What women want

This is not turning into a pua blog. I studied pua long before there was such a word, or such a community, but what I have learned is not easy to express verbally, and anyway other people are one hell of a lot better at it than I am.

The main thing I have learned is that women are incompetent and wicked at making sexual and romantic choices, and should never have been emancipated.

Also the concept of “consent” is not easily mapped onto the real life sexual and romantic behavior of women, and therefore should not be given legal or moral weight. Short of a full marriage ceremony where vows are made before God and man under parental guidance, it is really difficult to say whether a woman consented or not, and makes little practical difference.

Sometimes I watch chick flicks either for social reasons, or to learn the nature of women. The evidence provided by such movies is useful, because I don’t want to discuss my private life, and if I do discuss my private life my commenters are going to say “but those women are no good skanks. Most girls who go to nice universities don’t behave like that”. The movies on the other hand obviously target the norm, the typical female. They have been focus tested as to what gets their audience panties wet.

So:

The anime romance, “Yona of the Dawn”: (which inspired this post) Love interest number one murders Yona’s father. This gives her the total hots. Love interest number one is about to murder her also. Her response is disturbingly erotic, and seriously lacking inclination towards self preservation. Her father’s dead body is lying around during this scene, but she pays it almost no attention. Love interest number two rescues her. You might suppose that this terminates the romance with love interest number one, but you would be wrong. She has a knack for unrescuing herself.

Now you know why female voters vote to import Mohammedans.

“Mike and Dave need Wedding Dates”. Alpha males with massive preselection fall so in love that they turn into beta bucks friendzoned chumps, and the female protagonist fucks someone else.

“The Wedding Date” Mr Beta bucks is so in love he marries the woman who cuckolded him and who shows every indication that she intends to continue to cuckold him.

I am not cherry picking the worst movies. These are just the last three, except for another that was pretty similar. Disloyalty, infidelity, desire for murderers, self destructiveness, desire for violent evil men, and sexual desire overriding duty to kin, friends, and lovers.

One hundred roses monogamy comes from coercively restraining women from bad behavior, which comes from understanding that women are prone to bad behavior. Without external coercion, we tend to get stuck in defect/defect equilibrium.

The Victorian strategy of persuading women to behave well by ascribing good behavior to women bit the Victorians on the ass badly.

127 Responses to “What women want”

    • why am i here says:

      I think the one reason that chicks are super against guns is because of the equality that guns represent. No matter how much you lift, .45 ACP still delivers the same muzzle energy to your heart. Chicks hate that. They hate the idea that Beta Bobby can just kill Chad. You’re supposed to be hot to kill people, damnit!

  1. Anonymous Fake says:

    Not even Schindler’s List was able to break it through to the mainstream just how much sheer sexiness allowed the worst evil to thrive. Joan Rivers even joked about how hot Nazis looked as they stuffed Jews into ovens. It’s undeniable. To this day, respectable liberal anthropologists won’t let any wannabe missionaries impose civilization on the last remaining savage tribes where all reproductive privileges go to the biggest alpha male sociopath available. This is entirely accepted as “natural”. As natural as dysentery.

    Female sexuality is permanently hard-wired going back hundreds of millions of years. It’s uncompromising in its demand for the most cruel, aggressive, atavistic thug to bring humanity back to the jungle on the genetic level. Anyone who despises the “cucks” needs to look good and hard at what the alternative is, the planet of the apes, or even reptiles ideally. The more cold-blooded, the better as far as women think, in the sense that they think at all sexually.

    I wish I could punish women for the utter barbarism they encourage, but they would probably love it. There’s just no winning with them. The most vestigial organ really is the clitoris. The least we could do is circumcise women as much as men are circumcised at birth, in all fairness and equality, and yet they would probably accept it. Men. Cannot. Win.

    If only men were born with the red pill taken as a vaccine there wouldn’t be so much bitterness towards women and the world in general.

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      “Men. Cannot. Win.”

      Sex bots and artificial wombs. I’m sure that would create a society that is horribly malformed and dystopic in its own special way, but it certainly is a winning condition.

      • Your Wife's Son says:

        Also, virtual reality porn, ideally something that can literally translate one’s thoughts into graphics.

      • Oliver Cromwell says:

        Having lived in a country with legal and cheap prostitution, I’m sceptical sex bots will do much.

        • J says:

          Hear, hear! Anon the Fake justifies and promotes female circumcision !!!
          The man is hundred years before (or behind) us and a potential Muslim convert. Cut the clitoris off that girls, so will not be misled into sin by it.

          BTW, the Islam is not your sole choice. You can become a Falasha, the Ethiopian Jewish tribe that never heard of rabbinical judaism and practice female and male circumcision.

          • Your Wife's Son says:

            How about we stop mutilating all children’s genitals for Jewish, Muslim, Puritan, “Medical,” Ethiopian, Transsexual, or any other reason – and severe the heads off those who insist on it?

            “OY VEY THE ANTISEMITISM”

            Yeah, thought so.

          • Your Wife's Son says:

            Hey. Wait a sec. You’re telling me that the Falasha, many of whom have made aliyah already, keep on the clit-chopping practice while in Israel? Because y’know – the black crosses tattooed on their foreheads are still there…

            Yeah, umm. Perhaps there’s no need for #OpenBordersForIsrael. Seems like the baboonization is going strong as is. Rather, should encourage every groid, coon, and rape-ape baboon to declare themselves “Falasha Mura.” Man, anti-racist Hitler’s gonna have a field day with that stuff.

            • J says:

              You imagine that by being loaded into a cargo plane and landing in the Holy Land and starting to receive Social Security the 27th of each month, the Falasha Mura are magically transformed into BGU Political Science majors? Do you think that those who said they were Kessim and were officially co-opted as salaried rabbis, suddenly abandoned centuries old traditions?

              BTW I am for baboonization vs BGU Political Science departmentalization. Each nation needs baboons who are the living cutting edge of its elan vitale. Re-read your Borochov.

              • Your Wife's Son says:

                >BTW I am for baboonization vs BGU Political Science departmentalization.

                I understand that, but for its demographic vigor, Israel needs to draw the line somewhere. Your friend B wants the Pashtuns and the Igbos. When will enough be enough?

              • Your Wife's Son says:

                In fact, your statements are totally in line with RF’s obsessive “high & low vs. middle” theorizing.

                You’re allying with far (baboons) against near (academic leftists who are mostly Ashkenazim). You’re forgetting that once you get the baboons in, you don’t get them out; “once you go black, there’s no coming back” as the cuckold fetishists say.

