that each woman tends to seek out a man who has higher intelligence than she possesses.   

But ultimately, men do all of these things in service of women, in the hopes of gaining - or maintaining - her favour. However, the kink in this plot is that women don't actually "love" men, only gay men truly love men. Rather women love being loved. "Love" means different things to men and women.

"Women have no sympathy... And my experience of women is almost as large as Europe. And it is so intimate too. Women crave for being loved, not for loving. They scream at you for sympathy all day long, they are incapable of giving you any in return for they cannot remember your affairs long enough to do so." -- Florence Nightingale
.

Click Pic for "Rites of Passage: Making Boys into Men"

Think of a man as a stick in a woman's hand - a tool which she uses for her own purposes. The woman with the biggest stick will fare better in society than women with smaller sticks - or especially women with no sticks at all. This is a further reason for women to give men fitness tests - to test how strong of a stick he is. If she finds him sufficiently strong, she will begin to conform herself to him, creating the illusion that she is his ideal mate so that he will begin to fall in love with her and thus become useful to her as a "tool."
.
This is one thing that men must always keep in mind in his dealings with women. For women, their love is parasitic - it is based upon what she gets from a man. But for men, their love is the host to the parasitic nature of the woman - it is based upon what he gives. 

"When I started researching this book, I was prepared to rediscover the old saw that conventional femininity is nurturing and passive and that masculinity is self-serving, egotistical, and uncaring. But I did not find this. One of my findings here is that manhood ideologies always include a criterion of selfless generosity, even to the point of sacrifice. Again and again we find that 'real' men are those who give more than they take." -- David Gilmore in his 1990 book Manhood in the Making

Also, one must keep in mind that relationships don't mean the same thing to women as they do to men. Relationships are a "tool" for women - they get things from it, or rather from the man. Women get over relationships far more easily than men do. They are never as deeply "in love" with a man as a man is in love with the woman. Men and women are polar opposites. We are two sides to the same coin, but those sides are not the same. Women have more emotions but they are shallower. Men have fewer emotions but they run deeper. In an

Click Pic for "Male and Female: Equal But Different"

evolutionary survival scenario, it makes sense too, that men would love women deeper than women would "love" men. It is a man's deep love that will make him sacrifice his produced goods and even his life for the woman he loves. This rarely happens the other way around. While there is an evolutionary survival advantage for the female to lose interest in a man after completing her four year rotating polyandry cycle, there is no similar advantage for the man to lose interest. In fact, just the opposite. It is in both her and her offspring's advantage to have the man still hopelessly in love with her, providing and protecting his brains out while she slyly seeks out her next suitable mate before giving the present "tool" his walking papers.  
Everything a man does in a relationship is in her benefit. This is the basis of Briffault's law.

“The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” -- Robert Briffault, The Mothers, I, 191

It is also important to note the corollaries to Briffault's law: 

1 - Past benefit provided by the male does not provide for continued or future association.

2 - Any agreement where the male provides a current benefit in return for a promise of future association is null and void as soon as the male has provided the benefit (see corollary 1)

3 - A promise of future benefit has limited influence on current/future association, with the influence inversely proportionate to the length of time until the benefit will be given and directly proportionate to the degree to which the female trusts the male (which is not bloody likely).
. 

Click Pic for "The Suffragettes versus The Patriarchy"

Briffault's law is the reason the most important word a man must learn in his relationships with a woman is "No!" If a man keeps nothing for himself and simply gives it all to her, she has no reason to continue to associate with him. No matter what he does, it soon will become "What have you done for me lately?" He must keep the benefits he bestows upon her under his control, and learn to say no often, as she will naturally try to get him to pass them on to her. No, I won’t spend $100 for roses on Valentine’s Day. No, we’re not going to Hawaii for a vacation (unless you are paying, Toots!) No, you cannot move in with me. No, you cannot move in now that you’ve been evicted – that is what your girlfriend’s couch or your parent’s spare room is for. NO! We won’t get be getting married. No! You are not going on the pill so we can have bareback sex. No! No! No! No! No! NO!
.
There were only a few thousand divorces annually in the mid-nineteenth century when divorce cost wives their children and Dad’s paycheck. This family stability began eroding as later nineteenth century divorce courts, under pressure from the rising feminist movement, began awarding child 

Click for "Rotating Polyandry & Its Enforcers"

custody to mothers. -- Daniel Amneus, The Case for 
Father Custody, p360

“Between 1870 and 1920 the divorce rate rose fifteenfold, and by 1924 one marriage out of seven ended in divorce” — James H. Jones, Alfred Kinsey: A Public/Private Life (New York: W. W. Norton, 1997), p.292.

