Friday, November 02, 2012

Lemmings.



One of the hardest tasks I find, when dealing with my patients, is trying to "get inside their heads". Frequently, seemingly inexplicable actions are logically explained when you take the patient's "point of view" with regard to things. This does not mean that the patient was correct in what they said or did, rather, their actions were understandable with regard to forces and reasons operating in their head.

The inability to get into the opposite sex's heads, I think, is a real problem amongst many of the commentators in the manosphere, who seem to have a very hard time trying to understand female logic and motivations. Many men assume that women think like they do, and in trying to understand female action project male "logic" onto female minds. Unfortunately, this is wrong. The mounting evidence from neuroscience clearly demonstrates that men and women have different cognitive processes. I think that it is important to come to grasp with these differences in order to understand how we got into the current predicament and how to best combat it.

I have a lot of respect with regard to commentator Dalrock, and his rebuttal to me in the last post was intelligent and thought out. Still I think he errs in his understanding of female motivations.
This goes against what we know, both from a biological perspective and what the PUAs are telling us. Having sex makes babies, and it stands to reason that there is a strong biological drive to have sex with men the woman perceives (psychologically) as the fittest genetic donor. This is core to your (correct) point that it isn't reasonable for unattractive betas to demand that women become attracted to them. This is in fact what they are doing (having sex with the most attractive men they can get), and also what they tell you they are doing. Yet when these women have sex based on exactly these constraints, you attribute it to peer pressure. Biologically they should want to have sex with these men*, yet you are convinced that they really don't. 
Firstly, I'm not a big believer in evolutionary explanations of human behaviour. (No, I'm not a Creationist). The evolutionary crowd attribute too much to the genetic imperative and not enough to cognitive, social or emotional reasons.  David Buss recently wrote a book on women's sexual motivations and found a multitude of reasons why women have sex.  The take home message is that women's sexual motivations are complex and simple "genetic" imperatives are a worthless guide to understanding female motivations

The first mistake many in the androsphere make is in attributing male thought processes onto female minds--it just doesn't work that way: When you enter into a woman's brain it's a totally different world where different forces are at play. For example, it was often assumed in the earlier days of sexual research that female desire was a weaker version of the male type. However, recent psychological research backed up with functional MRI data has showed that this assumption is wrong.  Take this fascinating study by Laan.  She was able to demonstrate that women seem to be "less connected" to their genitals than men are. Whilst women were able to perceive a sexual stimulus they were less likely to be aware of it.  Likewise, compared to men, visual erotic stimuli are processed differently.

Gender is not a social construct but a biological reality resulting in a differential information processing system.   To use a crude analogy, men and women don't just differ in processors but in operating systems as well. 

Secondly,  manosphere commentators need to grasp the importance of social factors in influencing female thought and motivation. Numerous psychological studies have shown that women are more conformist than men. (Google Scholar it). It's not just that women consciously choose to conform, it's that their cognitive processes actually biases their thinking to conform.  Female cognitive processes are wired to make exclusion from the "in group" a stressful experience. When men want to punish they physically hurt, when women want to punish they exclude; the pain comes from the effect of group exclusion.

When the fat lard-arses whine about being pressured to conform to social expectation they are simply  illustrating this fact. All women want to be pretty and the constant display of beautiful women in the media makes every woman regularly aware of he deficiency with respect to the group ideal. The "pressure" thus felt is generated by her own neurobiology which recognises her "outgroup" status and attempts motivate her toward in-goup behaviours and ideals. Men too, feel this pressure but not to the degree that women do. Men might be horny all the time but women are always trying to stick with the herd.

It is this phenomenon which helps understand the phenomenon of "Erotic Plasticity". Roy Baumeister was the first to introduce the concept. While I think Roy Baumiester's current opinion piece is poorly argued, his papers on "erotic plasticity" are simply superb. Women's sexuality seems "plastic" to a degree that it just isn't in men. And as Baumeister hints in his papers, it is the social milleu in which females operate that strongly molds their erotic desires. From his 2000 paper;

Over half (55%) of women who had coital experience had peer groups who encouraged sexual activity, whereas almost none(3%) of the virgin women associated with such groups.

I would consider that statistically significant. But it would be a mistake to think that this social weighting to their cognition only applies to sexual domain. Fashion, for example, exerts a greater influence on women than men. And it need to be remembered that women frequently dress with regard to the opinion of other women in mind. Romantic trajectories, mothering styles, school and suburb choice are strongly influenced by the in group social script.

Not only is there a pressure to conform, but there seems to be some sort of cognitive mechanism which punishes the women for asserting their individuality. Women will frequently assert that there is something wrong with them if they find dissonance between group sanctioned behaviour and personal displeasure.  In Victorian ages, where sexuality purity was idealised, women thought there was something "wrong" with them if they enjoyed sex. Now they wonder if there is something wrong with them if they don't. The whole cognitive mechanism is weighted to bias the group above the individual. It's the cognition of individual subordination

What this means practically is, when compared to men, women suffer from more cognitive pressure to conform to group norms, and it is this mechanism that explains erotic plasticity. Women can literally be reprogrammed to whatever you want them to be. The secret is not to make it explicit or one on one but rather to highlight a woman's deviancy from the norm. If you want women to engage in any type of deviant sexual practice, then what you have to do is show that all of the girls, especially the popular ones are doing it, and its only the weird one's or the fundies that aren't. Once she has accepted that it is part of  "in group" practice, her own biology and cognitive processes will impel her toward the practice even though she might find it personally objectionable. But so strong is this imperative that she will question her own "normalcy" if she doesn't find practice enjoyable.

