Nature's Gynocentrism and the Metaphysics of the "War of the Sexes"

[Lucas88]

Last night I was reflecting upon the dark side of nature. I was thinking about the dynamics of sexual selection and how males and females constantly vie for their own opposed interests. I came to the conclusion that nature itself is "gynocentric" -- at least at the more primitive and unevolved levels -- and that males are the slaves within nature's intricate system.

Throughout the natural world males typically engage in brutal competition for access to females in a zero-sum manner. The competition may include direct violent struggle among competing males or a hunt for material resources. The competition among human males has been up until now largely the same as that of the animal kingdom. Throughout history men have engaged in warfare and conquest in order to take women from other men or have otherwise engaged in economic competition with the goal of attracting a wife or sometimes even multiple women. But the underlying dynamic is always the same: males brutally compete and bust their own asses in order to serve the needs of females. Yes, as cynical as it may be, the males serve the females. We are the expendable slaves. We are much like the workers and soldiers who serve the queen within the hive.

Beyond reproduction male and female interests are largely opposed. Men want access to sex -- often with multiple women -- for as little effort and expenditure of resources as possible. Women want material resources from men as well as male utility in various forms and often use the prospect of sexual access to exploit practical favors from men regardless of whether they are really willing to out out or not. Our different respective desires serve as the source of a continuous conflict of wills. This is the true age-old origin of the so-called "war of the sexes", not feminism. Feminism is simply an underhanded strategy to shift sexual power dramatically in favor of women while at the same time breaking down men and stigmatizing any male opposition to female power plays. But it is certainly not the origin of this.

Needless to say, nature isn't always pretty and the males' lot in this system isn't always particularly good. I believe that @WanderingProtagonist touched upon this in one of his posts. He said -- and I'm paraphrasing here -- that for some men dating Tgurls can be a better option since it allows us to have sex with artificial women (i.e., feminized male sexual inverts) outside of nature's regular gynocentric competition. Oftentimes our own artificial creations are far more benevolent than nature.

Any honest observation of human behavior will reveal that not all human beings are equal or even good for that matter. Most people are beings of low consciousness and a semi-animalistic nature. They are driven mostly by primitive drives and instincts, are naturally extremely selfish and only seem to care about their own self-interest even if that means exploiting other people including their own partner. Many relationships seem to revolve around a struggle of two people to dominate the other and get what they want out of the other whether it be sex, money, practical favors or social status through association. Women who are nature's natural slave masters (according to my own reflection) often try it on with their husbands or boyfriends and look to manipulate them for more. Feminism is simply a modern political manifestation of this female desire to exploit. Men on the other hand have devised strategies to curtail female exploitativeness and instead subject women to their own male desires. These include the imposition of patriarchal systems and ideals of machismo in order to control women. Within nature's gynocentrism this is a revolt of the slaves against the natural slave masters.

Although this picture of nature which I have just described may seem rather negative, demiurgic (i.e., created by an incompetent or malevolent deity in the vein of Gnosticism or dystheism), or even Satanic, I assure you that the situation is not all doom and gloom or wholly pessimistic. There's still some light in this dark world. You see, that world of competition and exploitation is simply nature's lower and more barbaric side of this dualistic reality which appears to be more fundamental in the overall scheme of things. There is still nature's higher and more evolved side which is observed much less and which fewer people talk about.

Even in the midst of a largely beastlike and utterly selfish majority we still find those relatively rare noble individuals -- both male and female -- who seem to have a much more evolved level of consciousness, have empathy for others and don't wish to participate in nature's game of competition and exploitation. I know that such people exist. My Mexican girl was like that. She never wanted to exploit me for anything and only showed me love and did everything she could for my happiness. I had exactly the same attitude towards her. Such people are souls who have evolved beyond the lower and more barbaric side of the dualistic reality of nature and now begin to vibrate at the frequencies of nature's higher and more evolved side. You could even say that they are beings that partake in divinity to a higher degree and are therefore the cream of the crop of human consciousness. It is only at this point that one is able to transcend the brutal competition and explotativeness of the natural world at its most basic level. It is the first ascent towards the more elevated and more divine part of nature, the first sign of evolution towards the positive polarity of the Creation's duality.

Recently @WilliamSmith, @Outcast9428 and myself have had various interesting discussions on monogamy and sexual relationships with WilliamSmith and myself expressing a negative opinion of marriage for most men and Outcast advocating monogamy and pro-marriage traditionalism.

My own conception of nature as expressed above influences my own perspective of marriage and society. I wrote in another thread that I have no interest in monogamy unless it is with a rare soulmate with noble qualities and whom I genuinely love. I also expressed my belief that many if not most marriages are merely for convenience (kids, economic reasons, status, etc.).

Given that I observe that most women -- and men too for that matter -- are low-consciousness, semi-bestial beings who mostly follow their own selfish drives and either consciously or subconsciously seek to exploit their partners in some way or another, I myself would prefer to avoid such mutually exploitative and interest-driven unions and preserve my own advantage by never offering commitment to such common females and taking what I want from them (sex, short-term romance, excitement) while offering them the minimum in return.

I also believe that traditional conservativism is flawed for this same reason. Low-consciousness, semi-bestial people who make up a large percentage of the population cannot truly be molded by external moral ideals. They might pay lip service to them in public but since they are driven primarily by lower drives and instincts they'll always find ways around traditional mores and act out their own primitive base desires on the sly. The strict rules of traditionalism are really just the stick keeping the more animalistic specimens of humanity in check -- at least in domains where behavior can be watched over. But they don't genuinely create change in such individuals who tend to quickly revert to their feral state once such restrictions break down.

I might accept a monogamous relationship with a noble, high-consciousness female who has transcended the competition and exploitation of the lower side of nature but those are quite rare and hard to find. It is more likely that I'll remain alone since I'm idealistic and won't settle for anything less as far as marriage is concerned.

I've just free-styled this post and don't know how coherently I've expressed my thoughts on this matter. I hope that my reflection may be coherent enough to generate a good discussion.

[WanderingProtagonist]

Last night I was reflecting upon the dark side of nature. I was thinking about the dynamics of sexual selection and how males and females constantly vie for their own opposed interests. I came to the conclusion that nature itself is "gynocentric" -- at least at the more primitive and unevolved levels -- and that males are the slaves within nature's intricate system.

Throughout the natural world males typically engage in brutal competition for access to females in a zero-sum manner. The competition may include direct violent struggle among competing males or a hunt for material resources. The competition among human males has been up until now largely the same as that of the animal kingdom. Throughout history men have engaged in warfare and conquest in order to take women from other men or have otherwise engaged in economic competition with the goal of attracting a wife or sometimes even multiple women. But the underlying dynamic is always the same: males brutally compete and bust their own asses in order to serve the needs of females. Yes, as cynical as it may be, the males serve the females. We are the expendable slaves. We are much like the workers and soldiers who serve the queen within the hive.

Beyond reproduction male and female interests are largely opposed. Men want access to sex -- often with multiple women -- for as little effort and expenditure of resources as possible. Women want material resources from men as well as male utility in various forms and often use the prospect of sexual access to exploit practical favors from men regardless of whether they are really willing to out out or not. Our different respective desires serve as the source of a continuous conflict of wills. This is the true age-old origin of the so-called "war of the sexes", not feminism. Feminism is simply an underhanded strategy to shift sexual power dramatically in favor of women while at the same time breaking down men and stigmatizing any male opposition to female power plays. But it is certainly not the origin of this.

Needless to say, nature isn't always pretty and the males' lot in this system isn't always particularly good. I believe that @WanderingProtagonist touched upon this in one of his posts. He said -- and I'm paraphrasing here -- that for some men dating Tgurls can be a better option since it allows us to have sex with artificial women (i.e., feminized male sexual inverts) outside of nature's regular gynocentric competition. Oftentimes our own artificial creations are far more benevolent than nature.

Any honest observation of human behavior will reveal that not all human beings are equal or even good for that matter. Most people are beings of low consciousness and a semi-animalistic nature. They are driven mostly by primitive drives and instincts, are naturally extremely selfish and only seem to care about their own self-interest even if that means exploiting other people including their own partner. Many relationships seem to revolve around a struggle of two people to dominate the other and get what they want out of the other whether it be sex, money, practical favors or social status through association. Women who are nature's natural slave masters (according to my own reflection) often try it on with their husbands or boyfriends and look to manipulate them for more. Feminism is simply a modern political manifestation of this female desire to exploit. Men on the other hand have devised strategies to curtail female exploitativeness and instead subject women to their own male desires. These include the imposition of patriarchal systems and ideals of machismo in order to control women. Within nature's gynocentrism this is a revolt of the slaves against the natural slave masters.

Although this picture of nature which I have just described may seem rather negative, demiurgic (i.e., created by an incompetent or malevolent deity in the vein of Gnosticism or dystheism), or even Satanic, I assure you that the situation is not all doom and gloom or wholly pessimistic. There's still some light in this dark world. You see, that world of competition and exploitation is simply nature's lower and more barbaric side of this dualistic reality which appears to be more fundamental in the overall scheme of things. There is still nature's higher and more evolved side which is observed much less and which fewer people talk about.

Even in the midst of a largely beastlike and utterly selfish majority we still find those relatively rare noble individuals -- both male and female -- who seem to have a much more evolved level of consciousness, have empathy for others and don't wish to participate in nature's game of competition and exploitation. I know that such people exist. My Mexican girl was like that. She never wanted to exploit me for anything and only showed me love and did everything she could for my happiness. I had exactly the same attitude towards her. Such people are souls who have evolved beyond the lower and more barbaric side of the dualistic reality of nature and now begin to vibrate at the frequencies of nature's higher and more evolved side. You could even say that they are beings that partake in divinity to a higher degree and are therefore the cream of the crop of human consciousness. It is only at this point that one is able to transcend the brutal competition and explotativeness of the natural world at its most basic level. It is the first ascent towards the more elevated and more divine part of nature, the first sign of evolution towards the positive polarity of the Creation's duality.

