The Rise of the Stingy Man

The men are fighting back!

Okay, that was simply a dramatic opening, but you get the picture. In a world in which women have become increasingly more entitled to the provisioning of men and their resources, an association such as the Stingy Men’s Association is an affront to the security promised by the new gynocentric social order. The world has changed a lot in the past couple of decades. With the rise of the ubiquitous female birth control, the proliferation of feminism and rise of the gynocentric social order, adaptations by men to guarantee the protection of their own interests has become of most fundamental import. Game, the Red Pill and now the ubiquitous Stingy Men’s Associations are all adaptations by men in a social order now steeped in feminine primacy.

It’s funny that all such adaptations should arise only a couple of decades after feminism and the feminine primacy it fosters were accepted as the norm for the guidance of our interactions. If it shows nothing else, it shows just how much movements and their consequences only create other movements to counter said consequences. Matt Ridley in his book The Red Queen captures it with the euphemism running faster only to stay in the same place. As one organism makes strides in its own adaptability to its environment, others that would be affected by those strides take equal strides to counteract them is a recurring theme for anyone schooled in evolution theory. As the lion develops soft paws to sneak up and pounce on her prey, the deer grows more sensitive to sounds and movements around itself. While it does not create a perfect utopia, and Matt Ridley makes a good case for why our evolutionary past is but an unending interaction of cooperation and conflict, it creates a situation in which the strides made by one are quickly mitigated somewhat by those made by others. Extrapolating this logic to social movements blends almost seamlessly. It can be argued that feminism as an ideology was in response to the injustices women faced in the past. Like all ideologies, it very quickly became permeated by radical extremists allied with the egregious doctrines of Marxism and Postmodernism leading to the rise of gender feminism and its demonstrably disastrous outcomes. The manosphere is an adaptation to counter the effects of the new face of feminism (gender feminism). Game is an adaptation by men to better navigate a post sexual revolution sexual market place.

I’ll admit, stingy is a loaded word. It has become easy bait for a social order steeped in feminine primacy and her ardent followers, men (yeah, I just don’t get these guys too) and women alike, to easily scoff at and rubbish as a merry band of sad lonely boys commiserating in their poverty all the while giving it face to hide what it truly is. The shaming tactics employed by the Sisterhood, all tailored to dissuade men from joining it sprang up almost immediately they dared acknowledge it and comprehend what it meant to their collective interests. While we can have a protracted debate about the name, the diagnosis and prescription offered by it is by all stretches of the imagination accurate. For all attempts to demonize and shame the association in popular media, the Stingy Men’s Association is really just men coming to terms with their blue pill conditioning and seeing the matrix code hardwired into them by the gynocentrism for a large part of their lives. It is men coming to the realization that their resources are theirs and however they spend them is entirely up to them to decide and the extent to which women have exploited those resources in an unequal bargain wherein they offer all resources yet women offer no intimacy. Its rise and rapid acceptance by men represents the growing discontent of men with a status-quo that not only doesn’t care for their interests, but often directly acts against them. It is men coming finally embracing a discontent they often noticed but just couldn’t place their finger on. One of the most common confessions of men that interact with manosphere work is normally something along the line of, “damn it man, you’ve said it perfectly. I have always wanted to say that and now I feel like you’ve taken the words right out of my mouth.” When men do interact with red pill, it scarcely feels like the discovery of new information and more like the uncovering of truths they at some level of consciousness already recognized but hadn’t the temerity to articulate. It almost feels like waking up from a dream and coming to the realization of your state in one.

I am going to go out on a limb here and assert that the Stingy Men associations, albeit unbeknownst to them, dovetail nicely into popular red pill theory. It’s magnificent especially to see how it dovetails quite nicely with arguably on of the greatest truisms of the manosphere ever created; You cannot negotiate genuine desire(courtesy of). Popular among red pill circles, this trope captures a great complexity in its ostensible simplicity. While men will often attempt to negotiate desire in several ways, the commonest form of this misguided means to intimacy comes in the form of monetary expenditure on women (the other gender as the Stingy Men love to put it). Men will expend on fancy dinners, elaborate vacations, gifts and a plethora of other accouterments under the false belief that their investment of these makes it more probable that the female object of their affection will respond with her genuine affection. No method of seduction (if we can even call it that) is more erroneously founded in misguided thinking. Many a man that does pursue this misguided means to an objectively worthy end is often shocked by the incredible flaws intrinsic to his procedure. For every romantic getaway, for every bouquet of flowers, for every well planned and carefully executed date, for every surprise birthday party, there is a woman banging her alpha boyfriend in his low-cost shabby apartment for no other reason than that she wants to, no costs incurred except her energy to get there and the energy mutually expended in the visceral act. Manosphere bloggers have accurately pointed out that this is precisely why marriage counselling fails; it starts from the false premise that a negotiation of intimacy tailored towards the attainment of presumably mutually shared goals between husband and wife (that doesn’t want to bang him) is a tenable solution to addressing lack of sexual intimacy in a relationship. Negotiated desire can only ever lead to obligated compliance(courtesy of). Make no mistake, it is very possible to make someone do something (put a gun to their head and see how quickly they comply) but that by no means implies their wanting to. A prostitute will sleep with you for a certain fee, she will let you put your dick into every point a dick can reasonably enter, that doesn’t mean she wants to (try changing the terms of payment and see how quickly that manufactured desire facade falls off). For the Stingy Men Association to come to the conclusion that perpetually expending on women, especially those one isn’t romantically involved with (or as one humorously figurative member coined feeding a horse you don’t ride), is not just bad economics but outright insanity is brilliance manifest. Women must earn the right to be spoiled by a man. Being female entitles her to nothing.

Of course, it didn’t take long for women to come to terms with this new found male affiliation. In a female-primary world, what matters most is the extent to which women and their ever growing entitlements are pandered to and catered for. That men should dare organize the channeling of their resources in such a manner as is neither beholden to nor benefiting of women is an affront to the sensibilities of women that feels increasingly more entitled to the provisioning and protection of men, with minimal to no reciprocity on their part. Men should expect nothing, women should not just expect, but are entitled to everything. It is funny to note that the very women that would without thought jump behind and support the “women do not owe men sex” trope would simultaneously back the criticism and scoff at the idea that men should not be obligated to reward women with their resources in an unequal bargain now characteristic of inter-gender relations. In an attempt to ensure the maximization of their own interests, women will shame men for feeling entitled to intimacy with them while simultaneously shaming the same men from opting out of an arrangement that is anything but beneficial to their interests. It is important to point out this Catch 22 because at no time in human history have women felt more entitled to the optimization of their hypergamous instincts.

The premise that a man would ever be ‘owed’ sex for anything is offensive to the feminine imperative because it offends women’s self-entitlement to being filters of their own hypergamy, plain and simple. Women’s hypergamy dictates whom they will and will not fuck according to their sexual strategy’s most urgent needs. To presume a man is ‘owed’ sex for services rendered, or due to his own self-perceived prequalifications for a woman’s intimacy, is to remove women’s control of the decision making / filtering process of their hypergamy. The offensiveness doesn’t come from the notion that men would need to perform in order to get sex, but rather that a man might forcibly assume control of a woman’s hypergamous determining of his sexual suitability for her. (courtesy of)

In some of the most extreme of cases, the men that now openly profess allegiance to the Stingy Man creed have experienced the worst possible case of this dual standard and the impracticability of their seduction methodologies. That they would incur all costs in the false hope of a reward of unfettered intimacy from the woman he desires, which intimacy never manifests (if he isn’t outright shamed for even expecting it), is a bitter pill for most men to swallow. After a lifetime of an egregious indoctrination that convinced him that the object of his affection was capable of appreciating and rewarding his sacrifices with open legs, when this promised intimacy is anything but forthcoming, a man must contend with the painful prospect that his belief system was so terribly wrong. Add to this the ubiquitous shaming of men for even harboring such thoughts and entertaining the notion that their self-inflicted sacrifices and self-perceived prequalifications imply their deserving of a woman optimizing hypergamy with them and you come closer to grasping why association with stinginess becomes an appealing prospect to men.

Indubitably, women will continue to explore all shaming tactics available to them to shame men away from considering such an association. To women, this represents an attempt by men to wrestle control away from the Imperative and effect their will in a manner not considerate of the entitlement of the contemporary woman. To the men that have made it their sexual strategy to pander to and associate with the feminine, opposition towards such a development will stem from their misguided belief that better conforming to the interests of the feminine in lieu of their own makes them more viable sexual options to a woman that will be dumbstruck by said association and how they “aren’t like other men.” The women that benefit most from this double standard will be the most vocal in condemning what they see as an affront to and exposure of their duplicity of their character. Practical men adaptable to the dynamism of the new sexual market will, however, see the wisdom of such an association or, in the very least, the principles it espouses.

Gosh! He Wants Some.

I have been putting off writing this blog post for some time now. That is partly because several writable ideas keep spontaneously popping up in my mind. Part of my new technique is to keep a small notebook on the table to immediately run to and note these ideas. Thus far, it seems to be the case that they can disappear from memory as quickly, if not much quicker that they popped in. But here we are! Before starting this essay, I will be getting an extract from a painful essay I read on RT/RM’s blog a while back. I think it is important because it dovetails quite seamlessly with what I intend to explore in this essay.

I met my wife 7 years ago, she was extremely picky when it came to sex. She told me she only has been with 1 other guy before. She would never give a blow job, only would do certain positions and found almost every sex act degrading. I was frustrated by this, but I really liked her and hoped over the years she would open up sexually. Over the years, it never got any better but I learned to get over it. Well I ended up finding an old video from her college days of her engaging in group sex with 6 other people 5 guys 1 girl. In the video she has anal sex, oral sex, gets double teamed, and yells multiple times in the video she is a “I am a filthy whore.” All of it she was enthusiastic about it. I ended up feeling really sad. I can understand certain stuff people don’t want to do, but it wasn’t the fact she didn’t want to do them. She didn’t want to do them with me but every other guy she was their whore. I was angry hurt and I ended up saying some stupid shit to my wife. I asked her if she could drop our daughter off at her sister’s house because I wanted to talk to her. She asked why, I told her we’d discuss after she came back. I don’t remember all the details of the conversation, so I’ll try my best to sum it up. I was drinking a bit before she came which wasn’t the best idea.