This is why Sex in the City and Cosmo are far greater moral solvents than hardcore porn. Porn has to appeal to the individual directly, whereas shows like SITC only have to give the appearance of upholding an "in-group" norm to influence female behaviour. In societies where rape is punishable, it is women who are the sexual gatekeepers and the level at which sexually permissibility is set is determined by group norms.

It's this propensity not to override their social imperative, even in the face of obvious self-interest, which I find so interesting in women.   Now,  I agree that women possess moral agency, and can override their emotions, but it appears that,when it comes to in-group norms, they have a far harder time doing it than men do. It's why I have some sympathy for their predicament. Dammed if they slut, dammed if they don't.

I'm not trying to excuse women for their behaviour, rather I'm trying to get a better understanding of what the motivating factors are. It really is hard for a woman to be good these days, given the current social climate which makes sexual restraint as an "out group" behaviour. Society is really rigged against the good girl.

45 comments:

Aurini said...

Tangentially related, a conversation I was having with my friend.

1. Virginity is healthier psychologically for women, but ironically the most mentally healthy women are *more likely* to engage in premarital sex. A virgin is likely to be either a) socially dysfunctional, or b) part of a fringe religious group.

2. Does it affect a woman's bonding ability if she doesn't orgasm with a partner? I've found that sluts - very frequently - don't enjoy the sex, they just feel driven to submit to the 'dominance' of the sexually perverse narcissist/psychopath. When they get sex from a dominant man with an actual soul they are more likely to orgasm.

Kathy Farrelly said...

" Female cognitive processes are wired to make exclusion from the "in group" a stressful experience. When men want to punish they physically hurt, when women want to punish they exclude; the pain comes from the effect of group exclusion."

Interesting SP. I was a nonconformist then. Am I an outlier?
What about parental influence?

My mother had a very strong influence on me... More so than my peers. She was an exceptional roll model..Still is...

Also I only ever had a few good friends.. Genuine friends.. In fact these two women(with whom I went to high school) are still friends now.. We keep in touch though we no longer live close by. They share the same moral values. Both Catholic as well.
I was just never interested in being in a group (gaggle) of women. Too much bitching and gossiping..
Even now, I have only a couple of special female friends.
They too, are not part of the herd.
I don't do lunches coffees or girls night's out... I much prefer to spend my time with my husband, socializing with other couples. (when we get the rare chance)
So, I guess I have been innoculated against the herd effect..

I could go weeks without having any social contact with a female friend.. Doesn't bother me at all.

Perhaps it would if I were not married.

asdf said...

All of this is true but incomplete.

Let me propose the following.

1) There is a "natural" female sexual desire that applies to the median female. This can probably be explained by evopsych/game.

2) That natural female sexual desire can be suppressed or enhanced by societal norms to varying degrees. In Victorian England it was suppressed (why these women felt their natural urges were wrong), while today they are enhanced (Comso tells them their most tawdry impulses are correct).

3) However, let us remember that desire can't be created out of nowhere. That's the feminist social construct line. Cosmo isn't creating these female desires out of nowhere. It's simply tapping into what already exists. It's giving women what they want (at least on an 'id' level) and that is why they sell magazines. They are trying to fulfill consumer demand.

4) Now I can buy into the idea that this creates a feedback loop. Women have some "bad" natural desires, popular media appeals to those bad natural desires to make money, the presence of bad natural desires in mass media makes it harder to overcome them. That all makes sense. But it doesn't mean the initial desire isn't there.

5) Finally, women are on a bell curve like anyone else. What describes the median women may not be too applicable to women at the extremes. I've dated tingle dominated game cutouts and totally frigid Christian women with no sex drive.

However, the median women is a good reference point for what will become the societal norm. And what we are finding is that the median woman, left to her natural desires, engages in a non-Christian lifestyle.

Herbie said...

SP,

I've just recently become a reader here(last month or so). Its refreshing to see analyses on intersexual relationships dealt with in a way that keeps bias in its proper place(i.e. without resorting to mud-slinging). Well done.

Anonymous said...

Slumlord:

asdf is on the right track. This is good, but incomplete. I think peer pressure has a role in female sexual behavior, but the part you attribute to it is far too prominent. There is much, much more going on, and peer pressure alone doesn't explain it.

First, it's a bit far fetched to say these women are having sex with very high status, very attractive, very "hot" men, and yet they don't like it and are literally having their arms twisted and are being forced into it. I just don't believe women are having all this sex and yet they hate it.