Women's attitude to men is easiest to understand by comparing it to our attitude towards a job. Whether we love our job or not, most of us think we must have one. We often think a bad job is better than not having a job at all. No matter how much we may love our job, we'll jump ship and go with a better one if it's offered. And no matter how good our job may have been for us in the past, if something happens that upsets us, the love has probably gone forever. We don't ever think we are owed for the past.

Click Pic for the Free Online Book, "The Predatory Female" -- by Rev. Lawrence Shannon

"What do women have jobs for? 

To entertain themselves while they aren't working" 

- The Predatory Female

Women never want to be without a "tool" in society, for it is through her man-tool that she accomplishes what she needs in society - thus, women are like monkeys and never let go of one branch until she has gotten hold of the next. This is why you usually find that at the end of her relationship with a particular tool, er, man, there is always another man hanging around somewhere in the wings. Female "independence" is an illusion.

What women's independence actually means is that they want the freedom to change from one tool to the next without consequences. Men would view independence in a much different manner. In fact, Buddhism acknowledges the three phases women go through of using men as "tools" for their own designs during their lives:

 Women have the “five obstacles” (inability to become anything great) and the “three followings” (follows first the father, then the husband, then the son).-- Buddha - from Selected Writings of Nichiren

In her youth, a woman gains her power through her father - he is the "tool" that serves her and represents her in society. In adulthood, she gains power through her husband, who spends his life's energy providing for her and the offspring they produce together. In her old age, she gains her power through her son. In each case, she uses a man as her tool to deal with society.

Click Pic for "The Fish and The Bicycle"

I can certainly attest to the last one about the son with my own mother. Since my father died a few years ago, it is now me who my mother uses to navigate life. When she has a problem, she comes to me to deal with it. If she suspects the mechanic at the shop is trying to rip her off, it is me who goes there to talk with him. When she needs to make a financial decision, it is me who she seeks advice from and who she hands over the authority to make ultimate decisions. Since she lost my father as her "tool," she transferred the responsibility to me. She is not independent as a man would be. I'm not upset about it. It is the natural order of life. And since she didn't stuff me into daycare to have strangers raise me, but rather did a good job for me as a true mother when I was young... and because she did not selfishly destroy our family with divorce, but stayed with my father for 48 years (and I'm sure not all of those years were easy ones), I am willing to let her use me as her "tool" in her old age because she deserves it. 

Click Pic for "The Ballad of NO MA'AM" (Song/Video - 3min)

We are failing feminism's cultural fitness tests because we are not asserting our authority and telling women, "NO! You can't use me as your tool for free. We are humans, not monkeys." And since men's love is "the host" for women's "parasitic love," it is essential that the host leads the parasite, rather than the other way around. When the parasite leads, it destroys both the host and the parasite, but when the host leads, both organisms can survive. 

NO! Learn to say it, and learn to say it often.

You don't even have to be rude about it. You could also say "NO MA'AM!"

Women are as independent as a tropical fern in a greenhouse in Iceland.

If the men “leave” the women will follow, because female “independence” is an illusion.
.

Previous / Index / Next

. 

.

“The woman follows the man. In her youth she follows her father and elder brother; when married, she follows her husband; when her husband is dead, she follows her son.” – Confucius

.

***

.

Click for "Advice to Married Couples"

36. Mothers appear to be more fond of their sons, because those sons are able to help them, and fathers of their daughters, because daughters need their help. Maybe also it is out of compliment to each other that both parties desire to be seen making much of that which is more akin to the other. This, perhaps, is a trait of no importance, but there is another which is charming. I mean, when the wife's respect is seen to incline rather to the husband's parents than to her own, and when, in case of anything troubling her, she refers it to them and conceals it from her own people. If you are thought to trust, you are trusted; if you are thought to love, you are loved. -- Advice to Married Couples, by Plutarch
. 

***

.

Click for "Sex-Ploytation"

"I ran into a friend from college I hadn't seen in years. He was a stud back then, and it looked like he still had it. He told me he'd never gotten married, and I asked him why. He said he was looking for a really nice, cute, girl-next-door who wasn't looking for a guy as a meal ticket. I said, `Oh. That explains it. You'll be single forever."' -- Sex-Ploytation (p.36)
.









.

Previous / Index / Next

. 

.