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE

Me: Is there anything about your past you have been hiding about me?
Her: Why are we talking about this?
Me: I just want to know were you in any type of porn or anything like that?
Her: are you taking drugs?
Me: I found your video from college with the other guys. I don’t know who you are anymore and I feel ill being around you.
She starts crying.

Me: Do you have anything to say?

She continues to cry. This was
pointless I go to grab my keys to leave. And she tries to stop me.

Me: If you don’t want me to leave then I need you to be 100% honest with me, and tell me why you lied to me for all these years.

She: I didn’t want you to think I was a slut

Me: I would have been perfectly fine if you told me, I would have loved to have done those wild things with you. Look I get it I don’t turn you on like those other guys do. You liked
sucking their dicks but not mine.

She: It’s not that, I didn’t want you to think less of me.

Me: No it is exactly that, there is a thing lying about sleeping with other guys. It’s not that you didn’t like doing those things. You didn’t like doing them with me.

She: I can do that stuff with you. I am attracted to you, you know that.

Me: I don’t want you to do it because you feel like you have to. I want someone that actually desires me.

She: I can change I promise don’t ruin our marriage over this we can work things out. We can go to marriage counseling seriously talk to me.

Me: Marriage counseling won’t change how you feel about me. Look I will try marriage counseling but I want a trial separation for now.

She: Please don’t do this. Don’t throw away our marriage for what I did in college please.

Me: Stop fucking acting like it’s a one time thing. Be honest with me how many guys did you fuck before me. How many guys dicks have you sucked, and how many guys have you let fuck you in the ass.

She: why does it matter, I said I’ll do them with you

Me: I am so fucking lucky. I got married to a whore, that fucks like a prude.

 

Needless to say, RT/RM in his genius (God bless this man’s soul) does a really impeccable job breaking down this article. He does a brilliant conceptualization of the inter-sexual dynamics, women’s innate solipsism and builds a good nexus for how this relates to the global sexual market place today. I will not repeat his work here, but will only use this extract as a basis to draw some deductions.

Women have a propensity for wild, feral sexual desire and action. This does not make them bad or evil, it makes them human. The sexual revolution as I have explored in my previous posts created an avenue for women to pursue their most feral instincts void of the restrictions the past social order had, out of necessity, placed on them. I get severely castigated for this by most female readers, I suspect, in part because my articulation of this exposes the game. Never let a woman sell you purity, tell you how she is such a good girl that would never do anything like that. Part of the advice I offer men is to look deep into themselves and conjure up their darkest sexual fantasies, then look at the girl next to him or the one that he intends to pursue anything sexual with. She too is capable of those thoughts and actions you think only yourself evil enough to contemplate, let alone act out. Whether from my own personal experiences, to the exploits I’m often entertained to by the men that dare share, there is no “snowflake” good girl incapable of acting out and desiring such brazen sexual activity. Women selling certain men purity, all the while turning around and acting out their wildest fantasies with the men they actually desire is merely an attempt at achieving two ends: the first is a maintenance of the good girl reputation, which is increasingly becoming difficult to pull off given the ubiquity of social media and the second is to maintain a relationship with any said man that she believes offers her a best bet for long-term security, parental investment, protection and provisioning but whom she doesn’t desire with the urgency of the men she actually wants to bang, with the consequence that the exposure of this side to him will cause him to feel deserving of, owing to his sacrifice and investment in her, an enjoyment of it. In essence, like the man whose story is quoted above, it is a form of mitigated sexual interest in said man, coupled with rationalizations for it that are anything but true, that is sufficient enough to keep him invested in what really amounts to an optimization of her long-term sexual and life strategy all the while hoping the cat is never let out of the bag. “I got married to a whore that fucks like a prude,” is the pronouncement of a man that has been led to a participation and fulfillment of said strategies coming to the bitter realization of his situation and the role the gynocentric female-primary social order had in store for him.

Men now more that ever need to understand that the good girl fantasy is better dispensed with. As a practical adaptation to this new sexual market place, and RT/RM does a good job at pointing this out, it is of practical importance, even necessity, for men to assume that all women are sluts. It is safe and reasonable for any man navigating this new market to assume that it is never the case that any particular girl doesn’t want to do something and assume that is is merely a case of not wanting to do it with him. Part of the critiques I got to my harsh criticism of the #silhouettechallenge, especially when I asserted that men should be very critical in vetting women’s sexual past, was from a particular female I have formed the habit of entertaining long argumentative engagements with despite the often obvious absurdity of her positions. Since she is an ardent follower (I’d even think she is an obsessed fan) of my work, she was quick to point out what she assumed was a contradiction in my position. What she used to make this assertion was an earlier rule I once put up (which is really one of the rules of RT/RM)…

If a woman makes you wait for sex, or by her actions implies she is making you wait for sex, the sex is never worth the wait.

“Well Nitram, first you claim that women with high body counts are to be avoided, then you assert that if a woman makes a man wait for sex, she is not interested. What are you trying to say?” While I will agree that at face value these two assertions appear contradictory, upon understanding the origin of the rule, one begins to see the necessity of them, as much as the harmony. Before I get to that however, let’s first look at a graph.

What the graph above indicates is an important conclusion: the more partners one has prior to pursuing marriage, the more unhappy they are within it. The data also seems to suggest that the happiness of women is much lower than that of men as the sexual partners increase. What this data fails to even make a guess about is why. I suspect RT/RM may have an essay to the effect, but given I’ve yet to see it, I will go ahead and make an educated conjecture. I suspect that these trends in men and in women find their root in each gender’s evolved sexual strategy. Men evolved with a simple sexual strategy; unlimited access to unlimited sexuality. Women evolved with a pluralistic sexual strategy; attraction to the male most likely to confer genetic benefits to her offspring and at the same time more likely to invest in the rearing of said offspring through protection, provisioning, parental and emotional investment. In essence, the hot Alpha that that turns her on and yet is also likely to commit to her. Women generally desire to mate with the males at the top of the male hierarchy. Men want access to the most, women want access to the best. This is better explained in Part 1 my Sexual Revolution and the Practical Man series. I opine therefore, that this unhappiness in marriage originates in these gender specific mating strategies. Let me explain:

Marriage, especially monogamous marriage, is the best compromise of both genders’ innate mating strategies, controlled for the worst possible consequences the selfish pursuit each’s strategy is capable of inflicting on the other. It is a compromise for men in part because it ostensibly promises a fulfillment of their sexual strategy in the confines of marriage. Men can hope to have access to the most with their wife in exchange for foregoing access to the most with all the other women he may be capable of attracting. It is also a reasonable bargain for the men that may not be able to compete with other men for the access to females. How? In a society of organized around socially enforced monogamy, women’s innate desire to seek after and mate with the top most males in the male dominance hierarchy is necessarily mitigated. The men at the top of said hierarchy pair off with the women at the top of the female attractiveness hierarchy thereby leaving all the other females to pair off with men of equal sexual value. Socially enforced monogamy therefore protects men from what would otherwise be the consequence of women pursuing their innate mating habits unfettered. It is a compromise for women because while it does not give them access to the otherwise HAWT guys they’d like so much to get naked for, where this monogamy is mediated by family and cultural organs as it is in almost all places where it was, it offers them the long-term security and parental investment they innately desire. Without this, women very quickly become the victims of men pursuing their sexual strategy without regard for the consequences of that pursuit. Men do not get the opportunity to pursue access to the most with as many women as they reasonably can. Ergo, socially enforced monogamy protects women from what would otherwise be the consequence of men pursuing their innate mating habits unfettered. 60 years after the sexual revolution, both these sexual strategies in tandem with the effects their pursuit engenders have been unleashed. Not only has sexual access to females been redistributed to the men that manage to rise to the top of the male dominance hierarchy, these men are also willingly banging as many women that they can. The number of single mothers has increased dramatically because the men that can penetrate through as many vaginas as they can are willingly doing so. Each gender’s sexual strategy is complicit in our own downfall and self-destruction. I don’t think the advocates of it (most of whom were women) actually thought about all this. A natural consequence of thinking that finds its root in emotional rather than rational processes. I promise to get more into this in Part 2 of my Sexual Revolution and the Practical Man series.

Ergo, it stands to reason that with the destruction of socially enforced monogamy which was abetted by the feminists of the 60’s, the reorientation of the sexual market along our gender specific sexual strategies commenced. Men that are able to acquire a significant number of sexual partners before commitment suffer a decline in happiness after it because they feel their sexual strategy has been thwarted. Indeed, the more partners he has been able to enjoy before pairing off in a monogamous relationship, the more likely he is to feel unhappy at what he perceives as lost opportunities because of the commitment to a singular partner. Women’s dynamic is a little more nuanced than this. Women’s decline in happiness stems from their unhappiness at having paired off with a man that she does not consider to be the best she can do. Roissy put it succinctly when he said the more dicks that run through a woman, the less likely it is that any one dick will dazzle her to which I’ll add unless it is, to her, the best dick she has experienced thus far. This necessitates some explanation. Permit me humor you.

Vagina is unimportant except, insofar as it is in significant quantity. Dick is unimportant, except insofar as it is of significant quality. As a woman increases her body count, she only feels content if the present dick is better than the previous one. Note than I am using dick here as a place value term to imply the sexual market value of the man the woman pairs off with at any given instant. A woman will be most content if the man she pairs off with at any given instant is subjectively better than the man(men) she may have paired off with in the past. I’d argue that part of the challenge with today’s sexual market place is that women can very readily get sexual access to high value men who will willingly sleep with them. They then, engrossed in their innate solipsism, assume that the ability to secure sex with a high value man implies their ability to secure the commitment of said man or men of similar caliber, forgetting that men aren’t as selective and would very well bang anything female and reasonably good to average looking. They then assert, often in spite of their objective lack of worth, that they are entitled to only that caliber of men. These men consistently use them for easy sexual access, all the while never committing to them. When they are finally old and used up, these girls then feel entitled to commitment without corresponding sexual enthusiasm from the men they subjectively consider to be beneath their inflated sense of self. They feel entitled to wedding rings for being pitiful enough to give these men a chance and like the image and story with which I began this essay, will never offer these men the best of themselves.