Second, let's assume arguendo that what you say is true. Let's presume that women are helpless to resist peer pressure and will have sex with the most attractive men. In doing so they KNOW they are clearly acting against their best interests, but they are doing it anyway.

If that is true, it lends credence to the notion that women have less agency than men, are less able to make sound choices, have diminished capacity for long-range thinking and planning, and are simply of weaker mental and emotional constitution than men. Women are, according to this argument, little more than children. Therefore, women's hypergamous urges need to be reined in and controlled. Women therefore should not be trusted to make serious life decisions without the supervision of either a father or a husband. They should not be allowed the vote. They should not be trusted in high political or business or industrial positions.

Third, if peer pressure is the determinative factor in women having sex, then why are they choosing the most attractive men to have sex with before it comes time for marriage? If the pressure is to have sex, then any available man should do the trick. But that's not what women are doing. Experience and reports all over the manosphere bear out that women gravitate only to the top men for sex until they are done on the carousel. They are not in this looking for love. They are sexing the top men because they want sex from the hot men. Now, if they can get love and a relationship from a top alpha, a woman will take it; but if they can't get that, they will settle for the short term sex with an alpha over a relationship with an icky beta. We know this. Even over at HUS, Susan Walsh's focu group women have a saying that "boyfriends are ugly". The import of that is clear: the hot alpha men are for sex; so if you have to have a boyfriend, he's certainly not a hot man.

We know all of this. So there is more to it than just peer pressure, no?

deti

Anonymous said...

"the most mentally healthy women are *more likely* to engage in premarital sex" - Why then are girls who have a good relationship with their fathers *less* likely to become sluts? Perhaps it is because it requires mental health in the form of self-control to remain a virgin?

Anonymous said...

Let me amplify this:

It strains credulity to say that women are having hot sex with very attractive men, yet they hate it. Stated another way, it's not credible to say that women hate having sex with very attractive men. This seems to be what you're saying, Slumlord, and it just makes no sense at all.

deti

Anonymous said...

Something that's being missed here is the role of power and the leveling effect that unrestrained hypergamy has had on society. Because that's what feminism and unrestrained hypergamy is really about, after all -- it's about power.

Women's assertion of power is being expressed through sexuality. This is because sex is the most potent weapon (often, the ONLY weapon) in a young woman's arsenal. It might be her only weapon, but it is the equivalent of having a nuclear bomb when the men are walking around equipped by their feminist mothers and pussy beta fathers with pea shooters and slingshots. At best, if he's lucky, he'll be able to get his hands on a machine gun or even an M-1 anti tank gun. But most are just given .22 bolt action rifles and told to hope for the best.

Women are not having sex because they are succumbing to peer pressure. They are having sex because it is an expression of their incredible cultural and societal power -- over MEN.

deti

TDOM said...

Good post. You've raised a number of interesting issues. One point of contention however.

"Gender is not a social construct but a biological reality resulting in a differential information processing system. To use a crude analogy, men and women don't just differ in processors but in operating systems as well."

I would state this differently.

Gender is a social construct based on biological reality (sex) which includes differences in the informational processing system. while men and women may have different processors using different operating systems, they still run a lot of the same software.

While the differences between men and women are important, there are more similarities than differences.

I am not sold on evolutionary psychology, but I don't completely discount it. I haven't yet taken the time to read the Laan study, but I'm guessing that the differences in functional MRI due to sexual desire can be explained by evolutionary theory more easily than social theory.

Brendan said...

"the most mentally healthy women are *more likely* to engage in premarital sex" - Why then are girls who have a good relationship with their fathers *less* likely to become sluts? Perhaps it is because it requires mental health in the form of self-control to remain a virgin?

Not to put words in his mouth, but I believe his response to this would be that it is "healthy" because the converse -- waiting until you are married to have sex -- requires substantial sexual suppression/repression in this culture, and that is unhealthy. Remember, he is quite critical of traditional attitudes towards sex (or what he understands them to be), and sees this as a main reason why sexual libertinism exploded the way it did.

mdavid said...

SP, The evolutionary crowd attribute too much to the genetic imperative and not enough to cognitive, social or emotional reasons.

I think the "evolutionary crowd" would respond: The cognitive, social, and emotional all have genetic roots, can generally be discussed best from this angle. In fact, all these facets (cognitive, social, emotion) are merely complex genetic responses to maximize reproduction over many generations. It's a self-fulfilling prophesy; the future belongs to those who show up for it, and that's us. Sure, sometimes it goes off the rails, when the environment changes and the genetic cannot adjust. Hence, extinction.

My thought on the woman: her womb is too important to the species to trust with her frontal lobe. Heck, if nature were to let her do that, she would never have children at all. Therefore, her emotions dominate the sexual transaction. All this noise about "what a woman wants" is really a joke - she doesn't want anything, she is a slave to the fertility gods. She only answers to her womb.

I really think this should be the next SP topic: how the modern wave of depression, unhappiness, and general flakiness women seem to be embracing (as well as family decline) is deeply rooted in women's lack of children. Women are a chemical soup that demands children to function properly. And in the West, they simply aren't having many. Their culture is against it, and their conformist nature demands they don't, and they are freaking out...

