obvious double standard

Sexual Selection & Existential Fear

Way back in the early years of this blog I wrote a post flipping a common feminist trope on its head. In Women’s Physical Standards I laid out the case that it is women, not men, who hold the most stringent and static standards for ideal male beauty.

…from a purely physical perspective, it is women’s idealized masculine form that hasn’t changed in millennia. While there may have been a Rubenesque period when men loved the fatties of the 1600′s, no such era ever existed for women’s physical preferences. The classic broad chest, wide shoulders, six-pack abs and squared jaws of greco-roman athleticism are still the idealized male form that has graced EVERY romance novel cover in existence. I’m still waiting for someone to post me a link for a dating site that caters exclusively to women’s fetish of BBMs – Big Beautiful Men – average to good looking, fit, women specifically looking overweight men. Executive Introductions caters to women seeking affluent, influential men, but women just looking for overweight men, that site doesn’t exist.

I wrote this essay in a time well before apps like Tinder and Bumble became household names. Since then (September, 2011) the sexual marketplace has fundamentally shifted to exactly the state I saw it going to then, and all it took to prove it was a handful of fucking ‘dating’ apps to facilitate Hypergamy. In 8 years women have proven they are every bit as viscerally motivated by men’s physical appeal as I spelled out in this post. Back then I was run up the flagpole for suggesting women were the ones with “unrealistic beauty standards”, now it seem matter of fact.

Of course, the double standard has gotten much worse with respect to men having any sexual selection standards. In Maryland we have the instance of high school boys being pilloried on a global stage for daring to rate their female classmates’ looks on a 1 to 10 scale. Ironically, the the same teen girls who took such offense to this will think nothing of swiping left or right on a potentially lover on Tinder in just a few short years. In fact, they’ll think it’s normal for a woman to base her sexual selection on the physical, yet the same is sexual objectification for men to do the same. Certainly, men will never be allowed to voice their physical preferences without the fear of personal destruction in our Global Village.

About 5-6 months ago, Pat Campbell, my co-host on Red Pill 101, linked me to a pair of stories about how offensive some social justice warriors found it that young men were avoiding trans-gender ‘girls‘ as potential dates. The logic was that more evolved heterosexual young men should feel attraction towards a trans-gender, biological male, if he was presenting himself as a female. The natural sexual selection process for those young men, and by extension all men, was being circumvented by the social imperatives of others.

Pat also linked me to a story where a popular, heterosexual, high school quarterback accepted the Homecoming Dance proposal of another homosexual young man. As expected, the story was written as a heartwarming victory for modern progressivism and a young man “secure in his masculinity” praised as a hero for essentially accepting a social control over his sexual selection process. Naturally, the predictable hate to overcome would be from ‘less evolved’ guys alleging the quarterback was really gay.

This is the pre-written script we expect will follow (the clichéd triumph over homophobia), but the real story here is that a young man’s sexual selection process has been removed from his direct control. If the quarterback had refused the proposal the best he could hope for would be that no story would be written about it – but the more likely story would be him having to defend himself against his homophobia. In essence, the threat of a global online mob ruining his future makes accepting the proposal a necessity.

In 2019 men’s control over their sexual selectivity is something women don’t want to hear about. Part of ensuring that Hypergamy is the defining social dynamic today includes exercising as much control over men’s sexual selection process as possible. As fluid as men’s selection naturally is, it’s still out of women’s total control. The method to that control is social pressure. Women’s need to insure against their own Existential Fear of pairing with an unacceptable guy is so obsessive they will resort to social engineering.

Tinder and Bumble are social engineering programs as much as they are facilitators of women’s Hypergamy. Body Positivity / Fat Acceptance (exclusively for women) is equally a social conditioning effort. But for these and more the latent purpose is the same – convincing men to repress their evolved sexual selection proclivities in favor of accepting women’s selection process as the ‘correct’ one. The Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies states that for on sex’s strategy to succeed the other’s must be compromised or abandoned. In today’s feminine-primary social order, the Feminine Imperative wants nothing less than complete abandonment from men – and it will use every social and political means available to insure men do.

