After studying some evolutionary psychology, I was shocked to find that a woman’s scheming ways are actually a biological instilled trait, one she cannot readily control. I had assumed woman treated infidelity the same way men did, out of conscious choice to do so, but I was wrong. One book that stood out was Sperm Wars by Robin Baker. When it was released in 1996, it caused extreme controversy and was met very critically by angry reviewers (mostly female). With its re-release 10 years later it became an instant best seller and classic. It’s a must read for anyone interested in the scientific aspect of sex/relationships. I will briefly sum up a few of the facts that stood out the most.
1. 10% of children are not fathered by their “fathers
Perhaps we’ve underestimated the phrase “Alpha fucks, Beta bucks.” It is always a sad moment when you read an article in the news about some respected male celebrity who was duped by his beautiful wife into raising a child who wasn’t biologically his. The thought that the child could have possibly belonged to another man never crossed his mind. An obscenity like demanding a DNA test would have been outlandish on his part and disrespectful to his wife.
However, we see this all the time on the Maury show, where we like to laugh at unintelligent individuals who beat their chest and flip chairs when they’re told their new baby was, in fact, from another affair. Those people you criticize for misjudging their partner’s fidelity are not so much different from you and I. In an evolutionary perspective, the man who pumped and dumped (alpha) is successful because his seed was conceived and taken care of by another family. The woman wins too, her vagina favored the “lover’s” sperm over the “partner’s” and her child will have the genes of a champion (as well as being provided for by the loyal spouse).
The unfortunate loser is the unknowing beta male who assumed the baby was his. After dismissing suspicions that his woman cheated on her last business trip to Barbados, he is now playing the provider role for another man’s child. Even if he chooses to leave her, he will be stuck paying child support for the illegitimate child.
2. “Smart” vaginal mucus encourages some sperm but blocks others
Smart is correct. I always knew women were governed by their emotions but I had no idea their vaginas made decisions for them. Women seem to be far more likely to conceive through a casual fling than through sex with a regular partner, which explains why a rapist’s sperm is usually the most successful in impregnating his victims. This also probably explains the rape fantasy most women like to deny exists. As it turns out, a vagina will reject a load of unwanted sperm in what is called a “flowback” sometimes hours after intercourse. The preconception that all sperm is just as likely to impregnate is false.
Some couples try for months, even years to conceive only to meet failure time and time again. It isn’t only that the guy’s sperm is probably on the weaker side—it’s the woman’s pussy who is constantly rejecting his attempts.
A message to all newlywed males: that “bad boy” dude next door your wife has coffee with every Tuesday has probably fucked her at least once. The tests are in: you are NOT the father. “How could you, wifey? How could you help that guy’s sperm beat mine, after all we’ve been through!” It’s not her fault. It was her meddling judgemental vagina who’s to blame.
3. Vaginas encouraged evolution of sperm warriors
“Less than one percent of a man’s sperm is capable of fertilizing anything.” These guys are called the “egg-getters”. The strikers going for goal on your reproductive soccer team. The rest are “killers” (who kill other sperm with corrosive poison) and blockers (who prevent other egg-getter’s from probing the cervix). This means that a vagina promotes sperm warfare. Whether she favors one sperm load or the other contributes to the sperm’s success.
Men also subconsciously ejaculate more sperm at times than others. For example, his body may say “Is this a 150 million sperm load or 30 mill day?” This happens subconsciously every time you ejaculate in your girlfriend, you are just “topping up” her already full vaginal reservoir (assuming you had sex with her only a short time ago). If you have a repeat sexual partner like a girlfriend or wife, you are giving more blockers who “patrol” the vagina ready for intruders. However, if you were to rape a girl the next night, you’d deliver more killers and egg-getters.
Do yourself a favor and grab this book to learn more interesting facts, such as the probability of a homosexual child, the manipulative techniques orchestrated through a woman’s orgasm, and the role of rape in evolutionary reproduction. It will help you understand the subconscious drivers of human sexual biology. Our brains have evolved an intellectual capacity where we feel in control, but our genitals operate on a different program.
Read More: A Woman’s Sexual Experience Means Nothing
Informative article yet I still don’t need advice on how to knock a girl up.
That’s not the point of the article. Article aims to shed a light on female biology.
The fact that women like to have children of ‘genetically better’ men and have their husband raise them might also have to do with women being very racist in terms of who they fuck*. The paternity fraud thing is likely to be far less problematic if the baby isn’t obviously from a different race than ‘daddy’.
* Women might not be racist at all in terms of friendships but most women are very racist in who they have sex with.
Do you know the definition of racist perhaps pragmatic might be a word to add to your lexicon.
maybe that’s more “geneist”?
Other interesting, related facts:
– The penis’ shape and motion during sex are designed to scoop out competitor sperm.
– A woman’s moaning during sex might have evolved to attract other males who would step in and mate with her after the first male finished (might be why women naturally want to keep going and going but a man has a short endurance for sex).
Citations please.
you don’t need citations to understand the obvious
Also, the monkey tail was removed from evolution because male competitors with shorter tails took the beta males by the tail to remove them during copulation
again, citations please?
They are not facts, it is a theory created by psychologists, not biologists. Nor was it something observed in reality, but a theory by – who else – a jewish psychologist who then tested it with a latex penis molded from a circumcised male, and tested with corn startch in a fake vagina. A circumcised penis is nothing like an natural one, as the lack of forskin creates a hook, which, as women attest to, pulls out fluid from inside the woman, hence women getting banged off circumcised men say they get dried out and need lubricant. That doesn’t occur with natural/ un-jewed men. It is a fake study which has no relation to human biology, hence it is being promoted in every leftist newspaper as ‘scientific’. A rule of thumb, never trust any sex study coming out of America, as jews and their castrated goyim (circumcised men) push their warped reality and call it science, just because it came out of a University.
thanks, flicking through the book, it’s obviously confirming everything i already knew about the fickle nature of women and much more besides….
it’s pretty clear that women have their own program running subconsciously and that even if you can have a rational conversation with them, the chances of achieving a planned result are almost zero.
it’s just more evidence that staying single is a better option if you want to maintain your finances and sanity
“it’s pretty clear that women have their own program running subconsciously and that even if you can have a rational conversation with them, the chances of achieving a planned result are almost zero.”
A planned result? What are they supposed to do, willingly bend to your every desire?
It’s an idea. Like men do all the time.
Wow, this website sure is convincing evidence of that.
Yes. They point out how to avoid women who will not give back in relationships or are not good for you, tell men to improve themselves and quit whining, and state certain facts as they are. I don’t understand why you have a problem with that.
PS: I suppose my earlier comment should’ve read ‘like men do most of the time’.
Other than the utter hatred of women this website advocates for?
P.S.: I guess when people say on here that Nazis are better than feminists, they mean most Nazis, right?
There is hatred for certain types of behaviour from women, and certain types of women. There is also ‘hatred’ directed at whiny men.
Hatred against women would involve all the site owners and commenters taking bricks and bashing women’s heads in, or widespread rapes. Etcetera, etcetera.
Where’s the evidence that men want to do any of those? None.
PS: Maybe.
“Hatred against women would involve all the site owners and commenters taking bricks and bashing women’s heads in”
that’s interesting, because that’s exactly what one poster wanted to do!
“or widespread rapes.”
…..
“There is hatred for certain women’s behaviour, and certain types of women”
No, not really. All of the articles on the site are like, “women are worthless.” Even when they display the behavior that the article writers want.
“Where’s the evidence that men want to do any of those? None.”
So no women are getting raped nowadays. Kay.
What poster?
What ‘women are worthless’ articles?
Yeah, no women are getting raped nowadays. And no men are getting falsely accused of rape.
quoted:
“This will end when Western men stop being pussys and start punching women in the face.
Yes, punching them in the face. in public.
You see, in many arab and asian socieities, there is none of this bullshit about “never hitting a woman”. They consider women to be parasites and they have no compunction whatsoever about hauling off and slapping the shit out of them. Or shooting them in the heads and watching their brains splatter on the sidewalk. Whatever. Women have no protected status.
That’s where Western society is headed. When we get there, then Feminism will stop. That simple.”
more quotes from this site:
“Don’t let women in to your sub-culture unless you want it permanently disfigured.”
“After studying some evolutionary psychology, I was shocked to find that a woman’s scheming ways are actually a biological instilled trait, one she cannot readily control.”
You mean the article ‘This is what a feminist looks like’? That one’s about feminists. Are all women feminists? And it’s talking about feminists who have beaten up men.
‘Only when manhood is dead – and it will perish when ravaged femininity no longer sustains it – only then will we know what it is to be free.
Andrea Dworkin’
Can’t blame men for wanting to beat her up.
I live in an Asian society, and I observe Arabic societies. I see manboobs more often than not here who get pushed around by their women. Arabic societies actually tell men to first verbally chasten your wife, then sleep in separate beds, and then only a ‘light’ form of beating is allowed (you’re probably quoting from the Muslim holy book) – to chasten her when she does wrong. Anything heavy and he can go to court.
‘ “Don’t let women in to your sub-culture unless you want it permanently disfigured.” ‘
Not misogynistic. Case in point: Western Civ.
‘ “After studying some evolutionary psychology, I was shocked to find that a woman’s scheming ways are actually a biological instilled trait, one she cannot readily control.” ‘
Possible. See the results of broken relationships. Or do you need figures?
Top 10 reasons to date a women with an eating disorder.
If that’s not an obviously display of dismissal and hatred for women, I don’t know what is.
“Can’t blame men for wanting to beat them up.”
One, you’re making the generalization that all feminists are like that. Two, in what situation is it acceptable to be violent towards anyone, other than in self-defense?
“Anything heavy and he can go to court.”
I was quoting someone else. And yes, I mentioned that in my comment to him.
“Not misogynistic. Case in point: Western Civ.”
you’re saying western civilization was completely crippled by women.
let me go through the stages of implication here.
crippled by women => women aren’t good enough to contribute to civiilzation => women are inferior => misogyny.
“Possible. See the results of broken relationships. Or do you need figures?”
All broken relationships are because of women?
‘Top 10 reasons to date a women with an eating disorder.
If that’s not an obviously display of dismissal and hatred for women, I don’t know what is.’
If they have someone dating them, they can perhaps be convinced to stop their bulimia.