Recently @WilliamSmith, @Outcast9428 and myself have had various interesting discussions on monogamy and sexual relationships with WilliamSmith and myself expressing a negative opinion of marriage for most men and Outcast advocating monogamy and pro-marriage traditionalism.

My own conception of nature as expressed above influences my own perspective of marriage and society. I wrote in another thread that I have no interest in monogamy unless it is with a rare soulmate with noble qualities and whom I genuinely love. I also expressed my belief that many if not most marriages are merely for convenience (kids, economic reasons, status, etc.).

Given that I observe that most women -- and men too for that matter -- are low-consciousness, semi-bestial beings who mostly follow their own selfish drives and either consciously or subconsciously seek to exploit their partners in some way or another, I myself would prefer to avoid such mutually exploitative and interest-driven unions and preserve my own advantage by never offering commitment to such common females and taking what I want from them (sex, short-term romance, excitement) while offering them the minimum in return.

I also believe that traditional conservativism is flawed for this same reason. Low-consciousness, semi-bestial people who make up a large percentage of the population cannot truly be molded by external moral ideals. They might pay lip service to them in public but since they are driven primarily by lower drives and instincts they'll always find ways around traditional mores and act out their own primitive base desires on the sly. The strict rules of traditionalism are really just the stick keeping the more animalistic specimens of humanity in check -- at least in domains where behavior can be watched over. But they don't genuinely create change in such individuals who tend to quickly revert to their feral state once such restrictions break down.

I might accept a monogamous relationship with a noble, high-consciousness female who has transcended the competition and exploitation of the lower side of nature but those are quite rare and hard to find. It is more likely that I'll remain alone since I'm idealistic and won't settle for anything less as far as marriage is concerned.

I've just free-styled this post and don't know how coherently I've expressed my thoughts on this matter. I hope that my reflection may be coherent enough to generate a good discussion.

I believed that pursuing transgenders was the better option than going through life having nobody at all. I use to hang out on this incel site a lot (not sure if it still exist) even though I'm not an incel myself. I'm a good looking light skinned partially Native American man with long hair. But besides that, I use to hang out on their forum just to find out why these guys were so angry and frustraited with women, certain types of men, etc. I came to realize they had every right to be mad and angry at the world. These are men that wanted actual women, not trans people. For me I started out hanging on Asian dating sites where most of the trans people gathered. 80% of them were from The Philippines, the rest everywhere else.

The ones from the Philippines dominated those websites, sites like Ladyboykisses.com (full of too many damn scammers and prostitutes), and then the cleaner one that monitors people Myladyboydate.com which is owned by an Asian trans and their boyfriend. I joined both of those sites to see how far I was willing to go to do something about my loneliness. I wasn't going to exploit or use anyone because I didn't want the same happening to me. What I noticed is that on LBK you will see a shit ton of attractive Asian transgenders (including a lot of ugly ones too) but too many of them are sex workers or cam girls. They have no shame posting explicit photos of themselves either, so I've seen a lot of you know hanging out XD. They do not care, some of them will even try to claim they were looking for a serious relationship while 80% of their photos were sexual looking and I'd call bullshit on these profiles and then block them.

Sometimes they would have the nerve to complain and bitch about men seeking them only for sex while they had these misleading sexualized pics of themselves posted...So it also showed the Philippines was full of low IQ idiot transgender people that acted like attention whores then complained when they received the wrong type of attention. The ones with the big tits, and looked like Asian porn stars had the most photo hits, so there were definitely a lot of men using these sites for sexual reasons since the sexier the trans the more attention they received. And too many had the prostitute/trans porn star look.

One of the things I did come to realize is that you will find one quicker that will commit to you if you're serious. Sometimes they'll ghost you which I've had a lot of them end up doing to me.

Overall I've never dated one of these people before. It's been ages since I've pursued anyone for a relationship... I'm one of those men that's scared to travel alone, so I wouldn't feel comfortable flying abroad by myself. I'd need a wing man that understands the foreign world better than I do to go with me if I were going to travel that far.

I also tend to have a negative view of mixing with different people, but only if it's between heterosexuals. These rules don't seem to really matter much if it's with someone of the same sex except the other person is identifying as a woman. Maybe because I don't really agree with homosexuality but felt tempted to just overlook all of this to avoid being single forever. I've always had a hard time with girls and women both. When I was in my teens I didn't get to date or see much action. I was however jealous of my cousin, he never had difficulties with the opposite sex. I remember I was attracted to this one Spanish girl and the only thing she could offer is "I'll be your freak." I told her I did not want that, I wanted a real relationship but she wouldn't give me anything other than just that offer...and goddamn it was disappointing. So I declined. I was only about 14 or 15 at the time, so the way I think today I wasn't thinking that way back then. I still want someone to date long term but..Well Amurica...You know.

[Outcast9428]

The main reason why the traditional monogamous system is the best one is because it does forcibly destroy the system of competition you mentioned and give equal balance to both gender’s desires.

Men get as much sex as they want but they must remain committed to one woman whom they are the sole provider of resources for. So women, depending on how beautiful they are can get a better provider and men who want a more beautiful wife work to be a better provider. In doing so they contribute to society’s development which is why European civilization advanced so much while African societies who clung to the barbarian, war of the sexes type competition remained in mud hutts.

Polygamy is a system that simply accepts this war of the sexes and doesn’t attempt to oppose it. The men at the top of society end up sleeping with as many women as they want while the women vie to be added to a rich guy’s harem. This system is a complete disaster though and leads to borderline dystopian civilizations.

Liberalism has restarted the war of the sexes which was largely dead for hundreds of years thanks to enforced monogamy and no female independence. Before, people felt like they had to conform to this system or they would have consequences visited upon them that were pretty harsh but starting with the Enlightenment people started feeling more and more like it was wrong to punish people for this. In the Medieval and Renaissance system, degenerates were literally treated like a type of criminal. Women who committed adultery were paraded through the streets naked and forced to live the rest of their life with the stigma of an adulterer. Many former adulterers could not make a living anymore except through prostitution. Men meanwhile would have half of their property seized either for cheating on their wife or for sleeping with a married woman themselves.

[Pixel--Dude]

Last night I was reflecting upon the dark side of nature. I was thinking about the dynamics of sexual selection and how males and females constantly vie for their own opposed interests. I came to the conclusion that nature itself is "gynocentric" -- at least at the more primitive and unevolved levels -- and that males are the slaves within nature's intricate system.

Throughout the natural world males typically engage in brutal competition for access to females in a zero-sum manner. The competition may include direct violent struggle among competing males or a hunt for material resources. The competition among human males has been up until now largely the same as that of the animal kingdom. Throughout history men have engaged in warfare and conquest in order to take women from other men or have otherwise engaged in economic competition with the goal of attracting a wife or sometimes even multiple women. But the underlying dynamic is always the same: males brutally compete and bust their own asses in order to serve the needs of females. Yes, as cynical as it may be, the males serve the females. We are the expendable slaves. We are much like the workers and soldiers who serve the queen within the hive.

Beyond reproduction male and female interests are largely opposed. Men want access to sex -- often with multiple women -- for as little effort and expenditure of resources as possible. Women want material resources from men as well as male utility in various forms and often use the prospect of sexual access to exploit practical favors from men regardless of whether they are really willing to out out or not. Our different respective desires serve as the source of a continuous conflict of wills. This is the true age-old origin of the so-called "war of the sexes", not feminism. Feminism is simply an underhanded strategy to shift sexual power dramatically in favor of women while at the same time breaking down men and stigmatizing any male opposition to female power plays. But it is certainly not the origin of this.

Needless to say, nature isn't always pretty and the males' lot in this system isn't always particularly good. I believe that @WanderingProtagonist touched upon this in one of his posts. He said -- and I'm paraphrasing here -- that for some men dating Tgurls can be a better option since it allows us to have sex with artificial women (i.e., feminized male sexual inverts) outside of nature's regular gynocentric competition. Oftentimes our own artificial creations are far more benevolent than nature.

Any honest observation of human behavior will reveal that not all human beings are equal or even good for that matter. Most people are beings of low consciousness and a semi-animalistic nature. They are driven mostly by primitive drives and instincts, are naturally extremely selfish and only seem to care about their own self-interest even if that means exploiting other people including their own partner. Many relationships seem to revolve around a struggle of two people to dominate the other and get what they want out of the other whether it be sex, money, practical favors or social status through association. Women who are nature's natural slave masters (according to my own reflection) often try it on with their husbands or boyfriends and look to manipulate them for more. Feminism is simply a modern political manifestation of this female desire to exploit. Men on the other hand have devised strategies to curtail female exploitativeness and instead subject women to their own male desires. These include the imposition of patriarchal systems and ideals of machismo in order to control women. Within nature's gynocentrism this is a revolt of the slaves against the natural slave masters.

Although this picture of nature which I have just described may seem rather negative, demiurgic (i.e., created by an incompetent or malevolent deity in the vein of Gnosticism or dystheism), or even Satanic, I assure you that the situation is not all doom and gloom or wholly pessimistic. There's still some light in this dark world. You see, that world of competition and exploitation is simply nature's lower and more barbaric side of this dualistic reality which appears to be more fundamental in the overall scheme of things. There is still nature's higher and more evolved side which is observed much less and which fewer people talk about.

