In Defense of Evo-Psych

11401070_898653166873667_5827836315704352642_n

You’ll have to forgive this exceptionally long post here, but for many critics of (and in) the manosphere of evolutionary psychology the following post articulates things better than I could. Some in the ‘sphere seem to think a reliance on evo-psych is some form of blind faith at worst; some sort of creative, purpose-built guesswork at best.

It is not.

When I apply anything regarding evolutionary psychology on Rational Male I approach it in the most deductive manner I can see fit insofar as connecting the behavioral dots with the social apparatus I observe. While Red Pill awareness isn’t reliant upon evo-psych it is founded upon a similar observationally deductive methodology.

Evo-psych is a very broad school of psychology that is not just limited to intersexual relations. While I do largely embrace the foundations of evo-psych, it’s important to remember that my particular education revolves around behaviorism.

The following re-blog here is a collection of ten answers to common criticisms of evolutionary psychology by Dr. David P. Schmitt. I’ve pared it down a bit for readability, but do see the link for all the sources cited.

Emphasis my own.


A few years ago, I was giving an invited presentation to an audience of mostly sociologists and family studies professors on the topic of evolution and human reproductive strategies. I mentioned that some social scientists hold false beliefs about “evolutionary psychology,” such as the mistaken assumption that evolutionary psychologists think all men are interested in bedding as many women as possible (often called short-term mating), whereas all women are only interested in marrying a single man and staying faithful to him for a lifetime (i.e., long-term mating).

When I tried to dispel this common misperception by noting, for instance, that evolutionary psychologists have hypothesized women are just as designed for short-term mating as men are—in some ways even more so such as women’s heightened desires for cues to genetic quality in short-term mates—an audible gasp swept through the conference hall. I kid you not, I could see rows of people who looked genuinely horrified. I was a little taken aback, so I asked an audience member near the front row who had her hand over her mouth if something was unclear, to which she proclaimed, “that’s not the evolutionary psychology I know.”

When I tried to explain that women’s evolved short-term mating desires have been studied by evolutionary psychologists since the early 1990s and the topic remains a very active area of inquiry today, heads swiveled in disbelief. My subsequent Power Point slides chock-full of studies confirming women’s specially designed short-term mating psychology were falling, I feared, on an auditorium of deaf ears (or blind eyes, I suppose). Alas, this stereotype about evolutionary psychology wasn’t going to change anytime soon.

It seems to me many critics of evolutionary psychology cling steadfastly to false stereotypes of the field, both theoretical and empirical. This is partly because so much evolutionary psychological research has been produced over the last 25 years it is hard for even evolutionary-informed scholars themselves to keep up (for an up-to-date review, I recommend Buss’ new edition of The Evolutionary Psychology Handbook[1]). Add to that the methodological breadth of different techniques used by evolutionary scholars to test hypotheses about the adaptive design of the human mind, and it is understandably difficult to know what all evolutionary researchers have been, and currently are, up to as active Darwinian scientists.

Perhaps more than other social scientists, evolutionary psychologists use an incredible variety of research methods, ranging from self-report surveys and behavioral field test experiments, to investigations involving genetics, hormones, and neuroscience, to cross-species and cross-cultural comparisons, to ethnographies of foraging societies and computer modeling of artificial intelligences[2] [3] [4]. To be aware of contemporary evolutionary psychology requires broad and deep knowledge of many scholarly disciplines, and a lot of evolutionary psychology’s critics simply do not know what they do not know about the field as it is practiced today.

Beyond simply not knowing about the empirical breadth and methodological richness of modern evolutionary science, many critics exhibit a certain kind of “empirical nihilism” toward any psychological findings even remotely portrayed as supporting evolutionary hypotheses. For instance, when one points to a set of studies that respond to a specific criticism, some critics reply with a “yes, but” attitude and set forth new criticisms requiring more evidence (sort of a serial “moving the goalposts” maneuver).

Now, in science extreme skepticism is generally a good thing. For scientists, there are no capital “T” Truths, and every claim about reality is tentatively true with a small “t” and is always adjustable as more evidence is accumulated over time. Sometimes, though, this attitude is more than healthy skepticism about a particular empirical finding and is, instead, clearly an attitude of irrefutable empirical nihilism toward evolutionary psychology studies in particular. As an example of this type of unshakeable attitude of disbelief, I list below 10 of the more common “yes, but” criticisms of evolutionary findings on women’s long-term mate preferences. It’s an illustrative (not exhaustive) list of just how impenetrable some scholar’s beliefs are when it comes to considering evidence that our evolved human mind might be something more than a domain-general learning mechanism writing on an asexual, ungendered blank slate. 

Women’s Long-Term Mate Preferences

Looking across the animal kingdom, one cannot help but notice that members of most species tend to mate non-randomly. Whether it is peahens preferring peacocks with more elaborate trains[5] or female common chimpanzees preferring males who possess higher social dominance[6], males and females of most species display adaptive forms of preferential mate choice.

Evolutionary psychologists were among the first to propose similar sex differences might exist in human mate preferences. For instance, evolutionary psychologists hypothesized that women may possess specially-designed long-term mate preferences for cues to a man’s ability and willingness to devote resources to her and their offspring[7] [8] [9]. Such cues include a man’s status and prestige which, depending on local culture, may involve hunting ability, physical strength, or other locally-relevant attributes, as well as his ambition, work ethic, intelligence, social dominance, maturity, and slightly older age[10] [11]. Not all women desire the highest value long-term mate at all times, of course, but it is expected that women’s long-term mate preferences should be marked by some degree of “special design” that is reliably observable using the methodological richness of modern evolutionary psychological science.

One way to evaluate whether women possess long-term mate preferences for cues to status-related traits is to directly ask people whether they prefer those attributes in long-term mates (via methods such as self-report surveys), and then compare the intensity of responses of women and men. When doing so, psychologists typically evaluate the degree of sexual differentiation using the dstatistic, with an observed d value of ±.20 being considered a “small” sex difference, ±.50 is a “moderate” sex difference, and ±.80 is a “large” sex difference[12]. Negative d values typically indicate women score more highly on a particular preference, whereas positive values indicate men score more highly.

Buss and Barnes[13] were among the first to evaluate whether women (more than men) prefer cues related to a man’s ability and willingness to devote resources. For instance, they found women more strongly prefer long-term mates who have a “good earning capacity” (a large sex difference, d = -0.82), “are a college graduate” (d = -0.60), and “possess intelligence” (d = -0.19). Obviously, these findings are not definitive proof that men and women differ in the evolved design of long-term mate preferences. The findings are merely tests of evolutionary-guided hypotheses, and the tests were supportive of specially-designed sex differences existing in human mate preferences. Still, some critics challenge these results, arguing yes, but…

1) Yes, but…that is just one study. One cannot trust the results of just one study. Evolutionary psychologists need to conduct many more studies before I am convinced these effects are legitimate, let alone evidence of evolved psychology. I’m sure many other studies wouldn’t find sex differences in mate preferences.

Actually, most investigations of sex differences in mate preferences have been supportive of these hypotheses (to be honest, virtually all studies have). In 1992, Feingold[14] meta-analytically reviewed the extant literature (including 32 independent samples) on self-reported mate preferences across college students and community samples and found women more greatly desired socioeconomic status (d = -0.69), ambition (d = -0.67), and intelligence (d = -0.30) in potential long-term mates. Numerous additional investigations have since replicated these basic sex differences in long-term mate preferences among college students[15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. For instance, a recent study focused on women’s mate preferences for men with the ability to invest in them, revealing that college women desire a man who has earned his money (compared to other sources), ostensibly reflective of the aforementioned qualities (ambition, work ethic, intelligence), and that this effect is strongest in the long-term mating context[23].

2) Yes, but…those studies are mostly with college students. People in the real world (e.g., representative samples of adults) won’t display these stereotypical sex differences of youth.

Actually, yes they do[24] [25] [26]. For instance, Sprecher and her colleagues[27] examined sex differences in mate preferences across a nationally-representative sample of the United States and found women, more than men, valued a long-term mate who had a steady job (d = -0.73), earned more than they did (d = -0.49), was highly educated (d = -0.43), and was older by five years (d = -0.67). Young or old[28] [29] [30], gay or straight[31] [32], sex differences in long-term mate preferences for status-related attributes tend to reliably emerge.

3) Yes, but…many of those findings are from decades ago. Sex differences in mate preferences are probably not historically stable. They may have existed many decades ago (in the era of Mad Men), but sex differences in mate preferences are surely not present in more recent times.

Actually, yes they are. In a cross-generational analysis of the same mate preference questionnaire administered to Americans from 1939 to 1996, both men and women increased their valuing of good financial prospects and decreased valuing ambition/industriousness over time, but the degree of sex differences in these items largely persisted in strength across more than 50 years[33].

4) Yes, but…that is only when you have people self-report their ideal mate preferences from a pre-chosen list of traits given to them. If you ask them what they really want, say at a minimum, or maybe let them freely design their ideal potential partners, status-related traits aren’t emphasized by women more than men.

Actually, yes they are. Researchers have questioned people about their long-term mate preferences using a wide variety of self-report methodologies. Kenrick and his colleagues[34] asked people what the minimum threshold of possessing a particular attribute would need to be to agree to marry a person. Women, on average, required men’s earning capacity to be in the 70th percentile to be marriageable, whereas men required women to be in the 40th percentile (overall d = -1.41).

Using another nuanced form of self-report, Li[35] compelled men and women to engage in tradeoffs among various cues when intentionally designing a desirable long-term mate. Women devoted the most of their limited budget toward their mates’ social level (33%), whereas for men social level was of moderate budgetary importance (17%). Across a series of studies[36], researchers using this tradeoff paradigm concluded that women, but not men, consider a long-term mate’s social status a “necessity” and not a “luxury.” Indeed, when forced to make decisions with very limited budgets, sex differences in long-term mate preferences are stronger than with typical self-report surveys.

Self-report surveys also reveal men, more than women, appear effective at displaying status-related traits to the opposite sex[37]. Overall, self-report methods (via ratings, rankings, trade-offs, nominations, or open-ended questions[38]) consistently support the hypothesis that women possess long-term mate preferences for cues to a man’s ability and willingness to devote resources.

5) Yes, but…this is only because women are denied access to resources themselves. If women have higher status themselves, they would not prefer men with high status. It’s just basic rationality, not evolved psychology, causing these sex differences in mate preferences for status.

Actually, it is a compelling test of women’s long-term mate preferences for men’s status-related traits (including their ability and willingness to provide resources) to evaluate whether their expressed preferences disappear when women have ample resources of their own. It could be women only prefer cues to men’s ability and willingness to provide resources because women are structurally denied access to resources[39].

Addressing this alternative explanation, Townsend and his colleagues have found women in medical school[40] and law school[41] are more selective of a future mate’s financial status, not less. Similarly, Wiederman and Allgeier[42] found college women’s expected income was positively associated with their ratings of the importance of a potential long-term mate’s earning capacity. Regan[43] found as women’s mate value goes up, so does their insistence on men’s high status and resources (i.e., they “want it all”; see also[44]). Having higher personal status and resource-related traits appears not to attenuate women’s preferences for cues to men’s ability and willingness to provide resources. Instead, at least in the USA, women achieving high status themselves appears to make their long-term mate preferences for men’s high status even more intense!

6) Yes, but…that is only true in the United States. Americans happen to live in a culture with conspicuous gender stereotypes about mate preferences that the rest of the world does not share. If you look at more gender egalitarian cultures, in Scandinavia for instance, sex differences in preferences for status-related attributes “disappear” (as claimed by Marks[45]).

Actually, no, they do not. Numerous studies have found sex differences in mate preferences for status-related attributes are prevalent across cultures[46] [47] [48]. Lippa[49] conducted an internet sampling of 53 nations and Zentner and Mitura[50] conducted an internet sampling across 10 nations and both studies found 100% of cultures displayed expected sex differences, with women demonstrating especially heightened long-term mate preferences for good financial prospects, social status, ambition, and older age.

Some researchers have found the magnitude of sex differences in mate preferences for status-related attributes shifts from a large/medium effect size to a more moderate medium/small effect size in nations with higher gender egalitarianism. Zentner and Mitura found exactly this pattern of results after placing nations into three groups, low gender egalitarian cultures (within which women valued Ambition-Industriousness moderately more than men, d = -0.65), medium gender egalitarian cultures (women valued Ambition-Industriousness moderately more, d = -0.53), and high gender egalitarian cultures (women valued Ambition-Industriousness moderately more, d = -0.48). Hence, sex differences in the preference for Ambition-Industriousness in long-term mates were reduced (though not by much, and were still medium in terms of effect size) in nations with higher levels of gender egalitarianism.