Anonymous said...

I stopped reading at "female logic."

Anonymous said...

" Women can literally be reprogrammed to whatever you want them to be."

And yet I'm sure that, for some strange reason, there's no documented case of an average woman developing sexual desire for an average beta male due to peer pressure.

Interesting, isn't it?

Höllenhund

Anonymous said...

An old but relevant comment:

"In my experience, women have a fairly laser-like focus on who they want to bang. In fact, it’s usually premeditated. They’ve already got the yes/no situation decided, and simply being alpha around them will cause the “lock” to fall to pieces all by itself. No pressure for sex needed. Sure, the random meet-at-a-bar hookup does happen, but even then the young woman in question was looking for it – she just stumbles along someone who meets the qualifications of her yes/no situation.

Women, at least a majority of the ones I have been around, have this uncanny ability to put themselves in situations where things “just happen.” For example… going to a different set of bars? “Oh, I’ll just ride with you/your friend (and completely leaving my friends behind and ensuring that we will end up at your apartment).” The whole Bristol Palin example is a perfect illustration of this, um, ‘phenomenon.’ She knew the partying and drinking would be an excuse to get nailed. Men may swing the club, but women tee it up."

traditionalchristianity.wordpress.com/2011/08/06/does-abstinence-work/#comment-15388

Höllenhund

Anonymous said...

"It really is hard for a woman to be good these days, given the current social climate which makes sexual restraint as an "out group" behaviour. Society is really rigged against the good girl."

The "society" and "social climate" you mention is the only logical outcome when women start demanding that the feminine sexual imperative acquire primacy and become the central regulating force in society.

Again, another relevant comment:

"This is why the hookup culture prevails, why the raunch culture prevails and so on: once female hypergamy was well and truly unleashed, the imperative of satiating that drive became compelling for most women — much moreso than some kind of ideological drive for power and equality as ends in themselves. This is why, despite the rhetoric of empowerment and equality, what we actually observe in women is that the broader underlying hypergamous motivation tends to color most of what you see happening for *most* women (there are certainly women who do not fit that mold, and who are truly independent and ambitious for its own sake, of course) in most contexts. It explains why so many remain single for so long much more than “I was focusing on my career” does –> she had boyfriends all along, after all, but hypergamy discourages picking one before the appointed time has come (and that appointed time is indeed very vague … 28? 35? 40?) due to the opportunity cost that is implied. And this also explains the constancy of support for political feminism by single young women: they understand that, even though they don’t identify with the man-hating lesbians in the women’s studies department, political feminism nevertheless ensures that the tools which enable their hypergamous quest (free access to abortion and reliable contraception and economic independence — i.e., sexual and economic autonomy) will remain available to them for as long as they wish to use them, and this is *viscerally* important in a way it is not to women who are older and married (and who therefore support political feminism much less strongly, at least in the United States)."

dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/06/25/whistling-through-the-graveyard/#comment-43093

Höllenhund

Anonymous said...

"When they get sex from a dominant man with an actual soul they are more likely to orgasm. "

Actual soul or 'emotionally in-tune (women speak) I think is what you mean to say.

"and it stands to reason that there is a strong biological drive to have sex with men the woman perceives (psychologically) as the fittest genetic donor."

What about pheromones? I think they would play a role here, perhaps, influencing their psychology?? :S

"David Buss recently wrote a book on women's sexual motivations and found a multitude of reasons why women have sex"

Really? Other than being horny and wanting to procreate? It would seem that there is one underlying motivation in all sexually healthy reproductive women, and that would be, to reproduce, nothing more. Perhaps the extra 'multitude of reasons' are all individually ego driven.

"She was able to demonstrate that women seem to be "less connected" to their genitals than men are. Whilst women were able to perceive a sexual stimulus they were less likely to be aware of it. "

Hmm, but why the tremendous amount of nerve endings in the clitoris? Far more than in the head of a penis. If so many nerve endings, why a more significant disconnect to their genitalia? And less likely to be aware of it? I don't know..

"Gender is not a social construct but a biological reality resulting in a differential information processing system"

Agreed.

"When men want to punish they physically hurt, when women want to punish they exclude; the pain comes from the effect of group exclusion."

mhmm. i once had a girl tell me that to make a buddy of mine (who fucked me over) realize his mistakes, was to ignore..but then, that was just one woman.

""Erotic Plasticity". This is a notable point. I've been reading "The Brain That Changes Itself by Norman Dooige. Compelling material on neuroplasticity in the human brain/mind. He also has an interesting section on how modern pornography shapes sexual desires in partners.

"cognitive mechanism which punishes the women for asserting their individuality."

Ahh, where is this mechanism? From the opinions found on the manosphere, these (typically north american) 'individual' women have no buffer in regards to their, individuality. However, I suppose the bitchiness attributed to them could be an unconscious manifestation of this..

"women can literally be reprogrammed to whatever you want them to be."