Even in the midst of a largely beastlike and utterly selfish majority we still find those relatively rare noble individuals -- both male and female -- who seem to have a much more evolved level of consciousness, have empathy for others and don't wish to participate in nature's game of competition and exploitation. I know that such people exist. My Mexican girl was like that. She never wanted to exploit me for anything and only showed me love and did everything she could for my happiness. I had exactly the same attitude towards her. Such people are souls who have evolved beyond the lower and more barbaric side of the dualistic reality of nature and now begin to vibrate at the frequencies of nature's higher and more evolved side. You could even say that they are beings that partake in divinity to a higher degree and are therefore the cream of the crop of human consciousness. It is only at this point that one is able to transcend the brutal competition and explotativeness of the natural world at its most basic level. It is the first ascent towards the more elevated and more divine part of nature, the first sign of evolution towards the positive polarity of the Creation's duality.

Recently @WilliamSmith, @Outcast9428 and myself have had various interesting discussions on monogamy and sexual relationships with WilliamSmith and myself expressing a negative opinion of marriage for most men and Outcast advocating monogamy and pro-marriage traditionalism.

My own conception of nature as expressed above influences my own perspective of marriage and society. I wrote in another thread that I have no interest in monogamy unless it is with a rare soulmate with noble qualities and whom I genuinely love. I also expressed my belief that many if not most marriages are merely for convenience (kids, economic reasons, status, etc.).

Given that I observe that most women -- and men too for that matter -- are low-consciousness, semi-bestial beings who mostly follow their own selfish drives and either consciously or subconsciously seek to exploit their partners in some way or another, I myself would prefer to avoid such mutually exploitative and interest-driven unions and preserve my own advantage by never offering commitment to such common females and taking what I want from them (sex, short-term romance, excitement) while offering them the minimum in return.

I also believe that traditional conservativism is flawed for this same reason. Low-consciousness, semi-bestial people who make up a large percentage of the population cannot truly be molded by external moral ideals. They might pay lip service to them in public but since they are driven primarily by lower drives and instincts they'll always find ways around traditional mores and act out their own primitive base desires on the sly. The strict rules of traditionalism are really just the stick keeping the more animalistic specimens of humanity in check -- at least in domains where behavior can be watched over. But they don't genuinely create change in such individuals who tend to quickly revert to their feral state once such restrictions break down.

I might accept a monogamous relationship with a noble, high-consciousness female who has transcended the competition and exploitation of the lower side of nature but those are quite rare and hard to find. It is more likely that I'll remain alone since I'm idealistic and won't settle for anything less as far as marriage is concerned.

I've just free-styled this post and don't know how coherently I've expressed my thoughts on this matter. I hope that my reflection may be coherent enough to generate a good discussion.

I agree with your reflections on gynocentricism in nature. Within the animal kingdom for example the male usually has to impress the female in order to mate. Stags and lions will fight for territory and usually mount the females of the species after displaying their superiority in physical contest with other males.

Some spiders have to perform a dance to impress the females and if the female is not impressed she will eat the male.

Peacocks and other birds use their plumage to impress and attract females.

These are just a few examples. It's a common similarity throughout the animal kingdom, with the possibility of a few exceptions. Humanity is no exception, because we are also part of the animal kingdom as well, despite our proclivity to overestimate our place in the natural world. This will always be a fact, regardless of how much we try to separate ourselves from nature. Of course, we have better cognitive abilities than animals, metaphysically our souls are more advanced, but that doesn't change the fundamental nature of human beings and the primitive desires we are driven by.

I think in the past women would choose a mate based on noble values and physical ability. Whereas now women tend to be attracted to males based on superficial reasons like the attraction to abstract attributes such as how much money someone has.

There's also been a massive degeneration of values, so good men are seen as weak. Wise men are seen as stupid and strong men are seen as thugs and potential rapists. This is why little faggy guys with no values can get women and good dudes with knowledge of martial arts are forced to live as incels.

The Jewish mafia and their social engineers have been attacking our sexuality for years! And as @Lucas88 himself said: this is a core part of the identity of our species. Through feminism and puritanism and other ideologies which highlight how much of a negative thing sex is. Why are natural desires seen as negative and bad in modern society?

The main reason why the traditional monogamous system is the best one is because it does forcibly destroy the system of competition you mentioned and give equal balance to both gender’s desires.

Men get as much sex as they want but they must remain committed to one woman whom they are the sole provider of resources for. So women, depending on how beautiful they are can get a better provider and men who want a more beautiful wife work to be a better provider. In doing so they contribute to society’s development which is why European civilization advanced so much while African societies who clung to the barbarian, war of the sexes type competition remained in mud hutts.

Polygamy is a system that simply accepts this war of the sexes and doesn’t attempt to oppose it. The men at the top of society end up sleeping with as many women as they want while the women vie to be added to a rich guy’s harem. This system is a complete disaster though and leads to borderline dystopian civilizations.

Liberalism has restarted the war of the sexes which was largely dead for hundreds of years thanks to enforced monogamy and no female independence. Before, people felt like they had to conform to this system or they would have consequences visited upon them that were pretty harsh but starting with the Enlightenment people started feeling more and more like it was wrong to punish people for this. In the Medieval and Renaissance system, degenerates were literally treated like a type of criminal. Women who committed adultery were paraded through the streets naked and forced to live the rest of their life with the stigma of an adulterer. Many former adulterers could not make a living anymore except through prostitution. Men meanwhile would have half of their property seized either for cheating on their wife or for sleeping with a married woman themselves.

Not everybody subscribes to the same traditional values espoused by yourself. For some people the idea of marriage is seen as something superfluous and even disingenuous to a degree. More of a business contract than an authentic union of love in modern society. I am not saying this as a fact, I am merely pointing out the viewpoint of some others.

Some people value their own personal freedom more than the traditional married life, which is a gateway to conformity. Marriage leads to kids, which leads to pressure to buy a house, get a car and a job to provide for the kids etc. All this takes away from the individuals personal freedom, time more creative people would rather invest into personal development, unhindered by a nagging wife or the obligation to work full time and overtime just to get by.

Don't get me wrong, married life works for some people but not for others. People who value their own personal space still desire to have girlfriends and might even enter polygamous relationships with multiple women. It's all consensual and there is nothing immoral about any of that.

Let me ask you this: Why is it that because your standard for happiness and morality is set at a monogamous married and traditional lifestyle, whereas anyone who doesn't adhere to that standard of living is seen as a degenerate or immoral? Why is YOUR standard THE standard for all human beings?

[Lucas88]

The main reason why the traditional monogamous system is the best one is because it does forcibly destroy the system of competition you mentioned and give equal balance to both gender’s desires.

Men get as much sex as they want but they must remain committed to one woman whom they are the sole provider of resources for. So women, depending on how beautiful they are can get a better provider and men who want a more beautiful wife work to be a better provider. In doing so they contribute to society’s development which is why European civilization advanced so much while African societies who clung to the barbarian, war of the sexes type competition remained in mud hutts.

Polygamy is a system that simply accepts this war of the sexes and doesn’t attempt to oppose it. The men at the top of society end up sleeping with as many women as they want while the women vie to be added to a rich guy’s harem. This system is a complete disaster though and leads to borderline dystopian civilizations.

Liberalism has restarted the war of the sexes which was largely dead for hundreds of years thanks to enforced monogamy and no female independence. Before, people felt like they had to conform to this system or they would have consequences visited upon them that were pretty harsh but starting with the Enlightenment people started feeling more and more like it was wrong to punish people for this. In the Medieval and Renaissance system, degenerates were literally treated like a type of criminal. Women who committed adultery were paraded through the streets naked and forced to live the rest of their life with the stigma of an adulterer. Many former adulterers could not make a living anymore except through prostitution. Men meanwhile would have half of their property seized either for cheating on their wife or for sleeping with a married woman themselves.

I disagree with tradcon-style enforced monogamy completely because I observe that it has an extremely dark side to it despite all of the tubthumping about its supposed merits and virtues on the part of the tradcon monogamy hodler crowd.

Because the strict rules and social expectations which monogamous traditionalism artificially imposes upon people are usually in stark contradiction with people's natural drives and individual nature, this often creates a lot of dissatisfaction in such monogamy hodler marriages. Even in more traditionalist times many marriages were empty and afflicted with frustration and unhappiness behind the so patently false outward façade of a wholesome tradcon married life. Plenty of old-timers talk about how their marriages were miserable back in their day but they remained with their spouse for the sake of the kids or social expectations or because of the stigma associated with divorce. Tradcon-style enforced monogamy often results in the subjection of the desires and happiness of the individual to the ideals of a collective or a select few. No wonder many people got sick of it. They no longer bought into the idea of "taking one for the team".

Most human beings tend towards the irrationally selfish and ignoble side and many relationships are a battleground of mutual manipulation and exploitation as I explained in my original post. This therefore leaves much room for abuse and tradcon-style enforced monogamy only serves to push more people into a situation where they are subjected to this same abuse. Your spouse might act moral and wholesome at first but then once the contract is signed and the mask comes off you are stuck in a relationship with a selfish, manipulative, exploitative partner who just seeks to take advantage of you and any noble disposition that you might have. The tradcon monogamy hodler ideology just makes it even harder for most people to get away from such a situation.

In light of my own observations and experiences, I am of the view that the two groups of people who monogamy benefits the most are women (the naturally more predatory gender within nature's gynocentrism) and undesirable men (in relative terms) while desirable men are those who benefit from it the least. Women have the most to gain materially from marriage. It might as well be a business contract to them. Low-status incel or semi-incel men like the idea of enforced monogamy because they know that they are unlikely to ever be able to compete with other men and therefore see enforced monogamy as their only hope for sexual access. Desirable men on the other hand understand that they can do much better for themselves without monogamy, enjoying sexual access with multiple women and not having to become tied down to one woman or expend many of their own material resources for sexual opportunities. In short, monogamy is not a very attractive prospect for desirable men.

