Link: Amazon Women and why men exist

http://masculineprinciple.blogspot.ca/2015/03/the-amazon-women-science-of-why-males.html

Mostly correct but I must point out the hypergamy thing is bullshit. Hypergamy is based on a higher social status of (in the manosphere) men that women try to borrow or steal. This tries to argue it’s still hypergamy when women have the high social value. WTF? That makes the opposite of sense.

Sorry, no.

wrong dr house urgh shut up idiots

Hypergamy is a social science concept based in social status. It isn’t sexual. It isn’t genetic. Please stop.
It’s like the manosphere is doing a version of that feminist thing where they keep adding to the definition of rape when it suits them. Please stop and use another word for that thing.

I won’t leave you without explanation for replacement.

Babies are parasites to the mother’s body. Baby boys are worse. They are an immunological risk. The mother already suffers microchimerism of the brain and other safeguards are in place to prevent further damage or the reverse, miscarrying/naturally aborting all males to protect the mother fully, which would effectively kill off the species.

It’s a balancing act.

Stop trying to find a winner.

Quick lesson on evolution:

The Y chromosome is younger. Look it up (see n.b.). The Bible is wrong. Women came first. We were self-fertilizing (parthenogenesis) as a simpler asexual species. Much later, we became sexually reproductive as a species, diverging into a sexually dimorphic male and female, because it allowed for a greater genetic diversity and vigour (see: all sex differences) as a whole developed species allowing for faster evolution although it produces differing traits in each sex (specialization) for optimum results.

n.b.

From wikipedia as a starting point;

By definition, it is not necessary that the Y-MRCA and the mt-MRCA should have lived at the same time,[4][5] even though current (as of 2014) estimates suggest the possibility that the two individuals may well have been roughly contemporaneous (albeit with uncertainties ranging in the tens of thousands of years).[6]

The idea of man coming first doesn’t make any sense, you can tell the Bible was written by bloody men trying to justify why their wives should never defy them and how God was totally a man (even the angels were sexless). The first sex would need to bear children without the divine plan for another, good luck with that guys!

Male is the sex surplus to reproductive requirement.
The desert island situation requires women or invites death.
You can still harvest sperm from a dead man.

I love the hamstering here from a man;

Quote: “It’s interesting that many human cultures place such high value on the male.”

“Yes, I think this is a product of patriarchy. In a sense that is ironic because patriarchy evolves to gain complete control of female reproduction (monopolizing a scarce resource).”

First off, female reproduction is not “scarce.” It is everywhere!

Once every 9 months versus once every five minutes. Fuck you.

“Patriarchy” is an attempt to equalize the reproductive process between males and females. It is an attempt to take those useless males and make them productive by attaching them to the reproductive process, of which they are normally rejected from. In fact, in all of nature, the only species which tries to equalize the reproduction of the male and female is the human species.

The weak men offer the comforts of civilization in return for female dependence.
You can’t square a circle. It’s a social construct, it doesn’t change the biological reality.

This pair bonding brought the males into directly provisioning benefits for both the female and the offspring she (and he) produced. Pair bonding between the male and female stopped the tendency of males to “duff each other up” and rather, enticed them to co-operate with each other by bringing them directly into the reproductive process. You can see that this process endorses the views of Robert Briffault, quoted above, who declares that males must bring a benefit to the female in order for her to associate and reproduce with him.

Exactly.
The rest is r/K being squished into a bullshit male/female frame.

As for Amazonian women, they existed pre-civilization.
Men provide civilization and build the home, women keep it and fill it.
Fair exchange, I think.

In the beginning, the duality of sexuality (male and female gender roles) is used to overcome environmental adversity and as the adversity disappears, so does sexual restraint and the need for gender roles… which causes the fall of the civilization and thus again creates the adversity which demands gender roles be enforced.

You need to read some Biohistory, man.

Woman holds the future card, a genetic future, men build it, the cradle.

Link: Podcast – The psychology of attraction

http://psychologyofattractivenesspodcast.blogspot.co.uk/

I’m listening to

Men produce more semen when they view more porn stars.

porn cheat archer
Mandatory picture. Not sorry. 

Coolidge effect = male hypergamy. Suck on that hatefact.

In evolutionary terms, this situation is only supposed to happen a few times in a man’s entire life. To take advantage of the super-rare mating opportunity of multiple, nubile available women.
If it happens frequently, as in porn addicts or the supposed sex addict, it’s bad for your health (endocrine system and so on). That’s why many societies dissuaded it and as the manosphere knows with No Fap, it saps male ambition, one of the greatest male attributes.
Seminal volume also changes with age, there are graphs if you go and look.

Video: Ashley Madison and the argument against female hypergamy

The women marry, but they aren’t interested in cheating or trading up. Sample size: MILLIONS.

A few real ones only made profiles to check for their husbands and never used it again. 

david tennant 10 lol laughing cracking up

Your move, manosphere. Looks like the post-marital promiscuity is all on your sex.

crying laughter lmao

Maybe don’t base your models on Reality TV housewives or club skanks?

laughing rdj crack up

Women don’t want men. Women don’t need men.
But sure, hypergamy is such a thing because men are so desirable rn.
We all want Pajama Boy, he’s so hot. You caught us.
Best husband ever, this 21st Century Millennial man.
The skinny jeans show off that tiny estrogen-grown bulge, the nasal girlish tones and smug, PC talking points make a real man.