In response therefore to my obsessed female fan, the rule is merely an adaptation to the effects engendered by the sexual revolution. In 1920, that rule would have been a very stupid assertion at best. People married as early as 22 and very often had only one partner in their entire lives – if we are to analyze western societies. Men didn’t have the variety that would cause them unhappiness upon foregoing it, women didn’t have the variety that enabled them encounter one that was subjectively the best, thus causing her unhappiness with her current. The dynamics of the sexual market today have drastically changed and these rules are an adaptation to ensure protection against the worst of women’s innate mating strategy has the ability to inflict upon men. Almost all women will willingly and often expeditiously get sexual with a man they are interested in. Whether it is actual sex, flirting, sexual touching and entertaining of sexual conversation with said man, women will willingly get sexual with a man in whom they are interested. They will do this while simultaneously selling virtue and rationalizations to men whom they aren’t. Many a man has received a bitter awakening upon noticing that what a particular girl would make him wait for, she would willingly give to another man without an afterthought. Women make rules for men they do not desire and break those very rules for men they desire. I find it hilarious that I’m even explaining an apparent contradiction to a female, in part because females are largely a contradiction. Any man that has interacted with these specimens can attest to that. Upon seeing the origin and pragmatic necessity of such an adaptation, one begins to appreciate its wisdom. 

If a woman makes you wait for sex, or by her her actions implies she is making you wait for sex, in today’s sexual market place, more often than not it is because she does not see you as the best she can do and is hoping a better option works out. This is not in any way a negation of the truths of the consequences of dealing with a woman that has had several past sexual partners. I’d opine that that is easily eliminated by not pursuing long-term relationships with older women.

Female Power

The feminist movement, at the time some still considered it an intelligible doctrine (some lunatics still do), made a lot of headway peddling the argument of female objectification, apparently by men. The logic employed by the feminists then was that of female victimhood beholden to the male gaze. It is men that were staring at and objectifying women. It is men that were the reason for women’s failure to transcend the limiting constraints of dependence on their sexuality to the greater roles and opportunities the patriarchy had thus far excluded and deliberately kept them away from. Prostitution? Look no further that the objectification of women. By some convoluted logic, it was the enormity of the male sexual appetite and the conditioning of women to constantly attempt to feed it that caused prostitution. The woman had no role in this beyond her subjugation to the unceasing attempt to feed the male sexual appetite. Even when it seemed poverty was what was driving women into prostitution, somehow the ideologues of the feminist dogmatic propaganda managed to twist that and lay blame at the feet of men. It was because men were systemically excluding women from economic power that women were driven to such acts of humiliating subjugation. Men were to blame. Of course, this was nothing but outright dishonesty. Poverty wasn’t only affecting women and women were more likely to escape it through marriages to men well above their socio-economic class and yet it was women, not men, that were resorting to the commercialization of themselves. Poor men were resorting to hard work in extremely harsh condition for their survival, poor women were resorting to selling themselves but somehow it was patriarchy and a supposed wide-scale male subjugation of the female that was the problem. One can’t help but wonder whether in a matriarchy, it would have had an equal yet opposite effect, causing men to be the ones selling themselves as sexual objects to maintain a livelihood. The answer is a resounding no!

Of course this conceptualization of the sexualization of women took a twist during the proliferation of third wave feminism. What previous feminists had argued amounted to structures deliberately constructed upon the sexual subjugation of women, third wave feminists made the case that all restrictions on female sexuality by anyone was an oppression of a legitimate form of female expression. The logic went that at some subjective level, relevant to any particular woman, expression of her sexuality, whether in pornography, prostitution or outright promiscuity was empowerment for her in that subjective context. It is important to point this out because third wave feminism and the doctrines it espoused are still with us today; empowerment of the female by “claiming her sexuality.” In a sense, this wave seemed to dispense with the notion of male objectification but only compounded the problem to create a subjectivity that prevents any categorical definition. When the premise was that men were the perpetrator subjects and women the victimized objects, it was easy to create a clean divide between the oppressor and oppressed. Add to that the proposition that women can, and indeed may, objectify themselves as a form of empowerment and you create an undefinable chaos.

Granted however, how is all this relevant today? Women are at some level aware that their first most powerful agency is their sexuality. I often get run up the flagpole by my female readership for this. “Oh God, can you believe this misogynist only looks at women through the lens of their sexuality! Women are more than just objects for pleasure you know,” they screech in feigned indignation. While I’ll agree that such a statement is a whole lot unflattering to them, their behavior always validates said sentiment. The truth of this ostensibly harsh conclusion, false by feminist and generally women’s standards, is always borne out by the behavior women manifest especially on social media, albeit not by any stretch of the imagination limited to it. As I type this, there is a #silhouettechallenge making rounds on social media which, despite all protests to the contrary, is simply women recording nude or semi-nude videos of themselves and using a filter to cover up their nudity. Not surprisingly, most if not all “social media challenges” that are started by and involve women almost always have a sexual veneer to them. Women’s first greatest asset is their sexuality. They will show it online for all the world to see, they will put it up on any platform that will offer them some level of validation for it, they will use it to climb up corporate ladders when push comes to shove and when they find themselves in economic hardship of any sort, they will use it as a means out of their circumstances. All industries that revolve around women are tailored towards maximization of their sexual appeal. The fashion industry is a typical example of this. The long slits that only keep getting longer, the short skirts that only keep getting shorter, the tight clothing deliberately tailored to enable the maximization of their sexy bodies, all these are tailored towards their sexuality. as the movie industry grows, we notice this permeation in it too. The movies tailored towards female audiences always have that underlying sexual theme.

In truth, despite all protests to the contrary, women feel most powerful when they are most desirable. Women would rather be Kim Kardashian than be Hillary Clinton. In chic world, the most powerful girl is the one that has the greatest sexual appeal; the one that is most desired. Power, in the sense that Hillary Clinton (sorry Hillary) has is masculine power. Feminine Power is sexual power. The ideal state for women is to be the woman that embodies both these kinds of power and Hollywood has been keen to pick up on this. Virtually all chic flicks now run this theme; the smart, intelligent, impressionable girl that is also extremely sexually attractive and desired by all men, yet will only offer herself to the top most males that are the only ones deserving of her sexuality. This archetype appeals to women because it embodies the ideal they all secretly aspire to; male power and dominance kick butt and takes names in tandem with a feminine sexual appeal that causes all males to bow to her majesty. We see this dynamic play out among young girls too. Among girls, the most powerful girl, the “alpha female” is the one that’s the most beautiful. All girls look up to her, often in envy. Her desirability and the pickiness that that desirability affords her is the envy of the girls that do not enjoy that same genetic advantage. No matter how much they grow, in the female hierarchy, the girl at the top is always the sexiest in the pack. All girls aspire to be her.

Proponents of the blank slate egalitarianism fallacy will attempt to paint this as equally true for men. I have come to notice something about my critiques. Reading through my work and finding no point of attack, they simply point out what I haven’t covered, make a critique about my not having done so, then saunter away with a feeling of superiority. For the appeasement of them, I will simply say that this is not the case with the male hierarchy. The problem with this critique is first and foremost in what informs it. The interlocutors of it start from the false premise of blank slate egalitarianism. I covered this in my earlier essay Men and Women can’t be friends but it bears repeating that men and women are not the same; we are not functional equals. Our innate predispositions are a consequences of thousands of years of evolution, each gender adapted to the evolutionary pressures it faced. Accepting that premise, my proposition that the male hierarchy is distinct from the female then becomes a tad more palatable. The reason for this difference is simple. A woman’s desirability is distinct from her competence and otherwise non-sexual abilities. What this means is that the woman that rises to the top in the masculine sense of the term isn’t the most desirable woman. The top in the female hierarchy is occupied by the most sexually desirable female, not the most competent one. The male hierarchy is distinct from this one in part because rising to the top of that hierarchy implies greater sexual attractiveness to the female. The man at the top of the hierarchy is always the man with the most sexual access. Put simply, accruing power and status doesn’t imply greater sexual access and selectivity for women but it does for men. The failure to accept this harsh truth has been the cause of quite a bit of frustration among women. Women presume that because they are smart, respectable, wealthy and independent, men should find them more sexually attractive. This flawed reasoning follows from the assumption that men and women are functional equals. Ergo, what a woman find attractive in a man should be what a man finds attractive in a woman. Many a 30 years old spinster bemoan the collapse of this belief system. They can’t seem to understand why despite their career and achievements, the men they presume they are entitled to, owing to their accrual of said achievements simply aren’t approaching or pursuing them. Instead they are offering their attention to younger girls. Given that the premise that informs this flawed belief system is blank slate egalitarianism, women are all to happy and a tad validated when their more radical feminist sisters offer them an answer to their dilemma. “Men are just babies afraid of strong independent women. They want young girls that they can manipulate because their egos just can’t handle a woman that stands up to and challenges them.” Forget the foolishness of this sentiment- no one wants a relationship that is a battlefield of “challenges,”- the reason this even appeals to women is because they assume that men’s attraction processes are simply the same as their own. Ergo, men not being attracted to them for possessing this masculine qualities are the ones with the problem. Try pointing out to one of them that maybe is they were younger, more submissive and less confrontational, their sexual opportunities might increase marginally and you risk being cancelled on twitter for your misogynistic stance. Dominance, disagreeableness, control, independence, these are traits that women find attractive in men. This attraction mechanism does not apply in the opposite direction and may infact lower a woman’s attractiveness to men just as possessing feminine traits is likely to lower a man’s attractiveness to women. Barring exceptions, women generally do not want to sleep with other women and men do not want to sleep with other men.

