The problem with evopsych


Women always have it better on practically every metric as the baby makers. If we’re sticking to the Naturalistic Fallacy, men are not the superior sex on these counts (cough Hera cough).

If you maintain that God made humans in its image, God is probably a woman.
That would explain parthenogenesis and why Mary was chosen and why Jesus was ritually slaughtered like a temple pig.

Similar jokes, to be even-handed about this.

perfectman fakeit salespitch


Also, we notice when certain people who treat the Bible like gospel on the “respect the authority of Patriarchs” part conveniently ignore the bit about Hell, lust being a sin and forbidden fornication.

Video: Kleptogamy aka the Sneaky Fucker Strategy

I would call this the Bruce Jenner strategy. Cuttlefish spring to mind, donning female pattern colours.
Trannies and gay (really bisexual) men get to spend a lot of solo time with sexually available women. Like men in theatre, cheer-leading or ballet.

This whole series, called Wild Sex, covers evolutionary biology and while moderately tame by redpill standards, it’s hard to deny most of it. I highly recommend it.

Also relevant:

This subtly answers a common manosphere question;

Q: Why are modern women androgynous?
A: Feminist-dominant society punishes them otherwise, wanting to keep the standard required from men low or neutralize the superior competition with similarity (pressure from women) AND in a free sexual marketplace, they get less unwanted attention from aggressive, rude males wanting only one thing (pressure from men). 

Maybe that’s why the question goes unanswered, the manosphere doesn’t want to believe it’s half the problem.

Did I mention I recommend it?

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

Video: The Gay Germ Theory

I’m gonna make this really easy and simple because this guy isn’t a scientist and I’m posting this for curiosity’s sake.

The Party Line as of today (it changes so often);

Born gay/Gay gene? No. We sequenced the whole human genome (the HGP) and we didn’t find it. It isn’t there. We have entirely sequenced many genomes since and it definitely isn’t there. …Unless you argue homosexuals are not a member of homo sapiens. Ouch.
The Gay Uncle ‘hypothesis’ – oh, NOW they like evopsych! They think they can pick and choose, as if the fundamental premises of evolution (and evopsych) selectively apply to an organism according to political expediency! Except…. a fundamental tenet of evopsych is …. the organism’s successful reproduction. Which…. homosexuals are, by definition, incapable of achieving. By evopsychs own priors, it’s impossible. As a theory, which naturally comes under evopsych and requires its priors to stand up to scrutiny? Fail. It isn’t a real evopsych theory. It clashes. Straw clutching.

Now we have that unpleasantness out of the way…

What are the priors of the GG hypothesis? (the theoretical basis which would support it)
I tried to put this in a logical, coherent order as short as humanely possible;