They're so stupid it's a laughriot
n.b. The social science definition of hypergamy isn’t bullshit, but it doesn’t really exist in this century, the manosphere’s hypergamy is bullshit. It isn’t even based on marriage, you can’t test for it. It’s unfalsifiable. 

http://socialpathology.blogspot.ca/2012/09/hypergamic-affirmative-action.html

The manosphere rightly criticises women for their diminishing femininity, but what the manosphere does not do so well is criticise the increasing infantisation of men.  When Roosh and his followers point out that quality women are only to be found outside the U.S. he is giving the masculine version of the modern feminist lament that there are no good men at home. What many manosphere commentators fail to recognise is that the nice computer nerd is the male equivalent of the nice fat chick. The manosphere demands thinness  but criticises women for wanting its feminine equivalent. Mote, beam, eye. It’s all a bit of hypocrisy.

They are nice because they have to be, it’s fake.

Calls to take away the rights of women are really nothing more than an affirmative action program for weak and beta men. Desirable men don’t have a problem getting married.

If the manosphere and MGTOW, people dedicated to self-improvement, can’t clean house on themselves, they have no right to complain about the quality of women or the damage of feminism.

Good luck finding a better test than millions of people with the Ashley Madison desert of parched lust. Or should I say, men. Maybe start up a Stan Summers and accept nobody wants you?
To all the wannabe cheating pieces of shit out there:–

porn cheat archer

Naturally, if the fake/VirginTOWs find this, they’ll be very vocal in how this “doesn’t matter” because they “totally don’t need women”. Except, they’re like that kid or ex who feels the need to shout about how they’re ignoring you, how much fun they’re having without you and how they don’t care about what you think. Where women are all raging sluts despite the data but oddly none of these whores will sleep with them even once. Sure, guys, sure. We’re shallow. 

Men need women. For sex, but that’s still a need.
Sex is one of the most valuable things in the world. for this reason.
There are too many men competing. They want it easy, they feel entitled to other people (that’s called slavery btw).
Women, however, don’t really care about sex. Male prostitutes are used, moreover, by other men.
But sure, all these non-existent women want married men, those old, great catches with beer guts and bad teeth, hair problems and ED caused by whacking it to too much porn. It isn’t still a male issue they need to accept and correct that they married without self-control. I’m sure somehow, in some way, you can always find a way to blame women.

It’s feminism with the sexes reversed.
It’s fucking pathetic.

I knew it I'm surrounded by assholes

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

A fairytale about female desire

http://uncabob.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/hypergamy-fisherman-and-his-wife.html

Hypergamy is bullshit.

Sexually, it applies far more to men than it ever could to women. All the sayings we have about getting around are like “men sowing their wild oats” and “trading in for a younger model”. No healthy woman does it. It doesn’t appeal. If anything, the evidence tells us that men are the hypergamous sex, but I still think the term is bullshit. Projection is annoying for the rest of us.

It’s a combination of two things, which are conflated.

  1. r-type promiscuity. r-types think everyone is as morally weak as they are. Of course everyone is a powderkeg of lust who’d never settle down given ample opportunity. /sarc
  2. ambition. Ambition is one of the greatest things a person can have, it’s an intellectual form of hope. A person cannot self-improve without ambition. Not to be confused with hubris or vainglory, which the Left tries to do, to discourage the proles from improving their lot and moving into the Tory voting bracket.

In my experience, those with the delusions of grandeur (read: ALWAYS narcissists) fear responsibility. They desire responsibility, imagined as various titles and powers, because they are the least fit to wield it. So I find this fairytale rather funny, because a woman who went beyond the stone palace  (space to raise children) isn’t a fit wife.

Think of the people who get bossy and always try to be team leader. They must be that way because they’re incompetent and nobody would choose them. Even within a monarchical system, they’d have their heads cut off before the year is out. How many spoiled brat princes did this happen to? Were they alpha, when they couldn’t control their base desires? Narcissists fail to account for the desires (and needs) of others in their daydreams. It doesn’t just apply to women. There is no woman who daydreamed about being a Genghis Khan. How many more ambitious men exist than women? Yes, it’s rooted in testosterone, partially.

Women evolved to desire resources because their lives would often depend on it. Whether their children would starve or survive a winter. Whether they could pay protection money as a serf. It’s as futile to critique a woman for desiring SOME resources (sufficient for a purpose) as to criticize men for having any form of sexual desire. For a lot of supposed redpills, they sure do expect women and men to act and think alike when it comes to sex-specific subjects.

Gratitude is abundant in non-narcissists. Narcissists are made an example of in these types of stories.
Just because you want something doesn’t mean you deserve it. Whether you deserve a thing is judged, yes, JUDGED, by others. Others who will see the narcissist for the coward they are. If such people do gain power, the People enact terrible revenge against the tyrant.

Are polygyny, promiscuity, hypergamy and cuckoldry pathogenic?

http://www.unz.com/pfrost/first-sexual-transmissibility-and-then/

Yes, why aren’t there studies of vaginal bacteria cultures? Doctors already take millions of samples.
I would also like to see male sample studies from STD checks to ascertain % transmission. As do the men, I would imagine.

Is this why feminists are insistent upon receiving oral? Subconsciously trying to pass on promiscuity or cuckoldry-causing strains?

dean that's enough no more internet laptop shut no no no nuhuh supernatural

This is too much of a fuck-mind to consider all at once. It sounds scarily probable.