The Gift

logic

After reposting my seminal essay on Vagintine’s day last week an interesting topic arose. One of my assertions in the V-Day post was that a man ought never to buy his wife or girlfriend lingerie as a gift for Valentine’sDay, and, by extension, any other occasion, special or otherwise. As I considered the input from both Sunshinemary as well as commenter ‘Lingerie’ (odd for a male commenter, OK) I began to come to a better understanding of why I’ve always promoted this principle.

This is Lingerie’s take:

This is nuts:

“Note: Never buy a woman lingerie, she will never be happy with it. A woman has to do this on her own to “feel sexy”, make sure it fits her right, and it’s HER IDEA. When you buy it for her it’s contrived and it is overt and overt is often the kiss of death for a try-hard guy.”

Women in my home wear what they are commanded to wear. It’s not a decision left to them. In the beginning of a relationship I have to train them on proper apparel, which means taking them to the store and having them model garments for me so that I can show them what works and what doesn’t work, and why. After that, they know what clothing for themselves to buy for me so that I don’t have to go shopping with them.

This was Sunshinemary’s (albeit christianized) take:

LOL. Of course you should buy your wife lingerie. So what if she thinks it’s “really a gift for you”? Isn’t her body supposed to be a gift for you per 1 Corinthians 7:3-5? She should be happy you still want to see her in it.

In the interests of full disclosure, in the past, I have bought lingerie for both past girlfriends and Mrs. Tomassi; and I have learned my lesson. This is a lesson in genuine desire versus mitigated, obligated desire. If a woman doesn’t take the prerequisite effort on her own part to want to make herself more desirable and more sexy for you as your fuck-buddy, your girlfriend, your fiancé or your wife, you are not her first sexual or mental priority. It’s a simple as that.

Whether it’s the result of a prior ‘training regimen’ as in Lingerie’s case or the gift giving scenario Sunshinemary alludes to, the effect is the same – a genuine desire to please someone is always preferable to a coerced obligation to please them.

As I’ve stated before, a woman who want’s to fuck you will find a way to fuck you. If a woman needs to be ‘trained’ to be more sexual and less self-conscious than it takes for her to take the minimal effort to buy something to make herself look and feel more sexually appealing and less self-conscious to fuck you, then you’re dealing with a woman who (at least subconsciously) believes herself to be of a higher SMV status than yourself. In other words, if she has no desire to buy things, or prepare herself to be sexy for you, to entice you, to make your sexual experience with her more memorable than her prospective sexual competitors – you do not merit the optimization of her hypergamic interest, and her involvement with you is predicated upon something other than your genuine sexual appeal to her.

As I’ve elaborated before The Medium is the Message; when single women painstakingly prepare themselves primping and preening before a night out with her girlfriends to meet random guys – that medium is the message. When every look, every clothing option, every makeup and accessory selection is carefully considered to draw potential sexual attention to herself, the message is pretty clear – she’s making an effort to be more attractive for what she values as a reward. Women who are experiencing the hormonal changes associated with the proliferative phase of their menstrual cycle (just pre-ovulation) have a psychological predisposition to want to fuck the ‘good genes’ Alpha. This phase-condition also triggers shifts in female ornamentation; in other words, when women ovulate they dress to impress.

When a woman will put forth this concerted effort to achieve a socio-sexual reward, yet later fail to, or discontinues her previous efforts to, make the same effort to sustain your socio-sexual interests in her, that medium is also a message she’s broadcasting; she perceives your status (SMV) to be less valuable than the effort necessary to sustain your interest in her.

That isn’t to say every sexual instance you have should always be this side of professional porn, but it is to say that sexual spontaneity and her maintained effort to please you of her own volition are indicators of her perception of your sexual market value (SMV) as well as the biological dictates of her menstrual phase. In other words, (perceptual) Alphas get the ornamentation and enthusiasm of women who want to impress, Betas get the comfy, phone-it-in sex, after doing the convincing.

A Gift Must Be Given

Isn’t her body supposed to be a gift for you?