‘One, you’re making the generalization that all feminists are like that. Two, in what situation is it acceptable to be violent towards anyone, other than in self-defense?’
Mary Daily, Sharon Osbourne, Andrea Dworkin, ihatemen.org, Marilyn French, Valerie Solanas … well, the leaders were like that, and it affected the followers.
‘ “Not misogynistic. Case in point: Western Civ.”
you’re saying western civilization was completely crippled by women. ‘
Not quite. But women’s anti-civ ideas (implemented by men) did it. Men are at fault as well, of course.
‘crippled by women => women aren’t good enough to contribute to civiilzation => women are inferior => misogyny’
Most women who have anti-civ ideas should not. They should learn and push pro-civ ideas. No inferiority implied here, unless you wish them to be.
‘ “Possible. See the results of broken relationships. Or do you need figures?”
All broken relationships are because of women? ‘
No, but 70-80% divorces = women-initiated.
Yeah and that comment got down-votes. Not sure what you’re trying to prove here. Anyways, there are always going to be idiots. It’s made pretty clear that the commenters don’t represent the views of ROK. If you want to criticize this site, link to actual articles.
many broken relationships are because of women YES. 70% of divorces are filed by women.
they are highly emotionally manipulative to the point of making a man’s life utterly miserable because their subconscious biology is desperate to force out husband no#1 and mate with a new lover. it’s better for a woman to have multiple kids with multiple men than several kids with one man, although socially it becomes a mess.
socially this is totally corrupt and i am releasing an article shortly that explains the mechanics of why all this occurs.
in the past a women’s mating strategy was kept in check, now it is openly promoted, often at the extreme expense of the men who are branded as the bad guys and the cause of all the problems, which is completely unfair and untrue.
even the guy who gets a hand gun and shots his wife and kids, was in all likelihood put through such a torturous emotional situation by his wife that it seemed like a good option… the coin has two sides.
“even the guy who gets a hand gun and shots his wife and kids, was in all likelihood put through such a torturous emotional situation by his wife that it seemed like a good option… ”
I mean, I guess you can’t ask his wife and kids about that. So you can assume all the things you want.
“they are highly emotionally manipulative to the point of making a man’s life utterly miserable because their subconscious biology is desperate to force out husband no#1 and mate with a new lover.”
Interesting. So there’s not a single monogamous woman on this planet?
To respond to your first point: this is a weak rationalization of the existence of the article, which in a number of places implicitly advocates maintaining and exploiting a woman’s eating disorder. Please do not try to make up for the existence of this article (correct title being, of course, “5 Reasons To Date A Girl With An Eating Disorder”) — this is an example of people like you trying to be reasonable and failing because the substrate which you’re trying to defend inherently isn’t. The article is indefensible and should be smitten from the earth like the revolting anti-self-actualization rot that it is should be.
Society has its share of blaming both sides. We have slut-shaming. Your perspective is distorted. Females are more often branded as the ones at fault when perceived promiscuity (read: rape) occurs.
It appears that a major thematic confusion that pervades this website and those that use it is an inability to distinguish between what is and the direction in which change is occurring. What is is that women are all too often blamed for circumstances outside of their control. What also is that society seems to be inherently unreasonable on a number of points in the debate, because it is difficult for most of the population to rise above binary contrasts in thinking to achieve more nuanced understandings of the problem at hand. (This is why we need “critical thinking” in our school curricula.)
What people are trying to achieve is a society in which responsibility is assigned to those who hold it. This happens to be in the direction of shifting some responsibility onto men. This does not mean automatically that men are always depicted as the bad guys now. Far from it; women receive excessive shaming for what is basically shit they had nothing to do with. Accountability on the part of males needs to rise.
This does not mean automatically that our society will become a society in which the responsibility is automatically assigned to a male in every circumstance. That would be a confusion of the first derivative of responsibility-assignment-proportion with the second, to put it briefly.
tl;dr careful what you say, careful what you think.
The article wasn’t about eating disorders.
It was 1) A ploy to get people like you all riled up so that you’d visit the site, thereby driving up traffic. (Which it was monumentally successful at, I might add.)
And 2) A statement to feminists that we’re going to say whatever the FUCK that we want, and there’s not a damn thing you can do about it.
It was PURPOSEFULLY offensive. I honestly doubt that any reader from this site would willingly date a woman with an eating disorder (specifically because she had an eating disorder), and I honestly doubt that the author or Roosh would seriously advocate such a thing. It was meant solely to piss people like you off.
So be it; it has served its function correctly. Unfortunately it appears as if a fellow member of your readership is attempting to defend its message. Which is, well, still wrong. Function of the article regardless.
yes yes because I was born a female I am
“highly emotionally manipulative to the point of making a man’s life utterly miserable because their subconscious biology is desperate to force out husband no#1 and mate with a new lover.”
Wow. as a younger female I just love hearing about how I am doomed to be forever viewed in this way by certain people. That’s great. that’s really fantastic to hear.
that was in response to Ray Wolfson, not saffy, sorry!
also, just because 70% of divorces are filed by women does not, in any way, mean that they were solely responsible for the break down of the marriage.
These are quotes from the article. Explain them.
‘This level of vulnerability often brings out the best in men, whose protector instinct can’t help but get activated.’
‘She’s quick to apologize for transgressions, and will make the extra effort to see you–instead of flaking on you constantly.’ – Sounds odd, but a man who’s NOT flaked on is pleasantly surprised and not likely to push her around much. (Cold-hearted players are a minority.)
‘which in a number of places implicitly advocates maintaining and exploiting a woman’s eating disorder’ – To the level where it requires her to STAY SLIM. Where does it ask her to be bulimic and choking from all the food she spits out? If and when she does that, common sense dictates she should be stopped. I don’t know what prompted you to howl about this ‘trashy article’, unless you’re another guy who loves taking a woman’s side.
As for the first quote. The stated is in opposition to ending the eating disorder and allowing the person in question to stand alone without dependency on another person, male or otherwise, for “protection”. The point is that, sure, protection would be good, but it is demeaning to presume that it is needed in the first place.
As for the second quote. You’ve proffered an explanation yourself. I will review the resultant sequence of conclusions:
1. person P has eating disorder therefore 2. person P will not flake on person Q therefore 3. person Q won’t be unkind to person P.
I ask whether it is an incorrect summary of your position that the advice given by this article results in /overall good/ for person P, who has an eating disorder. I’ll go on assuming that this isn’t a misconstrual of your argument. Please tell me if it is.
It seems obvious that it’s good that P did not flake on Q in the first place. This is good for everyone involved. The problem with this is in the implicit assumptions made by the statements. Specifically, the resultant good for person P stems from person Q not being unkind to person P. To be brief, this is analogous to Aesop’s tale of the wolf and the crane. The crane that stuck its head into the wolf’s mouth to retrieve the bone on which the wolf was choking was “rewarded” precisely because the wolf did not bite off the crane’s head. Obviously this is not actually a reward. In the same way your explanation does not actually result in “good” for the person with the eating disorder. Person P shouldn’t be dating person Q who is an asshole in the first place. Your explanation presumes that the readers of the article would become person Q in this situation, the man who is not flaked upon, which would indicate that this article sources bad for person P.
As for quote 3. Disorder implies that something is amiss here. There are healthier, more self-actualizing ways of staying slim than having an eating disorder. And note that the situation outlined in quote 2 requires this eating disorder to be comorbid with significant psychological dependency problems, invalidating your statement above.
Sorry, I recognize that what I said was sort of obtuse, and I can provide a cleaner summary if you need it–
1. Why can’t this person with the eating disorder just stand for herself
2. Why is it so important that she pleases the man to avoid a penalty in the first place; how about getting rid of the eating disorder and then finding a non-exploitative non-asshole who actually respects her time first?
3. Actually, it doesn’t just require her to stay slim; it requires a disorder, as stated in the article title. There’s something wrong when exploitation of a person is involved anyway.
I am not a guy who loves taking a woman’s side. I am a guy who loves taking a person’s side. An article that advocates the exploitation of a person with an eating disorder is anti-self-actualization and anti-person.
Response 1: I see very few women who stand up and fight for themselves or others on their own, without intervention, so I don’t know what your ‘protection is demeaning’ line means. Most of them discuss their troubles (whether with men or women), what to do in this or that, or other ways which imply needing protection.
Response 2: Good explanation. Though, I was responding to your line about the article ‘which in a number of places implicitly advocates maintaining and exploiting a woman’s eating disorder’. I didn’t mean that an eating disorder means being not flakey. The explanation I gave was intended to show that a girl who makes an effort to please men (eating disorder or not) will cause MOST men to NOT take advantage of her disorder and perhaps help cure it. I see what your interpretation meant, though … a man who takes advantage of a woman like that does need to wake up.
Response 3: Well said. There are healthier ways to do so, surely, but that article says why we should date these girls and how it’s a little less stressful to date them. A sensible man would try to treat any disorder in a woman he likes.
Hahaha, thought I was the only one thinking the last sentence. 🙂
So smart. Good point. Very rational. Much logic. Not even remotely confirmation bias or essentialist. So handsome. So manly.
It’s funny how nothing, nothing riles women up more than the idea of being abandoned, ignored, not taken care of. It’s almost scary.
So you’d be okay with being abandoned, ignored, and not taken care of?
This is what women can’t understand. For a guy, being ignored doesn’t carry the same morbid primitive fear that it does for a girl.
I’m sure that all the male FA’s out there have no fear of being ignored by anyone, much less girls…
yeah i would because i have and always will be able to take care of myself… and i am not afraid and not entitled to anything other than what i earn for myself.
Good for you.
to get attention from a hot 20 something only costs a couple of hundred bucks… women don’t have the same option…. :-)~
I’d rather have a meaningful connection than meaningless sex.
why don’t you exercise a bit so men might also pay attention to you outside the net baby…
So snarkily concise. So many hints of pseudo-intellectual twaddle without actually saying anything. So much perceived self-importance. You are so witty and insightful. I guess that’s to be expected from someone who goes by “Sneaky Lib”. Lol
eff off with that stupid meme, already, Jesus.
Good post. More about the true nature of Western women:
BRIFFAULT’S LAW:
The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.
Corollaries from the Sphere:
– Past benefit provided by the male does not provide for continued or future association.