  • the brain takes about a quarter century to fully mature in humans (birth-25yo)
  • during this time, we know humans are susceptible to immunological interference (we call this subject of study immunology, remarkably)
  • the brain is part of both the nervous system and the immune system (that last is incredibly recent)
  • invasive materials can make their way beyond the blood-brain barrier (or BBB, see clinical/neuroscience disorders for all the nasties like brain-eating amoeba, kuru and aluminium-local cell death/neurotoxicity)
  • these include pathogens (but also xenobiotics and other detritus you DO NOT WANT AT ALL)
  • humans are riddled with the things but generally if levels of the good (less harmful, or beneficial stuff) is low the immune system manages to filter it out pretty well
  • combined, our own pathogenic pattern (bacteria, viruses, fungi etc etc), unique as a fingerprint, is called the microbiome
  • it includes what is both outside the body (on the skin, hair, nails) and inside (stomach, primarily)
  • when pathogens get past the BBB, it fucks shit up (hence AT ALL ANYWHERE IN THAT PLACE)
  • like, brain damage and bizarre function and behaviours and it’s like letting a little kid drive a car
  • some pathogens exert controlling behaviours on the organism (e.g. Toxoplasma is the most famous)
  • different pathogens have different effects (duh) as do different strains (also duh)
  • these might vary between organisms based on genetics (epigenetics, controlling various switches on sections of DNA expressed or OFF/inactive)
  • evidence suggests some gut bacteria controls our food choices via the vagus nerve (look it up so you can’t blame me for bias sources)
  • that’s macroscopic, higher-level brain control (motherfuckers)
  • some damage from pathogens is permanent
  • sometimes it lasts until the immune system clears the ‘infection’
  • sometimes a pathogen lies dormant (example everyone knows from school: Herpes)
  • sometimes it is recurring, either from the environment or self-reinfection (microbiome, loved ones or home environment)
  • different strains can reoccur and each new strain cause a different consequence to the body
  • so far, so pretty obvious
  • what about sexuality?
  • in women, sexuality is considered more fluid (fucking impossible to study) and testosterone levels in utero seem a fairly accurate predictor of homosexual tendency
  • consequently, gay germ theory is applied to men, being easier to study with fewer confounds like hormone levels (which don’t really apply)
  • there is an immunological reaction from the mother against male babies in utero if they are younger brothers (antibodies from the firstborn son may cause this overactive reaction to following male siblings)
  • these younger brothers have a much higher chance of being gay as adults (look this up I’m not providing references because it’s broken down)
  • so there is alternate evidence of an immune reaction damaging (or in PC language, altering) the brains somehow with regard to sexuality and this occurs prior to birth (giving opportunity for abortion in the future, but being a weird Born this Way without Conceived this Way)
  • many gay men report being abused physically as children/minors/twinks (look stats up yourself) aka PRIOR to brain maturation
  • why is this important and relevant? STDs, a virulent class of pathogen because pathogens thrive best on mucous membranes (aka mouth, ano-genital region, the prime areas targeted by abusers)
  • the sexual contact needn’t be consensual for STDs to spread to the organism’s microbiome
  • once it’s there, you’re never rid of it, it’s a part of you
  • see the reinfection point above
  • so if it doesn’t change your developing body (or brain) at first, that doesn’t rule out damage later in life
  • if you understand all of this, it’s terrifying
  • there are some studies from the Born this Way crowd who don’t understand neuroscience when they point out with glee “look look! there are different structural brain regions between straight and gay people ZOMG!”
  • how old were they?
  • college-age, right? about 18-21? like most studies?
  • before the brain has finished developing…… (25)…… uhuh……
  • not accounting for individual differences and confounding variables and correlation/causation to imply direct sexuality function
  • but even then, IF we were to ignore those (you shouldn’t but)
  • what’s to say that was the genetic growth trajectory? (caused by genes)
  • why not epigenetics? (can be checked in theory, isn’t)
  • why not pathogenic? (cannot be checked nor ruled out, with present modelling technology)
  • why? bitch, the damage is permanent
  • and since when is a physical abnormality (medical neurological disease technically) for sexuality seen as a good thing? (dumb-arses say “we’re just like you” to “we’re NOTHING like you!”)
  • so we have some structural brain differences
  • between control and experimental groups that primarily differ by sexual orientation (ok)
  • if there is a pathogen which can make an organism not just suppress, but invert, their Darwinian impulses (survive and fuck, in that order of importance) then we MIGHT, just MIGHT have a case to answer
  • ding ding ding I already told you it
  • Toxoplasma gives rats a Death Wish, beyond mere suppression of the will to live
  • by giving them brain damage (their brains are mostly like ours)
  • and they seek out the object/group cause of infection (cats give rats the parasite so rats seek out cats, returning to the origin point)
  • relate this to the abuser facts above and the phrase “cycle of abuse” and cower in Lovecraftian horror
  • how does the brain damage work? oh nothing, just by sexual attraction mechanisms…. no biggie….
  • “That’s right, the rat is turned on. Before it’s permanently turned off.” source, cos it’s a quote
  • so you see, having structural abnormalities in the brain regions associated with sexual desire is, in fact, evidence in favour of the Gay Germ hypothesis and reinforces many many priors (above)
  • homophobia has a higher rate of inheritance than homosexuality does (born this way too?)
  • this is properly (apolitical) the aversion to, and or disgust in response to, the perception of the (un)cleanliness involved with homosexual acts, a common perception being it’s “dirty”
  • in biological terms, a high pathogenic risk factor/behaviour, especially in relation to faeces and anal “sex”
  • which they go on to avoid (and its practicing organisms) in their immediate environment, to protect against infection
  • did I mention Tox-rats get it from cat’s shit? ….from the digestive tract, out of the anus…. which is part of their microbiome…. yeah….. awkward…..
  • this type of latter environmental exposure would explain drastic switches in sexual orientation in middle age or later life (when one organism has encountered millions of pathogens)
  • which coincides with the weakened immune system
  • and neuroplasticity is a thing (when the brain is fully developed, the cells still need to replenish and this process can be damaged or cause abnormal regrowth)
  • Syphilis can reach the brain. Neurosyphilis can cause changes in behaviour. For a prior example in humans.
  • The pathways exist.
  • Herpes may cause brain swelling (aseptic encephalitis).
  • That BBB sure is impenetrable.
  • Sense of smell, as we saw with the Tox-rat, is part of the fundamental sexual desire map of humans (“limbic regions“).
  • Sense of smell is also required for desire of food (see vagus nerve point above and higher-brain control)
  • The amygdala, one of these structures, is constantly reviewing and learning new information (aka theoretically, if we could control this, we could switch homosexuality back to heterosexuality)
  • The hypothalamus, the other, controlled instinct (for food, drink, sex) and is capable of learning….. (same point about switching them back and theoretical conversion therapy applies, switches go both ways)
  • It emotes and governs reproductive behaviours too. A pathogen infecting this region or stimulating it via indirect means (say, another nerve bundle) could easily alter sexual orientation or, especially in the developing brain, to impact later, adult brain structure.
  • “men had greater activity in the amygdala and hypothalamus than did women, writes Hamann. Women showed no significant activation in these regions.” source, hence this applies mostly to men unless refined specifically to account for the many confounds of women, this included.
  • I only covered two brain sections for brevity.
  • It needn’t be an STD form of germ but considering the sexual nature of result (gay sex), those would be the first type of pathogens that require expressly ruling out. And the same pathogens might be transmitted via non-sexual means (e.g. handshake, hug, door handles, whatever).
  • It could be multiple germs. It could be the common cold for all we know. It could be something we could make a vaccine against, now wouldn’t the moral dilemma on that be fun?