Another attempt at critiquing will most probably be another show of manufactured indignation. “God! A man thinks we are doing this for them..” While I would not want to go into an argument of the motivations for this behavior, I will just point out another scenario in which this critique manifests; makeup. Women to date are confused as to whom they wear makeup for. A feminist climate that despises the notion that women would ever do anything for the express pleasure of men assert that women do it for themselves. Another wing of the same outrageous movement assert that women are, and have for so long been beholden to patriarchal and rigid standards of female beauty. Both critiques are important in proportion as they either protect women’s egos or absolve them of the consequences of these applications when they do manifest. First it bears pointing out that despite all cries about these apparently rigid standards of female beauty, men have and will always have more flexible standards of what they find sexually attractive in a woman that women ever will. One only visit PornHub to see this. The pornography industry has constructed itself around appealing to a plethora of male phenotype tastes; Short, Fat, Big boobs, Big Ass and and for some inexplicable reason, even old women. Women have always had one male phenotype archetype; well-built and athletic. All the men in the porn industry conform to this rigid standard and women in real-time dating are all to willing to ignore males that do not fall into it. It is thus nothing short of hilarious to hear things such as fat acceptance among feminists. All it really is is an attempt to assuage women’s insecurities and bad life choices (really to avoid telling them that eating like a pig is unhealthy). The only gender that should be talking about acceptance of them is the male gender. Away from that however, it is worth pointing out that this conflict in answers to the question “Why do women make up?” is simply an attempt to have their cake and eat it too. By arguing that women wear makeup for themselves, they are able to assuage the fear and appease the movement constructed around the idea that women are self-fulfilling creatures in need of nothing outside of themselves and to do anything for the express pleasure of a man is synonymous with oppression. By arguing that women are beholden to and victims of a patriarchal beauty standard, women are able to absolve themselves of any consequences that may arise from their pursuit of this standard. It is the perfect Catch 22 and like all things feminist, it ends with the men being the problem.

Several things then stand to reason, the proposition that men were the ones sexualizing women is false. Left to their own devices women will still revert back to the power their sexuality affords them, primarily for the intent of attracting mates but most importantly as a means of competition for the top in the female hierarchy. As the consequences of this new found sexual freedom take hold, women will become more overt about the exhibition of their sexuality. and men must continue to improve themselves in order to be best placed to exploit it.

Sexual Revolution and the Practical Man (Part 1)

The sexual revolution was a hoax! Like all falsehoods, it involved not a direct negation of the truth, but rather a distortion of it. For any consideration into the same, we first need some background work. The sexual revolution occurred sometime between the 1960s and 1980s. A lot can be described about it, but its most fundamental premise was one; more sex for everyone. With the advent of the birth control pill, what would have decades earlier been considered untenable seemed now like a practicable idea. Women would, owing to this advent, be relieved from the cost that sexual activity had for so long inflicted on them; pregnancy. Prior to the advent of this female birth control measure, women had to be very careful in their pursuit of sexual activity. For millennia, women have borne the costs of sexual activity. The nature of these costs, coupled with a sexually repressive society and the risks inherent in pregnancy and child bearing imposed a check on female sexuality. The advent of the birth control pill offered a new frontier; women (and men) could now pursue their innate breeding habits unfettered. The pill was a perfect deal. Why have a kid you didn’t want? Take the pill and you’ll be saved was the promise of this development. Enter the sexual revolution. Said revolution profited from two things: first was that society then was extremely sexually repressive and second was human nature. Societies past, at some level of consciousness appreciated the necessity for the containment of human sexuality through cultures but most importantly through socially enforced monogamy. The sexual revolution promised a freedom from such containment. It’s however worthy to note that men and women viewed this revolution from different points as per their innate gender sexual strategies.

Nature has played a trick on men: production of spermatozoa occurs at a rate several orders of magnitude greater than female ovulation (about 12 million per hour vs. 400 per lifetime). This is a natural, not a moral, fact. Among the lower animals also, the male is grossly oversupplied with something for which the female has only a limited demand. This means that the female has far greater control over mating. The universal law of nature is that males display and females choose. Male peacocks spread their tales, females choose. Male rams butt horns, females choose. Among humans, boys try to impress girls—and the girls choose. Nature dictates that in the mating dance, the male must wait to be chosen. A man’s sexual utopia is, accordingly, a world in which no such limit to female demand for him exists. It is not necessary to resort to pornography for examples. Consider only popular movies aimed at a male audience, such as the James Bond series. Women simply cannot resist James Bond. He does not have to propose marriage, or even request dates. He simply walks into the room and they swoon. The entertainment industry turns out endless images such as this. Why, the male viewer eventually may ask, cannot life actually be so? To some, it is tempting to put the blame on the institution of marriage. Marriage, after all, seems to restrict sex rather drastically. Certain men figure that if sex were permitted both inside and outside of marriage there would have to be twice as much sex as formerly. They imagined there existed a large, untapped reservoir of female desire hitherto repressed by monogamy. To release it, they sought, during the early postwar period, to replace the seventh commandment with an endorsement of all sexual activity between “consenting adults.” Every man could have a harem. Sexual behavior in general, and not merely family life, was henceforward to be regarded as a private matter. Traditionalists who disagreed were said to want to “put a policeman in every bedroom.” This was the age of the Kinsey Reports and the first appearance of Playboy magazine. Idle male daydreams had become a social movement. This characteristically male sexual utopianism of the early postwar years was a forerunner of the sexual revolution but not the revolution itself. Men are incapable of bringing about revolutionary changes in heterosexual relations without the cooperation—the famed “consent”—of women. But the original male would-be revolutionaries did not understand the nature of the female sex instinct. That is why things have not gone according to their plan. What is the special character of feminine sexual desire that distinguishes it from that of men? It is sometimes said that men are polygamous and women monogamous. Such a belief is often implicit in the writings of “conservative” male commentators: Women only want good husbands, but heartless men use and abandon them. Some evidence does appear, prima facie, to support such a view. One 1994 survey found that “while men projected they would ideally like 6 sex partners over the next year, and 8 over the next two years, women responded that their ideal would be to have only one partner over the next year. And over two years? The answer, for women, was still one.” Is this not evidence that women are naturally monogamous? No, it is not. Women know their own sexual urges are unruly, but traditionally have had enough sense to keep quiet about it. A husband’s belief that his wife is naturally monogamous makes for his own peace of mind. It is not to a wife’s advantage, either, that her husband understand her too well: Knowledge is power. In short, we have here a kind of Platonic “noble lie”—a belief which is salutary, although false. It would be more accurate to say that the female sexual instinct is hypergamous. Men may have a tendency to seek sexual variety, but women have simple tastes in the manner of Oscar Wilde: They are always satisfied with the best. By definition, only one man can be the best. These different male and female “sexual orientations” are clearly seen among the lower primates, e.g., in a baboon pack. Females compete to mate at the top, males to get to the top. Women, in fact, have a distinctive sexual utopia corresponding to their hypergamous instincts. In its purely Utopian form, it has two parts: First, she mates with her incubus, the imaginary perfect man; and, second, he “commits,” or ceases mating with all other women. This is the formula of much pulp romance fiction. The fantasy is strictly utopian, partly because no perfect man exists, but partly also because even if he did, it is logically impossible for him to be the exclusive mate of all the women who desire him. It is possible, however, to enable women to mate hypergamously, i.e., with the most sexually attractive (handsome or socially dominant) men. In the Ecclesiazusae of Aristophanes the women of Athens stage a coup d’état. They occupy the legislative assembly and barricade their husbands out. Then they proceed to enact a law by which the most attractive males of the city will be compelled to mate with each female in turn, beginning with the least attractive. That is the female sexual utopia in power. Aristophanes had a better understanding of the female mind than the average husband. Hypergamy is not monogamy in the human sense. Although there may be only one “alpha male” at the top of the pack at any given time, which one it is changes over time. In human terms, this means the female is fickle, infatuated with no more than one man at any given time, but not naturally loyal to a husband over the course of a lifetime. In bygone days, it was permitted to point out natural female inconstancy. Consult, for example, Ring Lardner’s humorous story “I Can’t Breathe”—the private journal of an eighteen-year-old girl who wants to marry a different young man every week. If surveyed on her preferred number of “sex partners,” she would presumably respond “one”; this does not mean she has any idea who it is. An important aspect of hypergamy is that it implies the rejection of most males. Women are naturally vain. They are inclined to believe that only the “best” (most sexually attractive) man is worthy of them. This is another common theme of popular romance (the beautiful princess, surrounded by panting suitors, pined away hopelessly for a “real” man—until, one day . . . etc.).This cannot be objectively true, of course. An average man is by definition good enough for an average woman. If each woman were to mate with all men “worthy” of her, she would have no time to do anything else. Once again, hypergamy is distinct from monogamy. It is an irrational instinct; the female sexual utopia is a consequence of that instinct. The sexual revolution in America was an attempt by women to realize their own utopia, not that of men. Female Utopians came forward publicly with plans a few years after Kinsey and Playboy. Helen Gurley Brown’s Sex and the Single Girl appeared in 1962, and she took over Cosmopolitan magazine three years later. Notoriously hostile to motherhood, she explicitly encouraged women to use men (including married men) for pleasure.

