I was originally taught in college, by supposed "esteemed" professors, that men give love to get sex, and women use sex to get love. And women were monogamous because they needed a man to stay around to help raise their kids. And men were polygamous to "spread their seed."
Looking back to my high school and college days, I found I didn't believe this. For one thing, I met some very promiscuous women (and who they were attracted to had nothing with do with being an "Alpha") and I also found they were capable of multiple orgasms - as in having sex with five guys in a row. Why? It would have nothing to do with monogamy, that's for sure. It surely isn't to get the "genetically superior Alpha sperm" to improve your children.
What I realized quite early is that men are the real romantics, and women can be multiorgasmic sluts. I suppose "Evo-Psych" will come up with some rationalization to "explain" this. Good luck with that.
It's amusing the way "science" can flip-flop when the facts prove wrong long-held theories. It proves they were completely wrong in the first place and yet teaching it with utter assurance.
Some time ago I read the book What Do Women Want?: Adventures in the Science of Female Desire by journalist Daniel Bergner. (I've written about this book before.)
Bergner pointed out that women's sexuality is not some sort of civilizing force, but instead a ravenous, animalistic, civilization-destroying force. Religion has understood this for thousands of years - read the stories of Lilith and Jezebel. Or Joseph and Potiphar's wife.
As for those who dismiss the Bible as being written thousands of years ago by cave-dwelling camel-jockeys...well, they're just plain stupid.
It's clear this is why there are such restrictions on female sexuality. For God's sake, I once had a Romanian hooker sit down next to me and stick her tongue in my ear! And that's the least of what has happened to me.
Now start with the facts - men romantics, women ravenous multi-orgasmic sluts, and then try to Evo-Psych that. You can't do it. You have to take in account that one of the purposes of civilization is to repress the worst of human nature. So there is no "human nature" separate from society.
As for those restrictions on females...here's what one researcher told Bergner: "Those barriers are a testament to the power of the drive itself. It’s a pretty incredible testament. Because the drive must be so strong to override all of that." He also said, "Women’s desire — its inherent range and innate power — is an underestimated and constrained force, even in our times, when all can seem so sexually inundated, so far beyond restriction. Despite the notions our culture continues to imbue, this force is not, for the most part, sparked or sustained by emotional intimacy and safety...one of our most comforting assumptions, soothing perhaps above all to men but clung to by both sexes, that female eros is much better made for monogamy than the male libido, is scarcely more than a fairy tale."
Bergner also said this: "Well, I guess the first thing to say is how struck I was by the distance between reality and the fable that we’ve been taught most recently by evolutionary psychology, that is, that men are driven to spread their seed and women, by comparison, are more driven to find one good provider, and that, therefore, while men are very poorly suited to monogamy, women are much better suited to monogamy. But that just really doesn’t stand up when you look at the science. The science behind that is flimsy, circular. And the science, when you look at it clearly, that stands in opposition to that is actually fairly strong — still emergent, but fairly strong. And so, that was the first thing that was so striking to me."
This, among many other reasons, is why I am such a critic of the Manosphere. A lot of the concepts in it are fairy tales (I recently read an article that claimed the Alpha brain-waves produced by meditation meant the meditator was an "Alpha" in real life. That's just pathetic.)
Those adolescent concepts of Alpha/Beta, shit tests, "chicks dig the Dark Triad," etc...the only reason they believe them is because they read them somewhere. Are they scientific? Not even close. Cherry-picking and Fallacies of Composition are not science.
Someday all this nonsense will sort itself out. The sooner the better.
Oh, by the way, this almost sounds like this: the more promiscuous a woman is, the harder it will be for her to fall in love. I've seen that...just the way I've seen a 13-year-old do five guys in a row.
8 comments:
I seem to recall reading somewhere that EvoPsych was actually created by female researchers. I've been thinking about that sort of "under the surface" recently.
If true then that would make it a female ueber alles of ironic proportions. The EvoPsych quoted so much by the Manosphere and PUAs is nothing more than another social smokescreen thrown up by women to get what they want.
Strangely I find myself laughing my ass off about it. Self-referential schadenfreude. Life has some very strange ironies!
I believe a more accurate way to describe the PUA evaluation of women is that men are polygamous, (driven to spread seed to more than one partner, if not marry and support them) and women are hypergamous--that is, they practice serial monogamy, seeking out the most dominant man their looks can get them. Some women are also quick to chuck a low value man in favor of a high value man, as women who did that in the past had more and healthier babies. (This might also hearken back to the days when one village could slaughter another, kill all the men and steal all of their women. The women who submitted to their new male overlords could live to breed another day, and thus pass on their hypergamous instincts to their female descendants.)