Some undesirable incel or semi-incel men adopt the tradcon ideology, complain about how they have the shit end of the stick, depict themselves as "moral" and everybody else as "immoral", and in some cases even fantasize about or advocate social systems in which women are forced to marry them. They portray their own vision as "noble". My thoughts on this are more in line with those of @WilliamSmith. Many of those incel or semi-incel men aren't really noble or worthy at all. Like the so-called "nice guys" described in the RedPill material, many of them are in reality nasty little dickheads who simply put on a front of being moral and nice and feel entitled to female submission even though they don't have any of the traits or qualities that get a female wet or inspire female submission. Such guys are mostly assholes anyway and have little to offer a woman. Women and desirable men have little reason to give a shit about them.

Some tradcon monogamy hodlers like to make out that they have a monopoly on productivity and that it is through their effort that civilization stands but that isn't completely true. Plenty of non-monogamous men also have great achievements and high levels of productivity. They just don't see how monogamy benefits them personally. Even in today's age of sexual liberalism and widespread non-monogamy society is more materially advanced than ever and continues to function (most of the economic problems that we face are due to the predatory (((financial system))) which artificially has our nations by the balls). It hasn't fallen apart or ceased to function just because a subset of incel or semi-incel men aren't able to get married. We are now living in an age in which productivity is no longer directly proportionate to labor due to mechanization and automation. In fact technologist Ray Kurzweil predicts that all agriculture and industry will be automated in the 2040s. The trend of less desirable men dropping out of society isn't going to result in the collapse of civilization or even a slowing down of technological progress. The tradcon monogamy hodlers' claims concerning a lack of overall productivity in the absence of monogamy have been shown to be baseless.

In light of what is happening, I think that the best approach for an incel or semi-incel man is to adapt to the current situation, develop traits that are attractive to women and tap into their primal female instincts, and learn how to get good with women, which is, according to @WilliamSmith, a learnable skill. Now we're back to the topic of sexual strategies.

I don't mean to nitpick, @Outcast9428, but there were already relatively advanced societies in Africa prior to European colonialism. Some of them were almost on par with the European societies of the time in terms of material development but simply lacked the military strength of the Portuguese and other European colonialist nations. European exceptionalism is a myth.

[Outcast9428]

@Lucas88

Dark side to it my ass... You just don't like that some of us have an actual backbone and are willing to point out how destructive your behavior actually is and don't become submissive when you dishonestly try to flip the script on us. I know all of evil's tricks and I'm not going to fall for it as easily as other people who share my position do. What we are seeing in the United States right now with progressive states basically legalizing criminal behavior is just the logical conclusion of what they've been doing for decades... And that is legalizing and destigmatizing criminal behavior. Whether through arguing that it was "natural" or arguing that these laws somehow oppress certain groups of people. The end result is the same... Behavior which should not be tolerated, now it becomes mandatory to tolerate and then the liberals flip it around on you and say you're the immoral one for suggesting these people be punished. If sit here and try and tell me that, "of course I think thieves and rapists should be punished." I would tell you that you are simply in an earlier stage of liberalism. You have the exact same mentality you just aren't willing to take it to its logical conclusion. I strongly suspect rape may be legalized one day under the argument that "its natural" and "how can you expect rapists to control themselves? Its not natural for humans to control their impulse to rape." Oh and my favorite "criminalizing rape doesn't stop it from happening! If you criminalize it then you'll just make it worse somehow! If you criminalize it you're gonna give the government too much power to dictate every little thing humans should do! If you try to control people's impulse to rape you'll make them miserable!" I also wouldn't be surprised if people start arguing "but women secretly like being raped so we're just doing what they want us to."

These are the exact same arguments liberals put forward for legalizing rough sex, bdsm, adultery, and promiscuity. All of these behaviors used to be seen as crimes and rightfully so. I don't care if somebody does it because its in their genetics. The fact is, civilization is about overcoming nature. That's the entire point of civilization. If "giving into nature" became the predominant ideology of a civilization then it will collapse because human nature is evil. Human nature says to stab each other in the streets, rape each other, steal one another's possessions, hoard females, and slap them if they start misbehaving. @Pixel--Dude is being completely naive when he says "human beings already know what's right and wrong." Yeah no they don't. And both of you are proving that better then I possibly could given that the basis of your hostility towards various different religions whether its Christianity or Islam mainly comes from the fact that these religions will not let you sleep around and pursue your own wants as selfishly as you want to.

See Lucas, I am not as much of an incel or semi-incel as you think I am. I don't claim to be a p***y slayer like you do and I do consider it impolite to brag about matters like this. But given that you brought the topic up I feel compelled to share the following information with you. As far as looks go, I am fairly handsome. I am not overweight and my facial attractiveness would probably be rated as a 7. And I have a very strict definition of 8+ looks. In middle school, I remember at one time turning around and seeing a girl and she instantly reacted to seeing me by squealing "oh my God look at how cute he is!" In high school, approximately 5 girls that I know of had crushes on me. I did date one of them but it didn't last long. In my life, I really have never gotten any girl by approaching her because girls have always approached me. A lot of girls have been incredibly sexually forward with me as well. In college, there were some girls who came onto me so hard I simply could not resist and it led to mistakes on my part. Nowadays I avoid nightclubs, bars, and other environments where a girl is just going to use me for sex and then dump me. I am incredibly passive in my approaches to women, but my face, the fact that I'm six feet tall, and my lack of excessive body weight seem to make up for it. I should also mention that I have fairly high standards when it comes to looks and am really not tempted by girls who are lower then a 7 in looks. The first two girls I dated I'd say were a 7 whereas my ex girlfriend practically looked like a goddess. Easily an 8, bordering on a 9.

Unlike you, however, I have sympathy for less desirable men. I don't believe that they deserve to be miserable and wifeless just because they aren't as desirable as I am. I want them to be able to get a girl who's in their looks category. I am not of the belief that I should just take advantage of my looks and wealth and try to bang as many girls as I can or have harems or bullshit like that. As much as you try to deny it, by going to Latin America, you basically eliminated your competition. The average guy in Brazil, Ecuador, Colombia, Peru, and other South American countries is only about 5"7 in height. If you are 5"10 in height, then in Brazil you are taller then 85% of the male population. Even in Spain the average guy is only 5"8. If you're talking about a country like Peru there is simply no competition. The average guy there is only 5"6 and you are taller then 99% of the men there. Not only that but South American and Spanish women have higher sex drives then British women do. Height is a really huge factor and if you are taller then every other guy around you, that's going to give you a huge advantage. Even if you're the same height or shorter then the guys around you, it still lowers the difficulty by a dramatic margin. You may not think a couple inches makes that big of a difference but trust me, it does. Being 5"8 puts you at a huge disadvantage in American or British society but it doesn't in Spain because that's what the average guy's height is. A guy who is 5"8 in America needs to make $114,000 dollars more to compete with a guy who is 5"10.

I would like a more beautiful woman then most men can get, but I am not so cold hearted that I would turn other men into incels by maintaining a harem of girls. You try to give yourself a justification for your behavior by saying "if they just learned to be more desirable they could do this too" but the fact is, all your behavior does is increase the competitive standards that men have to reach and lower the standards that women have to reach. Because guys like you want to monopolize all the top girls and this leads to guys who are above average having to shoot for average looking girls, and average looking guys having to shoot for downright unattractive girls, and unattractive guys basically getting no one.

It doesn't matter how attractive they try to become, they are still screwed because guys like you are f***ing up the dynamic. As long as the top 20% of guys like you take 40% of the women, the bottom 20% of men cannot hope to compete and the middle 60% of guys are forced to lower their standards and go for women who are below their looks level. Guys like you are clearly aware of that fact, but simply don't care. You love your "master morality" that lets you do whatever you want and you justify this behavior by claiming that you earned it. You're the same as a billionaire who wants to cut wages for minimum wage workers because he wants two private jets instead of one. You don't just want to live a better life, you want to flex in other people's faces and humiliate them on top of that. You claim to respect the Latin American and Mediterranean countries but you turn their men into incels by hoarding their women. If you only chose one woman then that's fair enough because all of us should have a woman in our lives but you refuse to be satisfied with this.

You try to say "these guys feel entitled to female submission" but you clearly feel just as entitled to having sex with multiple women no matter what the consequences are for other people. The only way to deal with guys like this is through force because that's the only language you understand. Even though you suffered yourself in the UK you are delighted to perpetuate that same suffering on people who were once like you but unfortunate enough to be born in Latin America and therefore three inches shorter on average then you. You have no ethical consideration for other people at all. You believe that might makes right and whatever you can hoard for yourself, you deserve to be able to.

The ironic part of all this is that you still don't realize how special a monogamous relationship is for yourself even if you are a top dog in society so to speak. Sex when you are in love with a girl truly is 10x better then it is when you aren't. And despite what degenerates try to claim, you cannot love more then one woman. If you try to split your love between multiple women, then you fail at loving all of them.

[Lucas88]

See Lucas, I am not as much of an incel or semi-incel as you think I am. I don't claim to be a p***y slayer like you do and I do consider it impolite to brag about matters like this. But given that you brought the topic up I feel compelled to share the following information with you. As far as looks go, I am fairly handsome. I am not overweight and my facial attractiveness would probably be rated as a 7. And I have a very strict definition of 8+ looks. In middle school, I remember at one time turning around and seeing a girl and she instantly reacted to seeing me by squealing "oh my God look at how cute he is!" In high school, approximately 5 girls that I know of had crushes on me. I did date one of them but it didn't last long. In my life, I really have never gotten any girl by approaching her because girls have always approached me. A lot of girls have been incredibly sexually forward with me as well. In college, there were some girls who came onto me so hard I simply could not resist and it led to mistakes on my part. Nowadays I avoid nightclubs, bars, and other environments where a girl is just going to use me for sex and then dump me. I am incredibly passive in my approaches to women, but my face, the fact that I'm six feet tall, and my lack of excessive body weight seem to make up for it. I should also mention that I have fairly high standards when it comes to looks and am really not tempted by girls who are lower then a 7 in looks. The first two girls I dated I'd say were a 7 whereas my ex girlfriend practically looked like a goddess. Easily an 8, bordering on a 9.

