Love/hate “drama” and the romance lovemap

I’m in a pub mood. Story time.

Disclaimer: This is about bringing together a lot of ideas in a correct way, instead of the misconceptions from multiple angles that wear blinkers and assume the tip of the iceberg is the whole thing. It’s difficult for me to put into words because I’ve never had to explain it before, so bear with me.

Common observations;

  • Why do women love “drama”? (Not a modern thing).
  • Why do women prefer so-called love-hate relationships to just… love?
  • Why aren’t they happy in an easy relationship? (n.b. This is often called hypergamy by the manosphere. This is wrong. The man isn’t actually anywhere near the centre of that problem, let alone a conveyor belt of them).
  • Finally, why do feminists and other moody women choose inferior status men only to blame the men for their later irritation?

There is a connection.

The concept of a lovemap was invented by a paedophile sexologist but it’s somewhat accurate, he simply gave it a name. A better way to think of it is as a set collection of impressions and beliefs regarding sex and the courting of the sexes similar to a schema. Everything from fairytales, to comic books, to the Bible, to family stories, urban legends, town gossip and so on. A big puddle of information related to the topic, from a genetic perspective this is priority #1, hence the strength of this lovemap/template/schemata.

The most valuable resource on this topic is the written projection of the Female Lovemap General onto paper, billions of times over. I’m referring, of course, to romance novels. Consider the almost monomythic similiarity between these stories. That’s the Romance Lovemap of Women. There is no choice, all women are aware and affected by it to some extent. There is a probably a parallel for men too. I dunno about that.

What does this schema call for?

In essence, a submissive beautiful woman clashes with dominant noble man.
(n.b. This is not “tingles” or other infantile descriptions of lust by the manosphere that make women cringe in disgust, it would be like calling male lust the Flow for the blood movement; this is a purely psychological phenomena of attraction which is sexual, but only to the extent that it requires both the sexes, one man and one woman, it has nothing to do with sexual congress per se).
The course of true love and all that jazz (Shakespeare merely noticed this).

By being submissive, the woman conquers the strong man in a way even other men cannot. This is how women win. Feminine wiles and control from the King’s ear. Various stories aimed at men are based on warning them about the potential for this, it’s likely part of their Lovemap and the moral of the story is in choosing a (non-crazy, good) woman who will at least guide you in a prosperous direction for you both (behind every good man…).
It isn’t twisted logic that you may be strong by being ostensibly weak when you realize the sexes are unequal but complimentary. It reminds me of a passage of Taoism, by Laozi naturally;

In the world there is nothing more submissive and weak than water. Yet for attacking that which is hard and strong nothing can surpass it. This is because there is nothing that can take its place.

The manosphere, and MGTOW especially, would do well to meditate on this symbol on a daily basis.

Women are not the enemy. Modernity is.
No man would exist without a woman to birth him.

I digress.

What explains the above examples of seemingly irrational behaviour? (Irrational if you are a simple man who prefers to look for the easiest possible solution to feel better about himself instead of the correct one).
Their lovemap is being damaged. Something has gone wrong. Just like women nag a man to do a DIY project they’ve left for weeks with increasing irritation, as the man isn’t pulling his weight on the gender scales, this becomes a central issue in their mind long-term.

[Also yes, that’s why. Women keep the nest and men guard it in one piece. When pieces start breaking it becomes their job but happens to be on our primary territory.]

How does this hypothesis match up, case by case?

