WWW, Fortune Cookies

Every little girl wants, or so it seems, to be a “princess”. What does that mean? The two key characteristics of princesses appear, in the juvenile mind (and thus not including getting married off to some horrible old power-player), to be spoiled rotten and not to earn the jollies in any way. After all, you are a princess only because your father is a king. There is no question of achievement.

Some people allege that the human female becomes aroused through fear. To me it sounds unlikely as well as unpleasant, but the question ought to be answered empirically not by wishful thinking or its opposite. Because if this is in fact true, then the idea of companionate relationships become futile idealism, promising only the destruction of the human reproductive system.

According to Marco Polo, Tibetan men were not willing to marry women who did not have a lot of sexual experience. And quite right too! But how does this fit with the Readers’ Digest version of evolutionary psychology – all that stuff about male reproductive strategies, paternity confidence, mate-guarding and virgins playing hard-to-get? Is it somehow connected with the god-awful noise made by Tibetan musical instruments?

In a comic postcard shop in Frankfurt I saw one showing a wolf wearing false rabbit ears along with a sharp suit, gold tie-pin, carnation, whisky and cigar. Behind him, two female rabbits with fluted glasses are eying him up. Is the card saying that he is a wicked predator and the poor bunnies are innocent victims? Then why? They have come to a singles bar, so what was their agenda? To get laid and then dine out on being wronged, perhaps?

The origin of the story about dragons liking to eat virgins has nothing to do with sexual anxiety, Jungian archetypes, or any other erudite explanation. If you were a village maiden and heard and believed that story, what would you do? And who would benefit from that?

Some women assume a binary relationship between being fancied and being liked; they assume that a man who wants to fuck them cannot like them as well. Why is this? I suggest projection. They themselves do not like the men from whom they wish to extract resources, and so they judge others by themselves.

Steve Jobs is said to have had a “reality distortion field”. That might also be a useful term for the stock in trade of the skilled seducer of either sex.

Some of us men are notorious for liking variety; and it is a measure of the female hammerlock on morality and psychology that we are obliged to be apologetic about this. Even though a woman who likes a variety of sexual experience becomes a modern heroine. If it is true that, as feminists used to say, “if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament”, it must be equally true that ‘if women were as undiscriminating as men, brothels would be churches’.

The primary aim of many Northern women appears to be not so much their own liberation but the minimisation of male sexual pleasure. If the price of this is the minimisation of their own as well, it is a price they seem quite prepared to pay.

For the zero-sum thinker, the partner’s pleasure is directly subtracted from your own. It follows that the more you show him a bad time, the greater will be your own utility. When this fails to work out, it must be his fault.

Question: What do you get from a century of women who would rather disapprove than fuck?
Answer: The Anglo-American-Scandinavian chattering classes.

Throughout history, there have been two kinds of Permitted Sex. Two, one less than three. One is Marriage, the other is Seduction by a Bad Guy whom everyone is happy blaming.

Female morality boils down to, “A man should give Stuff only to Me, Me, Meee!”

There is a female life-cycle, as regular as that of caterpillars and butterflies: women pretend to be virgins until caught out, whereupon they pretend to be in love, then they pretend to be exploited by bad guys, until finally they discover that lemon-sucking is more fun than sex anyway.

Never, ever, tell a woman about whose welfare you care that a given man in whom she is interested is wicked, cruel and evil. It will only get her more excited.

If common-or-garden male porn is about getting stupendous amounts of sex from hot babes who don’t require any emotional attention, then some female porn (Twilight, we’re looking at you) is about getting stupendous amounts of emotional attention from hunks who don’t require any sex. The unfair asymmetry of the deals is equal.

What would we say about a mechanic who read, spoke and thought only of spanners? But there are women who read nothing but fashion magazines, and nobody thinks that peculiar. A person with no life outside the bonnet of his car is a dork; but a person with no life outside her status hierarchy is a Lady.