Most other sex differences in status-related mate preferences also were attenuated from larger to more moderate levels in Zentner and Mitura’s sample of nations that were higher in gender egalitarianism (e.g., Good Financial Prospects went from d = -1.04, to d = -0.84, to d = -0.55; Favorable Social Status went from d = -0.67, to d = -0.42, to d = -0.31). In most cases, these reductions were caused by women preferring status-related traits less in high gender egalitarian nations, though in many cases men’s preferences for status-related attributes also were reduced in high gender egalitarian nations (which seems counter to the logic of men appreciating women’s status-related traits more as women enter the workforce in high gender egalitarian nations). One thing is clear, sex differences in long-term mate preferences for status-related traits do not “disappear” in gender egalitarian cultures. They may only be moderate in size, but we see them just fine.

Importantly, Zentner and Mitura also found in low gender egalitarian nations, men valued Good Looks only a little more than women, d = 0.24; in medium gender egalitarian nations, men’s valuation of Good Looks was higher still than women’s, d = 0.43; and in the highest gender egalitarian nations, men’s valuation of Good Looks was the most different from women’s, d = 0.51. Thus, contrary to the expectation that gender egalitarianism always reduces sex differences, Zentner and Mitura found sex differences in Good Looks are largest in nations with the highestgender egalitarianism. What!? Actually, these findings are not unusual, as high gender egalitarian nations also exhibit larger sex differences in Big Five personality traits and the Dark Triad traits of Machiavellianism, Narcissism, and psychopathy; in romantic attachment and love styles; in sociopolitical attitudes and personal values; in clinical depression rates and crying behavior; in tested cognitive and mental abilities; and in physical attributes such as height and blood pressure[51]. If the sociopolitical gender egalitarianism found in Scandinavian nations is supposed to produce smaller psychological sex differences, it’s not doing a very good job of it.

7) Yes, but…all these studies showing men and women want different things in potential partners are merely evidence of gendered narratives as measured by self-report surveys. If ever tested in the real world, women would not preferentially choose or be affected by a partner’s status-related attributes more than men.

Actually, there have been dozens of studies of real world mating and mating-related cognition, and almost all find that women do choose and are affected by a partner’s status-related traits more than men are.

Feingold[52] meta-analytically examined what women ask for and what men advertise in public, real-world personal advertisements and found, as expected, women more than men ask for cues to willingness and ability to provide resources (e.g., 27% of women ask for high socioeconomic status compared to 7% of men). Men who advertise such status-related cues actually receive more responses from women, as well. For example, in a study that experimentally manipulated real-life personal ads, ads placed by men noting they were financially successful elicited the most interest, whereas for women physical attractiveness was the key[53]. In a study of Polish personal ads, the top four cues displayed by men that received responses from women were good education, older age, high resource levels, and tall height[54]. In a study of mail order brides from Colombia, Russia, and the Philippines, women universally listed ambition, status, and wealth as among their most desired attributes in a future husband[55].

Numerous studies of marital patterns also have found women tend to desire (and actually marry) men who are slightly older than they are, regardless of women’s own age[57] [58]. As men get older, in contrast, they tend to desire and marry younger and younger women[59]. Women have been found to preferentially marry higher status men across such diverse cultures as the Kipsigis of Kenya, the Hausa of West Africa, Trinidadians, and Micronesian islanders, among many others[60]. It is true that some speed-dating studies in urban settings find women do not choose higher status men more often as dates, but these studies are limited by having only high status men in their samples (no homeless men allowed) and potentially including those who are interested in short-term mating (women’s short-term mate preferences focus more on gene quality, not status). In speed-dating studies with low status men included, and when the context is explicitly long-term mating only, women do pick higher status men more often for dates[61].

There also are a wide range of cognitive studies that test for women’s desires for status-related traits without explicitly asking them what they want. For instance, as part of a study ostensibly helping a university develop a dating service, Kenrick and his colleagues[62] experimentally manipulated whether already-mated men and women were exposed to a target date either very high in dominance or very low in dominance. They found women, but not men, were less committed to their current long-term mating partner after being exposed to a high dominance member of the opposite sex. Merely being experimentally exposed to a man with very high dominance lowered women’s commitment to their current mate, and did so without consciously asking women about their preferences for dominance.

Similarly, exposure to physically attractive women appears to evoke in men desires to fulfill women’s evolved preferences, such as increasing men’s attention toward and desires to possess resources and to display ambition, creativity, independence, and risk-taking[63] [64] [65]. And when exposed to men who are high in dominance, men tend to rate themselves as lower in mate value[66] and men’s feelings of jealousy are more strongly evoked[67]. All of these cognitive processes occur differently in women and men without explicit, conscious awareness of why they are doing so. Surely, to an open-minded scientist these types of non-survey findings should buttress the view that women possess mate preferences for men’s status-related attributes…

8) Yes, but…even though evolutionary psychologists may study real life cognition, emotion, and behavior, they fail to study the most important Darwinian outcome…fertility. If women evolved mate preferences for status-related traits, then women who marry men of high status men should have more children. Evolutionary psychologists haven’t even bothered to look at these outcomes, lazy-headed daisies…

Actually, several studies by evolutionary psychologists have found women who marry higher status men tend to have more children, and to have children survive to an older age. In a study of pre-industrial Finland (from the 1700s), women married to wealthier men had more children and decreased child mortality[68]. In another study, marrying a man four years older was associated with maximum levels of fertility among women[69]. Bereczkei and Csanaky[70] conducted a study of 1,800 Hungarians over 34 years of age and found women who married older and better educated men tended to have more children. These are important findings, as it is critical that women’s mate preferences for status-related attributes lead to reproductive success, or at least likely did so in our evolutionary past[71] [72].

One may also look at the effects of high personal status on men’s versus women’s reproductive success. Nettle and Pollett[73] and many other scholars have found men’s higher level of personal status is related to higher fertility, but the same is much less true (or not at all true) for women’s higher level of personal status. In fact, modern women who have higher personal incomes themselves tend to have fewer children[74]. Jumping Jehoshaphat…yes, but…

9) Yes, but…ancestral men were foragers and could not accumulate wealth, so these mate preferences for “good earning potential” are largely irrelevant to evolved mating psychology. Evolutionary psychology findings are extremely limited because they only apply to modern materialistic cultures.

Actually, it is correct that large masses of “material wealth” were not present in our ancestral past when we lived as foragers, but it is likely ancestral men did accumulate social capital or “status” (from among other things, hunting ability). Several studies have documented this form of male status as being the subject of selective pressures (i.e., high status men—whether that status comes in the form of land, livestock, money, physical prowess, or hunting ability—have more offspring[75][76]). Evidence of selection for men’s status has been found in many types of cultures, including studies of men’s hunting ability among the Aché, Hadza, and Tsimane[77]. Apicella[78], for instance, found men’s hunting reputation and upper-body strength both predicted reproductive success among Hadza hunter–gatherers.

Moreover, it is important to acknowledge that women’s preferences in modern nations do not seem to be calibrated on money, per se. Instead, women may view money as a proximal cue to the underlying qualities that they have evolved to care about, such as status, prestige, social dominance, ambition, work ethic, and intelligence[79]. So it is certainly true that ancestral men did not accumulate financial wealth, but focusing too much on the importance (or not) of money or wealth across all cultures is missing the adaptive forest for the trees.

10) Yes, but…I know so many people who strongly believe that sex differences in mate preferences simply cannot exist. The idea of evolved sexual desires of any kind are a theoretical impossibility from my point of view! Evolved sex differences in mate preferences have to be just a figment of the imagination of evolutionary psychologists bent on maintaining patriarchy. If the evidence is, on balance, supportive of women possessing long-term mate preferences for men with high status, why do so many post-modernists and social constructionists insist evolved sex differences are not, indeed cannot, be real[80]?

That’s a big question requiring several responses. First, the evidence of evolved sex differences in mate preferences is accumulating, but it is certainly not definitive. Evolutionary psychologists evaluate evidence of psychological adaptation in many ways[81], including cross-species, neurological, hormonal, genetic, and epigenetic evidence that has not been reviewed here (some examples of such evidence, see[82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87]). Nothing in science is ever set in stone, and more evidence could emerge that would cast serious doubt about evolved sex differences in mate preferences (though it would take quite a lot to tip the scales against the existence of this particular set of mate preferences). Scientists are skeptical and open-minded, so anything is possible.

Second, it is a mistake to pit post-modernism and social constructivism against evolutionary psychology as though they are in an intellectual death match that only one side can win. This tribalistic, us-versus-them thinking isn’t helpful to science. Much like partitioning the causes of human behavior into nurture versus nature or culture versus biology or learned versus innate, social constructivism versus evolutionary psychology is a false dichotomy that may feel intuitively correct but should not be utilized very often by serious scientists (exceptions include behavioral genetics studies). As insightfully noted by Tooby and Cosmides[88],

“To say a behavior is learned in no way undermines the claim that the behavior was organized by evolution because the behavior was learned through the agency of evolved mechanisms. If natural selection had built a different set of learning mechanisms into an organism, that organism would learn a different set of behaviors in response to the very same environment. It is these evolved mechanisms that organize the relationship between the environmental input and behavioral output, and thereby pattern the behavior. For this reason, learning is not an alternative explanation to the claim that natural selection shaped the behavior, although many researchers assume that it is. The same goes for culture. Given that cultural ideas are absorbed via learning and inference—which is caused by evolved programs of some kind—a behavior can be, at one and the same time, ‘cultural’, ‘learned’ and ‘evolved’.”

Mate preferences in humans are certainly to some degree cultural, learned, and evolved. Ultimately, the adaptations of the human mind unearthed by evolutionary psychologists will likely play key roles in explaining precisely how and why human social constructionists have the mate preferences they do[89].

Third, some scholars believe, based on strict ideological commitments, that evolved psychological sex differences must not exist[90] or even if they do exist, studies of sex differences should be evaluated in ways that favor certain political ideologies over others, such as raising the evidentiary bar for evolutionary psychology hypotheses[91]. As a consequence of these political beliefs, many scholars chauvinistically dismiss or ignore much of the extant evidence accumulated by evolutionary psychologists.

This is a mistake on several levels, not the least of which is that even if evolved sex differences in mate preferences do exist, that does not make them “desirable” or “good” or “inevitable” in any way. Thinking like that is fallacious, it is wrong. Even though humans have likely evolved to be omnivorous, that doesn’t mean we should eat meat. What is natural is not inherently connected to what is desirable and thinking that way is committing the so-called naturalistic fallacy (actually more related to the is-ought problem and appeal to nature fallacy).

Instead of this false point of view, evolutionary psychologists take the position that by knowing what our evolved psychological adaptations are, and precisely how they are expressed (e.g., how they are specially-designed and which environments especially accentuate or attenuate their expression), we will be more capable of creating effective tools for altering human behavior in ways we do find desirable. This includes utilizing the socially-constructive psychological adaptations in our mental toolkit to do so. Evolved sex differences are not to be ideologically feared, they are to be scientifically evaluated and, if they exist, knowledge about their special design can be used to more efficiently create the healthy society within which we wish to live[92] [93].

Lastly, there are some scholars who are actively deceiving people about empirical findings in evolutionary psychology (e.g., claiming that sex differences “disappear” in egalitarian cultures[94]). Many of these thinkers spread doubt about evolved mate preferences by alluding to a highly popular study by Eagly and Wood[95]. People’s memories of Eagly and Wood’s study, however, are often quite at odds with what they actually found, and with the hundreds of empirical findings since.

Eagly and Wood related the size of sex differences in mate preferences for “good financial prospects” to sociopolitical gender equality measures across nations (actual mate preference data came from a large cross-cultural study by Buss[96]). Eagly and Wood examined four indicators of sociopolitical gender equality and found only one indicator (that’s right, only one of four tests) was significantly linked to smaller sex differences in long-term mate preferences for good financial prospects. Based on that rather meager empirical finding, a generation of scholars seems to have fallen for a “Jedi mind trick” (these aren’t the sex differences you are looking for) and have been convinced that sex differences in mate preferences completely disappear in more gender egalitarian nations. Indeed, Eagly and Wood’s study has been cited over 1,000 times and has led to many to believe all psychological sex differences disappear in gender egalitarian cultures. Not true then, not true now.