Men must be raised up and conditioned from the earliest age to accept women’s strategy and their role in it as the only acceptable one. Men’s selection of a mate must be made for him according to women’s standards. Many times I’m asked how to go about “vetting for a wife”. I’m asked what the criteria, what aspects, what traits should a woman possess to make her “marriage material”. From a Red Pill perspective a lot of what I lay out seems highly offensive to the sensibilities of men and women conditioned by the Feminine Imperative. But the qualities, and the reasons I define them being desirable, are nothing any man who is invested in his own sexual strategy wouldn’t find mundane.

It’s not difficult to figure out what attributes in women would make for a good pairing – what’s offensive is that a man would ever have the temerity to require a woman to possess them at all.

It’s offensive to feminized sensibilities for a man to speak aloud the things he wants from a woman. How dare he ever have the presence of mind to create a list of acceptable qualities for a potential long term mate. Who is he to make demands? Has he not learned that Hypergamy and women’s needs now define his existence?

I’ve written in the past about how women commodify their own sexuality. We’ve pandered to the security needs of women for so long they feel entitled to their being met. We’ve developed a social order that’s prime directive is to insure against women’s Existential Fear of ever having to worry about a bad Hypergamous decision. We ensure that they can voluntarily reproduce at will via sperm banks and frozen eggs. We demand that men find them arousing no matter what their physical condition and in spite of 100,000 years of evolved arousal cues. Gynocentrism demands men be nothing more than willing participants in women’s sexual / life strategies.

A day ago I posted this quote on Twitter:

Women only see men as breeding stock or draft animals.

Women and their ‘allies’ lost their collective minds. Follow that link, see for yourself. It’s a litany of middle school blathering and presumption about my motives for making public what most of these feminists confirmed. All the responses are the predictable boilerplate you’d expect from a generation of women used to parroting back what the Village has taught them to respond with for so long.

But what is my observation revealing here? Nothing that we don’t already know – women define the reproductive process in western culture. And again, most of these feminists proudly agree with the observation. They say, “Yeah, as it should be”, while their oblivious male ‘allies’ seek affirmation.

The boys at the Maryland high school got caught in the gynocratic gears. They weren’t properly conditioned to know their place. They did what most guys in high school do, they compare notes, they make comparisons, because they still believed they might be allowed to have a preference of who they want to date, bang, have for a girlfriend, have for a wife. How dare they!

When the Beta Bucks / provisioning side of the Hypergamous equation is more or less accommodated for by the social order the only thing left is Alpha Fucks. This is Hypergamy on a meta-scale. Why would any woman bother with the notion of Value Added to make herself more ‘marriageable’? Men aren’t allowed to have preferences. They should feel lucky that a woman would date them in the first place. Feminism has taught her that if she is to be the ideal Strong Independent Woman® she is “never to do anything for the express pleasure of a man.” And besides, the exciting guys, the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys who she does swipe right on; those guys don’t care about ‘value added’ – they care about fucking.

The New Polyandry I described is an extension of ensuring women’s Existential Fear is always compensated for on a societal level.

The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.

Roissy

I’ve quoted this in other essays. Usually I’m asked why this would at all be feminists goal?

“You think feminism is all about controlling your dicks?”

In essence, yes, but really it’s about affording women unilateral control over their Existential Fear and absolving them of any consequences for the bad decisions made in controlling for it. In the last essay I stated that Abortion is Eugenics, but isn’t affording women total control of human reproduction eugenics? Isn’t socially engineering and conditioning men’s behavior to accept women’s sexual strategy as the “correct”, normal one eugenics as well?