                I get it – some dysgenics make life more colorful, by reminding humans that they are closer to apes than to angels, a mechanism for “reality check.” But you have to install breaks on the dysgenics train, and Israel hasn’t done that. So off the cliff it flies.

              • Your Wife's Son says:

                Back in 2016 I set out to prove a certain point on this blog. I have since convincingly proved it using B; and now you’re basically providing more evidence for the total madness that Israeli Jews are suffering from regarding their relations with “colorful Jews,” which has been my exact point all along.

                What’s your position on bringing to Israel the Pashtuns (“10 lost tribes”) and the Igbos (“Hebrew gold miners”), J? Does that sound like a good idea?

                While we’re at it: how about those other African tribes claiming to be authentic Jews?

                Now, in contrast to these: how about people who are genetically 50% or even 75% Ashkenazi, but are not halachically Jewish – do you invite them?

                These are not troll questions. B would gladly take in the Pashtuns and the Igbos — not sure if he’d take all the random Africans claiming to be Jews, who knows — but would exclude Curtis Yarvin from making aliyah, at least until the latter “converts.”

                Sick.

              • Your Wife's Son says:

                If you’re bringing in various clit choppers from all over the globe, at least bring in the “Jews” of Latin America and the Caribbean – third world immigration may be bad for clitorises, but it could at least be good for “muh dik,” if you know what I mean.

                (I mean “slutinas”)

                • j says:

                  In your febrile imagination, you have built a cartoon character dedicated to “bring in various clit choppers from all over the globe”. Grow up and start thinking normally.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  Pashtuns and Falasha are clit choppers, and there are Jews who want them in Israel. Where’s the imaginary part?

                • j says:

                  Now that you mention it, clit choppers or more precisely, clit-clippers, may have a point. In your visualize women live an inner fantasy world where they are raped by masked he-men, then it makes sense to calm down their feverish instincts by clit-clipping. If you want to live in a stable, rational, ordered society, you cannot have these female sex maniacs with their volcanic, irrepressible emotions creating strife and trouble around. The inventor of clit clipping was a genius.

                  Of course, I am strongly against primitive butchering. These days we have selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI).

                • Cavalier says:

                  >These days we have selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI).

                  Yes, load them up on soma.

    • Ron says:

      You misunderstand. The women are wired for the sociopath is a feature, not a bug. Weak men rely on civilization the way maggots rely on a corpse. They devour and destroy it. When weak men, ie cucks, babble about civilization, the women unconsciously recognize the weakness in their men and cast them off on favor of barbarians who still have their balls.

      Joan Rivers found the Nazis hot, because they were hot, they were winning. Similarly, women find Israeli combat soldiers hot, because they are taking care of business. Similarly, women found British imperialists hot because they were conqueing the planet. WOMEN ARE ATTRACTED TO WINNERS. BE A WINNER.

      Read “perfidy”. Ben Hechts account of the Kastner trial. Kastner was a Nazi collaborator. At the time, the Nazis did not have anywhere near the number of men they needed to destroy the Hungarian Jews and they were absolutely terrified of another Warsaw Ghetto style uprising. Only instead of 30,000 starving Jews crammed into a few city blocks, they were faced with upwards of 800,000 who were spread out, strong, and had allies among the Hungarians. Kastner, as a major leader was needed to convince the populations to go along woth the Nazos and not revolt. He was also enough of a backstabbing worm to do it.

      This is the problem with cucks. This is why women have a reflexove disgust for them. It isnt evil, its survival. Cucks are worms, they betray and undermine the civilization they claim to serve. Id rather face a brigade of Nazis then deal with a goddamn cuck.

      • Cavalier says:

        >When weak men, i.e. cucks, babble about civilization, the women unconsciously recognize the weakness in their men and cast them off on favor of barbarians who still have their balls.

        This is so good I’m stealing it.

  2. Rape says:

    I like anime too. Jim Donald is the fat old man character that appears in every hentai NTR doujin.

  3. Anonymous says:

    > Akatsuki no Yona
    Man, that’s some seriously crappy crap you’re watching…

    • jim says:

      You perceive it as crap because it is a chick flick. I am sure chicks would say the same thing about “Debbie Does Dallas”

      Do you think there are better chick flicks that express better female values?

      Where is the chick flick that would appeal to women as blue pillers imagine them to be?

      • Bruce says:

        The Wedding Singer with Adam Sandler? I don’t think it was aimed at men – lots of girls think it’s a “cute” or “romantic” movie.

        • Zach says:

          Jesus christ that movie was fucking awful. I was too drunk to leave the chair and not look like a retard. I was raped with a bad movie at a get-together.

        • jim says:

          “The Wedding Singer” is the Captain Kirk story line: Beats up the alpha male and gets the girl. It shows the blue pill working successfully for a man. It tells us what blue pill males want, not what women want.

          Male protagonist loses his girl because his attempt at high status fails, gets a new girl because his status rises. Obvious male blue pill wish fulfillment fantasy.

          If the movie was targeted at women, if Julia was the insert character and Robbie was the love interest, his status would be supercollossal and rising.

          If targeted at women, Julia would be the insert character. But Julia’s rich powerful alpha male preselected fiancee never softens, is always alpha except that the male protagonist gets to beat him up. The male protagonist has lost preselection, and has only his bottom foot on the male status ladder, in that he gets approval from higher status males. That is not a female wish fullfillment fantasy. Female fantasy would be that the massively preselected Glenn softens, realizes that only Julia can make him happy and all his other women do not matter, contemptuously ignores Robbie when Robbie tries to beat him up, nods at security, and security drags Robbie away.

          Robbie gets audience’s wish fulfillment. He beats up the super alpha male who gets all the chicks, and gets approved by higher status males. Julia does not get wish fulfillment. Do you ever see a chick flick where the male love interest gets his status affirmed by males higher in status than himself? The movie has several males whose status is shown to be way higher than that of Robbie, and Julia does not get them. She loses the super alpha, and gets Robbie, who has received a pat on the head by an actual high status male.

          Robbie beats up the super alpha male, gets higher socioeconomic status, gets approval from higher status males, gets the girl. Julia cannot hold the attention of the super high status alpha male who gets all the girls, instead settles for the loser male whose status is shown to be lower than that of every other major male character. Wish fulfillment for blue pill males.

          Getting the alpha males leavings is the male blue pill fantasy. Being the alpha male’s leavings sure is not the female fantasy. Wish fulfillment for Julia would at least have the alpha male unhappy to lose her, and a big emotional scene between her and the alpha male.