– Any agreement where the male provides a current benefit in return for a promise of future association is null and void as soon as the male has provided the benefit (see corollary 1)
– A promise of future benefit has limited influence on current/future association, with the influence inversely proportionate to the length of time until the benefit will be given and directly proportionate to the degree to which the female trusts the male (which is not bloody likely).
++++++++++
So, women are generally ruthless, manipulative, amoral, guiltless, avaricious, and worse. This is their base nature.
Patriarchy is the only limit to unchecked female nature. The West does not have any patriarchies therefore female nature is unchecked. Interesting times.
“So, women are generally ruthless, manipulative, amoral, guiltless, avaricious, and worse. This is their base nature.”
I wish you luck in your romantic relationships.
Pussy aint shit but lips and clit.
You ain’t gotta love a bitch to get your dick buttered. Fact that makes it easier.
I also wish you luck in making meaningful connections with half of the population.
*Rolls eyes* I understand your (feminine) need for such a thing :P, however, you may have noticed that you could count the number of couples who’ve managed that on your fingers.
So you’d prefer to not make meaningful connections? Okay then. Carry on.
Nope, pretty sure statistics of people who have stayed married are showing the contrary.
You lost me at “meaningful connections” lol
Exactly my point. 🙂
I’m still thinking about meaningful connections. Fact is that they’re close to 1-2% success rate.
I know of happy marriages and relationships, yes. I don’t say that they don’t exist. Perhaps we ought to count the unhappily married as well, though, or the ones in unhappy relationships.
Example: Suicides by married people. (Funny how the male count is higher.)
This is such an interesting way of thinking!
“well, the failure rate seems high to me, so I won’t take the risk! or even think of the possibility that it takes TWO people to make a relationship work!”
you don’t even need relationships to form meaningful connections with women, you know that?
just treat them like, you know, people.
Cite the number of people, particularly women, who are willing to do that.
And explain why men have started hookups and mini-dates to get quick sex instead of building connections.
‘The failure rate’ is a problem, like it is with businesses and other things, but we’ve got a lot to lose in relationships especially.
I enjoy building meaningful connections as much as the next person, but wouldn’t you abandon a business which incurred heavy losses for you? Or at least be very careful?
Make a relationship work? All the ones who /want/ the relationship work, presumably.
“And explain why men have started hookups and mini-dates to get quick sex instead of building connections.”
In some cases, because of the negativity and sexism this site (as one of many) encourages. On a societal scale, many factors. You have a choice, though, as all humans do– to not do that if you don’t want to.
“I enjoy building meaningful connections as much as the next person, but wouldn’t you abandon a business which gave you heavy losses? Or at least be very careful?”
If the connection was meaningful enough, then it would be worth whatever effort it took to maintain it.
‘Make a relationship work? All the ones who /want/ the ‘
relationship work, presumably.’
Agreed. If it’s profitable to both.
‘In some cases, because of the negativity and sexism this site (as one of many) encourages. On a societal scale, many factors. You have a choice, though, as all humans do– to not do that if you don’t want to.’
Please. It’s a mass men’s movement which reflects women’s desire for ‘jerks’ and ‘arseholes’. Knights in shining armour and men who cared for and stuck by women have been around since the middle ages. If that’s not being rewarded anymore, they’ll change. And they have.
‘If the connection was meaningful enough, then it would be worth whatever effort it took to maintain it.’
Agreed. Hence the ‘at least be very careful’ from my side. But not when it’s killing you or forcing you to give up everything you have.
“Please. It’s a mass men’s movement which reflects women’s desire for ‘jerks’ and ‘arseholes’. ”
As a human being, I have no desire for people who abuse me.
“Agreed. Hence the ‘at least be very careful’ from my side. But not when it’s killing you or forcing you to give up everything you have.”
This usually doesn’t happen in healthy relationships.
‘As a human being, I have no desire for people who abuse me.’
Yes. Neither do we, hence our jerky behaviour. 🙂
‘This usually doesn’t happen in healthy relationships.’
Yes. Which brings us back to: How many are actually there?
Who forced you to be a jerk? If I think someone’s being mean to me, I don’t abuse them back. Especially if I love them.
And do you need precise numerical information before you even try and start one? Why is that so important?
Self-protection is the answer.
Numerical information? No thanks. I can’t even count the numerical info of unhappy relationships. All I can do is be careful.
So true. Much alpha. Totally not hostile and 12.
…
Nice talk, thanks for that. Can’t see how the vulnerability (in men) helps when she’s dumped you and gone with your assets … It doesn’t help us as much.
well, if that happened to you, then I’m truly sorry. But I don’t see how that one case affects your perception of every other woman on this planet. well, I can see it, but it’s not logical.
vulnerability is needed to form genuine emotional connections. sorry if that’s inconvenient–that’s exactly what the video addresses.
Lol, no, it’s okay, I was talking about my male friends. 🙂 They’ve gotten real upset after some harsh dumpings.
I just meant it’s pretty risky for us, what with all those ‘manly’ ideals.
But you’ve made an excellent point, vulnerability is very much essential to keep up a relationship. Even PUA/game haters will notice it in their literature – vulnerability game.
“game”? pretty much the opposite of how you want to go about starting a relationship.
“I just meant it’s pretty risky for us, what with all those ‘manly’ ideals.”
It’s risky for women too.
Then I don’t see why women flock to ‘game’ and staying there, and ‘gamers’ get all the relationships they want too. Weird, eh?
Yes, I didn’t mean to imply that women don’t get broken hearts. But each sex has different things to lose.
I don’t see that at all, at least in the environment I’m in.Again, not all women are like that.
‘just treat them like, you know, people’
Or tall children when it suits women.
NOWALT!
women are fickle, decisive and manipulative according to the very most basic inner workings of their sexuality as discussed in this book the sperm wars…. THEREFORE women cannot help but behave in extremely ruthless ways towards their men when given the opportunity / outlet / necessity / means / motive / support etc.
Saying that “not all women are like that” is nothing more than circumstantial heresay. Given means, motive and opportunity to dump man 1, take 1/2 his money, keep the kids and mate with man2 who is wealthier, healthier, and a better lover, a woman will do that, regardless of ‘what she is like’. She would be a fool not to, her biology and genes demand it on so many subconscious levels she doesn’t even consciously rationalize or moralize about what she is doing.
patonizing men with lame comments like ‘not all women are like that’ is akin to me asking you to swim in a tank with a great white shark and telling you not all sharks will bite you… will you swim ?
society has gone to great lengths to dismantle the checks and balances that were naturally and socially in place to prevent women from mating in the most ruthless fashion… women are legally and socially backed up to behave just as i outlined above.
THEREFORE men are simply safe guarding themselves against the status quo. If you are in a cage with a circus lion it is wise to grab the chair and the whip so you can keep it at bay.
Why would you try to create a “meaningful connection” with women you’re not in a relationship with?
“As a human being, I have no desire for people who abuse me.”
Jerks/assholes don’t necessarily abuse you, except if your definition of “abuse” is very loose.
Game IS how you want to go about starting a relationship if you want her to be deeply attracted.
If a man wants it to last, he’s better err on the side of too little vulnerability than too much.
Because good game is subtle, if women can see it easily, it’s not good game.
Example: Suicides by married people. (Funny how the male count is higher.)
Weaklings lmao
“well, the failure rate seems high to me, so I won’t take the risk! or
even think of the possibility that it takes TWO people to make a
relationship work!”
Easy to say when you aren’t the one facing the prospect of being raped in divorce court and losing custody of any children you might have.
BTW, 80 percent of divorces are initiated by women…
“If the connection was meaningful enough, then it would be worth whatever effort it took to maintain it.”
Again, 80 percent of divorces are initiated by women. Maybe you should take your message over to Jezebel…
But every divorce is a complex situation. You can’t say for sure that women are to blame in each case.
And again, if that happened to you, I’m sorry. But also try to understand the other sisde a little?
Open communication is the most important factor in the relationship’s ability to survive. Being open as a person is part of that.
People who aren’t nice to me? yeah, I’d prefer not to be around them.
Wait, so you’re saying that every guy who’s had a meaningful friendship with a woman is somehow faking it? That’s interesting.
I’m not saying that women are to blame in each case. What I’m saying is that it’s pretty easy for you to talk trash about guys being “afraid to take a risk”, when you don’t have any skin in the game. (Or at least a hell of a lot less to lose than the man.) And it’s also pretty easy to talk trash when it’s women ending 7-8 out of every ten marriages.
What IS the other side? Tell me. I promise I’ll try to understand it, if YOU try to understand our side a little bit. Unfortunately, from what I’ve seen, very few women are willing to do that.
“Given means, motive and opportunity to dump man 1, take 1/2 his money, keep the kids and mate with man2 who is wealthier, healthier, and a better lover, a woman will do that, regardless of ‘what she is like’. ”
Nope, I don’t want to do that.
“THEREFORE women cannot help but behave in extremely ruthless ways towards their men when given the opportunity / outlet / necessity / means / motive / support etc.”
1.5 years of long distance and counting.
” She would be a fool not to, her biology and genes demand it on so many subconscious levels she doesn’t even consciously rationalize or moralize about what she is doing.”
So you’re assuming that she has no choice in the matter. Women are autonomous, independent, human beings–or did you miss that memo.
“unfortunately today, women are legally and socially backed up to behave just as i outlined above.”
Again, sorry I don’t behave like that. I want to make the person I love happy, which apparently is an impossible motive for women to have.
I understand your side. But the thing with pain is that it doesn’t make sense for someone who is in pain to say that their pain is somehow more valid or pressing than another’s. They are equally pressing, and we should try ot help each other.
Personally, I come from a family where my father was not present most of the time because he chose his career instead of his family, and kept his finances separate. No, I’m not blaming him for this. He had legimitate reasons. but it also caused my mother a lot of financial stress and aggravation. See? Pain on both sides.
Look, Saffy. From what I can gather, you’re not a bad person. I honestly think your heart is probably in the right place. But you need to understand that the whole manosphere didn’t spring up on a whim. Men are NOT happy. The arrangement we have with women in modern society is NOT working for us. And the response of you, and most women, seems to be “I understand that. But continue to do it anyway. Because it makes US happy. Don’t worry about what YOU want. Just concentrate on giving us what WE want, even if chances are pretty good that you’re going to end up getting screwed over for it.”