To the contrary, most cross-cultural studies find nations with the highest sociopolitical gender equality (e.g., Scandinavian nations) exhibit the largest psychological sex differences in the world. You read that correctly. Higher gender egalitarian nations tend to have larger sex differences in mate preferences for Good Looks, in Big Five personality traits and the Dark Triad traits of Machiavellianism, Narcissism, and psychopathy; in romantic attachment and love styles; in sociopolitical attitudes and personal values; in clinical depression rates and crying behavior; in tested cognitive and mental abilities; and in physical attributes such as height and blood pressure[97]. If sociopolitical gender egalitarianism is supposed to reduce sex differences to the point where they “disappear,” it’s doing a terrible job. In fact, it’s most often doing the exact opposite. Without the constraints of patriarchal sex role socialization, it appears men and women are freer to follow their evolved desires in ways that lead to even greater psychological difference[98].

321 comments

  1. “All of these cognitive processes occur differently in women and men without explicit, conscious awareness of why they are doing so.”
    Going to do yard work while I think about that.

  2. Rollo, before this post gets buried in the thread I’d like to ask. If you are referring someone to The Rational Male blog for the first time; which is the best post to get them started with? I have a current 23 yr old room mate trying to get back together with his ex and he says she’s different from the other girls in that she was his first, hasn’t been with anyone else, from a religious background and doesn’t have eyes for anyone else and isn’t interested in partying it up like other girls her age. I was telling him that eventually she’ll wonder if she had made the right decision and could potentially leave him for fear of missing out.
    However, I also told him that if he’s red pill aware then even in the worst case scenario (divorce) he can at least be prepared years ahead. The guy is 6ft, great body and claims he gets girls just like that.

  3. Tomassi, one huge problem with evo/psych is how subjective it is, how easily it can be used simply to confirm our own biases. Much like the way we like to assign human characteristics to animals, we also like to try to perceive ourselves as members of the animal kingdom. Even in that however, we are being extremely subjective. So your own perceptions of alpha, based on wolves for example, is simply a very subjective metaphor, something you use to try and describe a metaphysical idea. In the actual science realm we all know that those studies no more represent the true nature of wolves then Jonathan Livingston Seagull defines seagulls.

    There is nothing particularly wrong with doing this, it is just that one is often in danger of believing one’s own narrative, to the point of being completely unable to perceive the world in any other way. You create your own confirmation biases and it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Feminists, for example confirm their own biases, create their own reality, and start walking in this world of their own making. It’s a rather unpleasant world, where all men are dangerous and hateful, and women are rather ashamed of their own attraction towards them. I don’t know if you’ve been following Mattress Girl, but she is a good example of what trying to bend reality to fit one’s own narrative actually looks like.

    That is what many in the manosphere that subscribe heavily to evo/psych theories are also in danger of. Many become almost caricatures of their own narratives, so those of us on the outside looking in, are often uncertain whether to laugh or cry at what you have done to yourselves.

  4. @ insanitybytes22

    The idea of analogy, metaphor an articulated theory isn’t a means of understanding complex and ever changing evolving contextual dynamics. . . . is an argument against understanding itself. . . . especially when it is based in a number of empirical studies, (Science), with an openness to re-interpritation as a result of further data, observation and peer review . . . . . .

    And if you consider that what the ‘critics’ are arguing and advocating as an alternative, (whim theory, IMO) is entirely baseless. . . . I know where I’m putting my money on. . . .

    Really Insanity, your trying to put yourself on Rollos level is bothersome . . . . . . . Where can I find your essays?

    Are you certain of your uncertainty? . . . . .

    That was seminal Rollo . . . dare I say delicious. . . check mate Retro-masculinity. . . .

  5. Evopsych is a paradigm, no more, no less.

    You can use that paradigm to formulate an hypotheses and then you test that rigorously…..

    With all the hullaballoo recently, that would fit Kuhn´s narrative of a paradigm shift, it would satisfy scientific method puritans and noone would have to erect strawmen….

    Why can´t we all get along ?

  6. @ Rollo – Well played, using the words of a real scientist to contrast with Roosh’s amateur hour horseshit. Any sentient man reading Roosh’s screed of hyperbolic nonsense versus this carefully reasoned, analytic essay cannot help but see the huge quality difference in the reasoning, and the real care taken by the actual scientist at work here.

  7. “https://therationalmale.com/2014/11/02/alpha-tells/
    Next stupid dismissive Retromasculine Red Pill presumption please.”

    “Alpha Tells” & “The Medium is the Message”….two of my favorite posts.

    Also two of the most painful.

    That’s often the case though.

    The medium message post is the first post I read on TRM.

    “Women with high interest level won’t confuse you. When a women wants to fuck you, she will find a way to fuck you”

    My reading those two sentences caused my entire world to fall apart…and I wouldn’t have it any other way.

    Good times, makes me feel nostalgic lol.

  8. Insanity’s argument can be distilled down to this: because Evo Psych might be misused by some men, it should be disregarded.

    This is the same line of logic as saying that because some people might not drive automobiles safely, no one should drive.

    There are plenty of rational ways to critique the underlying theories advanced by Evo Pyscho, but that isn’t one of them.

  9. Now, concerning the substance of Rollo’s post…

    I find a lot here to support some critical components of my LAMPS theory. For example, the strong value of Status is amply supported here. Further, the (relative) weakness of money as a result of social conditions is also supported.

  10. Civilization breeds all sorts of behaviors and traits in dogs, and yet a dog is still at its heart a dog, it shares certain characteristics with all canines.

    Modern society may promote the breeding of certain traits in humans, but people are still people and it takes a long time to change the characteristics of a racial or ethnic group, even Vox recognizes that it takes perhaps thousands of years to “civilize” a group of humans and they are still human beings, we recognize the basic motivations of people through the centuries.

    It’s just another flavor of “special snowflake” thinking to say that because of how we live now, we are so (advanced/different/better/smart/liberal…) whatever that the rules are before, they don’t apply to us.

    I’ve heard before in a myriad number of settings. Human nature always wins over this type of thinking, always.

  11. “Insanity’s argument can be distilled down to this: because Evo Psych might be misused by some men, it should be disregarded.”

    She runs a blog that is supposed to be about biology and debunking the myths and lies that feminists spread. (word to the wise, narcissism is hot in men not chicks)

    But then she comes to this site and argues against evolution?

    (comparing feminism [not based on science] and science [you know, real scientists and shit] is arguing against science in my book)

    Me thinks she is trying to piggyback some traffic from Rollo to her own blog.

  12. Does her trying to get traffic from TRM to her site mean that she is taking resources from a man?

    Typical female…

    *rolls eyes*

  13. “Disregard what ev-psych says about human behavior” is a meta-shit test on the same order of women demanding you pay attention to what they say instead of what they do.

    Excellent rebuttal choice, Rollo. Not so much to Roosh (seriously his whole screed is just… bad), but to basically all the criticism I’ve heard on the internet at large. So many of the arguments come from a place of ego investment (“I can’t believe this or I’ll have to have some thoughts I don’t like about myself and those close to me”) that it’s good to see a logical reply laid out so thoroughly. Particularly his clarification that it’s not about trying to prop up patriarchy; it’s about finding how things actually are whether we like them or not. Knowing how they are allows better decisions than living in denial just because you don’t like reality.

    It’s intuitive to realize that living in denial of the reality of gravity as you plummet toward the earth might prevent you from making the prudent choice to open your chute, whereas living in denial of the reality of evolved male preference for physical beauty seems to prevent women from making the prudent choice to hit the gym doesn’t seem to get past ego invested beliefs that self value will equate 1:1 with mating value. If your model of reality is wrong, you will make bad decisions no matter how much you like your model or believe in it.

  14. Retro masculinity is a better word for it than Neo masculinity.

    I read it, and all I could think was here was someone that thinks he can tell other men what to do, and the message boils down to “get back in the field”

  15. Hi Rollo,

    Given the evo-psych has biological roots and now Open Hypergamy is culturally reinforced and actively encouraged, how much would you being willing to excuse (by that I mean not NEXT as LTR material) for a girl’s past, on the understanding they’ve been subjected to feminine conditioning all their lives? Is it up to what the man can “deal with” without resenting her? Does it hinge on whether you observe real commitment-related red flags? I know there are no unicorns, but the line surely must be drawn somewhere, and all things equal, not having to mentally quarantine the horror stories of her past would be a definite plus for a girl with a smaller “history”. Also, how much does the value of the girl (in every other measurable way) play into whether she’s NEXTED as an LTR prospect? Example:

    I found an 8.5/9 who is drop dead gorgeous. I mean, the whole nine yards… At age 18-20, she was probably a 9.5 or 10 to most everyone. The kind of stunning, knock down, drag out, undeniable beauty that takes peoples’ breath away with sheer appreciation of her genetic gifts and radiant sexual potential (think Kim Kardashian in her prime). The kind of beauty where girls that age who have it aren’t even aware of the power they’re wielding. If she is in the room, everyone knows it, and all the girls are jealous for having been dimmed to utter irrelevance, or, if older, simply in admiring awe.

    She is “that” girl who turns heads at any and every venue. 5’5, 120 lbs, ideal hip/waist ratio, full lips, shiny hair down to her butt, perfect rack, G cup (I know), perfect butt, skin, smile, etc. Smart (working on masters in Data Science), exuberant, loyal, parents still married, etc. The problem is she screwed around a lot in college. I am thinking 20-30 partners, including 2 threesomes (2 girls 1 guy- she was the “extra”), and everything from spring break flashing to wet t shirt contests to fuck buddies to music festivals to parties to casual hookups to getting felt up to constant flirting with any and everyone, older guys included. It sounds like she was “rufied” more than a handful of times.. Like, 20.

    This indicates almost male levels of boldness, forwardness, risk taking, and ability to maintain arousal in risky situations (a very strong predictor of infidelity risk). I can see that manifest in her past interactions with males on facebook. Not much of a filter, or regard for when the attention was too much, inappropriate, etc. She was the “wild” girl who just threw herself into anything, fearlessly (stupidly). Her facebook is evidence of this. There was definitely a tendency to just “go for it” and follow her desires in an uninhibited fashion- including interracial interactions which she excused as “not being shallow.” Almost a rebellious undertone to her thrill seeking- I’d describe it as sexually unrestricted, maybe sexually assertive. I worry that she never had a boyfriend through college- which seems to indicates a sex-focused, relationship averse mindset, and destructively impulsive tendencies where unfettered indulgences are mistaken for freedom. Am I wrong?

    Her past bothers me but not to the point I have super seriously considered calling it off. I’m not threatened by any kind of inferiority complex- it’s more worry for the future (see above ability to attract incessant male attention) and just resentment that I’m settling for the town bike. College was a test for her threshold for sexual activity- and at least at that time she proved it to be scarily low. Also, since there’s a bit of “ledger inequity,” I am a bit jealous of the guys who got to experience those crazy/wild times, scenarios, etc, much less with a girl as hot as she is, and much less with HER. I feel a bit of a chump.

    For example, she was “with” her lawyer who was twice her age… In his office, etc. Will I ever even get to experience that (a 9.5 half my age, in my office?) Probably not, because it borders on the outlier-level of “naughtiness,” especially with a girl that hot. I definitely won’t experience it with her. But I’m with this girl. He did that with my girl, and she with him.. Yikes. So I’m jealous of one of her exes because of something he uniquely owns of her– he was blessed by the Red Pill Gods with this insanely awesome experience. I’d be happy for him otherwise, but it was with MY GIRL. I am jealous of him (for having it with her) and resentful of her for it, and a bit sad that if I end up with her, I’ll never experience it. Now, apparently the guy could barely keep it up, so I’m not jealous of/threatened by HIM, or their experience (which if I were, would add a new layer of horror to it), but of the insanely awesome event he ha unfold. You understand. Also, don’t ask me how these things come to light. You would believe how serendipity has its way of ruining a date…

    Also bothers me when I hear sluts/slutty/wild behavior, etc referenced in songs/media/tv, or even her university name, because I know that was her a few years ago. It’s like “great, yeah- that was my girlfriend.”

    I also know to beware I’m not her Beta bucks, but because of several characteristics of our relationship, I don’t fear that. Her perception of me is what it should be, and so is her behavior.

    Just wondering what you think- or what you thought when considering your own LTR/marriage.

    She has a lot of great things about her. Extremely loyal, her parents are still together, she’s very involved with her family, mostly very conservative views, can cook incredibly, is very bright, wants to hang out with me all the time (chasing), is affectionate and wants a future with me. She has never had a boyfriend before (she is 25), but has excitedly intro’d me to her whole family/all her friends. Shit testing is at a bare minimum, and has, completely of her own volition, discontinued her behaviors which would threaten a relationship (GNO’s, drinking with girlfriends, going to parties, etc.) I’ve never said a word, and even encouraged her to sleep over with her girlfriends once when they were clamoring to have her over, and she bailed on them halfway through the night and came to my place. The second time she saw me (first time after our first date), she bailed on a get together and took a taxi to my place, and we banged a half dozen times that night and all through the next day. This is all genuine desire.