C'mon Outcast, you're acting like a 16 year-old boy and it's obvious that you're lying about your past or not telling us the whole truth. Something just doesn't add up. You write a long-ass paragraph telling us about how you're a solid 7, how girls have always told you that you're cute and how you're such a catch that you're way too handsome for any girl who's a 6 or below, but then your Asian girlfriend left you just because you don't like Florida? Something just doesn't make sense, man. Your story just seems off to me.

Nah, just kidding!

I got you back though!

Dark side to it my ass...

Sure it does. I gave some reasons myself. Not everybody agrees that life was good under traditionalism.

You're an ideologue. You ignore reality for the sake of maintaining an idealized delusion of how traditionalist societies are supposed to be in your own imagination and then get triggered to f**k whenever somebody says something that contradicts your own ideological fantasies.

You just don't like that some of us have an actual backbone and are willing to point out how destructive your behavior actually is and don't become submissive when you dishonestly try to flip the script on us.

We really don't mind. We're not upset at all by your backbone or your "moral advice". We simply disagree with your position and some of your arguments. At least from our side we don't see it as big deal and simply see things as a spirited exchange of different opinions among eccentric and one-of-a-kind characters on this great forum. But maybe you do take it personally since you think that we're trying to "dishonestly flip the script on you".

But if it comes to a theocracy though, @Pixel--Dude and I (and presumably many others) are strongly opposed. We don't want to live in a society in which an elite group of moralistic assholes in robes take it upon themselves to dictate to everybody else how we can and can't live just because they claim that their authority comes from some purported holy book or their own idea of god. Some of us value freedom of conscience and are opposed to dictatorships and totalitarianism. We'd rather live in a world in which people are free to define their own lives. We're able to have a nice, friendly, civil discussion on the internet right now but if any moralistic tradcons attempt to impose a theocracy upon society in real life Pixel--Dude and I will both be more than willing to fight against it in whatever resistance movement may arise.

And that is legalizing and destigmatizing criminal behavior. Whether through arguing that it was "natural" or arguing that these laws somehow oppress certain groups of people. The end result is the same... Behavior which should not be tolerated, now it becomes mandatory to tolerate and then the liberals flip it around on you and say you're the immoral one for suggesting these people be punished. If sit here and try and tell me that, "of course I think thieves and rapists should be punished." I would tell you that you are simply in an earlier stage of liberalism. You have the exact same mentality you just aren't willing to take it to its logical conclusion. I strongly suspect rape may be legalized one day under the argument that "its natural" and "how can you expect rapists to control themselves? Its not natural for humans to control their impulse to rape." Oh and my favorite "criminalizing rape doesn't stop it from happening! If you criminalize it then you'll just make it worse somehow! If you criminalize it you're gonna give the government too much power to dictate every little thing humans should do! If you try to control people's impulse to rape you'll make them miserable!" I also wouldn't be surprised if people start arguing "but women secretly like being raped so we're just doing what they want us to.

Men having consensual sex with women in a non-monogamous context vs. nonconsensual criminal acts such as rape is like apples and oranges. They are two completely different things. Your argument is a non-sequitur.

And both of you are proving that better then I possibly could given that the basis of your hostility towards various different religions whether its Christianity or Islam mainly comes from the fact that these religions will not let you sleep around and pursue your own wants as selfishly as you want to.

Our hostility towards Christianity and Islam has nothing to do with them not letting us sleep around. You're just projecting your own beliefs with regard to why you think somebody would oppose those religions onto us.

Pixel--Dude and I don't hate Christianity because it is puritanical; we hate it because we have studied the Bible ourselves and come to the conclusion that it's a depraved, evil, immoral cult which worships a psychopathic demonic god, manipulates people into blind submission through fear and guilt, and is hostile to any form of free thought. We are absolutely intolerant towards Christianity because we know that Christians are absolutely intolerant towards everyone else. We attack Christianity because Christians attack everything else. The only difference is that they do their attacking with an air of moral superiority and under the delusion that they're doing the "will of god".

Unlike you, however, I have sympathy for less desirable men. I don't believe that they deserve to be miserable and wifeless just because they aren't as desirable as I am. I want them to be able to get a girl who's in their looks category. I am not of the belief that I should just take advantage of my looks and wealth and try to bang as many girls as I can or have harems or bullshit like that. As much as you try to deny it, by going to Latin America, you basically eliminated your competition. The average guy in Brazil, Ecuador, Colombia, Peru, and other South American countries is only about 5"7 in height. If you are 5"10 in height, then in Brazil you are taller then 85% of the male population. Even in Spain the average guy is only 5"8. If you're talking about a country like Peru there is simply no competition. The average guy there is only 5"6 and you are taller then 99% of the men there. Not only that but South American and Spanish women have higher sex drives then British women do. Height is a really huge factor and if you are taller then every other guy around you, that's going to give you a huge advantage. Even if you're the same height or shorter then the guys around you, it still lowers the difficulty by a dramatic margin. You may not think a couple inches makes that big of a difference but trust me, it does. Being 5"8 puts you at a huge disadvantage in American or British society but it doesn't in Spain because that's what the average guy's height is. A guy who is 5"8 in America needs to make $114,000 dollars more to compete with a guy who is 5"10.

Maybe you think that I'm hording women and creating my own harems in Latin America (I'm flattered that you think that I could be capable of that ) but I assure you that it's not true. I've only ever slept with one woman at a time and am not into the "four girls on rotation" thing. I'm simply not interested in committing to one woman since monogamy doesn't appeal to me at all. So I'm not turning Latin American men into incels. I'm just having short-term sexual encounters with one woman at a time like so many other men do. I'm not upsetting the sexual market balance at all.

Believe me, wherever I went plenty of Latino men were doing fine with women in their own countries. Many of them had way more game than I had even if on average they were a little shorter than me. Pretty much every man with whom I became acquainted had either a wife, a girlfriend, a sex-with-benefits type lover or casual encounters with women. Rather I envy them for the abundance of high-quality ass they've grown up with since adolescence. As a man I love Latin America. Its right-leaning liberalism with anti-feminist elements works way better than the left-leaning feministic liberalism of the Anglosphere.

Because guys like you want to monopolize all the top girls and this leads to guys who are above average having to shoot for average looking girls, and average looking guys having to shoot for downright unattractive girls, and unattractive guys basically getting no one.

I understand your bleeding heart sentiment but I'm not this moral monster that you're making me out to be and I'm not trying to monopolize all of the hot women. As I previously said, I only take one woman at a time and I'm more than happy to sleep with "5s" and "6s" (don't get pissed off with me, @WilliamSmith ) as long as they are brown and have big booties. What I do isn't monopoly but rather usufruct. I have no intention to steal a dozen women from Latin American men who I do indeed respect.

You try to say "these guys feel entitled to female submission" but you clearly feel just as entitled to having sex with multiple women no matter what the consequences are for other people. The only way to deal with guys like this is through force because that's the only language you understand. Even though you suffered yourself in the UK you are delighted to perpetuate that same suffering on people who were once like you but unfortunate enough to be born in Latin America and therefore three inches shorter on average then you. You have no ethical consideration for other people at all. You believe that might makes right and whatever you can hoard for yourself, you deserve to be able to.

I never felt "entitled" to having sex with multiple women; I simply moved to another country which favored me (i.e., location hacking), improved my own physique (i.e., gym maxxing), figured ways to make myself more attractive to women and finally scored in Spain and Latin America. I did something about my problem. I went out there and made something happen.

But many of the incel and semi-incel guys who support the idea of enforced monogamy on the internet seem to think that women should be submissive to them even though many of these guys don't even bother to develop the qualities that get women wet and make them wanna submit. It's not the fault of women that they're not attracted to these guys nor is it the fault of other men like myself. Only they can do things to improve their own lives and learn how to get good with women. If they don't take measures to make themselves more attractive to women then we can't help them either.

Your condescension towards Latin America is really misplaced. Trust me, on average Latin American men are way ahead when it comes to game and all of the "PedPill" shit than Anglos. I would have loved to be born in Latin America provided that I were born into a family with enough material comfort. I probably would have never been an incel at all.

The ironic part of all this is that you still don't realize how special a monogamous relationship is for yourself even if you are a top dog in society so to speak.

I'm not into that lovey-dovey shit anymore. It's just not my thing. I have other motivations in life other than love. We don't all want the same things.

[Outcast9428]

@Lucas88

Well there's three major reasons she gave, the long distance and not wanting to leave Florida being one of the three. I mean, not wanting to leave your state I think is a pretty plausible explanation. I find her insanely attractive, I love our times together, she's pretty much everything I've ever wanted in a girl. But even I am 50/50, if I was told by her we could be together but I had to move to Florida. It would be a hard decision. When we first started dating I think she thought I was going to move there. When I first met her I still thought Florida seemed kind of cool because of the beaches, the palm trees, and the weather. So when she was saying stuff like "you should move to Florida!" I was more open/amenable to the idea. I also mentioned to her that my mom liked Florida and wanted to move there but that my dad didn't seem on board so I did give her a lot of reasons to believe we might move. It was only after I had visited her a few times that I grew really hostile towards Florida and our relationship definitely started slowly going downhill after that point. I kept telling myself to calm down and not rant about how horrible Florida was so much when we talked but I couldn't help myself. It seemed every phone call, I heard of something else happening down there that reminded me of why I despise the state.