No complaints there ;)

"If you want women to engage in any type of deviant sexual practice, then what you have to do is show that all of the girls, especially the popular ones are doing it, and its only the weird one's or the fundies that aren't."

Porn brainwashing, is what I think of.

Anyway, interesting piece. I'm tired though. Later

-j.h

Anonymous said...

"Women are not having sex because they are succumbing to peer pressure. They are having sex because it is an expression of their incredible cultural and societal power -- over MEN."

No, it's because, like us, they're hardwired to fuck.

-j.h

David Foster said...

It would be an interesting exercise to have people write a short story centered around a character of the opposite sex. And then have *actual* members of the opposite sex critique the construction of this character.

The Social Pathologist said...

@Anon @8:06

I stopped reading at "female logic."

That's nice. Go back to your echo chamber. But if your hanging around, I've news for you. I hate to burst your bubble but functional MRI studies have shown that men and women think using different pathways. Gender equivalence is dead.

Chew on this. Reality is a bitch.

@Aurini
Does it affect a woman's bonding ability if she doesn't orgasm with a partner?

Anorgasmia is very common and it depends on what you mean by bonding ability. There are lots of biographies of women who never had an orgasm yet never left their mate.
As for virginity before marriage it was quite common till recently. I don't think mental health and virginity are related. There sure as hell is a lot of evidence suggesting promiscuity is correlated with negative mental health.

@Kathy

This is the bane of my life. When talking about men and women, we're talking about the mean man or woman. Statistical outliers do not invalidate the mean.

Parental influence is an interesting topic since I believe a positive parental influence instills into a woman the ability to stand against the tide to a large degree.

My wife is very similar to yourself; she only has a small group of friends but she is meticulous about her appearance, is concerned about her co-workers and her reputation in the many facets of her life. She is concerned about them to a degree that I'm definitely not. She is a very conservative dresser but it was funny to see how quickly she adapted to European dress patterns on the occasions that we have been there.

@asdf

However, let us remember that desire can't be created out of nowhere

Uhm... there is a decent body of evidence out there that females have conditional desires. i.e certain criteria have to be fulfilled before desire is activated. Google biopsychosocial model of female desire.

This interesting paper on mate number prefrences shows that the average woman really doesn't want to screw around that much. The fact that the average woman has more partners than she actually desires indicates some other factor at play. Classic manosphere analysis will assume that the women are lying, and secretly want lots of partners.

The other explanation, that women want a single partner but are getting dumped by men and therefore have to keep riding the carousel until they find a horse that doesn't kick them off. But the manosphere is adamant that the women are doing the pumping and dumping so this explanation does not hold.


The other explanation is, given the current permissive culture, where the sexual threshold is so low, romantic relationships are meant to be immeadiately sexual. A woman who puts up resistance to the matter will be thought of as having "issues" see Aurini above. Hence the subtle social pressure to perform. Note, it's that woman are always unwilling participants, in many occasions a woman will be aroused, but in days of old she would off stopped herself out of concern for her reputation, now she puts out because she is concerned about her reputation if she doesn't.

@Herbie.

Thanks for dropping in. I try to keep things balanced. Though some people do try my patience.

The Social Pathologist said...

@deti

If that is true, it lends credence to the notion that women have less agency than men

Simplistic analysis.

As a Christian, you are aware that both men and women have moral agency.

The thing is though, women may think with the crowd, but they don't seem to think as much with the pussy as men seem to think with their dicks. Each sex has it's own strengths and weaknesses. Baumeister's refrenced some study which showed that in a Christian environment, women were better Christians than men.

Third, if peer pressure is the determinative factor in women having sex, then why are they choosing the most attractive men to have sex with before it comes time for marriage?

I did not say peer pressure was the determinative factor in women have sex Please quote me we I have said that. What I've said is that peer pressure is one of the major determinants in women's sexual decision making. It is a greater influence in women than it is in men. Laan showed that in response to an erotic stimulus, women were more disassociated from their genitals than men were. They seem to have a better override capacity to genital/erotic stimulus. But the mounting evidence is that female desire has a high degree of conditionality. Attractive men provide the stimulus.

Anon

Hmm, but why the tremendous amount of nerve endings in the clitoris? Far more than in the head of a penis. If so many nerve endings, why a more significant disconnect to their genitalia? And less likely to be aware of it? I don't know..


The number of nerve endings really don't matter if a gating mechanism inhibits signal transmission. Some of the other studies I have read have demonstrated genital excitation when viewing rape scenes even though the woman consciously registers disgust. The average man (extrapolating from himself) will assume that the woman is lying, whereas in reality a different cognitive mechanism is at play.

No, it's because, like us, they're hardwired to fuck.
,


The scientific data would seem to suggest that they are hardwired to fuck only when certain conditions are met.

@David.

Interesting exercise.

@Hollenhund.


And yet I'm sure that, for some strange reason, there's no documented case of an average woman developing sexual desire for an average beta male due to peer pressure.