    She seems over the party point in her life. She is fun and pleasant to be around and has exhibited genuine desire since the first date (there has not been one instance of us hanging out where we didn’t have sex (multiple times.. sometimes 7-8 times a day). And we’ve hung out probably WAY too much over the last five months… As in, not that many days where we haven’t.) The things she says during indicate she is really, really into me.

    I don’t detect any manipulative behavior, BPD, mental issues or hang-ups. All in all, I think there are a LOT of guys really jealous of me right now. But if there were any cause for worry (red flags, weakness, some insight you (Rollo) have, or maybe something I find out later), the infinite oceans of male attention shored up like the Hoover dam, surrounding her at all times and waiting for her slightest IOI to break like a tidal wave, would become a threat I’d rather not deal with- and I’d relegate her to a plate. She’s just that hot. What is your assessment? Btw I am 27, good looking, educated, and financially successful for my age, have manly hobbies, and am in fantastic shape. My game is evolving, but I’m not super alpha player yet. I have natural alpha tendencies in most scenarios (especially looking at my past behavior with girls). I am thinking this might be relevant info regarding what you have said about SMV differential in LTR’s. I will admit I have some level of fear that this girl is irreplaceable (never been with someone this hot/smart), if that weighs into your assessment at all.

    Thanks so much.

  16. Great question: ” If the evidence is, on balance, supportive of women possessing long-term mate preferences for men with high status, why do so many post-modernists and social constructionists insist evolved sex differences are not, indeed cannot, be real[80]?”

    He starts to get close to an answer here:

    “Third, some scholars believe, based on strict ideological commitments, that evolved psychological sex differences must not exist[90] or even if they do exist, studies of sex differences should be evaluated in ways that favor certain political ideologies over others, such as raising the evidentiary bar for evolutionary psychology hypotheses[91]. As a consequence of these political beliefs, many scholars chauvinistically dismiss or ignore much of the extant evidence accumulated by evolutionary psychologists.”

    Yet he just doesn’t go the final mile. I will. The entire edifice of Marxist and Social Justice theory is based social analysis relies on the assumption that our social systems are entirely designed/imposed by a power elite who use these structures to their materialistic advantage. As opposed to say Adam Smith who observed a much more complex set of human values and behaviors at work in our economic world But I digress – just remember that this “red in claw and tooth” caricature of free markets is a leftist reductionist trope that actually flies in the face of what is known about how human beings make economic and social decisions in general. And to those of you groaning about the old “left-right” paradigm or some other horseshit, just remember Anita Sarkeesian is a devout Marxist. As was Bette Friedan. This isn’t a coincidence.

    You see, if it’s all “socially constructed”, those who are the oppressors are intentionally participating in it to facilitate their own theft and exploitation and are therefore inherently evil. This gives the oppressed the right to rise up, revolt and redistribute/steal, whatever. It gives those who oppose said oppression a moral righteousness that is quite seductive. It in turn gives license to govt engaging in these social engineering exercises and it places these same academics as the high priest’s and priestesses of govt action, which has to be designed by superior intellectuals like them in the first place (basic Wilsonian Progressivism is a fascism of elites).

    Remember, the entire purpose of sociology relies on seeing social construction as primary, and this has leeched into all the humanities. Getting rid of social construction as primary is to get rid of the entire edifice upon which today’s leftist/sjw/marxist/progressive worldviews rest upon. Accordingly, it’s simply not doable. It’s like physicists finding out Newton was completely wrong. Or climate scientists seeing every single climate model the IPCC uses is wrong, well beyond its error bars. What do they do? They have some corrupt scientists change the temperature data, using a bogus study to justify it. This is the way of the modern leftist, across the board. Every campaign and cause they are involve in shows the same signs. It’s Orwellian in every send of the word.

    It’s a bit of an Ouroboros kind of thing you see. Post modernism means rejecting reason, post structuralism means rejecting objective meaning – so the entire edifice is fully spring loaded to reject any evidence it doesn’t find convenient. Like classical liberalism (dismissed by supposed sophisticates as neo-liberalism) , free market economics and now evo psych. They really believe that all that matters are their perverted and childlike ideas about justice. Whatever means they have to pursue to achieve a just outcome is just fine with them. This entire view inherits from the metaphysics of Marxism. As materialists, power is ultimately all that matters to them, which is the ineluctable endpoint of Marxism.

    In the end, the weight and persistence of this shit is being driven in huge ways by the politics – as I continue to point out here. And the good professor here does a great job of validating my POV.

    George Orwell: “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.”

  17. @Rollo

    In a way I was surprised, but in a way I wasn’t.

    There are some ways in which I think socializing some aspects of a society are OK. For instance, military, police, fire, etc. People are freed from some concerns they might otherwise have and are able to focus more on whatever their area of specialty is. Many strict proponents of socialist ideas will echo this sentiment, and to a degree it is true.

    What’s funny is that some of those same people (SJWs and feminists for instance) then ignore what the effects of socializing resources traditionally associated with male provisioning might do to intersexual relations. If socializing relieves money pressure on women (and by extension the power men can wield with it), then it follows logically that other traits will become more prevalent in sexual selection.

    Evolutionary forces will still be at play, they’ll just adapt to the new reality. I expect from seeing those results heavily egalitarian (which usually translates to heavily socialist) countries will feature women even more prone to ignoring BB strictly for AF. Betas will be absolutely, completely, and totally excluded from sexual selection in such a climate.

    The Law of Unintended Consequences is a fascinating thing.

  18. Rollo, Robb Wolf just shared this post on his fb. He has a great podcast on diet and health from an evo perspective. You once mentioned you might do more podcasts but hard to find a good fit. He could be.

  19. @70’sAntiHero

    To be fair I feel Socialism and Capitalism in truly successful countries (see: the US during the early-mid 20th century) have a delicate balance that must be struck where they each feed in to each other. Socialism creating a stable society and infrastructure that supports the development of strong capitalist ventures which feeds funds through taxes back in to the socialist side of things. A virtuous circle of sorts.

    It’s when those forces get out of balance that things go to shit.

  20. I do wonder: how many SJW/feminists won’t give a shit how the policies they push for affect men until they find their adult son hasn’t given them any grandchildren and is on anti-depressants because his right hand is the only partner he’s had in 20 years? Will they realize that they pushed for AF/bb without realizing there was an 80-90% chance any males they had would fail to reproduce in such an environment?

  21. @ Sun

    Sure. Although the expectation of a balance is unrealistic, IMO, in lieu of special interest and the concentration of power of those in the club. . . . .

    It is the nature of a bureaucratic socialist government agency to self preserve and expand it’s influence. . . . Whenever you subsidize something your going to get more of it. . . . .Milton Friedman

    One could argue limited government as our fore fathers envisioned. . . is such a balanced, checks and balances and the limited role of the Federal Government. . . State rights, individual rights etc. . . No the group think mentality of today. . . where policy pick winners and losers. .

    Capitalism should be confused with croney capitalism. IMO

    Big Gov’t begets Big Business which begets Big Labor and squeezed out is the little guy.

  22. @70’sAntiHero

    Although the expectation of a balance is unrealistic, IMO, in lieu of special interest and the concentration of power of those in the club. . . . .

    Haha, life is all about change. Anything that doesn’t change doesn’t exist. Entropy is the rule in our universe. The ideal situation is to have the two fighting each other and neither winning a decisive victory. The balance won’t remain “perfect” by any stretch, but it should remain within reasonable boundaries.

    sjfrellc and I were discussing this a week or two back. Individuals that expect to have a static world and make plans within that framework are setting themselves up for failure. Focusing on the ability to adapt to constant change is one of the best traits a person can have. It’s no coincidence that evolution is defined by the same thing; “survival of the fittest” is about who’s most adaptable.

  23. insipidbites2 trots out the “subjective” when she can’t mount a serious argument. Last time it was “reality can be subjective”. She can use it for most anything: alpha can be subjective, dating can be subjective, attention whoring can be subjective, ATM can be subjective.

  24. @Aelorne

    She has never had a boyfriend before (she is 25), but has excitedly intro’d me to her whole family/all her friends.

    She’s starting her downwards swing…

    Btw I am 27, good looking, educated, and financially successful for my age, have manly hobbies, and am in fantastic shape. My game is evolving, but I’m not super alpha player yet.

    And you are just starting your upwards. In your position I’d plate her. You’re gonna have shots with chicks that hot that don’t have a past if you’re patient. I’m keen to hear Rollo’s take on it though.

  25. @Sun

    Yes, what you have now is a slow and profound move toward statism, or socialism. . . if we aren’t already there.

    Where wealth redistribution rules and disincentives entrepreneurial risk taking. . . which leads to less innovation. . .

    You could argue the redistribution of wealth as a result of Obama Care has created the so called “free lance” economy where millions of people have taken part time jobs just to get by and where companies refrained from hiring as a result of the uncertainty as to the true cost of health care relative to employees. . . just as and example. . . . or the ‘bail outs’ or ‘to big to fail’ scenarios where huge debt is placed on the average tax payer. . . . theres your balanced system. . . . not to mention the financial burden of expansive wars. . . .

    Companies adapt to change far better in a ‘free-er’ system, its more of a challenge when there is too much government involvement.

    A principled constitutional LIMITED regulatory system is more adaptable and not susceptible to the idealogical whims and biases of the leadership of the day.

    Not no regulation, limited.

  26. While the majority of this post was created by David P. Schmitt, I found it funny how you choose to tout it for focusing extensively on long-term mating, as opposed to giving short-term mating its fair explanation and importance in mating. Much of the manosphere tends to engage in masturbatory techniques on female mating patterns, while also ignoring the big picture and only entertain the side they seem most fit to their narrative. This trite conclusion that “high status”, “dread game” and other nonsense can crack a magical Evo psych code is hilarious, especially when you consider that female choice (especially from a feral/”genuine desire” point of view) upholds short-term qualities in a mate first and foremost.*

    Females in general, will always PREFER to MATE with men who can provide the highest measures of genetic benefits and NOT those who can provide direct benefits (material or otherwise) derived from high socioeconomic status.

    Because of our current economically prosperous, mediated welfare state that prevails in all developed world populations, there is no longer a need to mediate mate choices to the extant our ancestors once had in the past. A consequence to this dynamic, and one that we are all currently experiencing, is that physical attractiveness, has substituted other forms in the stratification of male status with respect to mate availability. In other words, being a true “high status” male in respect to mating, now says less about material acquisition or dominance and more about the appraisal of genetic markers in physical beauty.

    Obviously, all things equal, women will choose men who can provide the highest measures of both direct and genetic benefits available to them. However, since things are rarely equal, female hyper selectivity makes it all but certain that those very females who marry, will tend to practice a bait and switch style of marriage (i.e. after having her fun, she’ll ring her marriage partner dry and divorce him without a care in the world, as she makes off with his assets).

    I honestly question David P. Schmitt’s post because he should know that the strategic optima of genetic benefits is short-term mating, and anything that expedites this “mating traffic” by acquiring males with high genetic fitness, is advantageous to…you guess it, evolution.
    Nonetheless, short-term mating is, in this era, far more important than many people would care to admit. The appraisal of good genes is a feral want/need from BOTH Male and Female.

    You don’t believe me? Just go look at r/Tinder.

    *While short-term selection has a primary significance, it is important to know that there is not one best male or female mating strategy in human beings. Instead, there exists a range of optimal strategies which best fit the individual characteristics of selection on the natural and social environment. This is why, Beta Bucks is still upheld in some parts of the world where economic stability is rare and where provisioning from both the father and mother is a necessity in caring for offspring.

  27. Well done, Rollo! A very good way to counter some of the nonsense-talk that’s been going around of late.

    —–

    @scribblerg

    It’s a bit of an Ouroboros kind of thing you see. Post modernism means rejecting reason, post structuralism means rejecting objective meaning – so the entire edifice is fully spring loaded to reject any evidence it doesn’t find convenient. Like classical liberalism (dismissed by supposed sophisticates as neo-liberalism) , free market economics and now evo psych. They really believe that all that matters are their perverted and childlike ideas about justice. Whatever means they have to pursue to achieve a just outcome is just fine with them. This entire view inherits from the metaphysics of Marxism. As materialists, power is ultimately all that matters to them, which is the ineluctable endpoint of Marxism.