Sorry, but women don’t get to do whatever is in their own best interest, and then expect men to do the opposite. If women should be free to pursue their own self interests at the expense of men (and in today’s society, not only is that encouraged, it’s celebrated.) then men should be free to do the same. And that’s what this site is about…
Bravo!
Most are definitly faking it to get in their pants, but that’s not the point, I’m not saying it’s impossible, re-read my comment.
Okay, so we’re not talking about abuse.
As for not being nice with you, confident charming men aren’t usually the kindest ones, that’s a fact. But few women will pick a blander guy just for being nice.
From a man’s point of view, “the most important factor in the relationship’s ability to survive” is that she’s in mad love with you, nothing more.
Not with bullshit evo psych it isn’t. I could believe that, perhaps, for more moderate writings pointing out ways in which society misperceives or misevaluates men (and these are plenty — hell, society likes to make a goddamn issue out of misrepresenting everyone).
But at this point the writing is strongly suggestive of someone doing the best they can to score a point on the other side without regard for precision, accuracy, truth, or consistency with external frames of reasoning. What I am saying is that the rhetorical techniques employed here strongly resemble those used by a government or other authoritarian entity doing its best to distort the truth consumed by its population to perpetuate its own ends — a no-concessions, blind-to-reality full tilt sprint that grabs whatever assumptions it needs from the side to best smear the subject of attack. When I say blind-to-reality, I mean that it would appear that no matter the true state of affairs, the argument made by this article would still stand. An argument without reference to reality is an argument made by one without sanity.
What you say makes sense. What you say is, indeed, correct, and by substituting a term for any other group in the place of woman or man in your statement, we gain another correct statement. Personal autonomy should never be in the question. But to me it seems like this site in general is going about it the wrong way.
It is interesting that your subject of attention makes such a sudden shift toward the end of your post. It is as if you were doing your best to dissociate yourself from the group that you were naming, as if you were worried that it was not obvious enough that you and they stood apart. Why is it that you find it so important to not be seen as a weakling? Are you perhaps worried about the status of your own masculinity? That the case or not, the frequent presentation of such psychological fixations by users of this website is noteworthy.
As for the accuracy of your last statement: it is a very large rock that one finds oneself underneath when one begins to try tunneling into the hard place. What I’m saying is that I don’t think you would, right now, have the balls to pull the trigger.
I wasn’t discussing the article. I was responding to saffy’s comments. If you have something to add to that discussion, I’d be glad to hear it. But at the moment, I’m not interested in debating this specific article. My comments were on the relationship between men and women in general, and the manosphere as a whole. If you have a problem with the featured article, take it up with the author.
I would hope the status of my masculinity is obvious considering i’m a woman.
Hatbot, you are wrong on several levels and I was wrong to post that, apologies.
Charlie
“confident charming men aren’t usually the kindest ones, that’s a fact. ”
Why is that so automatically contradictory?
“But few women will pick a blander guy just for being nice.”
Sorry. I did. I picked the more compassionate guy. Oops. 😛
Okay. Why is it worthwhile to create meaningful connections with men and not women?
If that’s your idea of a necessary component of a relationship, then I see where you’re getting your thoughts about this. Yes, mutual infatuation normally starts the relationship, but that doesn’t last forever. If you care about them deeply, then you’ll accept their flaws, be forgiving of them, empathize with your partner, and openly communicate your intentions. That’s how a relationship survives.
And this goes for both sides, too–both people in it.
Thank you for attempting to understand.
“Men are NOT happy. The arrangement we have with women in modern society is NOT working for us.”
I think the more reasonable thing to say is that the men who frequent this website are not happy. To make a larger generalization requires the elimination of all other possible reasons of men’s unhappiness, which is difficult.
“And the response of you, and most women, seems to be “I understand that. But continue to do it anyway. Because it makes US happy. Don’t worry about what YOU want. Just concentrate on giving us what WE want, even if chances are pretty good that you’re going to end up getting screwed over for it.”
No, I didn’t say that in my replies. I strongly emphasized that malicious, unempathetic intent, no matter from which gender it originates, is unacceptable. But also understand that life doesn’t have these cut and dry answers about who is to blame for your problems. Most likely, it’s a mix of external and internal factors that can’t be pinned on the “badness” of one individual (which is then somehow extended to the entire sex).
” If women should be free to pursue their own self interests at the expense of men (and in today’s society, not only is that encouraged, it’s celebrated.)”
What kind of self-interests?
Then to add to that discussion. I am happy in my relationship. I feel that my autonomy is extended. I feel that my partner is very (possibly too) responsive when I ask for concessions on her part. We share mutual interests and nobody is getting stepped on when one of us goes to do something. I am thinking that perhaps couples that connect are not so infrequent as you think they are.
The divorce rate, as well as the never married rate would imply otherwise…
You would do this for the same reason you’d try to create a meaningful connection with a man you’re not in a relationship with. They’re interesting people with interesting worldviews that you may wish to assimilate. This seems like the obvious answer. Is there a reason it was not obvious to you?
“We share mutual interests”
This applies to every couple, until it doesn’t.
Otherwise being the 1-2% figure quoted above? Multiply the numbers: 50% divorce rate, 50% never married rate, as an overestimate. Tell me then the proportion of the population that still is conceivably in what I will call a happy relationship.
Information-theoretically, this was two bits of information. You’re going to need six before you can draw a conclusion similar to the 1-2% figure quoted above, unless of course you disagree with that figure.
Then disregard the single point. What again were your conditions for a happy relationship? If you want to specify that compatibility must be long-term on timescales as to be essentially permanent, then none of the justifications that I just give will function. Instead I will have to appeal to an appreciation for human beings with which one has shared important experiences, which condition she certainly qualifies. Consider this post, then, an appeal in that regard.
(oh hell, I didn’t even consider that as an axiom)
A good lesson. Thank you.
“I think the more reasonable thing to say is that the men who frequent this website are not happy.”
The more reasonable thing to say is that men who frequent Return of Kings, RooshV, Chateau Heartiste, Darlock, A Voice for Men, Angry Harry, Just Four Guys, Sunshine Mary, Judgy Bitch, Rollo, and dozens (maybe hundreds) of other sites just like them, as well as the multitudes of guys who have never heard of those sites, but express the same sentiments, are not happy. Even the comments on (non-moderated) mainstream articles regarding gender are filled with pissed off, angry men. Whether you choose to believe it or not, there is a huge and growing contingent of men who are sick and tired of the status quo.
“But also understand that life doesn’t have these cut and dry answers about who is to blame for your problems. Most likely, it’s a mix of external and internal factors that can’t be pinned on the “badness” of one individual (which is then somehow extended to the entire sex).”
I’m sorry, but you’re way off base. I base my opinions on what I see around me every day. I base it on the fact that I have dozens of male friends who only get to see their children once every two weeks (Unless the ex has moved away, which quite a few have). Good men and good fathers, whose only crime was that they bored their wives.I base it on the fact that I can get drunk at a party, have sex with a girl who is also drunk, and, even though she was completely enthusiastic about the sex, if she decides later that she regretted it, I get labelled a rapist and could easily be thrown in jail on nothing more than her word.
I base it on the fact that, even though boys have fallen WAY behind in school, as well as college attendance, no one cares. In fact, it’s celebrated in feminist (and to a slightly lesser extent) mainstream circles. On the other hand, I’m supposed to be offended and outraged that there are more male programmers than female programmers.
And on and on…
To what 1-2% figure are you referring?
If we’re talking about marriage and children, then yes, I would “specify that compatibility must be long-term on timescales as to be essentially permanent”.
“Even the comments on (non-moderated) mainstream articles regarding gender are filled with pissed off, angry men.”
Such is the plight of the internet. It does not represent the consensus of 3.5 billion individuals; In fact, there is no consensus. And why does it matter that just because everyone else might be feeling this way, that you have to as well? You have a choice to be either negative and harsh towards all actions of the opposite gender, regardless of motivation or circumstance, or forgive and understand them.
“I’m sorry, but you’re way off base. I base my opinions on what I see around me every day. I base it on the fact that I have dozens of male friends who only get to see their children once every two weeks ”
OK, then I understand your perspective, and I’m taking it on good faith that these are truly unfortunate situations. But that does not prevent you from understanding the situation fully, and empathizing with both sides. Have you talked to their exes about the reasons why they decided to leave?
“I base it on the fact that, even though boys have fallen WAY behind in school, as well as college attendance, no one cares.”
What if men choose to forgo higher education for work? There are individual choices being made here.
” On the other hand, I’m supposed to be offended and outraged that there are more male programmers than female programmers.And on and on…”
No one’s telling you how to think. You decide, using your brain, what to get offended about.
“It does not represent the consensus of 3.5 billion individuals;”
It represents a pattern. A pattern that wasn’t there ten years ago. That should worry you. It should worry anyone who is concerned about the future relationship between men and women. I never said that ALL men feel this way. I said that a sizable group does. And judging by the way that the angry comments and manosphere sites seem to be popping up more and more every day, it’s a group that’s growing rapidly. It doesn’t take ALL men feeling this way to completely screw up the sexual marketplace or marriage marketplace.
“And why does it matter that just because everyone else might be feeling this way, that you have to as well?”
I DON’T feel this way because all of those other people do. You claimed that the only men who feel this way were the readers of ROK. I was simply pointing out that this isn’t true. Not by a longshot. I feel this way based solely on the relationships and situations I’ve observed in my life.
You have a choice to be either negative and harsh towards all actions of the opposite gender, regardless of motivation or circumstance, or forgive and understand them.”
Would you give the same advice to a woman whose boyfriend cheated on her? A girl who got pumped and dumped? A girl who was taken advantage of by a guy who claimed to care about her? Or, to take things to an extreme, would you give that advice to someone who was violently attacked, mugged, or robbed? I’m not going to allow someone to treat me like shit, and then do my best to “forgive and understand” them. I wouldn’t ask women to do that, and I find it insulting that you would ask men to.
“What if men choose to forgo higher education for work? There are individual choices being made here.”
It’s funny that no one made that argument when boys were doing better in school and attending college at greater rates than women. When that was the case, it was a “national tragedy”. Experts were called in. Politicians got involved. The entire educational system was remade in order to better cater to females. Of course, that also made it completely inhospitable to males, but for some reason no one cares. If boys are doing badly, it must just be due to “individual choices”. The fact that there are still a few professions dominated by men (programmers for instance) doesn’t seem to be a matter of “individual choices”, as least not as far as the powers that be are concerned. It’s a “problem” that we need to find a solution for. The hypocrisy bothers me. If you were truly about equality of the sexes, it would bother you, too.