Okay, I would agree that if you're at least staying with one girl at a time, and you're not running around doing hookups, that its not really that bad. I would still encourage you to make a long term commitment. But I can give it to you that its not as bad as I initially believed it to be. I apologize for my blowup.

Its not really condescension to say that the men being shorter is going to reduce the competitive field. Height is something you're born with, its not your fault. But it will make you less attractive to women if you're considered by them to be short. I mean, its probably a big reason why American guys have such an easy time in the Philippines. That, and the wealth difference of course makes a big difference.

[Lucas88]

Well there's three major reasons she gave, the long distance and not wanting to leave Florida being one of the three. I mean, not wanting to leave your state I think is a pretty plausible explanation. I find her insanely attractive, I love our times together, she's pretty much everything I've ever wanted in a girl. But even I am 50/50, if I was told by her we could be together but I had to move to Florida. It would be a hard decision. When we first started dating I think she thought I was going to move there. When I first met her I still thought Florida seemed kind of cool because of the beaches, the palm trees, and the weather. So when she was saying stuff like "you should move to Florida!" I was more open/amenable to the idea. I also mentioned to her that my mom liked Florida and wanted to move there but that my dad didn't seem on board so I did give her a lot of reasons to believe we might move. It was only after I had visited her a few times that I grew really hostile towards Florida and our relationship definitely started slowly going downhill after that point. I kept telling myself to calm down and not rant about how horrible Florida was so much when we talked but I couldn't help myself. It seemed every phone call, I heard of something else happening down there that reminded me of why I despise the state.

My initial comment was just a joke and I meant nothing by it at all, but on a serious note, if you're back in negotiations with your Asian ex-girlfriend as you hinted in another comment, maybe you could reach a compromise with regard to your future place of residence. It seems like she doesn't want to leave Florida due to its obvious perks such as its pleasant climate and its beautiful beaches and also because she wants to be close to her parents. But you hate the GTA-esque chaos and the genetically modified people down there. I don't know much about life in Florida but maybe you guys could move to a smaller town away from the chaos and general craziness of the big cities like Miami. Would that be possible? If so, you'd both benefit from the greater peace and tranquility of small town life, you'd be able to go to the vibrant cities at the weekend (you'd only have to put up with the crazy Floridian savages for a few hours at a time), and your girlfriend wouldn't be too far away from her parents. Maybe you could work for one of those companies that allow you to do everything from home too since that is now becoming a trend. Just some thoughts.

Okay, I would agree that if you're at least staying with one girl at a time, and you're not running around doing hookups, that its not really that bad. I would still encourage you to make a long term commitment. But I can give it to you that its not as bad as I initially believed it to be. I apologize for my blowup.

I'm not into hookup culture at all. I don't like the bar scene to begin with and the meat market vibe of hookup culture just seems way too shallow for my tastes. I prefer short-term encounters or friends-with-benefits type arrangements with one woman at a time and want the woman to enjoy it too and to fulfill her fantasies. I always see it as an arrangement of mutual benefit. I'm happy to fulfill a Latina's fantasy of sleeping with a Caucasian dude, or to sexually heal a hot Latina milf after her stressful divorce, or to make love to a Latina BBW and make her feel appreciated as a woman. What I do is the exact opposite of the sociopathic Douche V kind of shit which actually disgusts me.

I might go into the details of why I no longer desire commitment in another post that I have planned. It's a combination of psychological trauma from a previous relationship that ended badly and really messed me up, a reflection upon the impracticalities of a long-term relationship in light of my own situation, and an acquired taste for female aesthetic variety once I went to Latin America and realized that I had options.

Its not really condescension to say that the men being shorter is going to reduce the competitive field. Height is something you're born with, its not your fault. But it will make you less attractive to women if you're considered by them to be short. I mean, its probably a big reason why American guys have such an easy time in the Philippines. That, and the wealth difference of course makes a big difference.

Height or lack thereof doesn't seem to be much of a problem among Latin American men. Those who are on the shorter side make up for it with a higher level of know-how when it comes to women. Latino men seem to instinctively know how to go after women. They are also not hindered by feminism as Anglo and Western European men are. In the parts of Latin America where I've been, race easily trumps height. Latin American women see light skin and Caucasian features and go crazy for you. Throughout most of Latina America there is a deeply rooted notion that light skin and Caucasian features are attractive while dark indigenous features are not. This gives any okay-looking White dude an advantage even before we factor in height or anything else.

But fortunately there aren't many gringos in most parts of Latin America barring a few American expat communities here and there. This is good for both the gringos and the local men. Caucasian guys from the US or Western Europe retain our rare status as the exotic coveted prize for women but at the same time we're so few that we don't disrupt the local dating market in any way.

[Outcast9428]

@Lucas88

She sort of mentioned something along those lines. Not a small town, but she talks a lot about a certain neighborhood she's always liked. Some of the rich neighborhoods in Florida are still pretty sketchy and full of Jeffrey Epstein type dudes but this one doesn't give off that feeling/vibe I will admit. What I kept telling her though was that, even if we find a nice, tiny little bubble in Florida that our kids would never feel comfortable just staying in that tiny bubble their entire lives. When they're teenagers they will definitely want to go other places. After-all, her parents sort of did that and kept her in a fairly comfy suburb but she didn't stay in that suburb her entire life either. I don't know, its something to think about I guess.

Even if they find ways to make up for it, I'm sure the height problems still put them at a disadvantage.

[WilliamSmith]

Ahhh, yet another thought-provoking discussion to cause me to sit around for hours on good old Happier Abroad!

Last night I was reflecting upon the dark side of nature. I was thinking about the dynamics of sexual selection and how males and females constantly vie for their own opposed interests. I came to the conclusion that nature itself is "gynocentric" -- at least at the more primitive and unevolved levels -- and that males are the slaves within nature's intricate system.

Throughout the natural world males typically engage in brutal competition for access to females in a zero-sum manner. The competition may include direct violent struggle among competing males or a hunt for material resources. The competition among human males has been up until now largely the same as that of the animal kingdom. Throughout history men have engaged in warfare and conquest in order to take women from other men or have otherwise engaged in economic competition with the goal of attracting a wife or sometimes even multiple women. But the underlying dynamic is always the same: males brutally compete and bust their own asses in order to serve the needs of females. Yes, as cynical as it may be, the males serve the females. We are the expendable slaves. We are much like the workers and soldiers who serve the queen within the hive.

I agree we compete and bust our own asses to get the women we want, but don't see that it's to serve the needs of females at all: In a more barbaric environment, whether it's in the ancient world, or more modern day tribalism of some sort, the alpha males brawling or competing with each other in some other way are doing it so they can take the women they want from the other men (and keep the other men from taking them back), not to serve the women!
Of course, if they depart from those "primitive" foundations and generate some kind of clan traditions that can involve giving women some kind of status in their own society, then things can change in a big way (eg some kind of maternal goddess worship tribe/clan/nation, for example), but pretty sure the "foundations" at the brute force level are pretty much men fighting each other to take the women they want for themselves, and then jump her bones.

Being a good provider might be virtuous depending on context, but the monogamists who get suckered into believing societal programming try to redefine masculinity about being a good provider and doing other things you could describe as serving the women, but that's a departure from the real primal barbarian man dynamics.
Again, not saying be a provider is bad (it might even be the virtuous thing to do, in context), I'm just saying that this is not the actual foundation, but a departure from the "fundamentals" of basic barbarian man primal masculinity where men just outright take what they want.
Not you Lucas88 (who I'm guessing comes across as way more masculine than most men, after you had your awakening via your fun story about shifting the dynamics toward the more alpha/dominant male role and even getting your Peruvian babe chasing back after you after she'd been misbehaving before then, LOL), but more typical guys who rationalize they need to be providers or try to impress women with displays of "status" or this SMV nonsense have gotten too cerebral in their redefinition of masculinity, which is one of the reasons so many of them are such chumps with women and end up becoming cynical when gold-diggers get them by the balls. But the problem is their emphasis was wrong to begin with, so by trying to impress the women by trying to do something to serve her in some way, they come off as more beta males who aren't as sexually exciting as anyone from a Chad to an older James Bond type (who can be nice/gentlemanly to the women but will still come off as a real masculine man who takes what he wants, not trying to impress the women as though she has any power over them or he's trying to do tricks for her or this god-awful "provide/show value" stuff I hear some guys saying). They also attract gold-diggers by acting this way and are more likely to get taken for a ride and then become even more cynical afterward, but this only happened to them to begin with because their foundational assumptions about attraction were wrong and then they gave up $$$ to the women themselves even though no one forced them to. (If the gold-diggers pickpocketed them or pulled a gun or knife on them and demanded they hand over their wallet, then it's another story, but that's a different category of "gold-digger.")

But if they'd been focusing on attraction dynamics at the primal level (even in a context of gentlemanly civility on the surface), they could even have screened out gold-diggers from the start, as well as being more confident in getting the women horny via the primal male/female fundamentals, rather than a counter productive diversion into SMV/status and being servile hoping she'd eventually decide you were such a great guy she'd put out, LOL.

Men who end up acting too subservient to women in the mistaken belief they're scoring points by doing things for her are totally infamous for having women's level of primal sexual attraction to her man fall off a cliff too. Often also happens if he seemed like more of a hunk who takes what he wants at first, but later turns into a comfortable "AFC" after getting into a longer-term relationship and the chicks end up having their sexual attraction level fizzle out...

I think real romance is wonderful and am all for monogamous marriage *IF* (the kicker) both hodlers involved actually really want to do things that way, it's just that the scores and scores of men having their relationships fail because they lose that edge of primal masculinity.