I would say yes, except, the Sisterhood doesn’t have a ‘master race’ planned. There is no uniform conscious direction to this eugenics. It’s all driven by women natural, evolved mental firmware and impulses – all facilitated by the power afforded to them by men. We’ve unfettered Hypergamy. We’ve allowed women to do something unprecedented in human history, we’ve given women the reins of the direction of human reproduction.

And we’ve done this at the same time we’ve maximally restricted male sexuality. Dr. Jordan Peterson once predicted that in the future any expression of male sexuality will be illegal. I would amend that: any Beta male expression of sexuality will be deemed offensive or illegal.

What Lies Beneath

Stop, wait, don’t click the play button just yet. You need to know a few things first before the rage you’re about to feel clouds your judgement about my intentions for linking today’s video lesson in evolved psychological prompts in gender dynamics. First disclaimer; this is expressly NOT an attempt to agitate any anxieties about misandry, nor is it an attempt to wantonly illustrate what I’m fairly certain is an already obvious double standard for most readers here. Second disclaimer: this isn’t about ‘women are bad, men are good’. Please spare us all the historical analysis  of the evil patriarchy and how bad womyn had it under their male oppression in response to this impromptu study.

OK, click play and watch. It’s short.

My point in linking today’s video (h/t to bodybuilding.com forum) is to really come to terms with the evolved psychology and the socialization that stems from it in this. My point isn’t to start some movement to acknowledge violence against men by women, but rather to illustrate the latent reasons why it’s not addressed in the first place.

One of the foundations of the egalitarian equalism mindset is that traditional gender is a socialized set of behaviors leading to a gender identity. Equalism is based on discarding any preconceptions about innate gender identity, which is one of the primary reasons it’s proponents screech so vehemently against the ideas put forth in evo-psychology. There can be little or no room for questioning an equalist perspective in terms of the very obvious biochemical, biomechanical and ‘hard-coded’ psychology and manifest behavior of these for an equalist approach to push us towards utopia.

But science and equalism are always shocked to come home early and find Mother Nature fucking the mailman. This experiment is an excellent example of this. In the equalist’s nirvana (also see ‘girl-world’) men and women in equal measure should feel equally compelled come to both the woman’s and the poor Omega male’s defense – sadly this isn’t the case. What we’re observing here, while socially uncomfortable, is really an illustration of Darwinian principles and the evolved psychology that manifest from hundreds of thousands of years of socialization. Protect the female, leave the male to his own devices. Women are the protected sex not because of social sensibilities, but because that’s what we’re psychologically hard-wired to do.

There are intrinsic behaviors we have a natural propensity for that no one ever had to teach us. The reason a baby’s cry is so annoying to us is because we’ve evolved sensitivities to it to ensure the baby’s, and, by extension, our own species’ survival. This female protectionist dynamic is one of these intrinsic sensitivities. From either a rational or a moral perspective the social incongruities and seeming injustices of how these evolved manifestations play out are irrelevant – they are still motivated by the same evolved prompts that benefitted our species in the past. Women and children first isn’t a social dictate, it’s an evolved doctrine of survival.

Boys Don’t Cry

First example: have a read and listen to audio from The Rush here. Even when the circumstances publicly, empirically, prove a woman’s duplicity, our first primal impulse is to console a crying woman. A weeping woman intrinsically engenders prompts for protectionism. This is why crying is a default behavior for women, and one that takes a mental effort for them to prevent. Even when we listen to this we have to struggle to keep this woman’s behaviors in perspective in light of her emotional response and the effect it has on our own emotional state. Not so for a man; in fact publicly humiliating men is a sport in today’s media, why? Because we lack that visceral affinity for the masculine. A man crying will never prompt protectionistic instincts – in fact quite the opposite. We have to make a mental effort against our initial, natural, impulses to objectively come to any kind of feelings of sympathy with men, or to deal judiciously with women. In other words, it takes practice to think and feel in counterintuitive ways.