“No one’s telling you how to think.”
Uhhh. Seriously? You’re doing that right now. It’s the reason you’re commenting on this website. You didn’t come here to read the articles. You came here to influence the readers and tell them what they “should” think and feel.
http://www.justfourguys.com/male-female-directives/
“Why is that so automatically contradictory?”
Because it’s a side effect of confidence and self-esteem.
“Sorry. I did. I picked the more compassionate guy”
I said few, not none. It’s a safe choice, if you don’t get bored it’s good.
Men and women don’t enjoy the same things, and men (except a few feminine ones) usually don’t enjoy women’s conversation, they put up with it, either for intimacy or by social decency.
This is why I said “from a man’s point of view”, I’m not willing to look at it from both sides : If I’m advising a man, I don’t care about his girlfriend, if he’s able to keep her madly in love with him, the relationship will last as long as he wants to.
A situation isn’t always reversable. women usually have no problem enjoying a man’s conversation, but the opposite isn’t true.
Advising a man about what? his relationship? There are two people in a relationship. His girlfriend’s feelings matter. Also, if you think relationships are about power plays, then please don’t get in one.
” I’m not willing to look at it from both sides”
Thank you for your honesty 🙂
” women’s conversation,”
Which is? I enjoy talking about theoretical math and computer science. And every other girl I know has similar passions about something, passions which are not precluded to one gender. Biology. Art. Politics.
So people who have self-esteem can’t be nice??? what???
“pretty sure statistics of people who have stayed married are showing the contrary.”
50% divorce rate would like to have a word with you.
This.
Oi, that wasn’t funny. 🙂 One thing you might notice is that most men are not willing to discuss stressful situations with each other.
*Slaps forehead* I need to oil my brain. Good one.
OMG. Well, fine, if the women in your area go for the kind, sweet men, great. I don’t see that in my area, and most others.
‘not all women are like that’ – I suppose, but it also means that ‘most women are like that’. So I do need to be more careful if most women are ‘like that’. 🙂
Agreed. Because of the unfortunate fact that we speak different languages … well, variety IS a spice.
My point exactly… the 70% one.
Too few of us try to do that. 🙂 I hope that we can understand each other through this, er, ‘comment argument’. I also see your point about considering women to blame in each case, which is crassly untrue. But if women initiate 70% of divorces over any small thing a man did (perhaps some men do that, too, but just some. And even then, they’re more likely to pay alimony.), surely there’s something horribly wrong with the system, the people who set it up, and the women plus some men using it. When men are more likely to lose – their logical senses tingle, they see the probability stats, and opt out.
Good article. Clearly explained (without pictures, dammit). I’m seeing some light…
Lay off I apologized it was mean i know 🙁
Then if something bad happens to them isn’t that their fault? The way I see it, you can either get over your pride or embarrassment and admit you need help or that there is a problem and find a solution then work on it or you wallow in your shit and kill yourself like a coward and waste your life.
I don’t have much sympathy for people that kill themselves, life is hard, you make it what you want, you find happiness where you can, you build up your own world so to speak. Its not going to be stress free or without assholes, but you don’t have to allow that negativity to rule you either. Patience.
There is a lot of hate on this site, honestly i’m not American so i cant say that you are lying etc. but at least try to rationalize that not all women are whores, not all of us use men, not all good girls go bad or start out that way.
My opinion on this whole thing: Moral and integrity seems to be lacking in both sexes of your culture.
Your best bet is to look outside your country for a woman.
This is what happens when you see the world in black and white. Women and men aren’t all the same with totally separate interests. I like science, sci-fi, music, and old movies. My boyfriend likes history, computer science, music, and old movies. Show me the peer-reviewed scientific studies that show all women like the same thing and are slaves to evolutionary psychology. You’re only limiting yourself if you continue to cling to the belief that women are all x, y, z and men are the complete opposite. Nope, I and most women I know love and respect our men, and they respect us. Of course you’ll get shallow, selfish women, but you’ll also find shallow, selfish men.
“if you think relationships are about power plays, then please don’t get in one.”
Making her madly in love with you is no power play, a woman in love is a happy woman. And of course I won’t stop from getting relationships.
“”Advising a man about what? his relationship? There are two people in a relationship.”
Remember we’re on RoK, it’s not worth continuing if you can’t put yourself in the skin of a man (not a couple, just the man) for a second.
Men and women are different, it’s not the topic, it’s the conversation itself. You either get it (most men do) or not, explaining it is tricky and would take some time, so I won’t.
Same answer than to saffysparkles.
Self-esteem and confidence aren’t things you either have or don’t have, it’s gradual. They can be nice, just not all the time. The more self-esteem you have, the more you’ll consider yourself as more important than others.
If so lies your observation then so be it. As a man I personally have no problem enjoying a woman’s conversation. So for me the “situation” is “reversible.” I won’t try to make observations regarding the majority “usually” case, but the people I tend to interact with are the same way.
The more self-esteem you have, the more you’ll consider yourself as more important than others.
No. The definition of self-esteem is having respect for yourself.
Making her madly in love with you is no power play, a woman in love is a happy woman.
But your phrase, “making her madly in love”, implies a power play, that you are the one in control.
Then I made my response directly after that condition. I appreciate human beings with which I have shared important and pleasant experiences, which condition my partner certainly qualifies.
Ctrl-F “1-2%” -> “I’m still thinking about meaningful connections. Fact is that they’re close to 1-2% success rate.”
That was from another poster. I gather that you don’t share their opinion?
Well, I never said it was 100% of men, some of them (usually the most feminised ones) enjoy women’s kind of conversation just as well. Just keep in mind it’s a minority in most countries (sweden for exemple, might be an exception).
No, “power play” isn’t being in control, it’s using your power against someone’s interest.
So as long as she’s happy from it, it’s no power play.
Self-esteem : “amour-propre, confidence, faith in oneself, pride, self-assurance, self-regard, self-respect, vanity”
That’s Collins definition. And from there, you can easily imagine what more of it does.
*synonyms
(not definition)
What an absolute MESS. My brothers, you are seriously lost and are drowning in a sea of conflicting standards, partial truths, a fundamental misunderstanding over the relationships between these truths (and judging by the content here, it’s quite partial and even mixed with misinformation), and finally–simply interpretations of unfortunate experiences that are basically coping-mechanisms in a horrendously misguided society.
Look, I respect what y’all are trying to do here, and I genuinely understand where you are coming from. Every man wants to be socially relevant and attuned to reality. A part of this is the insecurity of feeling irrelevant to reality via a fundamental misunderstanding of ‘how things work’ when it comes to dynamics that so strongly influence our very identities: sexuality, relationships, family etc. and another is the natural desire to be a functional man. The two are not mutually exclusive; we abhor losing our purpose and function. It breeds nihilism and apathy, and these destroy society.
I have read other articles on ROK, and it’s clear that there exist contradictory views, standards, and philosophies on here. This is problematic, because you are clearly still in your infancy in coming to terms with the principles that govern social interaction. It’s trial and error. For example, just yesterday, I read an insightful article about how American Girls Have No Game, and the vast majority of comments praised feminine behaviour and the natural affection properly grounded feminine women draw from a man’s heart, that otherwise dysfunctional women under the influence of feminism never will.
I also liked how Camran Manikfran gradually revealed his vulnerability; it was a display of his honest humanness. It’s clear that he ideally wishes he could ‘love’ a woman and ‘care’ for her, but generic experiences and interpretations of what those experiences mean, in this dysfunctional culture, sow the seed of caution and the hardening of the heart in many contemporary men. The solution is not, however, to vilify women by means of focusing on the negative spectrum of what is possible in their behaviour. Sure, be well aware of this, but to achieve social competence requires that you understand the HOLISTIC nature of women. Put aside these speculative evolutionary-psychology models (I am a Neuroscience major and I can assure you–there’s a whole lotta conflicting ‘data’ out there), and simply focus on the observable patterns and their rational implications.
On top of this, look across various cultures, religions, and the various gender-dynamic social philosophies that exist. You need to recognize that YOUR experiences with women in this culture are NOT the UNIVERSE of human experience. They cannot alone be used to map any sort of HOLISTIC understanding of male and female nature or social principles that govern interactions. Let me give you an example; you have this popular expression of so-called “alpha males” sexually conquering women, while “beta males” are stuck paying the bills.
This creates a very binary picture of manhood. Now, consider for a moment a conservative culture where MOST men ARE so-called “ALPHAS” and strict social conventions regulate the corruption of natural gender-dynamics. These “alphas” then MARRY the women, and build families. They also PROVIDE financially; does this render them “betas” magically? Does it cause their “alpha” traits to magically diminish into thin air? OR, is the very reason their relationships HOLD TOGETHER successfully, is because they ARE TRAINED TO BE ABLE TO LEAD and MANAGE THEIR EXPECTATIONS in a FUNCTIONAL manner?
Look, there’s A LOT I’m getting at here, but there’s no point for me to make this comment any longer then it already is. That was just the icing on the cake. Do yourselves a favour and visit Manhood Academy; read their FREE ebook: “The Principles that Govern Social Interaction” and clear your heads from ALL the misinformation and find the other halves of the partial truths you ALREADY know. You will have peace of mind. I assure you.
Warm regards,
Senor Miguel
Dysfunctional levels of self-esteem work against a man’s functionality. The greatest leaders are responsible for enforcing their expectations, AND meeting the needs of those under their care. Those who are under their care, are required to submit in order to be cared for properly, but JUST leadership MEETS their needs. This is the PROPER and BALANCED function of a socially competent man with regards to his woman as well. These so-called “bad boys/players” and “nice-guys” polar extremes are the by-product of losing social competence.
PS: Those synonyms often carry subjective definitions as well. As for dysfunctional “self-esteem”. Allow me to illustrate this: a man believes he is superman, and so jumps off a 12 story building. He splatters on the ground and is beyond recognition. Millions of women run to the scene with wet pussies–just kidding.