          • Bruce says:

            Small correction: Robbie didn’t beat up Glenn – a biker dude chased Glenn off the airplane for Robbie because Glenn was such a jerk that even biker dudes could see it. Glenn sucker-punched Robbie out when Robbie was drunk earlier in the film – fwiw I thought the movie sucked balls.
            What about Titanic? Isn’t that intended for chicks? It’s funny – my wife was sympathetic to “Cal” not “Jack.” She wondered what the heck was wrong with Rose because she didn’t want Cal.

            • jim says:

              Titanic intended for chicks. Chick goes for loser dude, same story line as “the Wild One”, goes for the Jack Dawson character in the film “Titanic” – an unsuccessful musician with no apparent means of support, whose numerous real life equivalents live mostly by sponging off their numerous high IQ high socioeconomic status girlfriends, partly by folding sweaters, partly on welfare, and partly on burglary and drug dealing.

    • lalit says:

      Margaritas Ante Porcos, Senor James MacDonald

  4. Anonymous says:

    IDK, I don’t watch chick flicks. Ask chicks.

    • jim says:

      Chicks don’t seem to realize what the stuff they watch says about their sexual preferences.

      • Herzog says:

        Most chicks don’t realize much of anything. Ninety-plus per cent of them are all about maintaining a facade of nice respectabilty, behind which lurks the female id monster, eagerly waiting for a dark recess in which in can safely be released.

        • Your Wife's Son says:

          >a facade of nice respectabilty, behind which lurks the female id monster

          Lol, do you know what actually lurks behind the niceness facade? For 90% of chicks, the answer is “a void full of nothing.”

          Women are boring, plain and simple. It’s not that there’s no darkness in the hearts of our beloved and much cherished vagina-havers, it’s that — in a normal female — even the darkness is dull and banal. A minority of chicks are incorrigibly sadistic, but most of them are just so… petty. And it’s better that way, frankly: women have been selected for vanity because otherwise we’d be so distracted by their sundry machinations that we wouldn’t be able to build nothin’. Their self-preoccupation, their sheer solipsism, is a blessing disguised as a curse

          Also, some women are genuinely good; as many as 0.01% are practically angelic. This statistic which I’ve just made up means 1 out of 10,000 – surely, then, there’s a whole lot of menstruating angels out there.

          Problem is that 10% of chicks are pieces of shit, which is depressing.

          I’m a big fan of camps: weight loss camps, drug rehab camps, perverted nudism camps, conversion therapy camps, and final solution camps – and I strongly believe that those 10% of chicks who are “bad” belong in the latter. No, really – cleansing the female side of the gene pool is as important as cleansing the male side of it. Trolling aside, this is an important point: you can’t perfect society, you can’t implement eugenics, by focusing exclusively on eradicating anti-social and dysfunctional males. Gotta eradicate anti-social and dysfunctional females, too. On the genetic level.

          After we eradicate those 10% that are shit, most chicks will just be boring, with a few and far between angelic beings made of pure goodness walking amongst them. I’m okay with that.

          No lives matter.

          • jim says:

            I don’t think so.

            Hypergamy never sleeps.

            All women are like that.

            Women’s sexual preferences made sense when we were apes, and have not changed much since then.

            Evolving women to make wise choices would take a long time and a lot of culling, Easier to restrain and manipulate their choices.

            Indeed, men are once again remembering how to manipulate women’s choices. That men have been restraining and manipulating their choices for the last few hundred thousand years is why women have not evolved to make better choices.

            • Simply Connected says:

              Esteemed Jim, your comment on female evolution is a very interesting suggestion.

              Indeed the main step in trying to confirm the “genetic filter” theory for why there are differentiated sexes is showing that evolution works faster on males than females.

              This has been confirmed in the lab for some species, and seems intuitively true since in the environment of adaptation most women have reproduced and most males haven’t. It seems the female design evolves slower than the male design, though I’m sure it’s not that simple due to changes to the female line spreading/being-culled through the male line.

              Hard to imagine that the female-specific behaviors are much affected by the male line, those one would imagine are subject to the much slower female evolutionary rates.

            • Your Wife's Son says:

              >Evolving women to make wise choices would take a long time and a lot of culling, Easier to restrain and manipulate their choices.

              Why not do both: the former for the long-term, the latter for the short-term?

              • jim says:

                > > blockquote>>Evolving women to make wise choices would take a long time and a lot of culling, Easier to restrain and manipulate their choices.

                > Why not do both: the former for the long-term, the latter for the short-term?Not incentive compatible.

                It is incentive compatible to breed women for beauty, but not incentive compatible to breed them for good behavior. Women are both incompetent and wicked in making sexual choices. It is incentive compatible to breed them to make competent choices, not incentive compatible to breed them to make virtuous choices. If state, society, and Church backs marriage and restrains female sexuality, then you cannot really tell a woman who is good because of State, Church, and Society, from a woman who inclined to make wise choices. If state, society, and Church fails to back marriage, and fails to restrain female sexuality then they will behave in a manner that is appropriate to defect/defect equilibrium among apes. Were they to evolve towards wisdom, this would considerably improve some matters, but we would still wind up with behavior that is appropriate to defect/defect equilibrium among humans.

                The problem is not only that women make foolish sexual choices, but also that we have a war of the sexes. Fixing the foolish choices would just enable them to fight the war more competently. Women need guidance for reasons of their self interest, but they also need supervision and control to end the battle of the sexes.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  >Not incentive compatible.

                  Nonsense. Take Japanese women: they’ve been selected for obedience, self-sacrifice, and overall pleasantness, and the selection seems to be successful. I’m not sure if those traits count as “virtue” or “good behavior” in your view, but what we’re trying to do is not set women loose and let them make whatever choices they want, but restrict them harshly, and then watch them behave like sweet little angels within those harsh restrictions binding them.

                  Culling creates pleasantness in women, as you can see in some East Asian and Eastern European women. Without culling, with only the whip hovering above them, you get women who comply with demands, but otherwise are annoying all around. And the question that interests me is not just how to get women to not be total shit, but how to make them real sweet. That, I believe, requires disposing of great many not-good females, which goes hand in hand with culling anti-social and dysfunctional males.

                  So, if you interpret me as advocating for loosening patriarchy and instead just culling bad females from the gene pool, this is a false interpretation. I advocate for a strong patriarchy *and at the same time* for selecting women for pleasantness (or at least, against unpleasantness) like the Japs did. It had taken them long, but the results were pretty good, and while their sexual troubles are great nowadays, “a war of the sexes” is not one of those sexual troubles.

                  As you always say: let’s emulate that which works.

                • jim says:

                  > > Not incentive compatible.