Men’s sexual strategy is simple: Unlimited access to unlimited sexuality from as many a number of females he is capable of attracting. The premise of the sexual revolution promised this fulfillment in a manner unprecedented in the history of humanity. Men presumed, albeit erroneously, that with the withdrawal of all constraints on human sexuality, they could finally enjoy this Utopian dream. Most importantly, the promise advanced by the sexual revolution was that men could finally be free from their burden of performance. Gone were the times when a man had to have established himself before even being considered a worthy mate. Men past had to earn their manhood, whether on the battlefield in some foreign land fighting for country, or in the labor market toiling earn a living capable of sustaining himself and any wife and children he hoped to live with, men had to earn their manhood. Owing to the nature of the control of female sexuality and socially enforced monogamy and the socialization of women to prioritize long-term security rather than short-term excitement (Beta Bucks over Alpha Fucks), men past had some level of guarantee that by building themselves through pain and sacrifice, they could, in the very least, hope to be bestowed the great honor of having a wife. The sexual revolution told them that all this was a myth. No longer did they have to earn the privilege of a wife with whom he could at least hope for fulfillment of his sexual strategy within the confines of marriage, women would (and this was in part informed by the “women are just as sexual as men and if evil patriarchy could only stop repressing their sexuality…” ubiquitous trope at the time) willingly offer their sexuality to them. Add to this the promise that the birth control pill advanced – sex without consequence – and you come closer to realizing why this seemed like a good deal to men. Women’s sexual strategy is a little more complicated. Unlike men, women are not indiscriminate fuckers. Women will not sleep with just any man. Indeed, women’s innate sexual strategy is to be attracted to the males at the top. The sexual revolution made, or at least it seemed to make, this promise for the fulfillment of their innate sexual strategy more attainable. In a climate of sexual repression and socially enforced monogamy that existed pre-sexual revolution, access to top tier men, the caliber of which women are instinctively attracted to was difficult at best, unattainable at worst. Higher value men typically ended up with the most attractive females they could attract. By extension, average women then also ended up dating average men, whom they, owing to the innate desire to mate with men superior to themselves, didn’t instinctively desire. In the climate created by the sexual revolution, women, it seemed, could all finally have access to the top tier men they actually desired. Gone were the days when women had to settle with an average male simply because he could offer them long-term security. Women would now be free to pursue raw and feral sex, the type of which they actually desired, with the most sexually attractive males around them. Women could finally pursue their short-term sexual strategy; chase after and fuck the life out of the bad boys that made them wet with uncontrollable desire, all the while putting off any serious considerations regarding their long-term security, provisioning, protection and shared parental investment in any children they did bear. Add to this that women had entered the workforce and had, at least in theory, been freed from having to be dependent on men for their long-term security and the birth control pill that freed them from the costs of pregnancy and you come close to seeing why this was a palatable deal for women. The sexual revolution, by seemingly offering to both genders the realization of their own sexual utopia – to men as many as possible and to women access to the best – was able to garner the necessary support from both genders that each thought their own fantasy would be achieved. Except it wasn’t true and as men soon realized, they had been sold an illusion. The sexual revolution didn’t give more sex to everyone. The only thing it succeeded in doing was giving more sex to women and the top 20% of men.

More evidence is that the top 5-20% of men are having more sex than ever before. The data from the 2002 and 2011–2013 National Survey of Family Growth, a US household survey focusing on sexual and reproductive health can demonstrate this. The researchers found that compared to 2002, men overall had the same number of partners in 2013. However, the top 20% of men had a 25% increase in sexual partners. The top 5% of men had an outstanding 38% increase in the number of sexual partners. Thus while the amount of male sex that was had was unchanged, more of the sex was consolidated into extra sex for the top 5-20% of men (i.e., “Chads”). Thus Chads are truly having more sex than ever before.

 Hypergamy has been unleashed.

But how did men not see this? For all their appeals as the more “rational gender”, how did they fail so miserably to predict the outcome of women having the prerogative to indulge in their breeding habits unfettered? For a group of people that have been so instrumental to the driving of humanity’s progress (and will continue to be, far more than women will ever hope to), this seems, to any observer with a little bit of rationality, to be an extremely rookie mistake. (To be continued…..)

Men and Women Can’t be Friends.

The question of the possibility of a friendship between the genders has, and still is, a very controversial issue. For a man like myself, or Rich above to even imply that friendship between the genders is impossible makes us suspect of bitterness at best, angry misogyny at worst. But why is this issue so important and why is it a recurring debate in the sphere. I will plainly put it; I do not believe men and women are capable of the type of friendship most of us believe is possible between the genders. While I don’t deny that men and women can, and very often do come together in mutually beneficial arrangements, I refuse the premise that a manifest friendship to the extent popular culture wants us to believe is possible is but a delusional construction. The first problem with this type of thinking is that it follows from a false premise of blank slate egalitarianism. Blank slate egalitarianism as an intellectual doctrine first arose a little prior to the age of the enlightenment. To an extent, it largely informed some of the ideological pronouncements espoused during that period. Its central premise was/is that we are all born as blank slates, each capable of being as great as the next and any manifest differences are simply a difference of what society writes on our individual slate. Of course this is just absurd. It is the case that there exist notable differences between persons. Some people are born more intelligent, more extroverted, more conscientious, better looking than others. It is not true that we are all created equal – which is also based off a false premise. Blank slate egalitarianism as an intellectual dogma has been used as the premise for all far left leaning ideologies, incessantly espoused by her ever more radical ideologues. Marxism, feminism, postmodernism, transgenderism all follow from this premise. When employed within the context of intergender relationships, this doctrine falsely implies that men and women are functional equals, with similar goals as well as means for their achievement. Based off this premise, it is erroneously assumed that because men and women are functional equals, they share a mutually agreed upon idea of friendship, each conceptualizing and pursuing friendship from a mutually agreed and shared point of origin. Ergo, the type of friendship possible amongst men and the type of friendship possible amongst women is assumed to be the type and level of friendship possible between men and women. We are equal after all, aren’t we?

Wrong! The different genders actually have entirely separate and distinct conceptualizations of friendship. Women generally cherish fewer “deeper” friendships; men generally pursue many “shallower” friendships. This is why, for all their attempts at thinking, feminists can’t grasp why men don’t meet, hug and embrace each other with tears running down their cheeks all the while professing how much they love each other, or share their feelings as women do. So inconceivable and unintelligible is the idea that men and women may pursue friendship from differing perspectives to feminists, they merely write this off as indicative of “toxic masculinity” – that appalling phrase – but a vestige of the imagined patriarchy they are supposedly fighting. Granted that each gender first conceptualizes friendship as is applicable to their intragender mode of friendship, each gender wrongly presume, following from the false equality premise and the preposterous blank slate dogma that informs it, that their model of friendship is recognized and shared by the other. Add to this the extent to which we are mired in a social order that presumes that the feminine way of doing anything is the correct way and you begin to see why friendship with women is untenable.

In a female-primary social order, where what is generally associated with women is assumed to be what is correct and reinforced by a denial of human nature and any differences between the genders,  men must generally conform to the female mode of friendship. What this implies in practice is that the man that pursues such a friendship will, for as long as he is willing to entertain this arrangement, be like a girlfriend to said girl.

Women have boyfriends and girlfriends; if you are not fucking her, you’re her girlfriend.

This is of course an arrangement that solely benefits the female in question. Women at some level realize that male friendship is infinitely more valuable than female friendship. At its purest, it is like having a boyfriend that she doesn’t have to have sex with.

Women want male friends because they’re better company; more interesting, more entertaining, less crazy, less annoying – all of that good stuff. Likewise they know if they’re pretty they can leverage that into favor whilst giving you nothing, so this is the scam most even moderately pretty women are working. Men want to be friends with women because they are stupid and think friendship is the first stepping stone to sex. Women profit from this false belief because men waste time, passion and energy on an endeavor which eventually yields nothing but hassle in return. When a man figures out friendship is not the path to sex with women, he ceases to see the point in having female friends. Even though a man’s friendship is worth more than a woman’s, women won’t trade sex for it because being likeable doesn’t make you fuckable. Women have the opposite problem; they are fuckable rather than likeable. Men have to work to be fuckable, women have to work to be likeable. But a woman is only concerned with her own needs, not yours. Just like men will gladly use a women up sexually, a woman will gladly use up a man emotionally and financially. A woman is all too happy to devour your time and use you as a source of entertainment and conduit for complaining all the while she gives you nothing in return. This is a bad deal for a man because his company is infinitely higher quality, and thus more valuable than hers. In 99% of cases this means if you’re hanging out with a woman you’re not fucking, you’re getting a bad deal.

The idea of so-called “platonic love” also follows from this thinking and women are still the beneficiaries of it. It is also critical to look at how the idea of intergender friendship dovetails nicely with the “let’s just be friends” rejection. Yes, you read that correctly. It is a rejection.

…the LJBF escape is perhaps the single most useful convention ever conceived by women. The LJBF rejection has classically ensured that a woman can reject a man yet still maintain his previous attention. It also puts the responsibility for the rejection back on his shoulders since, should he decline the ‘offer of friendship’, he is then responsible for entertaining this friendship…The LJBF rejection also serves as an ego preservation for her in that having offered the false olive branch of ‘friendship’ to him in her rejection she also can sleep that night knowing that she (and any of her peers) won’t think any less of herself. After all, she offered to be friends, right? She is excused from any feelings of personal guilt or any responsibilities for his feelings if she still wants to remain amiable with him.

The proverbial “friendzone” which I personally think doesn’t exist. There is no such thing as the friendzone. The only thing there is, is a man that does not value his time enough to walk away from a suboptimal situation. It is a man stuck in a limbo between deceiving himself that he is capable of sharing the level of friendship he shares with his guy friends with a particular girl, and him coming to the realization that as soon as said woman enters a romantic relationship with another man, his attentions immediately become a liability to the development of their relationship. As a rule of thumb, each time a woman offers you the “let’s just be friends” rejection, your answer should be “No.”

I think men and women are capable of being acquaintances, coming together on the basis of competence, reliability and reciprocity. I personally desist from calling any female my friend. Beyond the occasional greeting and joke, there is really no need to spend as much time as the average guy spends with women you aren’t fucking.

When the Desirable isn’t available

2021 is here!! It has been a long and uncomfortable year for everyone, albeit with innumerable lessons for those that have been observant enough to pick them up and incorporate them into their lives. I honestly didn’t envisage myself writing an article on New Year’s eve. Hell, if anyone had told me I’d be doing this, I would not have believed them at all. I’m writing out of necessity (hopefully I’ll keep it brief and get back to the merrymaking). What I want to explore in this article is a piece that has caused mass hysteria on twitter concerning a one Masika Kalysha. Get ready folks, we’re about to dive into dangerous waters here.

So a little bit of background here. Masika Kalysha was born on June 7 1985 (this makes her about 35 years old and tending towards 36. It is important we note this). She has for lack of better terminology lived the exciting life. Actress, TV personality are all things she has enjoyed. Owing to her positioning in life (and perhaps to her magic pussy), she has had her fair share of relationships, mostly with bad boy rappers ( Gucci Mane, Jamal Rashid, Yung Berg, Fetty Warp, Tory Lanez) and a couple of scandals in between. In 2015, while dating rapper Fetty Warp, she got pregnant with his daughter. So she is a baby momma.