    Indeed, because if you have neither reason nor objective meaning nor any conception of divinity (and consequences), all you are left with is raw power. When confronted with that, SJW types respond that “we just want everyone to be equal in power” — what is missed (deliberately by a few, and for the rest out of the sheer stupidity that has always crippled most of humanity) is that the person/people who get to decide who gets what power, and how it gets “equalized” and so on, end up with a disproportionate share, even the lion’s share, of power. So even taking its own principles to be “good” as a given, their system fails to deliver its own aims. It’s just a cluster.

  28. @Aelorne

    Would she make a great mother of your children? A Masters of Data Science is nice for money and career, and relatively pointless for being a mother of your children.

    “I don’t detect any manipulative behavior”

    Really? What do you think is going on with:

    “there has not been one instance of us hanging out where we didn’t have sex (multiple times.. sometimes 7-8 times a day). And we’ve hung out probably WAY too much over the last five months”

    this is fucking you to the point that you can’t fuck anyone else

    I suggest you take this relationship one great fuck at a time, and worry about the wedding much later. Careful with the birth control, this is one of those that might get accidentally pregnant just as her education is over.

  29. Hi, professionally educated evolutionary psychologist here. I strongly recommend that you read the book “Hustling on Gorky Street” by Yuri Brokhin. The description of female “mate status seeking” behavior in the Soviet Union, where everyone was equal, andhe who could make himself unequal was the most attractive, is extremely interesting, especially in light of reports about women in Russia from practicioners.

    It’s nice to see that we theoreticians have spawned a community of engineering practice.

  30. Aaaand as if on a schedule, BPD plate I dropped contacts me today. Subject of email “I need you”, email full of complaints about all the problems she’s having that she needs my advice and comfort on. I recognize an attempt to Time Plate me. Two sentence response email:

    “You need me, but you don’t care about my needs. Funny how that works.”

    Do not be her Time Ho, gentlemen. Your time is a reward for her good behavior, not a down payment on it.

  31. You know Rollo, more I experience and see the world (using redpill) the more I realize this applies to a WESTERN, specifically, WHITE or at least AMERICAN approach to dating/mating. Anglo style. Of course we live in America and our culture is dominant worldwide

    But take Asia for instance. “Alpha” game is actually less efficient than beta game in getting sex, love, even attraction. Bank account + giving girl’s validation – CHASING THEM – is what gets their love. Being aloof, amused mastery, etc. if anything is a roadblock. This is uncomfortable as my default state is Alpha and I’ve had to “beta” to slay these asian chicks. I”m asian myself btw (but really ripped, square faced, dominant personality).

    Now I know lots of asian american chicks who fit the mold of needing some redpill loving. But they also happen to be self-hating (racist to themselves) and hilariously enough want to blow the white man (higher status here in US).

    What’s your take on this? Is alpha always good. Self interest, mental point of origin, stoicim etc. is that actually valued and wins women’s hearts/sex or just the case in America (and predominantly white people)

  32. @Roger, bear in mind this was the example Schmitt chose to use for his counterarguments because they were so common.

    If anything the gist of my blog has been about exactly what you describe in terms of the influences of short term mating strategies. Dr. Martie Hasselton’s decades long research has been part of my sidebar link since the day I began TRM.

    Poke around here you’ll see what I mean.

  33. Rollo’s work, the writings of Robert Green, Niccole Machiavelli, Shakespeare, any honest study of history, any honest study of religion and common sense all lead to the same revelations Evo-Psych is leading to. All of these works and others describe reality. Evo-Psych itself is an honest effort to study the reality of human motivation and behavior. Evo-Psych is merely a new name given to basically the same old, but perhaps more concerted and organized effort to understand the truth about how we are motivated and why we interact the way we do.

    Rollo is painstakingly articulate and honest in his effort to explain the realities of social gender dynamics despite the panicking “howler monkey” responses often endured. At this time the value of his work is tremendous. A few hundred years ago, most people believed the earth was flat. The knowledge that it is not flat, that it is in fact round existed for a very long time but that knowledge was, for a time, lost. Our ancient ancestors well understood, readily accepted and effectively managed the fact that female human sexuality is centered on hypergamy. Today the popular belief is that all human sexuality is centered on universal belief in a romantic reciprocal omniscient love utopia that potentially conquers barriers and prevents disappointments. Such an expectation and belief of entitlement is caused by conditioned misconceptions which are preserved in each individual by emotional and psychological insecurity. This insecurity, this anxiety results from the fact that the individual internalizes his or her beliefs of self-entitlement so thoroughly that he or she comes to think those beliefs are actually reality and most significantly part of the self. Yet the utopia, the entitlement, is not real and never will be. It is initially suggested, then self-conjured, self-developed and self-maintained. But reality prevents the individual’s access to his or her entitlement. Establishing and maintaining this false entitlement requires an extensive psychological investment involving a lot of intellectual time and energy. The individual becomes pathological and expends countless hours, emotional energy and money seeking “love”. Any study or analysis of reality is threatening because it potentially or directly exposes the truth that the individual’s psychological investment is totally wasted and the individual loses his or her conception of self, not realizing that the conception was false to begin with. Such is the plight of those who prefer to cling to distortions rather than face reality.

  34. @bob

    Rollo is quite smart, you don’t need to write some words in CAPS as if you were a troll. You do need to untangle what you are after, is it women’s hearts and their love? Or is it sex, attraction, slaying chicks, and getting blown? Certainly Bank Account + Giving Attention + Chasing them like a dog will put you on the beta program to finding long last love ™, that idyllic BluePill state until it crashes down. Yet you are saying, outside the CAPS world, that this very same program results in immediate hot passionate sex. Is it that the Bank Account allows for the paying for sex (cash or expensive dinners, gifts), or that the women play the long game, and hope that immediate sex may result in a later withdrawal from the Back Account?

  35. Aelorne –

    Your greatest danger is yourself because it is obvious from what you wrote about this girl that you are infatuated with her. Trust me she is not worth it.

  36. “Insanity’s argument can be distilled down to this: because Evo Psych might be misused by some men, it should be disregarded.”

    No Donal, my argument with Christian red pills is that they begin to put red pill ideology above scripture and completely forget about the love of Christ. I sure don’t see Christ running around calling women sluts.

    “Next stupid dismissive Retromasculine Red Pill presumption please.”

    You’re the one being dismissive, Tomassi. I’ve tried many times to explain the problem to you, but you are far too invested in puffed up male pride to even hear me.

  37. @ redlight
    June 9th, 2015 at 7:41 pm

    Good perception. It is difficult to discern the modus operandi of a Borderline Personality Disorder chick early on because the sex is so good and falls out of the sky into your lap. But ditching a social circle of girlfriends and being hyper-sexual to the time of 7-8 times a day is a hallmark. Never had a boyfriend but is so into you? She idolizes you? That is BPD. She locks down all your attention. Watch what happens the first time you withdraw your attention or have to abandon her for a night. Don’t even bother spinning plates because she will throw a fit and not let you by holding on for dear life.

    Her ego is likely low but she is putting on an excellent show for you that it is high. Does she really know who she is and act congruent at all times or does she try on different behaviors?

    Not trying to be a downer, but BPD is not that uncommon. I say take it 7-8 fucks at a time. She idolizes you. Your sex life will never be better, ever, than in the next five months. Enjoy it and keep good Frame.

    Ask Rollo if she could be BPD.

  38. I think it’s simpler to look for the immediate cause for these behaviors in biology rather than evolution. It’s hardly unexpected that women prefer high status to low status. But the reason why men don’t particularly care is because they are hornier than the women, they take what they can get.

  39. @Wilson

    You’re talking about the weather, evo-psych talks about the climate. One is immediate, the other is what brought us there.

  40. “Dunno if you saw this, but it’s really quite awesome and the guy’s answers are pretty well thought out and written. I figure you’ve talked with a few guys like this at some point in your work:

    Wow

    Quotes:

    Male vs female ad tactics are widely different for the most part, but our behavior research shows that the gender gaps are closing as more men become effeminate and vice versa.

    Women are more likely to lift weights, and do so more often, than men in the US.

    we see single Millennial aged males in two cohorts: those that get laid, and those that don’t. Now, we don’t exactly put it into those terms, but we make lots of correlations based on data. We market self improvement products and such to consumers that need self improvement – there are a million ways we calculate this depending on the product. For example, a person that we flag as a musician that has a ton of female followers is not going to get the same type of advertising in the self help product field as someone who is flagged as a computer/video game nerd. The musician is not going to get any “how to pick up chick” books marketed his way. The nerd most definitely is.

    I think we’re very predictable. I run around with some behavior specialists that mostly have PHD’s in Psych, and they can literally predict the future within someones life if they have the details. It doesn’t necessarily seem like a problem to me – it’s just proof that we aren’t as unique as we’d like to think.

    AF/BB definitely plays a role in advertising. If you see a ton of “Girl next door wants SEX NOW” clickbait ads as you surf the net, that means you have been targeted by the digital ad exchange networks as a BB. If you’re seeing ads about the new Remington model 700 series, we have targeted you as a badass outdoorsman or hunter.

    When a man and a woman are attracted to each other, they usually end up hooking up – from my experience anyway. Looking up some “tricks” or manipulative tactics on the internet is what we in advertising would consider “Growth Hacking”. This leads to a temporary advantage, but the market will catch on to it fairly quickly. I’m not exactly sure about this, but I suspect there is some sort of “how to spot a pickup artist” thread on a female based site that quickly squashes anything that’s going on in the male-side of the online groups.

  41. “One waits in vain for psychologists to state the limits of their knowledge.” — Noam Chomsky

    Ever notice that the vast majority of “names” in the manosphere are people “educated” in the Psychology industry?

    Rollo, Zed, Angry Harry, Dr. Helen, Warren Farrell…

    There’s no doubt, Rollo, that those of you who have been “educated” in psychology, think that this movement is “your baby.”

    Something to think about – the ratio of psychologists giving more of their sage advice in the Manosphere is astounding… and wasn’t this the same asswipe industry that gave us “gender is a social construct” and all the other pscho-bs?

    Probably the biggest thing that makes me question the manosphere on a deeper level is the over-presence of psychologists found within it.

  42. Aelorne:

    deti’s diagnosis is as follows:

    To add to what Sun Wukong told you, which is that you can do better later with a girl with fewer notches and less, ahem, experience.

    I’d enjoy this girl for all she’s worth right now. Enjoy the sex, enjoy the fun.

    Do not commit to this girl. Do not give her a ring. Do not wife her up.

    You haven’t been with her long enough to see all her baggage yet. She has some. No girl racks up 20-30 partners by age 25 without accumulating baggage.

    I doubt she’s being completely honest with you. Hard to believe a girl like this, if she’s as hot as you say, has never had a Serious Boyfriend.

    A girl this hot has been done up, and done up right, by at least one guy before you. Guaranteed she is an alpha widow. Guaranteed that guy is more alpha douchey than you are. Guaranteed she still remembers the sex. If she doesn’t pine away for him, she’s measuring you up against him.

    Women with as much experience as she has are good manipulators and good liars. They’ve learned to get good at it because they had to — because the men who date them are themselves good manipulators and liars. She has learned it because she had to learn how to use men and not get used by men.

    Where I’m going with this last point is that women like this know very well how to use their sexual power to get what they want. This sounds like a woman who is quite accustomed to getting her way, most all the time.

    Women like this can be quite accomplished at feigning attraction and “good girl” bona fides to “prove” themselves “worthy” of commitment. I’m not saying she’s not attracted to you at all. I am saying she might not be telling you the whole truth. I am saying she might be looking to consolidate on you and cash in, and that she might be overstating her “attraction” in order to get you sold. She might be sexing you up really well for now, to rope you in and get you to commit. That’s the “bait”, and after you commit, then comes the “switch” — no sex or little sex, and endless demands for more and more and more money, time, resources and investment.

    Think on it, and proceed with extreme caution. Do not under ANY circumstances offer ANY commitment to this woman. EVER.

  43. “Probably the biggest thing that makes me question the manosphere on a deeper level is the over-presence of psychologists found within it.”

    Hang out with Rooshv and all the rest if this complex stuff is scary

  44. “Probably the biggest thing that makes me question the manosphere on a deeper level is the over-presence of psychologists found within it.”

    Yes! Amen to that. The same could actually be said of feminism, those who aren’t outright mentally ill, are psychologists. Some are both at the same time.