                  > Nonsense. Take Japanese women: they’ve been selected for obedience, self-sacrifice, and overall pleasantness, and the selection seems to be successful.

                  Spandrel knows Japan better than you do, and he reports otherwise.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  I know about Japan from reading old books about it, and those old books extol the virtues of the Japanese woman. If Spandrell reports otherwise from contemporary Japan, that’s very disconcerting.

                  However, compared to women in the Anglosphere, I’m pretty sure that the Japanese chick is still much nicer. Would be very sad if it turned out I was wrong.

                • jim says:

                  Japanese women were famously well behaved before general McArthur emancipated them in 1949. That is to say, they were well behaved when family, society, state and religion compelled good behavior.

                • j says:

                  In my limited experience, Oriental women have a tremendous repertoire of fake emotional scenes, all to the effect of blackmailing you for some material or social gain. They are clean, smart and annoying to a high degree. It is all the same.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >If state, society, and Church backs marriage and restrains female sexuality, then you cannot really tell a woman who is good because of State, Church, and Society, from a woman who inclined to make wise choices.

                  If.

                  >If state, society, and Church fails to back marriage, and fails to restrain female sexuality then they will behave in a manner that is appropriate to defect/defect equilibrium among apes.

                  Most, but not all. And there’s your aristocracy, purest of genes.

                • jim says:

                  All women are like that.

                  And if we allow natural selection to select on female behavior in the modern environment, we will get women who are no longer make such stupid self destructive choices, but who are very good at defecting on men, very good at operating an a modern, rather than ape, environment of defect/defect.

                  To get selection for cooperation, rather than defection, we need collective male behavior to ensure that cooperation is rewarded and defection punished – the standard coercive apparatus of family, society, state, and church to coerce women and restrain female sexuality.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >All women are like that.

                  All women are women. Not all women are defective banshees. Some women are naturally more promiscuous than others, as some races of women are naturally more promiscuous than others. (cough cough)

                  >And if we allow natural selection to select on female behavior in the modern environment, we will get women who are no longer make such stupid self destructive choices, but who are very good at defecting on men, very good at operating an a modern, rather than ape, environment of defect/defect.
                  >To get selection for cooperation, rather than defection, we need collective male behavior to ensure that cooperation is rewarded and defection punished – the standard coercive apparatus of family, society, state, and church to coerce women and restrain female sexuality.

                  What happens if you spend three generations encouraging every woman under your dominion to divorce their husbands, and reward them with the house, kids, and an indentured workhorse taxpayer for the rest of her life (or the next two decades, minimum)? The emergence of a small “class” with women with a very low predisposition to divorce. Sure, everybody else is nuked like a fucking wasteland, but the good genes coalesce nevertheless.

          • Garr says:

            I agree with your “nothing inside” conclusion, YWS — but wouldn’t men inherit some personality characteristics from their mothers, and women from their fathers? I wonder how this works.

            For example, some women (my mother, and various commentresses at Slatestarcodex, for example) generate lots of sentences that look thoughtful and interesting. I take it that this is for the most part verbal “behavior” with not much emotional commitment behind it (not much is felt to be at stake). But wouldn’t these women be likely to have had genuinely thoughtful fathers (e.g. my mother’s father, who would read Dickens and Milton while drinking and crying in the evenings)? And, in turn, wouldn’t the most alarmingly, explicitly sociopathic females be likely to have had the most naturally pick-up-artist-ish fathers?

            Another thing: why do men naturally hope to find a woman who will be an affectionate, loyal sidekick if the idea that this is possible is basically a delusion? Is this some kind of search for a little mother? (But I’ve recently come to the conclusion that even mothers aren’t actually as affectionate toward and attentive to their own children as fathers are. This conclusion as based on observation of parents from every social class and ethnic/racial group in NYC.)

            • Garr says:

              “This conclusion IS based …” I meant to write in the final sentence above. (For example, three separate Colored couples — two Black, one Puerto Rican — with a single small child each on the Staten Ferry in a single day; in each case, the father was more affectionate with and attentive to the child than the mother was.)

            • Samuel Skinner says:

              “Another thing: why do men naturally hope to find a woman who will be an affectionate, loyal sidekick if the idea that this is possible is basically a delusion?”

              We all desire someone who won’t knife us in the back when we are down. In fairness, this was achievable to a degree in the past- if there is no divorce and strong social pressure a good number of women are going to stick with you to the end.

            • Your Wife's Son says:

              >wouldn’t men inherit some personality characteristics from their mothers, and women from their fathers? I wonder how this works.

              Relative to men, females’ personalities generally have a “flat affect” to them. That doesn’t mean that women don’t vary in their traits, but that like East Asians, their variation is usually constrained.

              >Another thing: why do men naturally hope to find a woman who will be an affectionate, loyal sidekick if the idea that this is possible is basically a delusion?

              It’s not entirely impossible to find a good woman, it’s just statistically very unlikely for any given man to find one, because there are so few of them. Also, many (if not all) of the good women are messed up in many aspects of their personalities, so it takes an exceptional and unique kind of man to recognize the true goodness of such women.

              • jim says:

                It’s not entirely impossible to find a good woman, it’s just statistically very unlikely for any given man to find one,

                That is the black pill speaking, the bitterness that comes when the blue pill is found to be false. There are no good women if you are looking for a blue pill woman, a woman who will reward blue pill behavior. There is a vast supply of good women, in the sense that most women will make very great sacrifices for their lover. There are no good women if you are looking for a woman who will appreciate the sacrifices you make for her. There are plenty of good women who will make sacrifices for you.

                There are no good women, in the sense that hypergamy never sleeps, a man must always perform, can never relax, is always on stage, can never let his guard down. There are plenty of good women, in the sense of women who under the right conditions will always be sexually available to you, and never to anyone else.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  >That is the black pill speaking, the bitterness that comes when the blue pill is found to be false.

                  No, if I were extrapolating from my own personal experience, I would surmise that enough women are good, and that it’s not statistically unlikely to find one. But I read up on the state of affairs in the Western world, and this is the root of my “blackpilledness” – look at this blog, for instance: how many commenters here are currently happily married with kids? The answer is “not nearly enough,” and it’s not because the commenters suck, but because women generally suck.

                  >a man must always perform, can never relax, is always on stage, can never let his guard down.

                  Whether or not this is true, if your SMV is drastically, ridiculously higher than that of your woman, so that she has no realistic expectation of ever replacing you with someone higher on the status ladder, you can pretty much “just be yourself” and she won’t ever get enough of you.