[WilliamSmith]

Here's an interesting second dimension of this discussion: Are male and female interests actually opposed? I don't think so, necessarily..........

Beyond reproduction male and female interests are largely opposed. Men want access to sex -- often with multiple women -- for as little effort and expenditure of resources as possible. Women want material resources from men as well as male utility in various forms and often use the prospect of sexual access to exploit practical favors from men regardless of whether they are really willing to out out or not.

I don't think so, I think the actual dynamic is: Men want access to sex (fair enough with as little effort and expenditure of resources, heheh), women want EVEN MORE sex, but because of primal masculine/feminine biological sexual dimorphism (which I actually think may have an energetic and spiritual side to it, but at minimum biological), the woman needs the man to be in the masculine leading role sexually so she can get off on it in response. Wanting the man to lead sexually isn't the same thing as trying to get men to be subservient in a non-sexual context though, which always turns women off bigtime because it does not seem like archetypally masculine behavior that sexually arouses them. Sticking just with the "hot and heavy" (not getting into stuff like tantric/energy orgasms), the biggest vaginal orgasms where the contractions would be pulling his sperm into the womb to get her pregnant.

Then after pregnancy that's an interesting side topic of how it would make sense for women to be wired (theoretically) to want resources and "male utility" and practical favors, but it's not clear to me that's necessarily wired in to women's physical primal sexual natures, because even if they want the man they're in a relationship to be a good provider and she gives him a lot of credit for that, the sexual part is still all based on wanting to get balled by some strapping swashbuckling he-man, not to actually have sexual arousal based on anything to do with provider behavior....

Women's instinctual "testing" or possibly even manipulation of men is quite an interesting side topic... Actually, I do think there is some primal biological basis to it, but I would guess that the actual reason that's become encoded in female DNA to some degree (even if a lot of the mainstream "evolutionary" theory is bogus) is that in the more primal barbaric contexts as well as highly male-dominated or so-called "patriarchal" societies, women have absolutely nil power over a man (hence no power or autonomy of her own) in a lot of cases, so the only way they could gain any power (possibly just for self-protective purposes for herself or children) was via her ability to get men do what she wants.... But this is one of the trickier things in dealing with women's sexual psychology, because even if they don't consciously realize this (though many do), they infamously lose sexual attraction to the men who actually fall for letting the women manipulate them, or the most typical case where the guy thinks like homo economicus and rationalizes that doing a bunch of stuff for her is supposedly going to stack up points in his favor, when actually it results in his "failing" her test and seeming less manly and dominant, and thus less sexually exciting.

A huge number of monogamy hodler marriages fail almost entirely because the women crave primal sex bad but the men won't learn how to provide it: Many married women who value their husbands even spend literally years and years trying to get their husband to read books together or at least talk about sex so that he can learn enough to be able to do her well enough that she get off on him in bed (or wherever else she wants him to bang her brains out, not just in bed, LOL), but many of them men still refuse to do it, and that's why a lot of women either cheat or else just break it off with him. But that's not the same thing as men and women's natural interests being opposed, it's because the men haven't learned how to get their own women off sexually so the women a lot of times eventually have to throw in the towel if they can't persuade them to learn.

Our different respective desires serve as the source of a continuous conflict of wills. This is the true age-old origin of the so-called "war of the sexes", not feminism. Feminism is simply an underhanded strategy to shift sexual power dramatically in favor of women while at the same time breaking down men and stigmatizing any male opposition to female power plays. But it is certainly not the origin of this.

I think most of the "war of the sexes" is just men and women not understanding each other's primal sexual needs well enough so that they're not able to relate to each other harmoniously, and systems of societal rules or trends come in and get in the way of that and then provide disinfo (intentional or unintentional), but far, far worse on disinfo are the religions, especially the Abrahamic hoax slave religions that deliberately wage war on primal male/female healthy sexuality. @Pixel--Dude I believe touched on this but I'll come back to it.

As for feminism, I don't really think there's any coherent definition of feminism out there: Originally it was just jewdeo-Christian karens wanting both voting rights for women, and I believe also wanting a higher standard of protection for basic women and children's human rights (most of which I'd probably agree with), but then the feminist movement got COMPLETELY hijacked by female jews who not only relentlessly waged war on the traditional family and introduced their usual array of ideas that both their communism and their judaism are saturated with: Perversion overall (as well as relentless anti-gentilism) is arguably the intrinsic nature of biologic jews, and it's no surprise that the "feminism" produced and promoted by female jews was fixated on the total perversion of basic biological sexuality, the destruction of family unit, and last but not least on homosexuality and transgenderism. The proof is completely in on this one in the present day and age in which they've surpassed the levels of extreme sexual perversion even seen in Weimar Germany, but that's no surprise considering the Talmud has always endorsed pedophilia and also talks esoteric nonsense about transgenderism and supposed 6 non-binary genders, amongst so many other perversions they copy-paste into their many other "isms..."


Edit: I remembered a much larger and more "inclusive" version of that infographic showing the mugshots of the female jews, and saved myself some time with a rant I already did on this subject in another thread. It wasn't Lucas88 I was responding to in the post below, but I'll repost speaking to the overall topic, since it's making my point that "feminism" is not based on any intrinsic natural properties of "women" since the jews that hijacked the movement can't properly be described as "women" or even human at all in the same way as gentiles. ("Humanoid," unfortunately yes, enough to infest gentile socities who don't know any better than to keep them out, but they themselves preach from their "holy" books that their own DNA is literally from an alien dimension with a messianic mission to conquer and overthrow gentile nations, and you can see in the mercilessly physiologically repugnant examples below how they're so genetically sexually perverted and mutated that they do in fact display biological "gender fluidity" much of the time, as well as having an overall grotesquely alien nature in their physiology as well as their twisted warped and depraved minds.)

Also, a second point: You yourself know jews are a problem so you ought to know better blaming "feminism" on all women, since the entire second wave feminism is designed and implemented by sexually perverted female jews who introduced the concept that gender was a "supremacist" social construct, and deliberately raved and ranted openly about how their goal was the destruction of the nuclear family to bring about radical revolutionary change (and the jews decriminalizing adult-child sex on the grounds that age of consent laws are supposedly homo/trans-phobic are playing the same game in the globohomo scene).

As for the current "feminism": The oligarchies of sexaully perverted satanic jews like some of the Pritzkers are to blame for topdown implementation of the new wave of transgenderism and globohomo that "feminism" has mutated into now, not "women." They're even literally now saying mutant satanic jews and violent trannies who still have schlongs and nutsacks who "identify" as women and go crack female athlete's skulls in "women's sports" are "women" now, thanks to the satanic jew transgender and globohomo agenda they've unleashed via their oligarchical financing and controlled media, "philanthropy" organizations, NGOs, rampant corruption of the jewdicial systme, etc.

Substantiating the point with pictures:

2nd wave feminism, a real world wax museum horror exhibition of sexually perverted and mentally twisted female jews, not something that can be fairly blamed on "women":


The Pritzkers, only one of the numerous super-rich satanic jew oligarchy clans with prominent members involved in pushing the synagogue of satan's globohomo and transgender agenda. But you get my point that blaming it on "women" is total BS, and just what the bad guys would want the ignorant to do to keep fostering the divisions in the host/occupied/infested societies, where they're destroying families everywhere the jews are allowed to get away with promoting all of this demonic perversion:
https://national-justice.com/american-o ... -pritzkers
https://nationalvanguard.org/2020/02/th ... genderism/


The main culprit specifically featured in those articles is this particular 'Jennifer' (formerly James):

I posted quite a bit of the details here earlier:
viewtopic.php?p=371720#p371720

[Lucas88]

I agree we compete and bust our own asses to get the women we want, but don't see that it's to serve the needs of females at all: In a more barbaric environment, whether it's in the ancient world, or more modern day tribalism of some sort, the alpha males brawling or competing with each other in some other way are doing it so they can take the women they want from the other men (and keep the other men from taking them back), not to serve the women!

On our own subjective level we men think that we are competing and busting our asses to get the women we want and that is true from our individual perspective but my argument is that on a bigger picture level we are subordinate to Nature and strongly controlled by the internal drives that She has given us and that within that overall natural scheme males serve women -- much more than vice versa -- through our competition for resources with other males and our provision of resources for females. Our own selfish desire to take women for ourselves and derive gratification from such encounters is Nature's mechanism to ensure that males participate in our assigned role. This is the case regardless of whether we are aware of it or not. In the natural world females are generally served and cared for by males since females have the rarer and cherished ability to give birth (possible only once every nine months in humans). Males on the other hand are more expendable given that one man can impregnate multiple women at the same time. The competition for us is much harder and we take on the role of servant - the active yang which works to fertilize and nourish the passive yin.

I say this in the most neutral manner. I believe that this is simply how Nature operates at the primitive level. I'm not going to go all MGTOW and argue that we have to renounce Nature or the role which She has assigned to us due to Nature's metaphysical gynocentrism. Men simply have to accept that both men and women are controlled to a large degree by natural drives and that we must therefore work within the parameters of Nature. To do otherwise would only entail a renunciation of what we are.

I don't think so, I think the actual dynamic is: Men want access to sex (fair enough with as little effort and expenditure of resources, heheh), women want EVEN MORE sex, but because of primal masculine/feminine biological sexual dimorphism (which I actually think may have an energetic and spiritual side to it, but at minimum biological), the woman needs the man to be in the masculine leading role sexually so she can get off on it in response. Wanting the man to lead sexually isn't the same thing as trying to get men to be subservient in a non-sexual context though, which always turns women off bigtime because it does not seem like archetypally masculine behavior that sexually arouses them. Sticking just with the "hot and heavy" (not getting into stuff like tantric/energy orgasms), the biggest vaginal orgasms where the contractions would be pulling his sperm into the womb to get her pregnant.