On December 30, Masika took to twitter to speak to what seems to be her recent engagement to her current lover. I’ll not speak to the information of this current entanglement as I don’t have the details, but it is not necessary for my making of any conclusions hereunder. So in a nutshell, Masika is the story of the classic girl that enjoyed her whore phase (riding the cock carousel). As she did that, enjoying the sexual selectivity that being in her sexual prime afforded her, she kept at a distance all those men that did not fit the ideal of the type of man to whom she felt entitled; the men that didn’t deserve her. After having her fun and enjoying her prime years of maximum sexual selectivity, at 35, she has finally settled with the nice guy that was patient and persevered. The man she curved fo a decade. The classic love story, girl has fun and lives her life on her terms. When she is done, she settles for the nice necessitous guy that waited around as she got run through by all the dicks she actually wanted so bad. As is the case with Masika, she even comes along with the baby of another man. “I can’t believe I wasted all my time with those jerks that were so bad for me yet you were here all along”…“I’m just so fed up with immature boys playing with my heart and not taking me serious. I’m so happy I’ve have finally found you( which in essence means, “I’m so fed up with sucking all these bad boys’ dicks and giving them everything they want and being their whore and them not giving me the commitment I deserve. Now that they have failed to settle with me, I’m glad that you’re here and you won’t judge me for my past. You will accept me for who I have now become).” In return, this man she is finally settling for after coming to her senses gets to enjoy sexual access to her( not in any way akin to that her previous lovers enjoyed). His patience has finally paid off and if all men (misogynists like me) could just be patient and treat women with respect and love them through thick and thin, they’ll eventually see the error in their ways, come running back to your arms and you’ll live happily thereafter.

Women love this story first and foremost because it gives them security. In a gynocentric feminine-primary social order, nothing is more important than the dictates of women’s sexual strategy and the needs that the optimization of said sexual strategy engenders in them. Women want nothing more than to know that they’ll be a beta male so necessitous, that he will forgive her sexual past and all the choices she made in her prime and accept her for who she really is, or rather has become. after she goes through the period of discovering herself(riding as many dicks as make her excited and chasing commitment from the very men least likely to commit to her), she wants to know that there will be a nice guy whom she ignored in the past( for a fu***** decade) that will be there to assuage her growing necessity and desperation that she may actually be alone, and who will whisper to her “I knew 10 years ago, on the day I met you that I was going to marry you.” After the bad HAWT boys she had such a feral unfettered sexual desire for don’t commit to her as she had earlier hoped (and possibly knock her up with their kid), women want nothing more than to know that there will be a nice guy somewhere that will take her in and love her unconditionally for the privilege of being called a real man and her feigned sexual interest in him (assuming he doesn’t have to outrightly beg her for sex. At some level of consciousness, her mind knows he’s a loser with no options that had to wait for her. She reserved her sexual best for the Hawt Alpha bad boys she really wanted to bang, but will only drip-feed sex to the man she settled with not in any way comparable to the raw, feral sex she offered to her previous alpha lovers, but not so little as to discourage him from investing in her and the children of her alpha lover). It is in this dynamic that the “I’m not in the mood”….“we just have mismatched sex drives” rationalizations women make for not wanting to fuck the life out of the dutiful beta chump they have settled with find their root. In reality, the cause for her not wanting and desiring raw urgent, “Fuck me lover boy…FUUUUUCCKK MEEEEE!!!” with the said male is rooted in her subconcious confirmation of his beta status..“He is such a loser he waited for me. It must be because no other women wanted him. He’s an optionless loser.”

The primary reason the sphere tells men to avoid such arrangements is that most of them inevitably fail. There is no greater recipe for relationship disaster than to be in a relationship with a woman that at some level perceives that the man she is with needs her more than she needs him. If for no other reason than that women are innately hypergamous, a confirmation of a man’s necessitous beta status to a woman’s subconscious is a recipe for feigned interest, rapidly declining attraction, poor sex and breakup – with a plethora of backward rationalizations in between. It is also why marrying women that are in their 30s is a bad idea. Irrespective of their physical attractiveness, women in their 30s are instinctively aware that their sexual appeal is rapidly diminishing and that the sexual selectivity and male attention they enjoyed when they were younger will hardly last longer and is shifting towards their younger sisters (again, they may hide behind makeup and backward rationalize about how they have grown into Strong Independent Women and that the only reason men aren’t finding them viable sexual candidates for dating and relationships is because those men are insecure in their masculinity and secretly pedophiles). Taking this dynamic into account, it stands to reason that a woman at this stage is more likely to settle with a man she didn’t even consider her type( I mean, lets be real, she curved the guy for a decade) to assuage her growing insecurity about her long-term prospects. Where this fails, there’s an entire social structure of angry women trying to shame men into dating her. Where that fails as well, she can just fall back to the “I’m a strong independent woman that doesn’t need any man.” All these are attempts to create security for women to which they feel increasingly entitled or attempt to convince them that they were never needing of that security in the first place. It’s almost perfect.

The primary reason I warn men against this romanticized and bastardized notion of romantic perseverance women love to push around (just be nice to her, keep around and treat her right and she will come around) is because it is a bad deal for men. Women love it because it feeds their need for indignation, self aggrandizement and attention. To a greater or lesser degree, women need attention for their existence. It’s a food that feeds them. Where they can’t find this need of attention from the men they sexually desire, they manufacture it for themselves with their girlfriends or with their male platonic friends. The friendzone dynamic men often bemoan is rooted in this dynamic( the man that feeds her attention and emotional needs but receives no intimacy from her). Men love it because it is a backward rationalization that covers for what is really their fear to go out and get rejected by other potential females. Ergo, they invest themselves in chasing after one women that has no interest in them because it is much easier than going out and facing real-time rejection. When the object of his fancy finally comes to her mind and learns that those guys she was so wet for were bad for her, and comes running back to his arms not out of raw feral sexual urgency and desire but out of her own necessity, it is the ultimate indication to him that his perseverance has finally paid off and that if all men can just be patient, eventually the girl will come to them. In the meantime, he continues to offer her free attention, dinners and validation with no reciprocation of intimacy from her while she runs off to ride the dicks of the guys she actually desires. What men often are blissfully unaware of is that the average woman will know within the first couple of minutes of meeting you whether she will date and/or bang you. This is why romantic perseverance is at best a bastardized load of bullshit. When a woman that originally showed no sexual interest in man at all (seen by her avoiding of him for a decade) suddenly has a change of heart to the point of even contemplating accepting his marriage proposal, it is either because the man went through deliberate effort to increase his sexual attractiveness so much so that she now finds him attractive, or that she is in a position in her life that her necessity is now forcing her to consider him a viable option. In essence, it’s because he now meets the opportunistic mating criteria upon which women select their mates. Anything else is a rationalization.

I don’t even have to articulate my position on dating single baby mommas.

Women hate it when I point out the savage duplicity and sometimes outright manipulation of the sexual strategy they employ because it betrays the game and compromises the male security, attention, provisioning and validation to which they increasingly feel entitled. It opens men’s eyes to the role the gynocentrism has for them in ensuring the optimization of women’s sexual and life strategy. It opens men’s eyes to their own value and means that they will be unwilling to participate in this egregious plan. Nothing is more simultaneously threatening and attractive to women as a man that is aware of his own value to women.

Whatever you do, avoid women that are settling for you. Don’t be like this guy.

Happy 2021.

Sabiti Saved

So it was a fairly interesting week. It started off with my usual status updates on WhatsApp, which posts are known to cause quite the stir with my more feminist inclined contacts, or at least I’d like to assume. For putting up such matter I often get called out for my ostensibly misogynistic inclinations. While I won’t deny that my posts are a tad, nay a whole lot unflattering to women, the move to moralize them by applying the “misogynistic” definition is often merely a shaming tactic employed with the intent to discredit those often unflattering truths. Of course in our current social order, any person, especially a male that dare write or pronounce anything even remotely critical of women’s nature is immediately assumed to be hurt, bitter and misogynistic. But that’s an essay for another day.
I’ve been facing quite the bit of pressure to take my writings to a more formal and organized space, or at least more organized than a WhatsApp status update. As with all things that force us to change, I’ve greatly resisted this move. Change isn’t easy! Let no one tell you otherwise. But eventually I’ve decided that a more blog-like setting permits me to write a little better. I’m no longer faced with the burden to limit my posts to the 700 character limit of a WhatsApp status update which by extension permits me to explore these dynamics better. So I intend to spoil myself while at it.
The main reason I’ve written this particular post is to attempt to breakdown and respond to my brother, colleague and friends essay Sabiti Edwin. The essay is titled “Esawa Yonna Omukazi Akyuka: The inevitable fate of your relationship” and you can find it on his blog sabitiedwin.wordpress.com. I’ll admit it’s a very nihilistic title followed by a nihilistic essay, presumably written out of anger at a recent experience with a woman. Reading it, it’s easy to see and envision the anger that led to its writing. This however is not in any way a negation of the truths he, in his disillusionment, points out. What I’ll be doing in this essay is delving into the more nuts and bolts breakdown of these and ill most likely give a more grounded analysis of what he intended to point out. I’ll be quoting his words.