                • jim says:

                  if your SMV is drastically, ridiculously higher than that of your woman, so that she has no realistic expectation of ever replacing you with someone higher on the status ladder, you can pretty much “just be yourself” and she won’t ever get enough of you.

                  But you want the hottest woman you can have, so your sexual market value is not going to be drastically, ridiculously, higher than that of your woman.

                  Further, a woman in the top fifty percent can reasonably expect to fuck someone in the top one percent. So you are going to have establish an expectation that if she does so you will beat the hell out of her and dump her.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  Most men wouldn’t want to be in my place, but I wouldn’t want to be anywhere else.

                  Note: your criterion, that she always be sexually available to me, and only to me, is absolutely fulfilled.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >Most men wouldn’t [want a fugly woman]

                  Sometimes the masses are wisest of all.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  The masses understand one thing: “to each his own.”

                • Cavalier says:

                  The masses understand that a man’s woman is a reflection of his inner self.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  Partly, yes.

                  The larger point is that idiosyncratic preferences are, more often than not, more conducive to individually (and by extension – collectively) optimized personal choice than any one-size-fits-all “objective” or “collective-ideal-derived” metric for evaluation of personal choice.

                  In fact, collectivization/universalization of any value system leads to a Procrustean Bed type of situation that is never optimal for *any* individual or for society itself, which is the sum of its individual particles.

                  The opposite of “collectivization of value systems” is not anarchy, but “private order.” Private order — and lack thereof — is a facilitator or perhaps even accelerator of Darwinism.

                  I do my thing independently of your value system, you do your thing independently of mine, and reality itself sorts out the optimal dynamics in our shared environment.

                  The collectivist screams “intolerable,” because he’s Procrustean at heart; optimizing for reality is anathema to such creatures, because their hubris tells them that *they* know how to universalize value systems without cutting off heads and feet, never mind the inherent inferiority of the ideal-derived to the reality-derived in terms of optimizing choice (reality *is* optimized).

                • Cavalier says:

                  Which all sounds very erudite, but I have no idea how it relates to the sex appeal of one’s woman.

                • peppermint says:

                  90% of men would be perfectly comfortable with 90% of women, and the remainder are irrelevant. SMV is one axis, personal preferences matter very little in the broad scheme of things but matter when deciding which men and women of comparable SMV actually hook up.

          • Corvinus says:

            “So, if you interpret me as advocating for loosening patriarchy and instead just culling bad females from the gene pool, this is a false interpretation. I advocate for a strong patriarchy *and at the same time* for selecting women for pleasantness (or at least, against unpleasantness) like the Japs did. It had taken them long, but the results were pretty good, and while their sexual troubles are great nowadays, “a war of the sexes” is not one of those sexual troubles.”

            It never ceases to amaze me the level of depravity shown on this blog. Sometimes I think these way out there suggestions is just trolling or a bid for attention from an otherwise shitty existence. Either your parents raised you right, and you turned for the worst through your own poor decision making ability, and thus blame everyone except yourself OR your parents raised you wrong, and you are a product of defective genes and an unstable home environment.

  5. Glenfilthie says:

    Jim.

    Jeez. Good women don’t do chick flicks or Jap tentacle porn! Seriously, buddy – you gotta stop bedding and fucking tire-biters!

    • StringsofCoins says:

      You ever checked out any of the romance novels your mom reads? You probably should at some point cause they soak their panties on waaaaaay worse shit than patricide and tentacle rape.

      • Bruce says:

        She watched the Waltons, Little House on the Prairie and read Good Housekeeping. Every time HBO started bleeding though on the cable (dad quite enjoyed it) she would call the cable company to get it fixed/taken away. And she wasn’t a Christian woman.

  6. Zach says:

    Actually the private life stuff is a lot more fun to read. The problem is that it obviously gives little twats ammunition to get personal back.

    • Your Wife's Son says:

      >it obviously gives little twats ammunition to get personal back.

      Bitter bitch slapfights and internet tragicomic meoldramas are the most enjoyable thing ever (way better than sex), I love watching them and participating in them, and I encourage vicious personal attacks for no apparent reason on random people —
      such as the ones I have myself endured and dished out — because where would we all be without ragequitting, doxing, meltdowning, trolling, and the reduction to tears due to verbal abuse?

      “Anarchy is the mother of order.”

  7. Mediocre IQ White Nationalist says:

    Require all OBGYNs take a DNA sample from the baby on at the first pregnancy checkup and require to provide it to the nominal father. Not sure if the technology exists to safely take samples while still in the womb but we should look into it. Doesn’t solve all problems of course

    • Your Wife's Son says:

      Great idea.

      One thing that is happening right now is that DNA testing companies such as 23andme are connecting real family members with one another. As these things gain popularity, a lot of strange things will be uncovered, and many people will wind up in some awkward situations.

      I know this for a fact – my father used to be a “hardcore” sperm donor, and I have dozens or even hundreds of half siblings, considering the unusual particulars of his activity. At any rate, 23andme connected me with one of them; that person had had absolutely no suspicion that something was “off.”

      The nasty whorish cunts who’ve cucked their naive hubbies should start panicking, because the secrets are slowly being revealed.

      Many of the sperm donors who’ve been promised: “dude, it’s totally anonymous, your kids will never find out who you are” must feel kinda nervous about these technological developments.

      Now, if you don’t have any family or kids — besides the ones you jizzed into a cup or tube, that is — and you’re not taking any DNA tests, then you’re rather “safe” in this regard.

      But, on the other hand, if you’ve got a large family (many siblings, uncles, etc.) and plenty of kids, and you were a prolific sperm donor, and you did the DNA tests – guess what brah? Your descendants will reach you, one way or the other.

      This is a new world we are entering. A genealogically cataloged world. And the thots are going to suffer in it, their just rewards for being unfaithful adulteresses. Also, the dads who jizzed for money (like mine) are gonna be pissed off, which is amusing. Because, by being spermstitutes, they’ve given catladies and dykes and faggots undeserved progeny. That’s a mistake for many reasons. Now, a correction is coming.

      And that’s without mentioning the adoptees and other situations. Lots of hilarity and H E A R T B R E A K will ensue in the following decades as a result of this technology. Lulz, I can’t wait to see it all unfold.

      I support 23andme, familytreedna, and all those other ones out there. They’re doing God’s work by connecting “effect” with “cause.”

      • j says:

        Dear Not My Wife’s Son: You are angry and unjust. Those wives, catladies, etc. wanted desperately to have children (you?) and followed the only way society offers to honest women.

        • j says:

          P.S.: Why Ya’akov Frank?