But that only accounts for the sexual dynamic in isolation (and you're right to point out that women also crave sex with primally masculine men who turn them on and give them powerful orgasms). Even before it comes to the topic of sex on a more fundamental level all biological beings including humans are concerned with survival and so the selfish impulse to exploit already exists in its own right. Humans look to exploit one another for resources and control even in non-sexual contexts and indeed Nietzsche affirmed that life itself is exploitation and the Will to Power. This same impulse obviously is also transferred into the domain of sexual relationships where manipulation and sexual power plays become a source of power for both men and women, although women seem to be naturally more skilled at this by and large.

This same egoism is Nature's "dark side" so to speak and is observable in so many people who just seem so solipsistic and irrationally selfish in their thinking and behavior but I don't think that it's all negative. I believe that consciousness is evolutive within Nature's dualistic creation and that a minority of evolved souls have partially transcended such lower-level egoism and developed traits and qualities of nobility. This is observable in people with high levels of natural altruism or a well-developed sense of fairness. But most people are not like that and so those of us who do possess such natural nobility mustn't let our guards down. We too must still play the game in the face of less naturally noble and more selfish people and figure out strategies to acquire what we want or need without getting exploited or burned by others. Nobility is fine among the mutually noble but it only becomes a disadvantage when faced with ignoble individuals.

Being a good provider might be virtuous depending on context, but the monogamists who get suckered into believing societal programming try to redefine masculinity about being a good provider and doing other things you could describe as serving the women, but that's a departure from the real primal barbarian man dynamics.
Again, not saying be a provider is bad (it might even be the virtuous thing to do, in context), I'm just saying that this is not the actual foundation, but a departure from the "fundamentals" of basic barbarian man primal masculinity where men just outright take what they want.
Not you Lucas88 (who I'm guessing comes across as way more masculine than most men, after you had your awakening via your fun story about shifting the dynamics toward the more alpha/dominant male role and even getting your Peruvian babe chasing back after you after she'd been misbehaving before then, LOL), but more typical guys who rationalize they need to be providers or try to impress women with displays of "status" or this SMV nonsense have gotten too cerebral in their redefinition of masculinity, which is one of the reasons so many of them are such chumps with women and end up becoming cynical when gold-diggers get them by the balls.

This is fascinating stuff here. I wholly agree with your evaluation. Primal masculinity is what really gets most women off at the most fundamental level. Provider game is just a secondary phenomenon which emerged once human societies became more complex and continued to be magnified as trade and luxury goods developed but it can never replace the original dynamic of primal masculinity and femininity and the sexual alchemy which results from the fusion of these two natural principles and so the emphasis of primal masculinity is the most effective strategy to attract women despite many millennia of "civilization".

Of course, in modern societies men need an avenue through which to reconnect with our primal masculinity. We need activities through which we can manifest it in a conspicuous and tangible manner. This is where gym maxxing and martial arts training come in. Not only is it advantageous to develop a physically fit and attractive masculine body but it is also necessary and of even more importance to cultivate masculine psychological traits and behavioral qualities. Hypermasculine activities and the study of sexually dimorphic behaviors and female sexual psychology serve this purpose.

I've said it before:

When you develop a good body and ooze primal masculinity many women get turned on immensely and will even let us f**k them for free. We don't have to run any provider game or even have money on display. All of that SMV BS becomes irrelevant.

[WanderingProtagonist]

I agree we compete and bust our own asses to get the women we want, but don't see that it's to serve the needs of females at all: In a more barbaric environment, whether it's in the ancient world, or more modern day tribalism of some sort, the alpha males brawling or competing with each other in some other way are doing it so they can take the women they want from the other men (and keep the other men from taking them back), not to serve the women!

On our own subjective level we men think that we are competing and busting our asses to get the women we want and that is true from our individual perspective but my argument is that on a bigger picture level we are subordinate to Nature and strongly controlled by the internal drives that She has given us and that within that overall natural scheme males serve women -- much more than vice versa -- through our competition for resources with other males and our provision of resources for females. Our own selfish desire to take women for ourselves and derive gratification from such encounters is Nature's mechanism to ensure that males participate in our assigned role. This is the case regardless of whether we are aware of it or not. In the natural world females are generally served and cared for by males since females have the rarer and cherished ability to give birth (possible only once every nine months in humans). Males on the other hand are more expendable given that one man can impregnate multiple women at the same time. The competition for us is much harder and we take on the role of servant - the active yang which works to fertilize and nourish the passive yin.

I say this in the most neutral manner. I believe that this is simply how Nature operates at the primitive level. I'm not going to go all MGTOW and argue that we have to renounce Nature or the role which She has assigned to us due to Nature's metaphysical gynocentrism. Men simply have to accept that both men and women are controlled to a large degree by natural drives and that we must therefore work within the parameters of Nature. To do otherwise would only entail a renunciation of what we are.

I don't think so, I think the actual dynamic is: Men want access to sex (fair enough with as little effort and expenditure of resources, heheh), women want EVEN MORE sex, but because of primal masculine/feminine biological sexual dimorphism (which I actually think may have an energetic and spiritual side to it, but at minimum biological), the woman needs the man to be in the masculine leading role sexually so she can get off on it in response. Wanting the man to lead sexually isn't the same thing as trying to get men to be subservient in a non-sexual context though, which always turns women off bigtime because it does not seem like archetypally masculine behavior that sexually arouses them. Sticking just with the "hot and heavy" (not getting into stuff like tantric/energy orgasms), the biggest vaginal orgasms where the contractions would be pulling his sperm into the womb to get her pregnant.

But that only accounts for the sexual dynamic in isolation (and you're right to point out that women also crave sex with primally masculine men who turn them on and give them powerful orgasms). Even before it comes to the topic of sex on a more fundamental level all biological beings including humans are concerned with survival and so the selfish impulse to exploit already exists in its own right. Humans look to exploit one another for resources and control even in non-sexual contexts and indeed Nietzsche affirmed that life itself is exploitation and the Will to Power. This same impulse obviously is also transferred into the domain of sexual relationships where manipulation and sexual power plays become a source of power for both men and women, although women seem to be naturally more skilled at this by and large.

This same egoism is Nature's "dark side" so to speak and is observable in so many people who just seem so solipsistic and irrationally selfish in their thinking and behavior but I don't think that it's all negative. I believe that consciousness is evolutive within Nature's dualistic creation and that a minority of evolved souls have partially transcended such lower-level egoism and developed traits and qualities of nobility. This is observable in people with high levels of natural altruism or a well-developed sense of fairness. But most people are not like that and so those of us who do possess such natural nobility mustn't let our guards down. We too must still play the game in the face of less naturally noble and more selfish people and figure out strategies to acquire what we want or need without getting exploited or burned by others. Nobility is fine among the mutually noble but it only becomes a disadvantage when faced with ignoble individuals.

Being a good provider might be virtuous depending on context, but the monogamists who get suckered into believing societal programming try to redefine masculinity about being a good provider and doing other things you could describe as serving the women, but that's a departure from the real primal barbarian man dynamics.
Again, not saying be a provider is bad (it might even be the virtuous thing to do, in context), I'm just saying that this is not the actual foundation, but a departure from the "fundamentals" of basic barbarian man primal masculinity where men just outright take what they want.
Not you Lucas88 (who I'm guessing comes across as way more masculine than most men, after you had your awakening via your fun story about shifting the dynamics toward the more alpha/dominant male role and even getting your Peruvian babe chasing back after you after she'd been misbehaving before then, LOL), but more typical guys who rationalize they need to be providers or try to impress women with displays of "status" or this SMV nonsense have gotten too cerebral in their redefinition of masculinity, which is one of the reasons so many of them are such chumps with women and end up becoming cynical when gold-diggers get them by the balls.

This is fascinating stuff here. I wholly agree with your evaluation. Primal masculinity is what really gets most women off at the most fundamental level. Provider game is just a secondary phenomenon which emerged once human societies became more complex and continued to be magnified as trade and luxury goods developed but it can never replace the original dynamic of primal masculinity and femininity and the sexual alchemy which results from the fusion of these two natural principles and so the emphasis of primal masculinity is the most effective strategy to attract women despite many millennia of "civilization".

Of course, in modern societies men need an avenue through which to reconnect with our primal masculinity. We need activities through which we can manifest it in a conspicuous and tangible manner. This is where gym maxxing and martial arts training come in. Not only is it advantageous to develop a physically fit and attractive masculine body but it is also necessary and of even more importance to cultivate masculine psychological traits and behavioral qualities. Hypermasculine activities and the study of sexually dimorphic behaviors and female sexual psychology serve this purpose.

I've said it before:

When you develop a good body and ooze primal masculinity many women get turned on immensely and will even let us f**k them for free. We don't have to run any provider game or even have money on display. All of that SMV BS becomes irrelevant.

None of this even matters anymore when you have a lot of women hitting the gym becoming just as masculine as the men are. Besides, men with power will always triumph over men with a good looking body. If you stood beside Trump naked side by side in front of a room full of naked women and you were in good shape but he was a old out of shape white man. Guess who the women are still going to choose. Obviously Trump. Being a leader alone will get women attracted to you regardless of your body physique. All the men that control their nations in the world, none of them have fitness bodies. The most powerful men in the world were never in good shape. That includes men that fought in famous wars. If you looked up photographs of a lot of men from the Samurai era, they had average bodies none of them fit the image of ripped Samurai men from anime's and movies, but because they commanded armies and if you had Shogun status, you could have easily gotten any woman you damn well wanted. Power alone will do more for you than a ripped body would. Since obtaining power is even more difficult than achieving a good looking body. Any man can get in good shape if he's determined, but not any man can obtain power. Let alone hold on to it long enough.