  45. when your view is celebrity endorsed by insanity, you are well on the way to a threesome

  46. “Actually “gender is a social construct” comes courtesy of Women’s Studies and 3rd wave feminism”

    The social constructionist movement began in psychology, Tomassi. If it was born of nothing more then the ramblings of a few gender study Fems, it would never have gained any legitimacy. Go back and look, it’s very closely related to Marxism.

  47. Ah yes, the Curse of Jung…
    https://therationalmale.com/2012/01/11/the-curse-of-jung/

    The first Alpha to perfect Beta Game.

    Jung had nothing remotely as accessible to the biological, archeological and evolutionary information we possess today.

    Most of his theories were the result of an attempt to identify better with the feminine so as to facilitate his banging his female subjects (with his wife’s blessing no less).

    Game recognizes Game. Jung was just the Hugo Schwyzer of his time, and a man that 2nd and 3rd wave feminism embraced because his universality of genders and them being social constructs gelled with the egalitarian equalism narrative.

    “Women are a magical force. They surround themselves with an emotional tension stronger than the rationality of men…. Woman is a very, very strong being, magical. That is why, I am afraid of
    women.” Carl Jung; (From an interview in 1941.)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Jung

    Though he was a practising clinician and considered himself to be a scientist,[7] much of his life’s work was spent exploring tangential areas such as Eastern and Western philosophy, alchemy, astrology, and sociology, as well as literature and the arts. Jung’s interest in philosophy and the occult led many to view him as a mystic, although his ambition was to be seen as a man of science.[7] His influence on popular psychology, the “psychologization of religion”,[8] spirituality and the New Age movement has been immense.[9]

    http://www.nndb.com/people/910/000031817/

    It seems ironic that while Freud struggled to understand the impact of people’s repressed sexual longings, Jung was indulging in a string of satisfying and meaningful affairs (his wife had to tolerate one such woman, Toni Wolf, being a regular fixture at Sunday dinner) whilst forging ahead to more mystical aspects of the mind.

    He was a whack job, but many Alphas are.

  48. @Insanity, yeah, not so much:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructionism

    Although the precise origin of social constructionism is debatable, it is generally considered[by whom?] that within the context of social theory, social constructionism emerged during the 1980s and further developed during the 1990s. This is evident from the list of academic works with the words “Social Construction of” in their title which Ian Hacking lists on the first page of his book The Social Construction of What?. Hacking lists two titles from 1970s, eight from the 1980s, and twenty-one from the 1990s[4] This chronology is corroborated by Dave Elder-Vass in his book The Reality of Social Construction.[5]

    Dave Elder-Vass cites the Berger and Luckmann book The Social Construction of Reality, originally published in 1966, as the work “which introduced the term social construction to sociologists and began the trajectory. . .[of the development of social constructionism][6]

    Andy Lock and Tom Strong trace some of the fundamental tenets of social constructionism back to the work of the 18th century Italian political philosopher, rhetorician, historian, and jurist Giambattista Vico[7]

    According to Lock and Strong, other influential thinkers whose work has had an impact on the development of social constructionism are: Edmund Husserl, Alfred Schutz, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Martin Heidegger, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Paul Ricoeur, Jürgen Habermas, Emmanuel Levinas, Mikhail Bakhtin, Valentin Volosinov, Lev Vygotsky, George Herbert Mead, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Gregory Bateson, Harold Garfinkel, Erving Goffman, Anthony Giddens, Michel Foucault, Ken Gergen, Mary Gergen, Rom Harre, and John Shotter[8]

    Based on the above, it could be surmised that the intellectual foundations of social constructionism span phenomenology, hermeneutics, poststructuralism, symbolic interactionism,[9] as well as some strands of literary criticism and social psychology.

  49. “To the contrary, most cross-cultural studies find nations with the highest sociopolitical gender equality (e.g., Scandinavian nations) exhibit the largest psychological sex differences in the world.”
    ———————-
    In first world nations women are pampered.

    Everywhere else they have to have SOME ball sack to live.

    That likely accounts or this ‘ironic’ observation.

  50. “Having higher personal status and resource-related traits appears not to attenuate women’s preferences for cues to men’s ability and willingness to provide resources. Instead, at least in the USA, women achieving high status themselves appears to make their long-term mate preferences for men’s high status even more intense!”
    —————————
    Yes.

    And so giving status and position to women that don’t need it takes status and position away from men that DO need it!

  51. @Rollo

    Insanity up to her usual schtick, eh?

    Some angry men are violent, therefore all men are dangerous.

    Some psychologists are incompetent or malicious, therefore all psychologists are dangerous.

    Seein a pattern here.

  52. And as real red pill guys do, I took a journey to the other side. Biggest downfall I see of Evo, is the findings of how plastic the brain is, i.e., our brains have changed significantly since the dawn of time and a lot of the environmental pressure argument that the Evo’s use, is basically baseless. An adaptation to a pressure from 300,000 years ago, is most likely no longer part of our brain structure. Pressures are different now then then.

    https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=ssl#q=scientific+critique+of+evo+psych

  53. Self surgery and weird observation of blue thoughts and concepts.

    Forge brought up a great point about the mental anguish of thinking your making progress than slowly regression into old patterns and self destructive behaviors. By self destructive I mean ones that least for me don’t get me anywhere. Their selfish and useless I have many bad habits. One thing I’ve noticed about them is my constant all come from a maladaptive response to things that don’t suit me and hurt me more than help.

    I am grateful for starting back up with a new rugby team. Been playing just now and can see myself being able to actually experience emotions such as “anger” in a heathy form that doesn’t involve bullying others in the process.

    @Sun wukong

    “Knowing how they are allows better decisions than living in denial just because you don’t like reality.”

    I really still think parts of me are still that way.

    ” If your model of reality is wrong, you will make bad decisions no matter how much you like your model or believe in it.”

    Well that explains a good deal of social feminism.

    ” I expect from seeing those results heavily egalitarian (which usually translates to heavily socialist) countries will feature women even more prone to ignoring BB strictly for AF. Betas will be absolutely, completely, and totally excluded from sexual selection in such a climate.”

    One word France

    “I do wonder: how many SJW/feminists won’t give a shit how the policies they push for affect men until they find their adult son hasn’t given them any grandchildren and is on anti-depressants because his right hand is the only partner he’s had in 20 years? Will they realize that they pushed for AF/bb without realizing there was an 80-90% chance any males they had would fail to reproduce in such an environment?”

    Most relevant post at where I am at right now. Holy hell I think about just that daily.

    “Focusing on the ability to adapt to constant change is one of the best traits a person can have.”

    That brother is why I am here. Alive as well.

    “You’re gonna have shots with chicks that hot that don’t have a past if you’re patient. I’m keen to hear Rollo’s take on it though”

    Me as well since that’s my age.

    “You need me, but you don’t care about my needs. Funny how that works.” BP anthem

    @The Diplomat

    Building a new Dinosaur probably not a good ideal…

    @Aelorne

    “Btw I am 27, good looking, educated, and financially successful for my age, have manly hobbies, and am in fantastic shape.”

    You remind me of me. But more stable with resources.

    @Roger D

    “Females in general, will always PREFER to MATE with men who can provide the highest measures of genetic benefits and NOT those who can provide direct benefits (material or otherwise) derived from high socioeconomic status.”

    Tinder…

    @Novaseeker

    “what is missed (deliberately by a few, and for the rest out of the sheer stupidity that has always crippled most of humanity) is that the person/people who get to decide who gets what power, and how it gets “equalized” and so on, end up with a disproportionate share, even the lion’s share, of power. So even taking its own principles to be “good” as a given, their system fails to deliver its own aims. It’s just a cluster.”

    It’s weird to think how SJW can become tyrants just as if Neo cons or liberals where all human and I know for a fact that I am capable of atrocious things. It’s why with the little power I have I try to be transparent. Dc is a hard climate to maintain that in.

    @NBTM

    “This insecurity, this anxiety results from the fact that the individual internalizes his or her beliefs of self-entitlement so thoroughly that he or she comes to think those beliefs are actually reality and most significantly part of the self. Yet the utopia, the entitlement, is not real and never will be. It is initially suggested, then self-conjured, self-developed and self-maintained. But reality prevents the individual’s access to his or her entitlement. Establishing and maintaining this false entitlement requires an extensive psychological investment involving a lot of intellectual time and energy. The individual becomes pathological and expends countless hours, emotional energy and money seeking “love”. Any study or analysis of reality is threatening because it potentially or directly exposes the truth that the individual’s psychological investment is totally wasted and the individual loses his or her conception of self, not realizing that the conception was false to begin with. ”

    Weird is that’s all the anger I have for my dad. It’s from everything you just wrote with the enforcement of violence.

    @Jorge

    Nice that’s so beautiful for its truth.

    @Jed

    “Probably the biggest thing that makes me question the manosphere on a deeper level is the over-presence of psychologists found within it.”

    Astounding point

    Disprove everything destroy Rollos work with that distrust. Capture what you will and leave the rest become over critical do whatever the hell you want. It’s a reference that can be destroyed with the changing world but most of it is so damn familiar to my hardships.

    @thedeti

    “Women with as much experience as she has are good manipulators and good liars. They’ve learned to get good at it because they had to — because the men who date them are themselves good manipulators and liars. She has learned it because she had to learn how to use men and not get used by men.”

    Sounds as if that’s stuff I picked up on as a coping strategy. Very familiar with my sisters.

    https://vimeo.com/85679874

    Feminism blue pill destruction endless motherly validation of her son I still think I am plugged into a system that wants me annihilated.

    @DeNihilist

    “Biggest downfall I see of Evo, is the findings of how plastic the brain is, i.e., our brains have changed significantly since the dawn of time and a lot of the environmental pressure argument that the Evo’s use, is basically baseless.”

    Trauma doesn’t stop a brain from being able to rewire itself.

    @Rollo

    Wandering what your take on these links and story’s of open hypergamy for self expression is?

    http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/04/hot-girls-wanted

  54. Retro masculinity and anti evo psych is the last gasp ditch effort to hold on to the coat tails of the blue pill monogamy paradigm.

    It’s patently obvious that 99% of the sphere is bitter the monogamy paradigm is going by the wayside, why else all the vitriol sputtered against hyperagamy, promiscuity, divorce etc.

    Just look at the manosphere powerhouses, Heartiste and Roosh, their whole screed is a whine fest against the impending avalanche. They’re in cognitive dissonance trance, spouting the sex free for all mantra while pining for the chaste, virtuous ‘good girl’.

    The new shoots of acceptance of the change are appearing, BlackDragon is the new breed of manospherians.

    Seems to me the FI is invested in maintaining the blue pill monogamy paradigm for men while reaping the windfall of the red pill serial polygyny paradigm for women. Retro masculinists and the anti evo psych crowd are inadvertently playing on the side of the FI.

    The economic ecology has changed, the war has already been won, serial polygyny is the new paradigm.

  55. While evolutionary psychology does undeniably impact long-term mating choices, it’s simply not too relevant to most of the manosphere because manosphere guys are looking for lays not long-term mates – a girl who wants to ‘hook up’ with a guy with a condom has radically different criteria than one who wants to have children with a guy (that’s the ‘evolutionary’ part of evo-psych).

    I think the manosphere tends to play up its pulpy understanding of elementary-level evolutionary biology to lend an air of credibility to the frat boy aspirations of the thirsty 20-something demographic it primarily targets.

  56. ” how many SJW/feminists won’t give a shit how the policies they push for affect men until they find their adult son hasn’t given them any grandchildren and is on anti-depressants”

    click ..bzzt…click … “Weak Men Screwing Feminism Up®!” ..click!
    is all you’re ever going to get on that subject, even with their own Beta/Gamma-sired children. “Weak, just like his father. Weak, weak, weak! If I were a man, why let me tell you …”.
    It’s the only fact they know.

  57. The Welfare State and state socialism in general arose, in Europe at least, as a way of mobilizing an entire society for Total War. Or at least as a way of trying to survive it.
    I mean look at who started it off. Not Buddhists, Quakers, or Romantic poets.
    The Prussians. That should tell you everything you need to know about it, and what it was for.

  58. “If you see a ton of “Girl next door wants SEX NOW” clickbait ads as you surf the net, that means you have been targeted by the digital ad exchange networks as a BB. If you’re seeing ads about the new Remington model 700 series, we have targeted you as a badass outdoorsman or hunter.”

    Dammit, all I get is life insurance and medical stuff, shit I never even look at and have no intention to. No babes or guns.
    No idea what I’ve done to deserve it, I’m healthy like an animal and work outdoors (weather permitting). It’s like Death rocking up grinning in The Seventh Seal.