        • Your Wife's Son says:

          >Those wives, catladies, etc. wanted desperately to have children (you?) and followed the only way society offers to honest women.

          Sperm banks and sperm donation have been a net negative for civilization and the human gene pool. They allow and encourage the rotten apples of the human tree to procreate. The lesbians, the man-hating catladies, the high-t manjawed careerists, and all those other unsavory females should not pass on their genes, or at least, should not be abetted in passing on their genes.

          I was conceived and born normally, but I have dozens or hundreds of half siblings running around, and while some of them are good people who were born to normal families, I’d estimate — based on the state of society — that at least 50% were born to shitty women who should’ve been culled. The fact that now, with the rise of genetic testing, people are finding out that they were lied to, and sperm donors are forced to face the *consequences* of their decisions, is overall a positive thing. It’s funny, too.

          I may be a horrible person, but seeing all those liars, bitches, “strong independent womyn,” misandrists, dykes, sluts, androgenized freakshows, and the rest of them, not getting away with their tricks and not escaping the consequences of biology, brings a smile to my face. Sperm donors like my dad are, as we speak, creating more single mommies, thereby contributing to cultural breakdown and disintegration.

          Single motherhood is a plague, and the sperm industry only facilitates its spread. When the descendants of jizz-tubes come knocking on their real fathers’ doors, it is hilarious. Imagine: “hi dad, your son is here. Yep, look at me, stare me in the eyes. I’m your tranny prostitute son! My borderline-disordered mother had me castrated when I was 6 years old, and paraded me around as a girl… now I suck nigger cock for 5$. Thank you for a wonderful life, dad.” *shoots dad*

          The “heartbreak,” as such, is completely justified. While I don’t want tranny prostitutes to shoot up my sperm donor father, I am devoted to absolute intellectual honesty, and objectively, the sperm industry is evil, the women who partake in it are often malicious cunts, and the men who sustain it are blameworthy. I call myself “your wife’s son” because it’s trollzy (I was asked to stop commenting as “anonymous”), but in fact, that is something that all too many people should be calling *themselves* when speaking to their fake fathers.

          Even in “normal families,” there’s tremendous deception involved in this whole thing, mostly directed not at the fake fathers (presumably, the mothers don’t usually do it behind their backs) but at the children, whose entire lives are based off a big lie. There are good, decent people out there, lied to by their parents. This industry of lies and deception deserves having itself set on fire – the more individual tragedies, the better.

          >followed the only way society offers to honest women.

          Not everyone should reproduce; specifically, man-hating cunts should die childless, and the sperm industry is an obstacle in this regard. That all those DNA companies are enabling the children born to old careerists to find out who their real fathers are is a good thing.

          The catlady wants to be a slut for 4 decades, to suck alpha male dick from age 9 to age 49, then fall back on the sperm industry and conceive kids. Bringing tears and buttheart to the people involved in this wickedness is doing God’s work.

          • Garr says:

            But it’s not as though women just produce daughters entirely out of their own DNA while men just produce sons entirely out of THEIR own DNA; the culling of bad women would have some kind of effect on the average male personality too.

            And presumably there are different kinds of bad women, who would tend to be the moms of different kinds of bad men.

            What kinds of men are bad? I don’t know … are genius-sociopaths such as Genghis Khan the sort of man that we don’t want to have around? What if culling a certain kind of bad woman would eliminate the possibility of a Genghis Khan?

            Maybe the West needs a Genghis Khan …?

            • Your Wife's Son says:

              >the culling of bad women would have some kind of effect on the average male personality too.

              Yes, a positive influence.

              >are genius-sociopaths such as Genghis Khan the sort of man that we don’t want to have around? What if culling a certain kind of bad woman would eliminate the possibility of a Genghis Khan?

              At the higher levels of abstraction, a genius sociopath and a genius non-sociopath are likely to reach similar conclusions. But a sociopath would cause trouble, at least on the inter-personal level, while a non-sociopath would simply be a very intelligent person. So, get rid of the sociopaths, and let the “normal” geniuses do their work. Brain scans will do.

              • Cavalier says:

                >At the higher levels of abstraction, a genius sociopath and a genius non-sociopath are likely to reach similar conclusions. But a sociopath would cause trouble, at least on the inter-personal level, while a non-sociopath would simply be a very intelligent person. So, get rid of the sociopaths, and let the “normal” geniuses do their work. Brain scans will do.

                No; that’s far too trite. Males cannot select for a trait in females without a substantial portion of that trait “leaking” over the male phenotype. Light skin, light eyes, and light hair are only the most visible examples. Certainly, it extends to psycho-social traits as well, and to a very significant degree. If you select against banshee women, for example, likely you are also taming (domesticating) men in some very important, if possibly subtle, ways.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  >Males cannot select for a trait in females without a substantial portion of that trait “leaking” over the male phenotype.

                  Good.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >Good.

                  How docile do you desire your serfs to be, sire?

              • Corvinus says:

                Sir, you are a sociopath. Do you really want to rid yourself?

            • Cavalier says:

              >What kinds of men are bad? I don’t know … are genius-sociopaths such as Genghis Khan the sort of man that we don’t want to have around? What if culling a certain kind of bad woman would eliminate the possibility of a Genghis Khan?

              Gregory Cochran once made almost exactly this point. Also, it was in relation to Genghis Khan.

              There must be something to it.

            • Cavalier says:

              And yes, we do need a Genghis Khan, and not just one.

              “It is not enough that I should succeed — others must fail.”

              Conan! What is best in life?

          • j says:

            I think Otto Weininger would be more accurate than Jacob Frank.

            Catladies are a tragic product of modern society that has lost the traditional mechanisms that used to bring together man and woman. Japan is an extreme in this sense, thirty percent of those aged thirty – male and female – failed to establish a relationship and are virgins. I agree that AID is a bad solution, the best would be parents marrying off their children at puberty, as it was done in the schtetl.

            • Your Wife's Son says:

              >I think Otto Weininger would be more accurate than Jacob Frank.

              Weininger was simply a self hating Jew; he did not subvert Judaism like Frank did. Also, the name of Weininger doesn’t instantly piss off Jews as the name of Frank does: the Jews in the conspiracy movement (and beyond) falsely blame “Frankists” for Jewish leftism, and the fact that Jews till this day hate him so much proves that he was onto something.

              Note that Mendelssohn, Geiger, etc etc. did not seek the full subversion that Frank sought. And as someone who is understandably sympathetic to the shtetl, you should look into Frank, as his background was much closer to the Galician shtetl than your run-of-the-mill Yekke assimilators.

          • Ron says:

            Man hating cunts hate men because they unconsciously cannot stand the fact that no man strong enough to dominate and control them will do so.