Traditional society gave the average beta male quite a good run. It got him married. But even though the wife performed her "duties" she did not go it with gusto. That's the problem with traditionalism. There is a difference between "closing your eyes and thinking of england" and being your partners personal whore.

The Social Pathologist said...

Brendan,

It was Aurini who made that comment and not me.

I'm all for sexual repression in the appropriate context. A marker of psychological maturity is the ability to control your urges. Traditionalism didn't just want you to control your urges. It thought you evil for having them, except for procreation purposes only, and even then one could not imbibe the pleasures too deeply.

@mdavid.

There's lots of reasons why people are depressed at the moment. Children are not the cure all for women.

Anonymous said...

„This interesting paper on mate number prefrences shows that the average woman really doesn't want to screw around that much.”

Yeah, but isn’t that obvious, based on what we know about female hypergamy? Of course the average woman doesn’t want to screw around. Her imperative is to have one partner only – the best she can get. She wants serial monogamy with men who display the perfect mix of alpha and beta – she wants lengthy relationships which only she can start and end (i.e. she wants the monopoly of choice). She wants commitment FROM fantasy men, or just sex if she cannot get it, but she doesn’t want commitment TO them.

„The fact that the average woman has more partners than she actually desires indicates some other factor at play. Classic manosphere analysis will assume that the women are lying, and secretly want lots of partners.”

Um, no. Based on what I’ve read, the classic Manosphere analysis, which in my opinion is mostly correct, is that the majority of women are consistently trying to punch above their weight in the mating marketplace, trying to out-slut each other in the competition for the sexual attention of the small number of top men. This, not peer pressure, is the main driving force behind the culture of promiscuity and women’s high number count. This competition is becoming more and more desperate and raunchy, as the top men have fewer and fewer incentives to commit and more and more men are opting out of the race altogether, and female hypergamy is increasingly frustrated as a result.

„Traditional society gave the average beta male quite a good run. It got him married. But even though the wife performed her "duties" she did not go it with gusto. That's the problem with traditionalism.”

So do you agree with my argument or not?

Höllenhund

asdf said...

SP,

The classic manosphere stance is that women like to fuck out of there league because men will lower their standards for fucking but not commitment. The women do in fact wish these men way out of their league would settle down with them, but they won't.

So they are both lying and telling the truth. They don't want to get pump and dumped, yet they constantly set themselves up to get pump and dumped. As another commentator said, "they are constantly putting themselves in situations where things 'just happen'."

Women have always had a dilemma for all of time. I can go for someone out of my league and get my kids a better set of genes then otherwise, or I can go for someone within my league which means worse genes but better resource provisioning. Alpha vs beta. Hypergamy. So nearly all of human history was a choice between genes and resources. Women tried to weigh which would increase the chances of her genes getting passed on.

All that's happened is that modern economic growth has rendered resource provisioning moot. So now genes have primacy. And girls are constantly putting themselves into situations where they can get those genes (or at least fool their body into thinking they got them, the actual genes are in the condom).

What's so confusing to the modern women is she keeps telling herself that she got the good genes. I mean penis went in vagina and all the other stuff millions of years of evolution tell her means babies. But no babies come, none come for an exceedingly long time according to her body. And this drives them insane.

mdavid said...

@Anon @8:06 I stopped reading at "female logic."

@ SP, That's nice. Go back to your echo chamber.

Sheese SP, I thought that was supposed to be funny! It was by far the best line of the entire thread...have a damn heart! Hey, if we can't have a good laugh at this topic, we are certainly gonna cry by the end :-)...

asdf said...

"but they don't seem to think as much with the pussy as men seem to think with their dicks."

This is completely false and a bad piece of propoganda.

Men feel a constant, but low level, horniness. They will do things to fuck, but fucking doesn't become their whole lives.

Women don't feel a constant need to fuck, but when they do feel it they feel it at an incredibly high level. When a women feels passion she will completely through away anything in her life to embrace it.

So don't peddle thing men horndogs women angles bullshit. For men sex ends with sex. Women are the only ones I've seen completely at the mercy of their genitals.

Anonymous said...

Women are attracted to their stereotype of power.This is attraction is rigid. What's plastic is the stereotype of power, not female sexuality. IMO.

dicipres

The Social Pathologist said...

@mdavid

The comment came across as rude and was replied in kind. The comment was signed anonymous and I thought some feminist had made it.


@Hollenhund.

No.

@Asdf.

We have to agree to disagree.

Good genes were meant to be able to secure resources. I think your understanding of evo-psyche needs to be improved.

Svar said...

This is just hilarious. SP has the research and the logic and the experience to back up his assertions and his detractors have.....?? A lifetime of rejection and masturbatory experience?

Kathy Farrelly said...

"Women are the only ones I've seen completely at the mercy of their genitals."

Hmmm. What are PUA's if not slaves to the pussy?..

Supplicating beta husbands who grovel for sex? (because their shrewish wives use sex as a weapon)

I worked with a really nice guy some years ago.He was in management as well.. His wife was a bitch. I felt sorry for him..He'd do anything for a root, and his wife knew it, too!.