  59. Fuck. I cannot believe that after years of studies, anecdotes, field reports, and the life observations of everyday men that we are fucking around with this topic.

    This stuff is “jump street”, Intro to Reality 101 sort of shit. @Wilson is right, Biology should be referenced more than Evo Psych. And the annoying thing is that it reinforces this topic over and over in species after species, AND these studies that do so have been around for decades. Why would humans be soooo different, so above it all, when the key selection criteria for species after species is fitness based on the signals that display it.

    The stuff about high status being key was never any real shock to anybody. Not even to feminists. The stuff that was the big shock and the thing that pissed every man off was the revelations about the short term stuff, as @Roger says is of more relevance to the manosphere. Forever there was this Dads vs Cads debate. And the thing that came out of the manosphere and this is the whole YaReally point that he makes over and over, is that in Short Term Mating situations “Dads” can go fuck themselves as far as women are concerned.

    Let’s go back to the beginning. I posted this link well over two years ago and this is still the seminal piece of information for me that has held up and continually backed up and backed by continuing research in biology, in neuroscience, in genetics, and god knows what all.

    Changes in Women’s Mate Preferences Across the Ovulatory Cycle
    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.495.1474&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    This study, and is backed up by subsequent variations of it from women’s preferences when on the pill, to women’s treatment of mates during cycles as a function of how attractive the consider the guy, how women dress and act during ovulation, and on and on, basically said That When There is Round in The Chamber, When a Bun Was In the Oven, Whenever “the He-ing and She-ing” was about to get real real, the realest real there is as a part of human existence, girlfriend wanted “Good Genes”. And those “Good Genes”, at least as far as what that egg was telling her eyes what was good, were signaled by Arrogance, Confrontational Attitude, Muscles. And then after these three, somewhere down the scale, Looks. And money, status, social position, even though very important in long term sucker hunting, were irrelevant in those hours when she was “Ready for Freddie”.

    And this all goes against the grain, the idea of Good Choices, the whole Sexual Selection Strategy that says she wants a responsibile mate to help her in child rearing. She may. But not his sperm. And the reason for this is subconscious and beyond her conscious control. Because the shit she is looking for is so important to her genes that it says “Fuck your rationality. Do what I tell you to.” And it has been showed over and over in animals that the desire for a competent immune system and is displayed by those traits and are signs of testosterone. And both the structural and behavioral signals of these traits are reinforced over and over in the signals that women use for choice. Even when they select for the signals of status, often the possession of those signals is a function of success in “agonistic” social competition and a key creator of testosterone.

    To me, the key that this behavior is “firmware”, deep deep programming was in how fast women shucked the provider model of mate selection once they got independent cash. And converted almost wholesale and completely over to the “Good” genes model, those good genes consisting of physical and behavioral signals that you were a fucking prick, especially to women, because well, you could be, ’cause you had the genes. And women act no differently than any peahen, or field grouse hen, all tossing their slutty little selves at the cock with “the biggest tail”.

    Most of this stuff comes from not just evolutionary biology, but basic BIOLOGY. Evolutionary Psychology is the study of behavior based on these biological observations to measure behavior. Key developments in adopting some of the methods of Social Psychology to remove the bias that can come from self reporting and the influence of observers further authenticated and verified the veracity of the findings.

    Now as I said this stuff is “jump street”, and anyone that will not “swallow” the findings, or wishes to interpret the results in other manners, is sticking their head in the sand. And the fact is this:

    Everything is heritable. Genes uber alles. Even when some study says 50% genetics/50% environment, that “environment” is not what you have been lead to believe, not something like whether your mother read bedtime stories to you, or what sort of shows were Nick when you were a kid. All it means is “non-genetic” and often is expressed as epigenetic. The bacteria and viruses that you are exposed to in your life, the food, the water, the weather, all have an effect of turning on and off the alleles that are in your chromosomes. Stress has a major effect.

    Jeez, Jayman and the HBD Chick have down incredible work laying down the “environmental” effect of genes, on how social structures, morals, climate, geography, religion, marrying patterns have all had significant effect on everything, especially on the politics of a place.

    Recent developments just in the past two weeks are (1) discovery of a connectedness between the lymphatic system, hence the immune system, and the grey matter of the brain (2) A test that all once in a single test can tell every virus you had ever had in your life. And also in the past year, major work has been done to link depression to inflammation, meaning a “bug, germ, virus”. Here is a monster thing that is banging on the door from Greg Cochrane and backed up by Jay Man, that homosexuality is caused by a germ:

    Greg Cochran’s “Gay Germ” Hypothesis – An Exercise in the Power of Germs
    https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2014/02/26/greg-cochrans-gay-germ-hypothesis-an-exercise-in-the-power-of-germs/

    Epigenetic effects on development is going to be the next big frontier. But make no mistake, genes, and hence evolution are everything. They not only control height, hair color, yada yada, but where you will make bad decisions, be impulsive, be promiscuous, be prone to mood disorders, be successful, be stupid, be smart, and most of all, to be sexually successful.
    Evo Pysch, coupled with HBD, is key to crushing the nonsense and detrimental social, economic, and political policies that are driving us to ruin as a society. The downward spiral is shown to be, over and over, a function of dysgenic behavior and must be accepted in controlling bullshit like education spending, immigration, and crap morality. So yes, there is sort of a battle to the death between social science and real science, particularly Evo Psych.

    But when it comes to interpersonal relationships as a function of this knowledge, then we do with this info is up to us.

    I read in First Things an essay that described Christian Marriage as the Civilization of Love. The use of the word “civilization” is more of the true sense of the verb, to civilize, meaning that men and women both have inherent, and heritable natures that basically suck in various ways. And when society imposes constraints on those natures, then the “good”, the better angels in us can flourish and the “devil” is held at bay.

    My message to a particular commenter up above is this.

    Men didn’t start this war. Women are not being very “Civilized” about this whole marriage thing. Once the social constraints were removed from women and they began to act as they do, then all sorts of social problems arose. And in my mind, a bunch of epigenetic problems also. The behavior of men, especially those that use Evo Psych in Manners to which the greater society and particularly women object, is a result and reaction to the behavior of the majority of women.

    Certain observations and datum have come out of our community. And if men use this data to first, be aware, and then second, to constrain women from making these choices, and third to punish those that do, then fine. That is a responsibility of a society, to force “defectors” and “cheaters” into socially approved behaviors. To say “Christ didn’t act this way”. Well, he was Christ. A slut may find heavenly forgiveness but she still must face the consequences of her actions in the temporal realm. “…. cast the first stone” was actually about casting stones. We have a duty to ourselves and our unborn children to ostracize those that stray and most importantly to avoid them. As I said above, everything is heritable. If she made those choices in the past, the possible that she will make impulsive choices is high in the future. And the possibility of her passing on those genes is high also.

    Women can make all this stop right now. They can constrain other women and begin to work in a sense of cooperation with men. But until they start then men are fools to not protect themselves.

    I can use this story about the Chief of Police from Philadelphia. There was a major drug dragnet going down where the police would just arrest even slightly suspicious police and toss them the jail. And lawyers would get them off on technicalities. Then the police would arrest them again. And then they would get off.

    When the press questioned the chief on these tactics, he responded,

    “I can keep locking them out and they can pay lawyers to get out. And then they can go back to that behavior and I’ll lock them up. And they can pay lawyers to get out.”

    “And let’s see who gets tired of this first.”

    We can go back to the Civilization of Marriage anytime you girls want to. Or we can keep doing what we are doing.

    And let’s see who gets tired of this first.

  60. “Ah yes, the Curse of Jung… Jung was just the Hugo Schwyzer of his time, and a man that 2nd and 3rd wave feminism embraced…. He was a whack job, but many Alphas are…”

    Thank you, Tomassi, that’s exactly what I was trying to say.

  61. What rather shocked me – I am certainly not competent to assess the merits of the various studies – is the ‘gasp’ that went through the writers audience – an audience of Sociologists and Family Studies Professors – when informed that women are just as, if not more so, designed for short-term mating. These people including (presumably) a sizable number of females are supposed to be dispassionate about evidence, but as we can see, despite their academic credentials, they hold their beliefs – false beliefs – with religious tenacity.

    These, regrettably, are the people who advise and inform governments when the latter seek advice on policy.

  62. @ Mark Minter

    “Women can make all this stop right now. They can constrain other women and begin to work in a sense of cooperation with men. But until they start then men are fools to not protect themselves.”

    Okay, at the end of the day wether its Evo/psych or basic BIOLOGY or the combination which dictates ‘bad’ or uncivilized behavior, relative to women marriage and child rearing. . . . . Its Government that defines the landscape . . . the arbiters of rewards and punishment.

    Contingency behavior by men, outside of marriage, only fosters the withdrawing of the ‘losers’, men willing to play ball in the marriage game to ultimately withdraw, abstain, go on strike. . . . As time goes by in the downward spiral we get less and less willing participants of the machine that enables.

    In the realm of economics and wealth creation the fuel for government revenue and therefore agency . . . . What happens when the wealth creators and the useful idiots that make up the apparatus of the material world becomes awakened to the fraud?

    Marriage and monogamy, is a cornerstones of ‘civilization’. Our current political climate and Women’s selfish nature paints a dark future. The reversal of entitlement culture of the nanny state is unrealistic.

    To recognize this is reality 101 . . . Scoreboard. . . . Ball game. . . . .

  63. @70s & Sun – The idea that there is some necessary “balance” between socialism and capitalism is simply made up. No such equilibrium is demanded by the political system or the economic system – none. Let that simple observation settle, please. You are asserting that a dynamic of the system exists where there actually is none. This is likely a narrative to support your biases. Really. There is nothing about economics or politics that demands a balance between anything. In economics, in fact, one could say that it’s this fetishization of equilibrium that damns ideas such as those proposed by Keynes. Austrian economists – the only social scientists who actually reason from axiomatic first principles – rejects such analyses as faulty. The Austrian’s axiom? Humans act. The unit? Humans. Simple, yet it leads one to profoundly different conclusions about how economics actually works.

    Let’s upgrade the model, for purposes of conversation. Social systems are dynamic, complex systems – agreed? Economic, political, filial, fraternal, official, legal, associations, corporations etc., all these structures and institutions are part of the mix. This system is also now digitally interconnected, with billions of us addressable in a new digital dimension.

    Capitalism emerged over time in this complex system. Socialism was designed and imposed – this is why it’s failing everywhere. It’s ideas are propagated by a global, digital memeplex that the leftists have intentionally overtaken. This allows a bad idea like Socialism to continue to propagate even though it doesn’t confer benefits on the social groups that adopt it.

    I was listening to a talk by prof Steven Horwitz, on Friedrich Hayek and I think he said it best. “For Hayek, spontaneous order is the idea that human institutions and practices are the product of human action, but not human design.” http://www.libertarianism.org/media/free-thoughts/ideas-friedrich-hayek#.v8v3ls:9JTo Fyi, this talk alone is genius, Horwitz makes economic and political ideas so clear. He’s a bit of an anarchist, but will never be found on Lew Rockwell’s or Tom Woods videos, hmmm? Could it be that there is an entire libertarian intellectual tradition and vein of thought that refuses to associate with the likes of Ron Paul and his PaleoLibertarian ilk? Hint: Yes.

    Socialism fails utterly because complex systems are self-organizing from the bottom up. Not coincidentally, it’s this bottoms up process that insures bad ideas/systems don’t propagate, but instead fail and die off. The digital global memeplex of ideas/thought/morality is controlled utterly by social justice warriors – this kind of thing simply never existed in human social history. It’s being used by the left as a way of short-circuiting group selection that would have made ideas like socialism fail and die off in the past. For me, this quite elegantly explains the runaway social devolution I see around me. Something has gone haywire in the actual system itself in that we are constantly acting against our own best interests, My view is that this control of the global memeplex by SJWs is crucial. It’s also why I say the politics are crucial because it’s politics that drove leftists here/there.

    Socialism today expresses itself in three major ways. First is a growing welfare state – U.S. spent 1 trillion on such programs last year. We could send a 60k check to every household in poverty in the U.S. and have money left over, btw. Second is in the growing regulatory and administrative state. Third is cultural, and this is where they have run the table. In fact, one could correctly claim that Barack Obama is an agent of Gramsci’s (world class 20th century Marxist) counter-hegemony – in private he would consider that statement high praise. My point? It’s winning on all fronts. Classical liberalism is in retreat everywhere. From free speech to free association to the rule of law to limited govt to cosmopolitanism – all are becoming quaint anachronisms. The left/sjw/progressives/democrats are running the field ideologically, regardless of the party politics.