“Women’s kind of conversation”
I find that conversation that can be divided into “men’s kind” and “women’s kind” are generally inane in the first place. If that’s what you’re used to you should find other people to talk to! XD
Jumping from a building because you believe you’re superman isn’t high self-esteem, it’s madness. As for the rest of your comment, you’re drifting away from the topic, I’ll let others debate it with you if they want to.
Want it or not, men and women interact with people differently, I’m not simply talking about topics here. I won’t go further as it seems useless, have a nice day.
tl;dr
Indeed, there is no more to be said. To you as well.
You need to think a bit more critically, mate. On what basis do you say that being ‘mad’ and ‘delusional’ and having dysfunctional levels of self-esteem or vanity are mutually exclusive? Do you honestly think that every ruthless dictator or psychopath didn’t harness an enormous level of ‘vanity’ and ‘dysfunctional’ levels of ‘self-esteem’ to the point of entertaining illusions about both themselves and the world? And no, the rest of my comment is absolutely on point, but you have not understood it. It is drawing on how social interactions work based on universal needs shared by all humans (ex. the need for order). Successfully meeting these needs requires a functional level of self-esteem in a man. Dysfunctional levels work against it. Go to Manhood Academy and check out their free ebook which details these concepts clearly.
If you’re going to be lazy, then you’re clearly not prepared to make a difference in your life. Read the last paragraph and visit the link to ManhoodAcademy. Your time is better spent there.
Mine.
I didn’t think you were serious. I thought my smiley ‘:)’ might indicate that.
You’re right, of course we’re partially responsible for what happens to us. Others do have some responsibility for what they do to us as well, though, which is what I was referring to. Sometimes it may get too much and that’s why they opt out of living, which is what I think needs looking into.
I don’t think ‘all women are whores, not all of us use men, not all good girls go bad or start out that way’, of course, or that all men use women as well. The men who do use women are far fewer than the women who do (a sad fact rooted in biology). Can’t complain about that, since we’re built that way, but it gets excessively exploitative in some situations (for both sexes).
Spoiler: I’m not American. But the place (and continent) I live in is becoming that way.
I’m lazy for what doesn’t interest me. And you advertising your website certainly fit that description.
“Do you honestly think that every ruthless dictator or psychopath didn’t harness an enormous level of ‘vanity’ and ‘dysfunctional’ levels of ‘self-esteem’ to the point of entertaining illusions about both themselves and the world?”
If it gave them more power, then it’s not mad or dysfunctional, it’s ambition.
Your superman gained nothing but death, that’s the difference.
“Go to Manhood Academy and check out their free ebook which details these concepts clearly.”
Damn, more advertising.
Only a bitch-monkey hides within the comfort of their immediate interests without venturing into understanding what’s actually necessary. Social competence IS necessary.
“If it gave them more power, then it’s not mad or dysfunctional, it’s ambition.”
No you moron–start THINKING critically. Power that is yielded to result in disorder around you, ultimately stabs you in the back. This is because it is dysfunctional, and you are inevitably interdependent. “Powerful” feminist leaders who impose a DYSFUNCTIONAL paradigm onto society, will ALSO ultimately suffer (unless they secretly maintain a proper environment in their bubbles) because the paradigm FAILS to meet their OWN needs as well. The same is true with any dysfunctional leader who held power; disorder results and they are unable to sustain whatever system they’re operating from. Inevitably, they crumble.
“Your superman gained nothing but death, that’s the difference.”
I can see you’re an idiot that requires simple concepts be explained to them repeatedly. You’re idiocy has led you to MISS the point: the man who dysfunctionally thinks he’s ‘superman’ will act with grand beliefs about his abilities. This may attract short-term ‘assets’ (give the impression of ‘order’ in their life), but by failing to keep his own ego in check–he ultimately falls into self-destructive behaviour. The lines between delusions and dysfunctional ‘vanity’ become blurred. WOMEN lack the discipline to keep their egos in check and properly remain grounded in reality, which is why they behave self-destructively in the absence of male-leadership. YOUR beliefs are a direct product of being pussy-whipped by an emasculating culture.
“Damn, more advertising.”
Don’t forget to wear a tampon, bitch.
It is necessary, but I don’t share your definition of it.
Getting mad already?
Spending your time writing novels in the comment section of a website you hate and insulting strangers over the internet will sure make me trust your social competence and make want to visit your website.
You don’t really help your cause when your argument basically is trying to prove that the exception is the rule. In a nutshell, all you are really saying is “I’m not like that, so all women aren’t like that”
You’ve either learned where your mistake lies, or you’ve simply chosen the coward’s way out of ignoring reality. But, if you’re too stupid to follow directions, I can’t help you. As for this website–what’s to hate? It’s a unique effort albeit still in its infancy stages.
Ciao!
I’m too stupid to follow directions? Who are you to *give* directions?
To me you’re just some guy who hope to extend his readership by advertising on or larger website. And insulting people you hoped to attract isn’t the best way to do it.
Ciao!
no, I really can’t change how people think.
this is why prostitutes are here for
I wonder what kind of “connection” you’re thinking of.
Then it appears you are too stupid to follow directions from someone who’s educated (that’s who I am; your educator in this case) you on your harmful misunderstandings about the notion of ‘self-esteem’. Whining like an entitlement minded cunt isn’t going to earn you respect. As for this website; it’s an understandable effort by a generation of misguided men without proper role-models in an increasingly emasculated society. It’s highly incomplete though and your readers would fare better learning from our Academy that influences men globally to acquire social competence.
Regards!
Okay, I thought your “Ciao!” meant you were leaving, obviously you aren’t.
“that’s who I am; your educator in this case”
Damn, what a arrogant delusional man your are…
“your readers would fare better learning from our Academy”
If you believe that, good for you being there, but advertising it here is pathetic, we don’t come to your website to say that your readers would be far better reading RoK.
You’re just saying that because advice from this site has led you to a few bad dates and maybe a divorce or two, huh?
Most of the time confident men are the ones who socialize more and have a view on what how the world is and that it’s 2014; sexism should be dead.
I’ve seen someone many happy appearing, long term marriages with children that suddenly, with not an outwardly visible hint, broke apart that I don’t have much confidence in women’s commitment to marriage. The greedy lawyers bombard the audience of “conservative” talk radio constantly. The men’s divorce specialists, the women’s divorce specialists, are a mainstay of the conservative pundits’ shows. And, they all pretend to be in favor of preserving marriages.
Yeah, right, just like abortion clinics encourage pregnant women to keep their babies or to birth them and give them to adoptive parents.
With 80-85% of the easy, “no fault,” divorces being filed by women, and, I suspect, the ones filed by men being driven off by their bitc… uh, wives, and well over 50% of all marriages ending in divorce, getting married doesn’t look like it holds much for men.
The negativity is a reaction to, not a cause of, bad relationships between men and women.
“Sexism?” Relating the bad experiences so many men have heaped on us? By women? Or by A woman? Because wives are women, saying anything about troubles is sexist.
How sexist. How misandrist.
Listen, “offtotheraces,” none of us chose our gender. Your father didn’t choose which gender you turned out to be. None of us men forced any woman, any person, to come into existence or to become male or female.
“Mother Natura” is the sexist.
What appears to be a healthy relationship is all too often appearing so to all but one: the woman. So many times the man is struck “out of the blue” by a divorce service. One day everything seems just fine, and blooey! the process server is at the door. Or hits him at his workplace, kind of like an IRS hit. Good grief, she had good sex with him last night!
“Brian,” “offtotheraces” IS like “that.” Quiet, submissive, dutiful, respectful, hardworking wives don’t come to websites like this one, and don’t spew out bull-diarrhea.
Such wives see that it is in their own best interest, even if they don’t think of it in those terms, to keep their homes, welcome their husbands home, dress for their husbands shortly before their expected arrival, have a hot meal waiting, attend to their “marital duty” in the interest of preserving and building their marriages, and generally do their best to build their husbands up.
When hubby gets home from jousting with dragons all day and arrives at his little castle, he doesn’t need to be met by a dragoness when the drawbridge lowers. Or, about as bad, the wife has been sitting on her fat ass all day on the internet.
If she shares his opinion of himself, it’s a good start. If she thinks better of him than he does of himself, he just may aspire to live up to her image of him.
Building up his little kingdom benefits all of the subjects of the king. Siphoning out all she can out of him as a parasite, then leaving his shriveled husk and seeking a new host is a sorry way to live.
Then why are you here? Get off the internet and tend to your (yes, YOUR: 1 Corinthians 7:4 – you don’t have to believe the Bible is inspired by a supernatural being to recognize much wisdom of the ages) man.
End of reasonable discussion. The Argumentum ad Hominem H-bomb has been thrown.
But women have special privileges and legal favoritisms that men don’t. Their risks are minimal and exaggerated.
At least 50% of women are like that (according to divorce statistics), and I can’t tell the difference, so the odds aren’t worth betting my assets on.
My relationships have children, that’s more than two people by my counting, unless you don’t count your children.
Fag.
“Nope, pretty sure statistics of people who have stayed married are showing the contrary”
SJW douche-bag outed.
So true. I don’t understand why the manginas & morons ignore this fact !
They think ignoring it will get them pussy.
But why, why, why these manginas & morons can’t see the reality ! that the pussy NEEDS dick as much as (probably more than) dick needs a pussy. May be because of societal double standards and because MEN are not united ?
They actually believe the stuff about women being more pure and sensitive than men plus the feminist garbage they’re taught.
I wish you luck at recovering from your smugitis and rectal cranial impaction.
Being a beta male with a steady job with benefits also helps keep the women folk around.
It also helps with being able to pay someone alimony.
For a site you denigrate and disdain, you sure spend a lot of time here, obviously.
“As a human being, I have no desire for people who abuse me.”, so you don’t date American women, safe to say. Or you are a beta cuck who likes that kind of “abuse”.
In theory, you make sense. But only in theory. Go get some more practice.
“not all women are like that”.
Lol.
I’m afraid the only thing keeping my wife somewhat in check is our Catholic faith….but it is very clear to me her behavior is that of someone who is generally not a good person. At all….
Yep. This.
I am married and try to apply game to my marriage…mainly by not giving a shit when she has an outburst….or three. Not letting it phase me….keeping my frame. Any suggestions? I am intending to stay in this marriage long term and start lifting weights and running againg to become more Alpha…suggestions guys?
I miss the days when being divorced was SHAMEFUL.