“The phrase innately carries an evolution of man’s knowledge about the changing character of women characterized by ridiculous and implausible experiences of remarkable complexity denoting betrayal. That your current perfect girlfriend will change and switch up on you is guaranteed. However before that escapable fate, you could do a thing or two to mitigate the magnitude of your victimhood…….but what exactly do we know about women? Two things. It’s never enough and that she will ultimately change. Being a woman entails having a mastery in liehood and betrayal. A special skill in playing victimhood in the aftermath of committing transgression earns you the ‘queen’ title…”

A couple of things to unpack here. First, is it, presumably the relationship, ever enough for a woman? Second, will she and why will she change? Thirdly, why will a woman always attempt to play victim in an almost innate aversion for responsibility? Let’s start with the first question; whether it’s ever enough for a woman. To answer this I’ll borrow a little from evolution theory but only to the extent that it permits me draw my conclusions. That means that I’ll not be attempting to explain evolution psychology here but rather merely borrowing from it to draw some conclusions. Evolutionists argue that women evolved to be driven by a pluralistic mating strategy. On one hand, the woman is attracted to the guy that that would best confer genetic benefits to her offspring while at the same time attracted to the guy that best offers the potential for provisioning and parental investment in that offspring. It’s not uncommon to hear women categorize men into the “guys they’d bang, and the guys they’d marry”. Indeed I’d argue that this is them articulating, albeit subconsciously, this dual sexual strategy. It’s also for this reason that it’s not uncommon to hear of the woman that marries the unattractive wealthy man and keeps her hot sexy lover. This is basically an attempt to optimize and meet both sides of her sexual strategy. The ideal situation is that the woman can meet a man that embodies the dualistic needs this sexual strategy engenders in her, however, these qualities rarely manifest in the same man for the simple reason that the things that make him the hot lover she has such feral and sexual urgency for are the very qualities that would impede his ability to meet her provisioning needs or even commit to mutual parenting. Put more colloquially, date and have fun with the bad boy but marry the good guy. However, what happens when a woman finds herself with a good guy? Her hind mind, hardwired through thousands of years of evolution still wants to get with the bad boy. To meet this need, she may pursue several strategies. First would be to simply have an affair with that guy( the hot guy that turns her on and drives her crazy) but maintain the good guy that offers her what the bad boy will not; commitment, provisioning, parental and emotional investment. Paternity fraud is rooted in this dynamic and so is the recent wave of attempts(by feminists specifically and women generally) to shame and coerce men into entering monogamous relationships with single mothers. The second attempt is a little more futile; attempt to change the good guy into a bad boy while ensuring that he still remains a good guy. In essence, this guy should be a bad boy when she needs the thrill and excitement and vaginal tingles, but he must also be the sweet, dependable and reliable guy when her circumstances dictate he be. Needless to say it’s a delusion. Having established this basic framework, we ask again, is it ever enough for a woman? Owing to the nature of the sexual strategy elucidated above, women are predisposed to a constant subconscious uncertainty about whether by being with a particular guy, she has duly optimized her sexual strategy. This then predisposes her to continuously test a guy, give him shit and very many things in between all geared towards answering a question deep in her subconscious; “Is he the best I can do?” The instant her subconscious receives confirmation that this guy is indeed not the best she can do, depending on circumstances, she’s done with him. She moves to what her hind mind perceives to be a better option. Why is this so? In our evolutionary past, the consequences of a woman mating with a man that was a – for lack of a better word – loser were severe. Because women were the weaker sex and it was literally a man’s world i.e. strength was of fundamental importance in the survival equation, women’s survival was largely contingent on the quality of the mate she chose. It stands to reason that women evolved an innate predisposition not just to seek out a mate that had the ability and skill set to ensure her own and her offspring survival but also to constantly test him to make sure he remained so. Whenever she got with a guy that couldn’t do so, it literally meant death. Even today, a woman getting with a guy that does not –to her hind mind – offer the best potential for the optimization of this sexual strategy, fires off her hind mind with that evolved “you are going to die” warnings. My critiques will argue that circumstances have greatly changed since our evolutionary past to which ill respond that our evolved mental processes have not. Women in our evolutionary past were attracted to strength, dominance, provisioning potential etc. all of which served to perpetuate their survival given it was directly dependent on the quality of their mate. Our contemporary world has since changed. There isn’t a tiger lurking in the shadows waiting to pounce on her and have her for dinner and women are way safer than they would have been in that world and yet they’ll still fawn over the guy with the biceps and the abs. Women, including the most empowered of them aren’t actively seeking men in lower income brackets unless of course their necessity forces them to. Of course they mask that as having standards. Women still crave and actively seek male dominance. Look for the statistics about the largest consumers of literature and film that convey that, books like 50 shades of Grey and movies like 365 days. The circumstances have changed but the evolved mental firmware hasn’t. All this is important because it answers two of the questions I asked – or rather that I derived from Edwin’s angry essay. Is it ever enough? Will she and why will she change. It is enough if her relationship with this man calms that subconscious doubt at the back of her mind and she will change when that part of her mind confirms to her that the guy she’s with isn’t the best she can do. As to whether she’ll leave after that is contingent on a plethora of variables inclusive of, but not limited to, ease with which she can walk away. Patriarchal societies were constructed around the prevention of the manifestations of this doubt in women’s actions. So while it was possible for a woman to get – for the matter of analysis – discontented with her relationship with a man, the social structure actively prevented her leaving him. Today, these structures – completely owing to an apparently progressive society – are no longer existent. To understand just how pervasive this innate doubt in women’s subconscious is, one need only look at the divorce statistics. A significant majority (well over 70%, 80% according to other sources) of all divorces globally are initiated by women. Women are more likely to “fall out of love” with their partner whether in the short run as may be the case of dating, or in the long run as may be the case when they get married. Of course the obvious female rebuttal to this will be something to the effect of, “well if men could just be what we wanted, all this wouldn’t be a challenge.” This I’ll argue is what my brother Edwin calls, ”A special skill in playing victimhood in the aftermath of committing transgression…”

“From the broken and disappointed hearts in the grave, we have learnt that it’s never enough for women. This trait is born out of two intertwined concepts of particular concern. First is that women are inherently selfish. Analytically, the selfishness is premised on the stinking sense of entitlement. Women think they deserve and therefore entitled to the good things. This selfishness manifests in many ways. A good example to demonstrate this postulation is a girl that pressures her boyfriend holding a Techno Cammon to buy for her an iPhone 11. And this is just an obvious manifestation of the selfishness. Many a time, the selfishness manifests in subtle forms such as the conventional goal of a relationship to keep the girl happy.”

So at this point I’ll part with Edwin’s conjecture. While I don’t deny the truth of his message, I deny the causal link he attempts to establish.

“First is that women are inherently selfish. Analytically, the selfishness is premised on the stinking sense of entitlement. Women think they deserve and therefore entitled to the good things.”

I won’t deny that women today are extremely entitled. One only need listen to the dating profiles of the average fairly beautiful girl( or even those that are objectively 3/10 at best) to understand this entitlement. Women feel entitled to a certain type of man that will sweep them off their feet and commit to them on their terms as and when their circumstances permit. They feel they should date the bad boy, have the good guy keep around to offer them the emotional support and commitment the bad boy, by his very nature, will not offer. They feel they are entitled to the perfect guy – a myth of course – irrespective of their circumstances. They feel entitled to gifts, validation and male attention with virtually no reciprocation of their intimacy. One only need go to Twitter and see women’s posts to observe this dynamic. You see it in their ostensibly benign appeals for a guy that will offer them everything without asking for sex in return, you see it in their appeals for what is popularly called platonic love – which I think is a whole load of bullshit. Even when they innocently claim, “Why do guys stop talking to you after you reject them?” you still see this entitlement. They honestly believe a man owes them attention and validation irrespective of whether he gets what he seeks out of the interaction with her. However I don’t think what he call women’s inherently selfish nature is caused by this entitlement. I can however see why he’d think that. This critique however only begs the question: What is the cause of this inherently selfish nature?
I’ll digress a little and not refer to it as inherent selfishness but rather, as RM has labelled, innate solipsism. I’ll borrow from his work to construct an epistemology – or rather paraphrase his work – for what exactly this innate solipsism is but will offer no references. So what is this innate solipsism and how does it manifest? What causes or caused it? Many a man is often shocked by women’s almost instinctual proclivity to view things beginning from the ‘me, myself and I’ lens. At some level everything seems to be about them. They are almost incapable of appreciating things outside of their immediate existential needs and individual experiences.

“Indeed a woman will leave you and the justification is that she didn’t feel she loved you anymore. So it’s about how she felt. Poor girl, she was in an unromantic relationship!!!”

Let’s first do some background work. What leads women to this almost self-absorbed nature? Our evolutionary past was rough. It was literally a man’s world. In order to facilitate their survival in that world, it was a necessity for women to develop a world viewpoint that started with her as the primary. What best ensured her survival and that of her offspring? What best ensured the optimization of their interests? From her mating choices to her life decisions, this was women’s mental point of origin. The outside world and all her experiences had to be viewed through the I lens. In this analysis, morality lost its hold. What was moral was not important nor did it factor in into the decision making equation. The only interest was what course of action best ensured the optimization of her interests and those of her offspring. This evolved predisposition of women – to put themselves as the primary in their mental processes – has for years caused men to grind their teeth in anger at what they see as women’s fickle and duplicitous nature especially when they find themselves on the negative side of this nature. I’ll reiterate, our circumstances have changed, but those mental processes haven’t. When Hillary Clinton remarks, “Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat….” with zero or no regard that the men that die on the battlefield may be the primary victims of conflict, we see this feminine-primary viewpoint manifest. When a woman rejects a man but expects him to keep around to offer her his attention, we see this solipsism manifest. When a woman rejects a man because he doesn’t meet her absurd standards and after this guy going away to improve himself, she expects to saunter back into his life and have him accept her, this again stems from her innate mental process that predisposes her to assume her interests as the primary. We see this too in the sentiments raised by feminists which are often to the effect that men are a superfluous species that they (women) would do very well without. Forget the hubris of this statement, it is the height of self-absorption and solipsism to assume one gender so self-fulfilling and capable of existence without the other. It’s of course informed by an extension of their innate solipsism that leads them to think themselves so self-sufficient and unwanting of anything outside of themselves. Men may be accused of being misogynists, but you don’t hear men make such remarks. Only women are capable of such hubris, solipsism and – I dare say – stupidity. I’d even go so far as to argue that this solipsism is extremely pervasive in feminism. I’ve always wondered how feminists could argue that a woman staying home to take care of children while her husband worked to provide for that family made the woman entitled to – upon dissolution of that union – a payment by the man to her for her sacrifices. How can an entire social movement fail to notice that by going to work every day this man equally forgoes time and the emotional bonding with his children that these women feel entitled to payment for?! That while its true that she sacrifices her career – assuming she does. This rule even applies to women that had no career – this man equally sacrifices time with her and his family to facilitate her reality. If equality were the premise, then while we rule that the woman be paid for some career income she presumably missed – I say presumably because it is at best a conjecture and there’s no way of knowing how her life would have played out in that alternative reality as there’s a plethora of variables that could have affected it – the man must equally be compensated for the emotional bonding he forewent – at least we are sure about this and aren’t ruling based on conjectures. When however you view this dynamic through women’s innate predisposition to view the world with themselves and their interests as the primary and their general inability to appreciate variables outside of their own immediate existential needs, then you begin to see why this dynamic exists.