            Its the same for omega males hating women for being social rejects.

    • Eddie Willers says:

      @Mediocre IQ White Nationalist
      The tech exists to DNA sample a foetus at 8 weeks pregnancy with 100% certainty. It’s called a CVS (Chorionic Villus Sampling), and it’s used to produce a karyotype analysis for genetic testing.

    • Cavalier says:

      I hope not. What an awful dystopia.

    • jim says:

      Sufficient to test at birth, which if done routinely for everyone would be quite cheap.

      Making it mandatory, and having legal and social consequences for non pair paternity, would prevent a great deal of misconduct.

  8. Cavalier says:

    I quite enjoy the odd chick flick. Plus, market research.

  9. Bane Blumpf says:

    Hey Jim, I’ve got an LTR of quite a few years, and intend on kids in a few years. What are your thoughts on marriage? Is raising bastards a reasonable trade off for not having to risk marriage?

    • Your Wife's Son says:

      >I’ve got an LTR of quite a few years, and intend on kids in a few years.

      Why should you wait a few more years to have kids? The earlier the better.

      Marriage is superior to non-marriage, but reproduction is more essential, so bastards or not, just go ahead and reproduce. People will call my advice “r selected,” but these people are themselves childless comfort-addicts.

      • Dave says:

        We live in an r-selecting environment thanks to the Federal Reserve and 70+ federal welfare agencies (and many more at the state and local levels), so breeding like rabbits is the correct strategy. Just be ready to switch to a K-strategy when the dollar collapses.

    • jim says:

      You should have kids as fast as possible. This will lead wife goggles to take effect. Your wife will always seem in your eyes the age she was when she gave you children.

      Assuming nothing goes horribly wrong, but if you worry too much about things going horribly wrong, you won’t have a wife.

      • Wagner says:

        Even mentioning wife goggles causes them to preemptively be pulled off. The noble lie option (of omittance) is probably the way to go Jimbo. Your commitment to truth and liberty doesn’t gel well with a nu-civilization which will have to be based on lies and restraint. The Cathedral has got us all thinking libertarianly, but once it’s overthrown we’ll have to adopt many of the tactics that now sicken us, I imagine.

  10. Glenfilthie says:

    No, sir. And this is precisely why the battle of the sexes has turned into a full out war, and why both sides are losing:

    There is a HUGE difference between what women want, and what they NEED. That is why you boys can give them everything they want and still get burned in the end.

    It’s a hard lesson to learn, because most of you want and need two different things too.

  11. Ken S. says:

    “The Victorian strategy of persuading women to behave well by ascribing good behavior to women bit the Victorians on the ass badly.”

    A quote for the ages.

  12. Narm says:

    I think a more systematic approach should be taken here.

    First, consider Munger’s 25 cognitive biases: Here are five:

    – incentive reward
    – liking; e.g. we want to be liked; we trust those we like; we like people who like us
    – disliking
    – social proof
    – authority: social proof has more effect if it comes from a position of high status

    Consider Jung’s 8 cognitive functions. Here are two:

    – thinking: “what is it?”, how to simplify things
    – feeling: “is it agreeable?”, how should my mind engage with it

    When women in HR talk, they always use “like.” It’s not about competence, business needs, etc. It’s “we like you” or “we don’t like you” or “they like you.”

    Interesting…

    Now consider some of the Big 5:

    – agreeableness: how much you seem to care about other people
    – neuroticism: your sensitivity to negative emotion

    We know women are higher in neuroticism. They want security. Notice that when women talk about an ex they broke up with, they always call the ex “insecure.”

    Darwinistically we know survival matters more to women so that makes sense.

    They’re also higher in agreeableness, which seems related to their tendency to “like” or “dislike” things. (This has a tribalistic aspect, as agreeableness is associated with political correctness.)

    If there’s something with an emotional valence (is that the right term to use?), women like it, spiking their emotions, until the next valence comes along.

    This agrees with how, according to Jim, women’s sex drives are “powerful, dangerous, volcanic, and very difficult to control.”

    And how, according to Schopenhauer, women like babies and play with them endlessly.

    They’re also shallow, Schopenhauer writes. Why? Because emotional valences (not sure if this is the right term…) affect them more powerfully. (They’re generous on the surface but lack a “sense of justice.”)

    So what do we conclude?

    Women have different circuits. Basically higher emotionality.

    These circuits throw off the alignment of their cognitive functions. The way they feel about something becomes more important than what it actually is.

    The end result is that they are highly subject to a few dozen cognitive biases.

    Why do chicks dig jerks? Because most men are “nice” and that doesn’t feed her emotions much. If a man isn’t nice, he probably is challenging (another cognitive bias), experienced, and has something she wants.

    • jim says:

      Evolutionary psychology predicts that women want the semen of men who are successful with women, while also wanting to hang with men who will protect them and look after them, because such a man is likely to look after his children. The female fantasy, expressed in a number of films, is a loving husband whom they do not have sex with, and a parade of alpha male cads whom they do. This is the equivalent of the male harem fantasy, except that the harem is serial rather than parallel. Most women do not however attempt this, expecting the obvious reaction, just as males are frequently a little nervous about asking a girl for a threesome with her sister.

      A propensity to beat her and treat her as easily replaceable is indication that she is easily replaceable, hence indication of success with other women. Actual infidelity is also evidence of success with other women. Thus evolutionary psychology predicts that women will like an alpha asshole with a touch of beta provider – will like someone who looks after her and protects her, but also beats her, treats her as easily replaceable, and sleeps with other women.

      • Narm says:

        Indeed.

        Again, it’s not hard to argue that women will want to be with men who aren’t nice.

        Reflecting on your point, exactly how did evolution make women want very very “jerkish men” in the fertile part of their cycle? Hmm. Tough one! There are all sorts of hypotheses, such as women “wanting to believe” that the jerk is the one.

        • jim says:

          During the fertile part of their cycle, they want the semen of alpha males. During the non fertile part of their cycle, they want to please beta provider males.

          So, during fertile period, want jerk behavior more than at other times.

          • Narm says:

            Perhaps there are two circuits:

            1. The liking circuit. Liking their infants. Liking what’s high status. Liking what’s popular.

            2. The cad circuit. Wanting to have sex with people who seem like they have sex with a lot of women, especially women higher status than herself.

            (You could also add the anxiety circuit, related to neuroticism and the very primitive emotion of fear.)

            Obviously men have these circuits, too, but women are much more controlled by these two circuits.

            The cad circuit relates to the primitive limbic system which Roissy frequently talks about.