He told me once, that his wife said that she would give him a nooky if he shaved off his moustache..Of course he did it... What did she do? Fell about the floor laughing at him. Needless to say, she never came across..And it also made the poor guy feel really bad. She was a piece of work, alright.

I was not surprised to hear some years later, that they had divorced. The good news though, is that he found a nice woman who appreciated the decent guy that he was. They are still together, as far as I am aware.

Cane Caldo said...

I've very much liked these last few posts.

Let's suppose we discover that some force makes it so it has to be either one sex or the other has the upper hand over the other, in and out of the sexual marketplace. Would you support the "pro-beta affirmative action" of the traditionalists, or the "pro-feminist affirmative action" of the moderns? Why?

Anonymous said...

@Kathy Farrelly

Men that use sex to abuse women are "pieces of work", too. Right?

dicipres said...

I disagree.

Women are attracted to their stereotype of power and status. This is a constant. What's plastic is the stereotype of power, which depends on society and culture.

If some men are angry or not about this is irrelevant.

The Social Pathologist said...

@Cane

Would you support the "pro-beta affirmative action" of the traditionalists, or the "pro-feminist affirmative action" of the moderns? Why?

Both approaches have their problems but if I had to choose it would be an easy choice--I would always choose the traditionalist position over the feminist one.

As to the reason why: traditionalism, for all its faults, is better than feminism in that it was better at satisfying the the needs of both men and women in society. But it is a mistake to think that the only two solutions available to us are either traditionalism or feminism. "Third way" solutions are required.

To give you an example of what I mean take, for instance, economics. The debate in the Anglosphere is always painted as being a choice between capitalism and socialism. Whilst in reality there are other solutions to the economic problem. GKC Chesterton was a distributist whilst I'm a big believer in the social market economy.

asdf said...

SP,

Resource provisioning changes over time. For 99% of human history resource provisioning meant you could kill other living things (animals or men) through physical force. If you look at who women are mainly going for its guys with physical strength and the willingness to use it (even in evil ways, if it will advantage them).

This is not what leads to resource provisioning in modern society. What leads to resource provisioning in modern society is intelligence, self control, and ability to work with others. On a societal level it also means a certain moral cohesion.

So what we've got today is women going to guys that have the historic resource provisioning skills (physical strength, dark triad) whether or not they are skills necessary in today's society (evolution is slow and fights yesterdays battle).

asdf said...

SP,

There may not be a "third way".

Jehu did a piece awhile back on how when it comes to most social battles you have to pick a side and back it. Take gay marriage. The midway point, civil unions, is untenable. Either gay marriage will be fully illegal or fully illegal. Fully approved of or fully denounced. People on each side believe themselves totally right and the other people totally wrong. They will persecute each other in the culture war until one wins.

Society doesn't do nuance. It wants one thing which is "correct" and then everyone knows the score. Any nuanced position is just a transient point on the way to one extreme. Even "tolerance" becomes an extreme, tolerance itself can't have nuance.

The entire sexual revolution was mostly about elites with their high IQ and resources with which to paper over mistakes wanting more nuance in their lives (because that staid 50s lifestyle was boring). So they destroyed tradition which was holding them back. However, 90% of human society can't handle nuance. They need to be guided by tradition and told what to do. Otherwise we end up where we are. Tradition wasn't there to help the elites (they can figure out nuance on their own), it was to help the masses.

The Social Pathologist said...

@asdf

There may not be a "third way".

And yet they may be. I agree that society doesn't do nuance because most people are morons. That's why democracies fail, the balancing act that is required for a stable long term society is beyond the grasp of the average voter.

That's why people degenerate into tribes in democracy and place the blame on some group which explains all their problems. It's either the Joos, Freemasons, Catholics, Illuminati, Skull and Bbones society, Fluridation, lead etc. A simple idea to explain all problems and such approach is most easily suited to the average intellect.


The entire sexual revolution was mostly about elites with their high IQ and resources with which to paper over mistakes wanting more nuance in their lives


Facepalm.

Where do you begin with a comment like that?





David Foster said...

asdf..."For 99% of human history resource provisioning meant you could kill other living things (animals or men) through physical force. If you look at who women are mainly going for its guys with physical strength and the willingness to use it (even in evil ways, if it will advantage them).

This is not what leads to resource provisioning in modern society. What leads to resource provisioning in modern society is intelligence, self control, and ability to work with others. On a societal level it also means a certain moral cohesion...what we've got today is women going to guys that have the historic resource provisioning skills (physical strength, dark triad) whether or not they are skills necessary in today's society (evolution is slow and fights yesterdays battle)"

Or maybe tomorrow's battles. The conditions for surviving/thriving in today's society can change...the conditions that existed back in the day could reappear, say following a total social breakdown or a nuclear war, or maybe as soon as the next hurricane. Evolution should have, and probably does have, fairly long time constants in order to avoid chasing time-local maxima which don't work in the longer run.