“A good example to demonstrate this postulation is a girl that pressures her boyfriend holding a Techno Cammon to buy for her an iPhone 11. And this is just an obvious manifestation of the selfishness. Many a time, the selfishness manifests in subtle forms such as the conventional goal of a relationship to keep the girl happy.”

While I’ll argue that the first dynamic is simply a woman being materialistic and opportunistic – as is consistent with, albeit an extreme case of their opportunistic concept of love – the keep the girl happy conventional goal of relationships is not just instigated and sustained by women, but it equally feeds into the innate solipsism that leads them to view their interests and themselves as the primary in the context of that relationship.

“What is of pertinent consideration about the behavioral change of women is how they don’t feel morally obliged to not change? For women, switching from one man to another implies their growth and maturity. It’s not a question of integrity, it’s a span of life. To them you are just a necessary victim for the process. Men naturally are gullible creatures always extending a benefit of doubt to whoever looks or claims to be innocent. This opens them to eminent danger. It reduces them to specimen for the life span of women. Notably, it is not a question of the duration you have stayed with one. Some women may take longer in switching upon on you because they maybe laboring under such retarded growth that delays their changing interval. But trust me you, when she finally hits that time, she will switch up on you. I earlier hinted on the lack of integrity. It is not a question of the promises you have shared. She will forget those in a second. Women have a self-conferred obligation to change. This is not only a manifestation of their ingratitude. It is akin to a profanity not to change. So definitely the changing of women is well grounded in their nature and like everything else herein, she will change when the time comes.”

This is the sentiment of a man having the reality of what he thought about intersexual relations and how they should be (conforming to his idealistic concept of love) being irrevocably proven false. Disabusing oneself from the myth that women are capable of the idealistic love men so deeply crave is arguably one of the most disillusioning things a man can face in his lifetime. After years of conditioning that have led him to believe that women are capable of loving him unconditionally for who he is, such occurrences, that are such a stark contradiction to the belief system he has internalized, come as a shock to his sensibilities. To paraphrase RM, Women are fundamentally incapable of loving a man in the way a man thinks is possible or in the way that he wants to be loved. Men love idealistically. Women love opportunistically. Many will be tempted to moralize this, taking it as some affirmation and confirmation of women’s innately evil, duplicitous and fickle nature. However, I think that this dynamic is best observed independent of any moralization. Women’s opportunistic concept of love is rooted in an evolved adaptation to suit her survival. Because of the nature of our evolutionary past, women evolved to select mates on opportunistic metrics and the extent to which those metrics permitted for the optimization of her own interests. Men value love. Women love value. Men primarily love the specimen woman. Women primarily love the value the specimen man can create and how that value benefits them and their offspring. Men don’t look at a woman and think, “She has a nice car, a nice apartment…OMG her perfume…did you see her suit?” When man does look at a woman, it’s often, “Damn she’s hot. Check out her ass…” these – to the rational male mind – clearly superficial qualities are women’s subconscious minds attempting to get an accurate measure of the value this man has. This does not deny that women may be attracted to a physically arousing male on metrics such as height and muscularity, it’s to say firstly that those qualities in themselves would not suffice and that even their consideration is still based on the opportunistic consideration that that male would offer her offspring certain genetic benefits. It’s important to point out that most, if not all, of these occur in the subconscious mind and are hardly things women consciously think about. They simply become apparent to her rational mind but they don’t originate from it. Coming to terms with the bitter pill that a woman doesn’t see the man, but rather the value of that man to her is a bitter pill to swallow. Accepting it however permits us to understand clearly why we see women make the choices they do but more importantly, it allows men to begin to disabuse themselves from their internalized ideas of how the ideal Disney like love should be like and begin to leverage themselves to thrive in the sexual market place.

“For women, switching from one man to another implies their growth and maturity. It’s not a question of integrity, it’s a span of life…. Notably, it is not a question of the duration you have stayed with one. Some women may take longer in switching upon on you because they maybe laboring under such retarded growth that delays their changing interval. But trust me you, when she finally hits that time, she will switch up on you. I earlier hinted on the lack of integrity. It is not a question of the promises you have shared. She will forget those in a second. Women have a self-conferred obligation to change. This is not only a manifestation of their ingratitude. It is akin to a profanity not to change. So definitely the changing of women is well grounded in their nature and like everything else herein, she will change when the time comes.”

Couple of things to unpack here. First, what is this nature to switch up on a guy and what is this self-conferred obligation to change? Second, what is this nature of women to forget all those in a second regardless of all the promises you have shared? First it bears to point out two things. (1) Women rarely want to date men that they perceive to below them. (2) Women rarely want to downgrade i.e. they will rarely leave unless their mental process believes she’s leaving for a better prospect male. This is not to say these things may not occur, it’s to say that it’s not their ideal. Women always want up. They always prefer better. Recall that women have a subconscious routine running at the back of their minds, “Is he the best I can do?” Depending on the ease with which she can pullout and invest in that better option, a woman may or may not leave a guy to pursue that end. As I pointed out earlier, patriarchal societies were constructed around preventing them from doing that. If women had no agency then they couldn’t seek the optimization of their sexual strategy freely and men would be spared from the pain that pursuit has the ability to inflict on them. With the proliferation of feminism, women have gained the agency to pursue their sexual strategy unfettered and as is expected men – like Edwin here – have found themselves on the negative side of that pursuit. I feel its worthy to point out that from an evolutionary standpoint, this pursuit is amoral. It’s a question of pragmatic survival rooted deep in this subconscious processes women evolved and developed when we were still hunter-gatherer societies living in the savannah. If this male was no longer the best she could do (lost value) and a better prospect male came around, move on to that male. There were no moral idealisms, it was a question of what or rather who ensured survival at any given time. The circumstances of our world have since changed, but this subconscious process hasn’t. When a man loses his livelihood, his ambition and generally his value and the woman ups and leaves, men generally view that as their innate evil nature. I argue that it’s that subconscious evolved process at work. When the bad boy with the leather jacket and bad boy look comes around, and all the girls shift their attention to him, the good nice guys are filled with rage. How can they?! I can see the subconscious process that leads to that. A better male has come around, the nice guy is no longer the best she can do, move on to that better prospect.
In conclusion I’ll address two things. First, don’t all those promises and your investment in her count for something? Second, how are they able to move up without the moral part of their minds firing up?
The former is what is known as the fallacy of relational equity. It’s an erroneous belief that a certain amount of investment and promises with a woman will insulate against her deciding that a particular guy isn’t the best she can do and switching up. Needless to say, this belief system is false. No amount of investment can ever insulate you against being a causality of her pursuit to optimize her sexual strategy. It doesn’t matter that you called her every day, it doesn’t matter that you were such a great dad, it doesn’t matter that you never forgot her birthday, it doesn’t matter that you put her first and she was the center of your world, once you are not the best she can do and circumstances permit her upgrade, she’s gone. This seems a very nihilistic perspective but understand that it’s possible to insulate against this sexual strategy by embracing your male burden of performance and remaining dedicated to your self-improvement and indeed being the best she can do. This is not some silver bullet that will prevent you from getting dumped, but it will significantly insulate against that subconscious doubt.
So how do women move away so easily? How can she love you today and not want anything to do with you tomorrow? This is a source of confusion to men around the world. Now my critiques will argue that men do that too to which I’ll say that’s not true. A man has the potential to deceive a woman into believing he is really interested in her up until the point he has sex with her then pulling out. A woman has the potential to totally be into you this month and walk away next month like it was nothing. How?! To understand this propensity for almost spontaneous emotional detachment, we need to observe our evolutionary past. Women were victims of constant vicissitudes of a very unstable social climate. At any time, she could lose her son or her lover to a conflict and be sold off as a wife to a rival tribe. This social climate selected for women that were very quickly able to detach from past emotional attachments and develop new ones. As women were also highly dependent on the male for survival, nature selected for women that were quickly able to detach from a male that no longer offered that value that ensured her and her offspring’s survival. The man is badly wounded in conflict or by a wild beast and no longer able to ensure protection and provisioning, move on to the next male that has that potential. Again, this decision was amoral and simply a question of pragmatic survival. Staying with that male and losing not just her life but that of her offspring wasn’t a very smart option. The circumstances and challenges we face have since changed but this subconscious mental process still manifests. The woman that couldn’t keep her hands off you last month after you lose your job and ambition ups and leaves or in the very least her attraction for you diminishes. She’s most likely not going to die if she remains with you, but her evolved subconscious processes confirm to her that you’re no longer a viable option. Even when a higher value male comes around, still that evolved mental firmware tells her that he is a better option. Now if you’re still hard on your purpose and life direction, maintain a masculine frame in the relationship and all, she may have a hard time leaving you for him or at least will have minimal incentive to do so. If however his coming coincides with the point where you’ve lost your focus and your direction of the relationship and you’re no longer the masculine alpha leader that she want to submit to; you’re no longer the best she can do….well, how about you ask Edwin how that plays out.

The Rise of the Stingy Man

The men are fighting back! Okay, that was simply a dramatic opening, but you get the picture. In a world in which women have become increasingly more entitled to the provisioning of men and their resources, an association such as the Stingy Men’s Association is an affront to the security promised by the new gynocentric

by urodenitram February 15, 2021

Gosh! He Wants Some.

I have been putting off writing this blog post for some time now. That is partly because several writable ideas keep spontaneously popping up in my mind. Part of my new technique is to keep a small notebook on the table to immediately run to and note these ideas. Thus far, it seems to be

by urodenitram February 3, 2021

Female Power

The feminist movement, at the time some still considered it an intelligible doctrine (some lunatics still do), made a lot of headway peddling the argument of female objectification, apparently by men. The logic employed by the feminists then was that of female victimhood beholden to the male gaze. It is men that were staring at

by urodenitram January 29, 2021