“But also try to understand the other sisde (sic) a little?”
Look, women run our schools and have manhandled their way into controlling the debate in the western world now for 20 years or more….it is time for us at this site to steer things back towards a more patriarchal (and hence, better) paradigm.
Amen, upvoted!
99% of the time men just want to get laid. That is so obvious.
Yep!
ok here is what i think about you, after reading these few words.
1) “I am married and try to apply game to my marriage”
You are new to the red pill and have been a horrible beta for a long time. You are on the right track but it will take time and a lot of effort on your part to change things. Might lead to the end of your marriage too. More on that later.
2) “…mainly by not giving a shit when she has an outburst….or three. Not letting it phase me….keeping my frame.”
So what exactly is your frame? Stoic? Just let her shout at you? This is not alpha. It would be correct to slap her if she does disrespect you, but in many countries it will get you into trouble. So be the judge where you live. If slapping her is not an option you should leave her, without saying a word and return several hours later without talking where you have been. In an optimal scenario you have a female fuckbuddy who you did have sex with in the meantime and you let your woman FEEL (not with words) you had a good time without her and there is competition. This is a level you do not currently have, so your only option may be to leave, have a drink somewhere and keep your mouth shut.
3) “nd start lifting weights and running againg to become more Alpha” More muscles is a good thing, but it will not make you more alpha. Beeing alpha has 2 aspects: 1) your genes – the natural born football captain type 2) your mindset, who you are.
It is ok to work on the easy part (your body) first, but be aware that you will get more (or any) results from changing your inner beta only. There are plenty of ribbed beta sobs out there you know. Beeing a natural born asshole who has his own selfinterest above all else at all times is the best mindest you can have (in the eyes of women that is in the very least).
And he won’t last, sad to say if it already hasn’t imploded.
Like they exist.
Calm down. Make your peace with science and stop believing in fairy tails, feminism and magic.
Haha. Science. Please cite any scientific sources that were used in this article.
Oh wait, you can’t, because you only want to believe what you already believe. And any contradictory sources will automatically be deemed untrustworthy, even if they’re scientific.
– Science major
I don’t understand this site.
I don’t understand why no one can comprehend that a female could POSSIBLY have a full range of emotions, want to better themselves, and contribute to society…
So far as I can tell the men’s rights subreddit is way more moderate/sane. And so far as I can tell they think these guys are douchebags. And so far as I can tell you think they’re douchebags too. Is this parametrization inaccurate?
Yeah, I don’t either.
Well, I understand the trajectory through which they might get to this closed, ingrained way of thinking.
But to continue on thinking in this manner is simply irrational, and doesn’t actually solve any problems, personal or otherwise.
Figures. You didn’t even read the article. It was based on a book called Sperm Wars. Here is a note about the author:
“Robin Baker is a bestselling author in the field of sexual biology whose
books include SPERM WARS (Basic, 1996), BABY WARS (Ecco, 1999), and SEX IN THE
FUTURE (Arcade, 2000). From 1980-96 he was Reader in Zoology in the School of
Biological Sciences at the University of Manchester, and he has over a hundred
scientific papers and magazine articles to his name. His work and ideas on the
evolution of human behavior have been featured in many television and radio
programs around the world.”
Maybe you need a new major? Perhaps there is an opening in Women’s Studies?
the book is written by a scientist who researched his facts in minute detail, including – if you read the book – putting a micro cam onto a guys penis while he was having sex with his girl friend… enough science for you ?
let’s look at women in combat roles and wonder why there is no cry for women in artic oil rigs, desert gold mining or intercontinental container shipping… ? because women cherry pick the glamorous side of men’s careers and still want the best of being a woman and having a family and raising kids….
the double standards and entitlement are sickening beyond belief, to the point that we are running out of professionals in some fields, because women have consumed so many places in universities and career posts that they then drop out of at 35 odd to start a family…
Lol please, all the scientific evidence in the world couldn’t convince a woman that something she doesn’t like is true.
I remember Bernhard Goetz! He fought crime and shot back.
Best wishes to you and your life partner as well.
Thank you.
Homo.
Did you just try to tell me patriarchy doesn’t exist in the West? Then why are women paid less?
Women are NOT paid less when they do the same job as a man. It’s a myth that simply won’t die. Here’s a mental excercise for you. If you can really pay women 70% of what a man makes and get 100% of the work, why aren’t there companies that are “100% women workers” out there destroying those with mixed workforces? Start a new Ford, make sure all your workers are women, have 70% of the labor cost. Start a plumbing business with all female employees, charge 30% less than anyone else..
If there were really a gap like that, the market would exploit it to maximum effect. Because you don’t see things like I describe above means that the pay gap, simply put, does not exist. Women make 70% of what a man does because they choose less lucrative (easier) fields, work less, take time off to have kids, and generally aren’t as valuable to the company.
The answer: They aren’t.
Women
1) go into fields with stability over pay (think teaching over banking)
2) women work significantly fewer hours than men on average
3) women are significantly more likely to be part time employees
4) men are dominate dangerous fields with higher pay (90+>% of workplace deaths are men)
5) women are significantly more likely to take extended periods of time away from the work force
6) women are attracted to jobs with benefits (more vacation/sick time, flex time, work from home) while men are attracted to pay
7) because women are hypergamous, women tend to marry men smarter than themselves meaning highly intelligent women tend to marry men with MBA, doctorates, etc who earn enough to allow them to stay at home which takes a lot of the smart women out of the workforce (eg: my wife graduated magna c laude)
A 25 year old single female out of college today makes more than a 25 year old single male. If both stay single and work the same amount of hours, that continues.
Here is a long-term study on MBA graduates from a Top 5 program on why no pay gap exists post MBA but shows up 5-10 years post MBA.
http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/marianne.bertrand/research/papers/dynamics_1209.pdf
Highly recommend reading it.
“Patriarchy is the only limit to unchecked female nature. The West does not have any patriarchies therefore female nature is unchecked. Interesting times”
Excellent points made.
The traditional world managed through shame and ostracization took control of the women, sometimes many of them who acted upon their impulses would commit suicide and the society would not care at all for them. Today women are caressed to an insane proportion and when they’re abandoned or just fail the state provides for them, so they marry it and go with the bad boys, that can provide for them nothing. Modern women cannot even raise their kids, they require the state for that.
I say that first thing that the manosphere should accomplish, if and when it will be able to influence, or even, have power is to make people uncaring of women suiciding due to societal pressure on their actions. Only than EVERYONE, who will be alive, will have beautiful and good lives.
Your last paragraph hits the nail… It’s all too common these days.
Western men allow their women to go wild and have their behaviors unchecked and when one of their redpill male buddy calls out female behavior, the magina friends actually try to rationalize for the women’s behavior by saying “oh no she is on her period”, or “you are too serious, relax” or “stop being a bitch” or something like that.
This is why western women often behave like cunts because western society and their men allow them to get away with it.
I say fuck patriarchal society. That reminds on bunch of stupid dudes who can’t find other ways with women so they lock em up.
And they are wrong anyway, for when women wants another cock, she’ll get it. In Arabic societies they will stone women for cheating and women still cheat.
And for all the guys who find women ruthless, manipulative, amoral, guiltless, avaricious, and worse..there is a reason they treat you like shit. They probably smell beta.
I am married to one, this is true. They have no sense of morals like men do…maybe a little guilt, but not much.
“An obscenity like demanding a DNA test would have been outlandish on his part and disrespectful to his wife.”
That’s why you get a $75 dollar do-it-yourself kit and go from there. Or get a vasectomy, like me, and live your life for yourself.
Goddamn, I hate children.
My friend read that book years ago and shared many of its insights with me. It is quite enlightening.
Good facts. Wow. Evolutionary Biology is totally science. Great job. Ur so smart.
Wow just wow. Passivise aggressive snarkasm is totally smart.
You go grrl, evolutionary science is both wrong and misogynist. Let’s refer to proper science instead, like cosmo and astrology.
Those aren’t proper science. Let’s refer to proper science. This site should avoid using “evolutionary biology” as a justification and instead refer directly to the game-theoretic results upon which any evolutionary biological claims are based. I am fairly confident that this will immediately debunk most of the claims set forth on this site as conclusions made by “evolutionary biology.”
Which manifests on this site as evolutionary psychology more often, to be precise. And evo psych is frequently bullshit as employed. Evolutionary biology, in general, is not as bad as this website makes it seem.
Don’t let uneducated morons to write articles here.This one is just plain ridiculous.Who wrote it,a 9 years old?Sperm warriors?Smart mucus?Is it a f** joke?
Was that English? …
Yes. Why did you ask a question the answer to which you already knew? I hypothesize that you were trying to point out the original poster’s admittedly unorthodox grammar.
You are not a computer. You can read that sentence and you can understand it, as well as the objection carried by the words and (if you have a theory of mind more powerful than, say, a dog’s) the reason for which the original poster has the objection. Don’t act stupid. It makes you look stupid.
“Don’t act stupid. It makes you look stupid.”
So does desperately trying to sound smart. Case in point. ^
I more so am implying that if you plan on making any kind of point, and want to be taken seriously, that you should speak somewhat properly. If someone were to text me in that fashion then I wouldn’t care. However, on a forum for discussion I expect better than that.
Whether I can read it or not I automatically take the comment less serious.
This is good.
I am a case in point!
Truly. I was not quite following my own advice either. Yonder sarcasm-and-irony is overrated, and it’d be so much better if everyone were just explicit with what they said. Case in point being myself again, who made a critical error in assumption when being not fully explicit towards Charlie somewhere down there. And I have problems with people not considering the points people are making.
Here specifically MC is disregarding 1234’s valid perspective on how ridiculous a biology (if that’s what it is) oversimplified for mass consumption sounds. Although I guess I don’t have to explain that.
Another fun fact:
You will cum more when fucking a girl from a different race.
As much as I love Return of Kings, I have to say this article is just ridicolous
They must be short of editors, or maybe quality content, as so much of RoKs these days is utterly shit. There is nothing worse than reading an article and realising the writer is 30IQ points below oneself, and has a flimsy understanding of his chosen subject.
Your pud has more brains than your cranium sometimes. If it says it doesn’t want to go into a hole then by god listen to it or you will regret it.
Citations needed.