I could go on but it would be at risk of repeating myself. That’s a long list.

I think you have enough to go on that this theory, which I was doubtful of myself at first hearing, has much in the way of prior evidence in support of its theoretical basis.

The questions: which pathogen and which brain cells are affected/how require a complete knowledge of the brain to rule out. They require study. If we look for them, and we don’t find them, fair enough. But given the previous findings in these relevant areas, it’s probable we will find something. And the militant gay brigade don’t want us even looking, fuck empiricism, despite how they claim not to believe in it and how we’ll definitely find nothing (then let us look aka science and ‘find nothing’, we call your bluff, if we find nothing you get to spit in our faces and say “we told you so” what’s the problem).

no do not want go away displeased

Another big question: How long can a carrier pass it on?

e.g. The few weeks/months it affects their individual brain structure? (minimal damage radius/vector scenario)
Their entire life from the point of infection onward? (maximal)

This is a huge public health risk.

Bonus round: muh INAH3 finding. Let’s get ready to rum-ble!

wow omg likey

Instead of arguing against this bullshit, I’m going to expect a modicum of intelligence from my readers and post extracts from the book Gay Science: The Ethics of Sexual Orientation Research (2013) which discuss this. I think the words you notice and conclusions you draw based on the written priors above will enlighten you. There is also mention of INAH3 findings in transsexuals“These findings suggest that brain anatomy may play a role in gender identity”.





And the pièce de résistance?


oh damn wow ah

If a man could have a sexbot, why would he want a woman?

Blatantly obvious question to a person with common sense.

Men primarily desire sex, women primarily desire emotional comfort.

You can see women awakening to this discrepancy in their reaction to male sex toys. Oh, theirs are “empowering” but men’s are “gross”….

no what I don't believe it can't be true disbelief pushing daisies

Futurists are sci-fi psychics. If they ever had any prognostic powers, they’d be designing and inventing what they foresaw. It’s highly pop-culture-based guesswork, they slavishly follow trends.

Men on the whole do not desire a woman for reproduction until a certain age or unless they’re broody by character (rather rare and commendable) – they want the appearance of it, the sex act itself, like women want the appearance of a high-quality Alpha (and rarely consider genetic fitness). Evolution is deceptive. It tells us we want A because it is the means to acquire B. Evopsych studies the divide between what we want as an organism and how our mind tricks us into getting it against our better judgement.

The brain is an organ dedicated to self-deception.

Look no further than optical illusions for demonstrations.

Women presume their true value to men (fecundity) compels their desire. In some men, perhaps this is true. On the whole, men are driven by the same superficial concerns as women – the mating markets are designed to make snap judgements so as not to lose opportunity (all those studies about how quickly we assess mate potential, it isn’t the conscious mind doing it in split seconds, is it?)