I know you don't think much of the "alpha fucks, beta bucks" phenomenon, but female promiscuity could be explained by women who secured dependable men for their providers, then snuck around and fucked more physically dominant men on the side (having the best of both worlds, strong seed AND abundant resources.) This would explain why adultery was considered such a serious crime throughout most of human history (one that was often punishable by death or mutilation.) It shows just how out of touch our society has become with nature that we think women can cheat and screw around and have such activities NOT bring society to its knees sooner or later. We don't even question why adultery was punished so severely. We just chalk it up to "the neanderthal meanness of the patriarchy" or something like that.
You know what I love? Progressive knowitalls who dismiss the Bible and other ancient texts as being mere "fairy tales written by goatherders which no longer have any relevance to today's society." What the knowitalls don't realize is that it is WE who are living in the fairy tale--a magical world far removed from nature where technology has given us near godlike powers. Unfortunately our innate nature remains the same. We are apes trying to live in a moon capsule. The texts of the ancient goatherders were at least written by people who had an intimate connection with nature, who knew that one misstep in behavior could result in their doom. We stumble through our technological wonderland and have no idea why everything we touch blows up in our faces.
I would suggest that instead of being total bunk, Evo-psych as it is expressed in the mano-sphere is still floundering around a bit.
I did find the concept of "shit tests" to be useful and when I countered such a fitness test the way it was suggested it worked. Other stuff is probably wrong.
Irregardless, yours is a voice of reason which forces the manosphere to at least re-examine it's beliefs and in the process ditch the obvious falsehoods in favour of what really works.
Having said that I also don't agree with everything you say but it's great to read opposing viewpoints and then come to one's own conclusions
"I was originally taught that men give love to get sex, and women use sex to get love."
Yea, typical 'blue pill' indoctrination. Men give *commitment*, and women use sex to get *commitment*.
Fixed that for you.
"Now start with the facts - men are romantics, women ravenous multi-orgasmic sluts, and then try to Evo-Psych that. You can't do it."
Firstly, 'Beta' men are romantics.
Then, of course you can't because you choose to only look at the two dimensions of a thing. Talk about 'fallacy of composition'.
Next, the whole perspective of a woman changes when she has given birth. I know lots of women who have said, I never wanted a child, but now I have one, he is the most important thing in my life.
Female behaviour is mutable, depending on circumstance. Given the ability to control their fertility, their sexuality is released, a womans instinctual behaviour comes to the fore. No chance of pregnancy leads to much more sluttery, and as such behaviour is condoned by society, that leads to more overt hypergamy.
Did you even read the whole article? I said that "human nature" is dependent on society. And scientists were the ones who taught men use love to get sex and women use sex to get love. It wasn't of that "Blue Pill" nonsense (btw, do you know what a metaphor is?). It was "established" science for decades. You know - evo-psych pseudo-science. As for that Alpha/Beta nonsense, that, too, is a metaphor. And looking at "two dimensions" of a thing is not the Fallacy of Composition. It's when you think that what is true of the part is true of the whole. For that matter, a lot of the Manosphere is nothing but that fallacy. Not to mention a house built on sand.
There is nothing new in the Manosphere. The bad was dismissed thousands of years ago and the good is in the process of being discovered - because the denizens are ignorant of history.
"And scientists were the ones who taught men use love to get sex and women use sex to get love."
In all of human history, there was never such a thing as a brothel, nor a whore house, until 'science' introduce 'love'.
"It was "established" science for decades"
Science is only 'established' until a theory that better described observed phenomena comes along.
" It's when you think that what is true of the part is true of the whole."
Which is exactly what you do in each of your articles, take some characteristic of a thing, mis-characterise it, then say, 'look, that's ridiculous , the whole topic must be rubbish'.
"In all of human history, there was never such a thing as a brothel, nor a whore house, until 'science' introduce 'love'."
You gotta be kidding me. Whores have been around for thousands of years. It used to be part of religion and there are Greek vases with whores on them.
So supposedly, 80% of women are fucked by 20% of men (alfalfa's). Yet 80% of men are not alfalfa's. So this need for the best seed must be a cosmic joke then. OR sperm cums in all spectrums of the alphabet, even from alfala males.
Kinda weird when you look at it that way, eh? This need for the alfalfa sperm does not mean that the offspring will be like daddy, another alfalfa. more likely an 80% chance that ole mister alfalfa seed is gonna throw another Betamax or worse.
Kinda disproves this whole seeking of alfalfa sperm thing doncha think?
Post a Comment