well doctor

*deep intake of breath*

  • In romance novels, there is always an external social conflict in the plot i.e. “I want to be with you! -We can’t!” *swoon* This is usually family, protective fathers and clucky mothers, but may be as generic as a disparity in social class or later on, an occupational hierarchy. This introduces an element of taboo common to most relationships however innocent between the sexes before there was even a word for social mobility. Hence you get the same pattern repeating in literally all the bloody stories: humble girl/aristocrat, good girl/rebel (n.b. not for his damaging behaviours or Dark Triad psyche, but the taboo of socialization with him whatsoever), Teacher/Student and recently, Rich Man/Secretary Underling. The difference in social power adds a certain spice. When the gap is broached, and they overcome the difference, the attraction fizzles like a firework in April.
  • Love/hate relationships are tricky because it’s often a synonym for entirely different emotions and women certainly feel multiple emotions simultaneously in love (it isn’t crazy, it’s processing) so we give it the first relevant-ish word that pops into our head. Essentially we’re discussing the balance between positive and negative emotions. Every healthy relationship, platonic to sexual, has both, because needs are being met or unmet and desires exchanged and negotiated. A woman expects to play the role of woman deep in the subconscious, and this is largely Second in Command barring Special Conditions. It isn’t a bad thing, it’s like sitting with the popular kids at school, a kind of halo effect making you feel wanted and crucially, needed, which means you are worthy to be in the social proximity to this person, who needs and wants your company in turn. (Women compete socially, men compete sexually). A man who solely inspires lovey-dovies is going to make us pause and think Is he gay or something? [another topic of concern] Since we all know men like the chase more than the actual capture. If it’s too easy, there must be a bad reason, and we aren’t going to like it. He’s cheating behind your back and being sweet to keep the guilt at bay is among the most common, we’re totally out of his league and he tricked us into undervaluing ourselves is the runner-up. Others includes He’s totally fake and I fell for it, He doesn’t have a personality what am I doing and the ever-reliable He wants something I don’t care to give and he’s buttering me up as emotional blackmail. I believe this sense of “everything is easy, too easy” is part of supposed Woman’s Intuition. Since when did the course of true love run smooth? Therefore, it’s highly logical on our part to deduce that – It’s going smoothly – with, -It’s going to go wrong – or, – Something is wrong here. That’s totally rational.
  • The “easy” question somewhat relates to the point above with a difference. Few relationships today are marriages, and the only true relationship statuses, as men secretly know in their hearts, are single and married. That’s all folks. Marriages bring in clear responsibilities and duties which many modern nancyboys are allergic to (inc. the DIY). Replace easy with lazy and it’s obvious the problem resides in the unmet needs of a woman who may not be able to vocalize the problem or be heard on the issue, who also senses the man is phoning it in i.e. he communicates she is no longer worthy and the path to commitment she believed she had been building up is revealed to be yet another cruel trick. It’s like the female experience of a pricktease, it’s hard not to hate the entire sex for a while after it occurs. Every relationship has exchange requirements to be met, needs to be fulfilled and simply, both parties need to pull their weight or there is no relationship. Notice how the manosphere never mentions lazy husbands? Yet the mystery of female-instigated divorce goes unsolved…
    Obligations don’t end at the altar, they begin there. 
  • The last example is a basic transgression of the lovemap. The type of boy who will allow himself to be browbeaten by such a useless harpy is essentially the double negative image and type of the Lovemap template. In any other society in history he’d die without touching a boob, he isn’t a fit mate to any woman. You see, they, the feminist, consciously believed they could switch out the roles and take the (apparently) bigger and “better” one, because men and women are the same, right? /sarc Eventually, this schema truth from the lovemap rises and stirs from the slumber of the subconscious, shaking the woman out of the temporary thrill of being “boss”. It grows with each demonstration of the reverse expectation in the male chosen, from his behaviour, to his manner and his dress. She knows deep down she bought a lemon. She begins to doubt him because naturally, feminists never correct themselves on anything. This spirals into a deep resentment until the relationship fails or she checks out mentally to preserve her ego. The ‘men’ go along with this because they know it’s the only way they’ll get laid, subconsciously they know they are an unfit male, probably in total contradiction to any male Lovemap, and that’s how male feminists are born.

A simple introduction but I hope you will permit me to end it there for now.
I’m sure you can apply these concepts to your own observations.

friendly happy nice smile relaxed pretty

Why is “check your privilege” popular? Master-suppression techniques and kafkatrapping

I want to put in a recc. for thought-terminating cliche. Which the SJW lot at wikipedia have deleted as a standalone page.

Lifton said:[4][5]

The language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliché. The most far-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed. These become the start and finish of any ideological analysis.

Kafkatrapping is basically: Your refusal to acknowlege (sin) is proof of (sin) and that is why we condemn you. Yes, history buffs. Witch trial logic. 