    The theory of the New Left (or better said, one of their many theories) was that the economic/materialistic impulses of society were not enough to overthrow the current corrupt elite. The emergence of the middle class had disproved their ideas about economics but instead of admitting defeat, they simply changed fronts. They needed to overtake the cultural institutions of society which drive the masses consciousness in order to drive the revolution their Marxist morality demanded. Education, entertainment, news journalism, govt administration, public intellectuals – strict obeisance to social justice norms (Marxism repackaged) is now demanded. They have won the cultural battle.

    And we can see they were correct in that focus as all other institutions and individuals get their ideas from the digital global memeplex. The left has run the field They now are consolidating their gains in the culture, using them to overtake the political system utterly, which they then use to to affect the economics and other aspects of culture. Don’t believe me? Go research how Facebook just reorganized and upgraded it’s “Groups” policies. It simply denied the upgrade key to political/ideological groups that were not leftist. Not for hate speech – they just didn’t give the upgrade “key” to many conservative groups. Fyi, groups that got the key also saw major increases in participation due to changes in the Facebook algorithms wrt how group content is presented. If you don’t think Zuckerberg is consciously programming the memeplex with his SJW ideas, you simply have your head in the sand.

    I have no idea where your “balance” meme (trope?) fits into how I see the world. All our success and wealth as a society and nation were given by our liberty and limited government which unleashed human dynamism in a way that simply was unprecedented. I think most Americans don’t even really know the real history of how the U.S. developed economically. It was largely ungoverned, and in many ways ungovernable. A much smaller federal govt was often just ignored. Our entire industrial base – the bedrock of a modern national economy – emerged and developed without the aid of any govt geniuses or programs.

    While we of course can have govt focus on dealing with limited collective, national needs we have like defense, environment etc, the entire edifice of govt as it’s now conceived of and operates is at odds with what has actually worked in terms of economics and creating prosperity. And we can see it in our own lives as we reach the end game of the short term labor arbitrage gambit we’ve been creating false prosperity with. We spent 50 years doing everything we could to destroy our industrial base following “progressive” policies and the religion of free trade (killing the working class was collateral damage) and now we have very little left. We lost 58,000 factories since 2000 in the U.S. – many have simply packed up their equipment here and shipped it to China to be operated by virtual slave labor, while huge profits are skimmed off by actual Communists. And yes, I’m a libertarian who is not a free trader. There is no such thing as free trade possible between nations. Only managed trade. Free trade can only fairly happen within a contiguous economic system and society.

    Those of us who want something different are in a declining minority. I quoted George Orwell above for a reason. That is where I believe we are headed. “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.” – George Orwell

    So why not get as much poon as possible? What other approach makes sense? Howling into this darkness? Nah. Have a nice day guys, I’ve to a shit ton of work to do.

  64. NB – I made some simple statements about complex systems above, I don’t want to get into a technical argument about complexity. I’m merely trying to make clear how crucial self-organizing agents are to capitalism and liberty. Perhaps could have said it better, but please, let’s not go down that rathole too…

  65. I have no idea where your “balance” meme (trope?) fits into how I see the world.

    I know, and I already expected you to pretty much call me wrong on all fronts and disagree with me. Not the least upsetting to me.

    Nice thing is that our opinion on the subject doesn’t matter. We have no say in the matter. It’s gonna go where it’s gonna go. Doesn’t really change my individual strategy of improving myself, remaining personally flexible, and enjoying my life.

  66. More easy reading –

    http://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/21/magazine/men-women-sex-and-darwin.html?scp=4&sq=angier natalie darwin evolutionary psychology&st=cse&pagewanted=5

    “Variation and flexibility are the key themes that get set aside in the breathless dissemination of evolutionary psychology. ”The variation is tremendous, and is rooted in biology,” Barbara Smuts said to me. ”Flexibility itself is the adaptation.” Smuts has studied olive baboons, and she has seen males pursuing all sorts of mating strategies. ”There are some whose primary strategy is dominating other males, and being able to gain access to more females because of their fighting ability,” she says. ”Then there is the type of male who avoids competition and cultivates long-term relationships with females and their infants. These are the nice, affiliative guys. There’s a third type, who focuses on sexual relationships. He’s the consorter. . . . And as far as we can tell, no one reproductive strategy has advantages over the others.” “

  67. @scibblerg

    I too am a libertarian. . . . However still reluctant to oppose ‘free trade’.

    Perhaps against my better judgement for I to lament the loss of the US industrial base. . . I do believe there are other contributing factors. . . . like corporate welfare and government protection for a select few . . . croneyism . . for example.

    It is Friedman and The Law of Unintended Consequence that gives me pause. . . . as to the invisible, negative and latent effects of ‘over regulation’ of the heavy hand of Gov’t.

    Here is Friedman on the subject:

  68. My latest field report supports this post. The girl, 28 responded to my OKC profile. From the start it was clear she wanted to get banged. Her shit-tests—which started with “You’re too old for me….” and me reframing this with “Do you want a boy or a man?” went on to her saying “A man but one who can still be horny…” It was clear she didn’t care so much WHO I was but was more concerned about WHAT I was…or what I could provide for her—in this case it was a chance to get back at her bf who went away for the weekend and didn’t take her.

    She tests ensued: She was very concerned that I WASNT married failing to see the irony of her own escalation….which she rationalized as since her bf didn’t take her away, “I must have fun”.

    After sexualizing the whole interaction, I set up a meeting at my home. More shit test: time changes, meet up changes….but again this was the conflict between her hind brain and her forebrain, logic vs emotion.

    She was so excited her pussy was literally vibrating. She blew me, then I banged her twice.

    After that her bf texted to say he was coming back shortly and wanted to meet up for dinner.

    “Let me see” she replied….If you ever get a reply like this from a girl…she’s probably banging someone else.

    Then she lamented how she didn’t want to see him: “He’ll just want to fuck me….”

    So you can see that a woman’s “mating strategy” is about raising her value. She banged me to raise her value because he had made her somehow feel inadequate.

    The age thing wasn’t as important to her as whether I was in shape and someone she would not regret banging the next day.

    Afterwards she texted to tell me she enjoyed being with me. Then she sent a wall of text which I deleted where she said she and her bf were arguing and she was making him jealous by suggesting she had options.

    He was falling into the trap.

    Through all this, I felt like I had a unique view of how women think. Knowing this made it easier to just plough ahead. Women WANT you to escalate. Women want to be dominated. Women will trade up. Comfort is more important than rapport.

    This girl knew absolutely nothing about me, but it was important for her to feel comfortable so she could blow and bang me.

    All this is deeply hardwired into her brain. Once you spark attraction, a girl is powerless against her own nature.

  69. LOL Minter,

    good to see your cognitive dissonance is still happily humming along. You do get that these ovulation shift studies are done in a lab with photo’s right? That the women pick the more masculine looking men in their horny phase right? Yet game teaches that looks are a small part of attracting women, that confidence and jerkboy attitude is the deal clincher. So tell me, how do these broads figure out the pictured males attitude?

    ” There are, of course, critics of this line of research, who believe that it’s overly focused on ovulation-related behavior, and that it doesn’t necessarily translate into what happens in real-world relationships. “These lab studies have never, to my knowledge, been extended into actual partner choice,” says hormones researcher Sari van Anders, PhD, an assistant professor of psychology and women’s studies at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “If ovulation affects real-life mate choice so strongly outside the lab, why haven’t we seen these results?””

    From this – http://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/03/hormones.aspx

    which I know mostly agrees with this silly concept.

  70. walla – “All this is deeply hardwired into her brain. Once you spark attraction, a girl is powerless against her own nature.”

    let me fix this for you – “once you spark a girls attraction, her nature kicks in.”

    girls love to fuck as much as men, the opportunity was there and she took it, same as you. No biggee.

  71. @scribblerg

    . . . not to mention overtaxation as a HUGE ‘invisible effect’ . . . .

    The amount of Gov’t taxation, on the populist in effect makes people less affluent, more for gov’t coffers and less in the market where the so called ‘multiplier’ effect is diminished. . . .

    Another words, a start company that could compete, as a result of a better business model and greater efficiency with potential costumers that feel more affluent never comes into existence. . . .

    As a result of the crowding out and high cost entry threshold and the ‘established player’ benefits from the heavy hand of gov’t influence. . . . .

    Socialism displaces individual choice and mobility with subsidized redistribution. It mitigates markets to slow and become less innovative and competitive and induces behavior that undermines our culture moors. . . .

    Someone please convince me that Welfare isn’t subsidized ‘hypergamy’. . . . . . .

  72. @scribblerg

    BTW, talk of your playing plus some other folks and events in my life lately have had me thinking I’ll be picking up the piano and trumpet again. Been 20 years, but I still have a really nice Ensoniq KS-32 with weighted keys sitting around, and I always wanted to play the trumpet again with an opportunity to correct the bad habits I had in high school.

    Getzen still makes the horn I was using back then too, and I’ve been listening to way too much Miles Davis and Maynard Ferguson lately…

  73. girls love to fuck as much as men,…

    Provably false.
    https://therationalmale.com/2011/10/04/women-sex/

    Patently false. A healthy male produces between 12 to 17 times the amount of testosterone a woman does. It is a biological impossibility for a woman to want sex as much as, or as often as men. Trust me, when a woman says, “I don’t understand why sex is so important to guys” she’s speaking the literal truth. No woman will ever experience 17 times the amount of her own testosterone levels (barring steroids). Amongst its many other effects, testosterone is the primary hormone involved with stimulating human libido. I should also add that, on average, and barring environmental variables, a mans testosterone only declines 1% per year beyond age 40, so even at age 60 the average, healthy male is only dealing with an average 20% deficit in testosterone.

    Critics of this observation like to argue that, for female sexual response and arousal, testosterone isn’t the only factor to consider. To which I’ll agree, however it is the PRIMARY factor in sexual response. A woman cannot possibly understand what 12 to 17 times their present amount of testosterone could feel like without steroid use. In fact the first effect female bodybuilder report when cycling anabolic steroids is a 100 fold increase in sexual interest and libido. So in terms of natural female hormonal / biochemical response there is no unaltered way a woman could ever make an accurate comparison to what a man’s baseline libido is in relation to her own. Women’s sexual desire is also cyclical. Even at the peak of her ovulatory cycle, when she’s at her horniest, she’ll never experience what men do 24 hours a day. This is the root of the myth, and the source of the social convention.

  74. @Sun

    Saw Maynard Ferguson a fews back right before he died. . . . Fantastic show . . . . He had a vascular problem and had to sit down with one of his legs up on a chair . . . . . . . . could still hit the soaring high notes. . . .. . . . It was his MO to have his band entirely of young proteges, did that since the 70’s. . . . .

    Miles Davis will always be the king of Cool . . . .

  75. “Patently false. A healthy male produces between 12 to 17 times the amount of testosterone a woman does.”

    Tomassi, sexuality is far more complex then simple testosterone. All in good humor here, but that is a very male defined perception of what drives desire. Men and women are motivated to have sex for completely different reasons, based on entirely different chemicals.

    You are also attempting to equate frequency with love, another somewhat amusing male perspective. The statement (edited for language) was “women love sex just as much as men.” That much is quite true, women do indeed love sex just as much as men. Our tastes just lean more towards quality, rather than quantity.

    Women indeed, do not understand what that testosterone load is actually like, however most men can’t even conceive of what sexuality even looks like without it.

  76. Once again Insanity, read the post, I address that. You really are intellectually lethargic.

    You are also attempting to equate frequency with love, another somewhat amusing male perspective. The statement (edited for language) was “women love sex just as much as men.” That much is quite true, women do indeed love sex just as much as men.

    So how long were you a man before you had a sex change and structurally rewired your brain and endocrine system to become a woman in order to make this assertion?

  77. The porn industry isn’t a multi-billion dollar juggernaut because women’s sexual appetites are comparable to men’s.

    You should really watch the video at the top of that post too.

  78. girls love to fuck as much as men is not just biological Rollo. Agreed that biologically, men have a lower prompt level, but the desire to fuck is as strong in women as in men. Men come at it from the point of their penis, the small head, ejaculation, women come at it from a whole body experience, more holistic – :). When a woman orgasm’s she loses herself, most men just ejaculate.

    why else throughout history, men have tried to curb the women’s appetite for sex? Why else the growth of the FI? It is the female response to having been shackled in their sexuality. This whole feminism thing is not about equality, it is about freedom to fuck!

  79. Christ Tomassi, can’t you just pick one study? Fuck, now I have a days worth of reading and analyzing! I will get back to you.

Speak your mind

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s