War Brides

War Brides was a seminal post for me in that it brought to light the primal undercurrent of women’s survival instincts and the legacy behaviors that have been socially accounted for in our current society. Rational reader Jim left me a poignant response in the Mrs. Hyde essay that further proved a point.

two books by John Costello; ‘Virtue Under Fire’ and ‘Love, Sex, and War’ in which all too much of the above female psychology manifested itself;

“Of the 5.3 million British infants delivered between 1939 and 1945, over a third were illegitimate – and this wartime phenomenon was not confined to any one section of society. The babies that were born out-of-wedlock belonged to every age group of mother, concluded one social researcher:

Some were adolescent girls who had drifted away from homes which offered neither guidance nor warmth and security. Still others were women with husbands on war service, who had been unable to bear the loneliness of separation. There were decent and serious, superficial and flighty, irresponsible and incorrigible girls among them. There were some who had formed serious attachments and hoped to marry. There were others who had a single lapse, often under the influence of drink. There were, too, the ‘good-time girls’ who thrived on the presence of well-paid servicemen from overseas, and semi-prostitutes with little moral restraint. But for the war many of these girls, whatever their type, would never have had illegitimate children. (pp. 276-277)”

and;

“Neither British nor American statistics, which indicate that wartime promiscuity reached its peak in the final stages of the war, take account of the number of irregularly conceived pregnancies that were terminated illegally. Abortionists appear to have been in great demand during the war. One official British estimate suggests that one in five of all pregnancies was ended in this way, and the equivalent rate for the United States indicates that the total number of abortions for the war years could well have been over a million.

These projections are at best merely a hypothetical barometer of World War II’s tremendous stimulus to extra-marital sexual activity. The highest recorded rate of illegitimate births was not among teenage girls, as might have been expected. Both British and American records indicate that women between twenty and thirty gave birth to nearly double the number of pre-war illegitimate children. Since it appears that the more mature women were the ones most encouraged by the relaxed morals of wartime to ‘enjoy’ themselves, it may be surmised that considerations of fidelity were no great restraint on the urge of the older married woman to participate in the general rise in wartime sexual promiscuity. (pp. 277-278)”

Nor, did this behavior stop with the end of WWII, it was merely rationalized, codified, and approved by society by feminism and their Vichy males.

So much for the Greatest Generation. Here we have some very damning statistics about an otherwise romanticized generation. Again, the scope of this essay isn’t to condemn women’s duplicity, but rather to see the method behind it. Socially we can make workarounds that will turn all of these stats into virtues, but underneath all that is the fact that women will do whatever their hard-coded psychologies necessitate to ensure their survival. Hypergamy is a selected-for survival mechanism.

Survival in the Pack

In the manosphere a lot has been made in comparison about an alpha / beta dynamic in human behavior, but I think in focusing on similarities in primate social structures we neglect to see the pack mentality that is also prevalent in human nature. One of my passions is reconditioning retired racing Greyhounds. There is a peculiarity of this otherwise gentle breed in that they are prone to viciously kill other Greys who display behavioral cues that imply weakness, pain or disability. When an injured Grey yelps or cries from pain on the race track (or in a group setting) it’s not usually the broken leg that kills the dog, it’s the other 7 dogs piling on to tear it apart. This behavior takes a lot of people by surprise because it’s entirely incongruent with the nature of one of the most passive breeds of dog, but in their primal past a yelping dog could give the pack away to prey or otherwise endanger the collective. That yelping became the trigger cue for killing that member of the pack. It may have been a species survival trait in the evolutionary past, but now it’s a liability for the animal.

As social animals, humans are also subject to legacy behaviors from our own evolutionary past. In a normal social context it’s curious in that most men (and women) would willingly cooperate to achieve a common goal. Men will come to the aid of one another when one is attacked. However when a man is beaten or berated by a woman, the behavior is the opposite. That particular prompt does not engender an impulse to come to the man’s defense. In fact there’s almost a revulsion to the act. Why? Perhaps it’s a legacy survival instinct that allows for that member of the pack to be ‘weeded’ from the whole?