            The circuits are interconnected in women. Women like men who satisfy many circuits at the same time. Hence e.g. the game technique of “bouncing” women to different locations to build comfort.

            Men like women, hence men are nice to women, hence the female cad circuit learns to respond to men who aren’t nice. And the female cad circuit is so primitive it will respond to men who are jerks.

            Men live in relative sexual scarcity, and have less interconnection between circuits, thus their “cad circuit” learns to respond to very different things and is more reasonable.

            • Cavalier says:

              Eh… this seems like a modern perversion to me. It’s hard to overstate just how much female sexual preference itself has shifted with the ongoing popular culture feralization. I mean, Sean Connery used to be the very archetype of the Ultimate Ladies’ Man, but today he would never make it: he was too thin, too hairy, and too “serious”, i.e. too mature behaviorally. Additionally, the James Bond he portrayed was caddish, but also polite in a way that wouldn’t play today.

              • jim says:

                Female preferences are unchanging. Back in the day they went for Lord Byron and militia officers.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >Back in the day they went for Lord Byron and militia officers.

                  My point exactly.

                • jim says:

                  Lord Byron was a violent philandering asshole, and I play a violent philandering asshole. Worked for him, works for me.

                  Our elite is weak and emasculated, but back in the day, our elite was strong and manly, so women tended to make eugenic choices, whereas today the same unchanging and universal female sexual preferences lead them to make dysgenic choices.

                  Women have not changed, but men have.

                • Cavalier says:

                  The bad boy is relative to the society in which he lives.

              • Narm says:

                Jim correctly berates you for the “modern perversion” excuse.

                If we want to claim female preferences have changed in some narrow way, we need to understand those female preferences. As a bonus, understanding them systematically, as a billionaire investor would understand the markets, may help us better navigate the terrain.

                A couple pretty simplistic factors I’ve mentioned:
                – women have relative sexual abundance, making them ignore nice men (and like jerks)
                – women form sexual desire from primitive emotional “hopes,” making them ignore beta providers (and like men which invoke unrealistic emotions)

                These factors have not changed, which supports Jim.

                Note that if there’s a large SMV disparity (e.g. an insecure woman subjected to “dread”) preferences can change for a short period of time.

                Maybe reading Fifty Shades or My Secret Garden or Story of O would be helpful…

                Anyway, I do think the approach of thinking of it as a machine, with lists of circuits, functions, biases, etc. can be helpful. (Thank you Ray Dalio and Charlie Munger for that tip.)

                Today’s less civilized social expectations have changed female behavior, including what women say they want. But actual female preferences don’t seem to have changed that much.

                • Cavalier says:

                  Go back and look at the heartthrobs of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. They look different. They are different.

      • Name says:

        Its stupid to say that women want a man that beats her. There’s nothing sexy about getting drunk and beating up your sobbing wife, its trashy and embarrassing. Why would you want to do beat a girl you like and care about in the first place? I’m curious to hear you explain this, it seems you are either exaggerating for comedy or don’t know what you’re talking about.

        • jim says:

          > Its stupid to say that women want a man that beats her.

          Open your eyes.

          You may not believe that my personal life experiences have been what I say they are.

          Well believe that Jian Ghomeshi’s life experiences were what the courts found them to be.

          > Why would you want to do beat a girl you like and care about in the first place? I’m curious to hear you explain this

          I am a dancing monkey. I do whatever it takes to get laid. Hypergamy never sleeps, a man must always perform, can never relax, is always on stage, can never let his guard down.

      • Narm says:

        Note that “wanting to believe” is the over-optimism bias (i.e. hope), another bias likely affecting women.

    • Your Wife's Son says:

      >according to Schopenhauer, women like babies and play with them endlessly

      Lol, not really. They’re better adapted to taking care of babies and children than men are, and their pupils even automatically dilate when seeing babies and children, but I’ve never seen a woman (who is not a toddler herself) “play endlessly” with babies.

    • Garr says:

      “women like babies and play with them endlessly” (according to Schopenhauer) — I’m thinking about this. There’s not much you can do with a pre-mobile infant except bounce it and make it smile and laugh. Did Schopenhauer have pre-verbal toddlers in mind? It seems true that women like to behave in a dramatic, arm-swooping, vocally high-pitched and sing-song-cooing way with toddlers. Men are more matter-of-fact with them, already seeing them as almost-people. Then, when toddlers begin speaking, they are people and men want to converse with them and share experiences with them (hang out with them, go places with them) in the way that people who like each other do.

      I think that men are as “emotional” as women are, only less theatrically so. In fact, since it’s pretty much impossible to separate “feeling” from “thinking,” and men think more deeply than women do, I’m inclined to say that men feel more deeply than women do. So that it’s reasonable to claim that men are in fact MORE emotional than women are.

      • Narm says:

        Check out Schopenaheur’s On Women for context.

        Men have less of certain kinds of emotions than woman, letting them build more. However emotions are still important to men.

        • Garr says:

          Here’s the passage you refer to, I believe:

          “Women are directly fitted for acting as the nurses and teachers of our early childhood by the fact that they are themselves childish, frivolous and short-sighted; in a word, they are big children all their life long – a kind of intermediate stage between the child and the full-grown man, who is man in the strict sense of the word. See how a girl will fondle a child for days together, dance with it and sing to it; and then think what a man, with the best will in the world, could do if he were put in her place.”

          This passage is also very interesting:

          “The first love of a mother for her child is, with the lower animals as with men, of a purely instinctive character, and so it ceases when the child is no longer in a physically helpless condition. After that, the first love should give way to one that is based on habit and reason; but this often fails to make its appearance, especially where the mother did not love the father. The love of a father for his child is of a different order, and more likely to last; because it has its foundation in the fact that in the child he recognizes his own inner self; that is to say, his love for it is metaphysical in its origin.”

          The second passage supports my view that fathers are really more emotionally involved in a person-to-person way with their children than mothers are.

          I was the one taking care of my kid pretty much all day long until he was 2 (I was finishing up my grad school program while the mother had a corporate HR job so it made financial sense although she naturally resented it) — and before he could walk I’d pretty much bounce him all day long to keep him from fussing. I also made up silly songs for him. I wonder whether Schopenhauer had illegitimate kids, and if so whether he bounced them and sang for them. The essay suggests that he was keeping a girlfriend somewhere.

          • Narm says:

            Similarly, a divorced man will often be better at raising children than his ex-wife.

            Men are likely better caretakers than women. The top of half of men are very likely better caretakers than the top half of women.

            However, women have a comparative advantage in caretaking.

Leave a Reply