It is frequently said that women want two things in a man: looks and personality. But we have gotten the wrong conjunction, it should be or. Personality is only discussed in an inferior-looking man, just as in a woman it is a cruel code for plainness. If the man is physically attractive, nobody cares about his (snort) personality.

The net result of female suffrage has been to oblige male politicians to compete on looks.

In a hierarchical species, the point of having a wedding is that get to have other women following you and carrying your stuff.

Scarlett O’Hara is, like many real women through history, not so much a person as a resource strategy.

A woman’s heart is an organ for detection of good genes and/or good resources.

A woman says about her abuser: “I know he loves me, I just know it.” I wonder what he did to deserve that accolade. Something must have programmed this woman to believe herself unconditionally lovable. Perhaps lack of self-esteem is not the problem after all.

In all our art, Joseph regards the Mother and Child from a distance, and they are oblivious to him. And why not? All he does is pay the bills.

In the old days, before abortion and single motherhood, if a woman got knocked up by someone who abandoned her, what did she do? Married another man with a child already in her belly, of course. It is easy to see why this was necessary. What I have always wondered, however, is whether such women felt nothing at all in the way of compunction and conscience. I suspect that quite a lot of what women tell one another under the rubric of liberation is actually a support of the foisting strategy.

Physiologically we are mammals but behaviourally we are birds. Our reproduction system is not about alpha-male-takes-all, but about gaming the pair-bond and other forms of predation. As with, in their different ways, hawks and cuckoos, we run an arms-race between disguise and awareness. We are evolved to cheat, but also to detect cheating. The newest advance is speech, which may have evolved to let us get away with adultery by ranting about patriarchy, possessiveness and trust. For without the ability to “Discuss The Relationship”, we would have to believe the evidence of our eyes.

It does not make sense for women to want the men who try hard to please them rather than the men who want them urgently. Because the former will keep trying anyway, but the latter will, if not satisfied, wander off to urgently want someone else.

A woman who receives the devotion of a good man will give her body, not to him, but to the first creep whose attention she craves. It will look well on the mantelpiece beside the good man’s devotion.

Philosophers have argued about what it means to call someone a “good man”. Is it detection of an objective quality in him, and if so what, or is it just an approval that could equally well be expressed by going “mmm”? Anyone who has heard women call a man good, however, need not think about naturalistic contra other ethical schools, any more than they do when they hear “good doggie”.

Women gain from cuckolding their mates. They get genetically superior children from superior males who won’t stay with them; and they may get resources or protection from the alphas they cuckold their mates with. High rates of cuckoldry, however, will cause the second-class males to cool off on the idea of providing parental investment. This causes social instability. The solution is, of course, to cuckold your own mate but prevent other women cuckolding theirs. This we call “morality”.

Seen in a cartoon:
Male patient: “She never wants sex any more!”
Therapist: “So cosset her, massage, take a holiday from the kids, buy her stuff.”
Female patient: “He never wants sex any more!”
Therapist: “He’s being unfaithful, leave him!”

Many men have been brought up to believe that women are to be won by being given undying love on a plate. In fact, there is a minority of women who do not want to be given anything – they want to take it. For being given everything you want means that you cannot fulfil the primary female function of censorious remodelling of your partner. Charity is much less fun than coercive extraction.

You never find good-looking men being obnoxious without a train of admiring women. This is, of course, why they are being obnoxious. Why is it more blameworthy to respond to incentives than to provide them?

No, Miss, it’s not that all men are bastards, just that all the men YOU choose are bastards. Why is this our problem?

Behind every violent man is the love of a good woman.

Women laugh at nerds but they laugh with thugs.

One radical explanation for the notorious attraction of women to jerks and assholes is that being involved with a decent man for a change would deprive them of the pleasures of complaining. How would they then fill their time?

Posted on December 31, 2012 at 11:49 by Hugo Grinebiter · Permalink
In: WHAT WOMEN WANT, WWW, Miscellaneous

Leave a Reply