That said, I think the degree to which thuggishness was the key success factor in "primitive" societies has been overstated. In tribal societies we know of, such as the American Indians, leaders seem to have usually been people who in addition to physical prowess had significant verbal skills, emotional intelligence, and planning ability. Sitting Bull didn't kick Custer's ass just based on his individual fighting ability.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

I stopped reading at "female logic."

Keep in mind that The Social Pathologist is a self-labeled philogynist.


SP writes, "Chew on this. Reality is a bitch."

He/she isn't a dog, sir.

The Social Pathologist said...

@David

That said, I think the degree to which thuggishness was the key success factor in "primitive" societies has been overstated

Agreed. Teamwork is a force multiplier. But teamwork, especially if there is any complicated action involved, requires lots of cognitive and social skills. I remember a while ago a thug is Spain was terrorising all of the local villagers. They banded together, and despite each being physically weaker than him, kicked his arse.

Anonymous said...

I think you're missing the real point, and that is "women do not think" when it comes to mate selection - i.e. f**king. They act on attraction, then will justify that attraction through various means. I know this first hand, since I am no one's list - yet I pretty much have my pick of women. Why? Simple - I push their attraction buttons. It is as simple as that... More than a few have told me that at first they found me abrasive, and other things, and the kicker is, "but then I saw the real you"... Yeah, right... She got wet, and turned on the justification spigot... :)

The Social Pathologist said...

@Anon,

think you're missing the real point,

Even though they are herd animals, there is a lot of hard wiring involved in matters of mate selection.

Social factors modulate mate choice.

asdf said...

SP,

I dunno, you think them through.

The elite always acted with nuance. The king had his dalliances. The upper classes were full of sexual intrigue. However, up until the 60s they made some attempt to keep it all under raps. They put on a show for the public, played the part.

It's a lot of work putting on a show though. Eventually they decided screw it, lets just be debased and support debauchery in public.

David Foster,

I happen to agree that women aren't being as stupid as they seem. Civilization itself is likely to collapse at some point. Today, tomorrow, or thousands of years from now. It's an inevitability. So making sure your kids have those primitive survival genes is important.

It doesn't help built a good civilization though.

Dr. Jeremy said...

I find it amusing that some men of the manosphere deny these social forces at work in female sexual selection. Particularly, it is amusing, because the very "game" they practice and tout as so effective operates through women's receptivity to sexual persuasion by such forces. If women's attraction could not, at least partially, be molded by such dynamics, then game would not work.

Anonymous said...

Brokersring.com - Learn how to turn $500 into $5,000 in a month!

[url=http://www.brokersring.com/]Make Money Online[/url] - The Secret Reveled with Binary Option

Binary Options is the way to [url=http://www.brokersring.com/]make money[/url] securely online

Anonymous said...

yfeykjn [url=http://www.guccisprings.com/]グッチ アウトレット[/url] ljwelrg nkhnbps [url=http://www.guccisprings.com/]グッチ 財布 メンズ[/url] vdjqcli zjzthke [url=http://www.gucciiget.com/]グッチ バッグ[/url] pqkrziw bauzfym http://www.lovelovegucci.com/ グッチ アウトレット ncabqty xpypywd http://www.gucciiget.com/ グッチ 財布 utvwtuc uuvuexw [url=http://www.gucciiget.com/]グッチ メンズ[/url] rpkroxs tswcpzf [url=http://www.lovelovegucci.com/]グッチ 財布[/url] urnspql mdrbvjr [url=http://www.gucciiget.com/]グッチ アウトレット[/url] etniobi gttmxvn [url=http://www.guccisprings.com/]グッチ 財布[/url] cjtcbtc aaycxyw http://www.guccisprings.com/ グッチ 財布 toedihw ihjrxfw [url=http://www.lovelovegucci.com/]グッチ アウトレット[/url] kzwvnjc buqaitx [url=http://www.lovelovegucci.com/]グッチ 財布 メンズ[/url] lhvpptk mfzbhya [url=http://www.gucciiget.com/]グッチ 財布[/url] jnvcjbn udyllvo [url=http://www.lovelovegucci.com/]グッチ バッグ[/url] rujikzw pbzacco [url=http://www.guccisprings.com/]グッチ バッグ[/url] wlvxvnd frfuxzm [url=http://www.chloefind.com/]クロエ アウトレット[/url] wbdyfr zhbtcf [url=http://www.chloefind.com/]クロエ バッグ[/url] oqhofi mmzlrh [url=http://www.chloefind.com/]クロエ 財布新作[/url] aeprri umdklz http://www.chloefind.com/ ibaqyl nfubldu [url=http://www.chloe2013ss.com/]クロエ 財布[/url] oprhnl szlqyc [url=http://www.chloe2013ss.com/]クロエ バッグ[/url] aqxaqm obbfgu [url=http://www.chloe2013ss.com/]クロエ 財布新作[/url] rwwtez vzthzd http://www.chloe2013ss.com/ eumxva
rprfley http://www.gucciiget.com/ グッチ メンズ elwbfhc
azidhly http://www.lovelovegucci.com/ グッチ バッグ mdkyfnu
valakyj http://www.guccisprings.com/ グッチ 財布 メンズ npzxmcy