It relies on self-hatred and vague evil authorities (cough capitalism)

Sometimes the kafkatrap is presented in less direct forms. A common variant, which I’ll call the Model C, is to assert something like this: “Even if you do not feel yourself to be guilty of {sin,racism,sexism, homophobia,oppression…}, you are guilty because you have benefited from the {sinful,racist,sexist,homophobic,oppressive,…} behavior of others in the system.” The aim of the Model C is to induce the subject to self-condemnation not on the basis of anything the individual subject has actually done, but on the basis of choices by others which the subject typically had no power to affect. The subject must at all costs be prevented from noticing that it is not ultimately possible to be responsible for the behavior of other free human beings.

A close variant of the model C is the model P: “Even if you do not feel yourself to be guilty of {sin,racism,sexism, homophobia,oppression…}, you are guilty because you have a privileged position in the {sinful,racist,sexist,homophobic,oppressive,…} system.” For the model P to work, the subject must be prevented from noticing that the demand to self-condemn is not based on the subject’s own actions or choices or feelings, but rather on an in-group identification ascribed by the operator of the kafkatrap.

It is essential to the operation of all three of the variants of the kafkatrap so far described that the subject’s attention be deflected away from the fact that no wrongdoing by the subject, about which the subject need feel personally guilty, has actually been specified. The kafkatrapper’s objective is to hook into chronic self-doubt in the subject and inflate it, in much the same way an emotional abuser convinces a victim that the abuse is deserved – in fact, the mechanism is identical. Thus kafkatrapping tends to work best on weak and emotionally vulnerable personalities, and poorly on personalities with a strong internalized ethos.

“Oppression”
“Institutional”
“Global”
“____ Culture”
and so forth.

Being a loser can make you crazy

medicalxpress.com/news/2014-12-wealth-power-lack-thereof-heart.html

I am refraining from an easy jibe at SJW expense. Scarcely.

UC Berkeley researchers have linked inflated or deflated feelings of self-worth to such afflictions as , narcissistic personality disorder, , providing yet more evidence that the widening gulf between rich and poor can be bad for your health.

“We found that it is important to consider the motivation to pursue , beliefs about how much power one has attained, pro-social and aggressive strategies for attaining power, and emotions related to attaining power,” said Sheri Johnson, a UC Berkeley psychologist and senior author of the study published in the journal Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice.

It implies men are evil for seeking status too.
There are health studies which show successful people with social status have better health. All other forms are an offshoot.

Studies have long established that feelings of powerlessness and helplessness weaken the immune system, making one more vulnerable to physical and mental ailments. Conversely, an inflated sense of power is among the behaviors associated with bipolar disorder and narcissistic personality disorder, which can be both personally and socially corrosive.

Except women assert dominance socially more than men. http://www.livescience.com/40717-indirect-aggression-between-females-works.html Sure, don’t mention that. Men are power-hungry, never women.

In one study, they were gauged for two distinct kinds of pride: “authentic pride,” which is based on specific achievements and is related to positive social behaviors and healthy self-esteem; and “hubristic pride,” which is defined as being overconfident, and is correlated with aggression, hostility and poor interpersonal skills. [female biased metric]

…”This is the first study to assess the dominance behavioral system across psychopathologies,” Johnson said. “The findings present more evidence that it is important to consider dominance in understanding vulnerability to psychological symptoms.”

It’s fundamentally flawed. Humans need hierarchy. Social dominance is a good thing when the leader is competent.

Did you control for anomalies? No? So who were the crazies? Where is the breakdown of data?
Did you seperate the real achievement group from fake? Did you fact-check? No? Did that division show sex differences? Is that why?

Yeah, that’s why.

Idiocracy is happening: dysgenics is making our brains shrink

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking

“Which brings us to an unpleasant possibility. “You may not want to hear this,” says cognitive scientist David Geary of the University of Missouri, “but I think the best explanation for the decline in our brain size is the idiocracy theory.” Geary is referring to the eponymous 2006 film by Mike Judge about an ordinary guy who becomes involved in a hibernation experiment at the dawn of the 21st century. When he wakes up 500 years later, he is easily the smartest person on the dumbed-down planet. “I think something a little bit like that happened to us,” Geary says. In other words, idiocracy is where we are now.”

Reminds me of something