We’re not here to educate you, shitlord.
might i also suggest “the red queen” by matt ridley. damn good reading on the topic of evolutionary psychology and sexuality.
That is a comprehensive classic. Yet it is a very dense read.
This isn’t true at all the more times you have sex with someone the more likely you are to get pregnant by that person. Human ovulation is concealed so the chances of becoming pregnant from a one time sexual encounter are pretty low as a woman can only become pregnant when she’s ovulating or close to ovulating. On average it takes a couple six months to become pregnant. One night stands and rape rarely ever leads to pregnancy (except in cases in which a woman is raped on multiple occasions.) You disprove you own “theory” by stating that 10% of men are not the biological father of their children if women were more likely to get pregnant by random one time encounters what about the 90% (overwhelming majority of men) who actually do father their children? This information doesn’t even make sense on a cultural level as there would be no need to develop things like marriage and family if it it were true.
Its worse than just this..mens testosterone levels have dropped by half since the fifties with a similar drop in sperm levels. Its now at that critical level where a woman can’t get pregnant..so that office stud is even more likely to knock her up.
Glad you guys finally got around to reading Sperm Wars!!
Every man must read that book.
If public schools and the American university system cared at all about boys and men, Sperm Wars would be required reading.
all of you who read and agreed with this article are sexist pigs
Deeerp
Well, duh. You came all the way here to tell us THAT? LOL!
Oink!
“…The rest are “killers” (who kill other sperm with corrosive poison) and blockers (who prevent other egg-getter’s from probing the cervix).”
Millions of the defective, as far as unable to fertilize, sperms are “pushers” who help move the potential fertilizers along.
A woman’s reproductive tract is hostile territory for all but about 3 days of her cycle. Yet small numbers manage to survive for as many as 10 days in there, usually more like 4 to 5.
Once menstruation is over, the cervical passage produces mucus of several distinct types that combine to “welcime” and preserve sperms in a semi-dormant state. When ovulation approaches, the environment changes, energizing these stored sperms for their journey across the now-friendly endometrium to the uterine (Fallopian) tubes. Miss Ova is on her way from the ovary, carried by the fimbria into the tube, where cilia, hairlike projections of tubal lining cells carry Miss Ova onward.
If everything goes well, Miss Is meets around 10 million suitors, most of which are not capable of fertilization. The first to successfully “knock at her door” is invited in and all others have the door slammed in their faces, their duty done. Part of them go on to be absorbed into the woman’s bloodstream, where a few eventually lodge in her brain.
The law of Moses in the Bible prescribes abstinence during the menstrual flow and for 7 days after it stops, called “purification,” when menstrual residues are cleared out and the new endometrium is growing, then intercourse is allowed and encouraged. After around 14 days with no sex, unless he has a concubine or a maidservant available, he is hot to go at it. He’s been saving up at something like 300 million little wigglers a day, so he has plenty of troops available.
The older of them are about pooped out, but they are still useful for the invasion to prepare the way by reducing the acidity of the vagina toward alkalinity. As they break down, many of their DNA packets pass through the vaginal mucus and between the cells of the lining of the vagina into the woman’s bloodstream.
Is there a place where deleted comments are kept?
It would be interesting overall.
#1 is bullshit, the actual percentage is like 2 or 3%. I would give a citation, but being that the author doesn’t give one, I really don’t feel a need to do so…
What did the book say about probability of homosexual child?
” Women seem to be far more likely to conceive through a casual fling than through sex with a regular partner, which explains why a rapist’s sperm is usually the most successful in impregnating his victims ”
So how does a vagina know that it just received a load of bad-boy jizz? Does it know this because a certain level of violence occurs before the wad gets blown in her, i.e. some slapping the bitch around the room before the cock goes in the pussy?
Since we all know romantic nice guys turn women off and violent assholes get them wet, I’m assuming maybe it’s the adrenaline from the violence / getting slapped around that might trigger the vagina into prepare to receive and accept the fuck juice pending to be flowing inside of her.
If the author of that book is correct, it provides yet more evidence that the human animal is seriously flawed.
It can take years, or maybe never, before a woman is green-lighted by her regular partner that it’s okay to get pregnant. She may intellectually be on board with him to wait until the timing is right, but her body has been preparing every month for a party that never happens. Toss in false alarm late periods coupled with birth control issues and over time what was a pleasure with her regular partner becomes a chore. Enter the bad boy. She has no loyalty towards him, nor does she desire to please him so her animal instincts have free rein. She probably isn’t even aware that her body has hijacked her mind.
Good article. Also thought this insight from another ROK piece is revelant:
“No man will ever be loved or cared about as a human being by a woman, ever. It was once said that women are not good nor bad, they just are. And for philosophical perspectives perhaps that is true. One cannot blame a wolf for being a wolf, it’s simply nature; and it behooves us to be aware of the true nature of women. The flaw may very well lie in men as it would appear that we have been handed down a congenital defect in our brains, or perhaps this is all one big joke played on us by the cosmos or evolutionary biology; in that men desire something that does not care for us outside of tangible resources.”
Women fuck this process up, too, just like they fuck up everything else – look at all of the retarded/damaged/idiotic/untalented people in the world. If their pussies were as prescient as the author of “Sperm Wars” implies, this would not be the case.
An ex of mine had what appeared to be a pretty good supply of genetic poker chips in her stack. But her mask dropped one day and she had a major outburst right in front of me, over absolutely nothing. I left the next day and never saw her again. (We had been cohabitating up to that point in time and I was actually considering having a child with her, such was the level of our “connection” – heh-heh.)
I wondered if I had made the right move for about a day or two afterwards. And then, a couple of years later, I found out she gave birth to a child with some serious birth defects.
A really strong case could be made for the theory that most men and women possess genetic hardwiring that leads to the production of extremely malleable, extensively flawed offspring, who are predisposed to being subservient to the mandates of the elite (i.e., most human offspring have a strong genetic predisposition towards becoming mental and physical slaves)…
This would go a long way towards explaining the female animal’s natural attraction to bad boys. Because bad boys, for the most part, are dumb brutes. Ever know a bad boy who turned into an uber-talented, brilliant, rich, aware guy? (Neither have I.)
The vast majority of bad boys are fake-it-till-you-make-it types, just like most women are. They both wear masks. Know it in yourself, and you will see it in others – and gravitate to it. Like attracts like. Water seeks its own level. Etc.
Are there any reliable sources for #2 and #3? You should add these…otherwise it sounds like tinfoil-hat-phoney baloney
Have you seen those articles showing that women on the pill chose men who they are not sexually attracted but are attracted to them due to the effects of the pill. They then come off the pill to reproduce with their partner, and as their natural sexual desires have come back, find their partners unattractive and go out and cheat with the type of guy they are naturally attracted to. Apparently it is a common effect of the pill/ coming off the pill. Don’t date girls on the pill.
Contraceptives pills block ovulation which is a very effective way to prevent pregnancy. It’s been known for decades that they inhibit female sexual desire, however, newer research, per your comment, indicates they influence female mate choice, too. Who she wants changes when she goes off the pill. Women on the pill who went off because they believed they were queer sometimes go off girls and go for men.
I heard that on Catholic radio…that women who are ON the pill seek the “protector” archetype then when they get off the pill seek the “provider” archetype….
Paternity fraud is an interesting area of study. The American blood donor charity which takes blood and knows parents and childrens blood types, say 10% of men are not the fathers of their children by blood type – which still means many men could be raising other mens children albeit with having the same blood type as the real father.
10% of men are cucked? Methinks the percentage is much higher.
You can be sure there’s gonna be a DNA test if a woman (one night stand or girlfriend) comes to me claiming I am the father of her child.
I think you’d be hard pressed to find a less PC blog post than this one anywhere on the internet.
Sort of like fucking some strange and it produces one hell of a nut bust.
Fucking your usual has variables…sometimes it’s respectable if you’re full and other times its like having to smack the 57 on a bottle of ketchup.
Meh. Any basic biology lesson will tell men are expected to compete even to the death for the chance to procreate with women.
1. was proven to be complete bullshit. Actually the whole book feels like evo-psych bullshit.
Dude most of the crap in this book was later found to be unscientific as fuck. That whole thing about specialized male sperm has never been proven, most scientists say the different looking sperm he saw were later found to be deformed not differentiated due to specialization.
Figures are all over the place on the percentage rate of children whose male parent is not the biological father (cucked). I’ve seen figures from about 2% up to almost 20%. Paternal DNA testing should be a legal option for men and can be performed either prior to or after birth. A woman is 100% certain that the child is hers while a man does not have that advantage. I am simply amazed at the resistance to paternal dna testing, but Big Daddy government doesn’t care who the real father is as long as they have someone to pay the bill. Women also seem to oppose paternal dna testing. Parental acknowledgement forms that men sign after the birth of the baby should have the option of acknowledging the baby but making it subject to paternal dna test confirmation. Talk about stopping this shit in its tracks! Even if the rate was only 2% (1 out of every 50 births), it’d be worth doing as far as I’m concerned. Like Clint/Dirty Harry says, do you feel lucky punk. The man could opt out of paternal dna testing but it’d be at his discretion.
What is with this scientifically inaccurate, pro-rape post? Is this supposed to be satire?
The thing about paternity fraud is it’s much more common among the lower class and unmarried. So don’t think that 10% of White middle class guys are being cucked. The percentage is probably much lower for them. Not to say it isn’t a problem.
I think the best thing we can do is promote the fact that you can get a home DNA test for not a lot of money. And you don’t need the mother’s permission to administer a home DNA test. You can get one from Wal-Mart, do the test when you woman is not around, and if you are the father, she never needs to know that you did the test.
That is, of course, in addition to promoting the fact that there are tons of guys out there raising kids who are not theirs and they have no idea.
I’m sure this is rampant in the colored communities!
Yeah I agree. Upper middle class dont have a 10 percent cuckoldry rate. The bigger problem is the entitled, demanding women you have to deal with.
Basically, women are full of shit. If you haven’t learned that by 13 or 14 years old, then you’re in for a hell of a tough time.
Solution? Yeah, I know. Kratom.
Thanks Tricky Dick!
Feminism paved the way for gay marriage. By insisting that everyone is the same and there are no differences between the genders it was predictable that gay marriage would climb out of the swamp of depravity and dwell among us.
Thanks again feminism, for even more social chaos!
boring old news, dumdum. LOL