Yes, but a gift must be given, not taken by force or by due, else it’s not a gift anymore.

One principle I always suggest for Men spinning plates is that they make their attentions and interests in a woman a reward for that woman’s efforts and investments in him. From a PUA perspective this a flipping of the feminine script of qualifying for her rewards, but it’s a very important principle to understand and internalize on your own. Dread Game is founded on this principle, but it goes beyond just this utility – your merit, your attention and what it’s worth for a woman to invest herself in it will set the frame for any future relationship you have with her.

When that attention is given too liberally or a guy, as the result of his feminized conditioning, thinks women want full disclosure of feelings and a man gives his attention away without some kind of earning it dynamic on a woman’s part, his attentions become effectively worthless to her.

I’m prefacing with this because it’s important to recognize the value a Man’s attention has for women when you are assessing her real estimate of your personal value. Generally, women aren’t going to overtly give a man she’s involved with an honest assessment of his value to her. This is part of him Just Getting It and the unspoken understanding that he does get it, and on some level does understand what his value is to her. An Alpha doesn’t ask direct questions about his own status with women, he intrinsically understands it as reflected through women’s behavior around him.

However, women rarely disclose a Man’s impression on her – in fact the only time a woman is prompted to reveal ‘what she really thinks’ about a man is during or after a breakup. Rather, her continued assessment of him in a relationship (long or short term) is expressed in her attitudes, behaviors, physicality, ornamentation, and her willingness (or reservations) to want to please him.

I have a real tough time with the concept of a woman’s sexuality being a gift to give to a man. When a woman perceives a man’s SMV (or Alpha assessment) to be less than what her hypergamy could merit (realistically or not) for optimization, that is when the gifting-of-sex social convention becomes the dominant psychology for her. For a man who doesn’t merit it, or a Beta provider unused to the ‘reward’ of sex, this gifting becomes a situation of intermittent reinforcement of desired behavior (your continued Beta provisioning and comfort).

One, feminized, social indicator of this dynamic is a constant, male-psychological condition of self-deprecation. For example, I mentioned in last week’s post, most Valentines Day card’s messages from men to women is one of an unworthiness of her divine love, sex and patience with him. Essentially it’s a precondition of never meriting her intimacy. When this is a man’s operational psychology with respect to women, it only serves to perpetuate his qualifying for her gift and telegraphs his status of (at least mentally) being Beta. Men often ask me where the dynamic of pedestalization comes from and why it seems to be men’s default psychology with regard to women, its root is in this gift-to-merit social/psychological dependency.

Alpha Fucks & Beta Gifts

As with the woman in my illustration in Good Girls Do, Alpha men, or men that women preselect as possessing Alpha traits and attitudes, aren’t “given the gift’ of her sexuality, she simply has desired sex with him as opportunity and environment allow. The conditional reward, or sex-as-gift dynamic isn’t even a consideration, only sexual urgency and opportunism as buffered by the filters of her conscience, convictions or emotional barriers (or lack thereof). Alpha fucks isn’t a gift, it’s desired sex of opportunity and urgency.

I think it’s worth pointing out the obvious contrast this gift dynamic has with regards to the man who’s wife was provably more sexually adventurous in her past than she ever was with him for the duration of his marriage – Saving the Best. That post, and the 700+ comment thread that followed were cause for a lot of righteous indignation from men who’d also been on the receiving end of being sold one sexual personality, but later discovered his wife (previously or concurrently) had quite another.

As callous as this is going to sound, while I can understand feelings of betrayal at the duplicity, I also understand the mechanics behind women’s dualistic sexual strategy. The most common criticism of this husband was that he was a fool for ever having married a woman unwilling to give him her best sexually. He should’ve seen the red flags and avoided investing his life, and the life of a child, in a woman with sexual hangups,..with him.

It’s very easy to be an armchair life-coach after the fact, but I’m not sure most men realize what those red flags are when they see them. Most men, by way of a lifetime of feminine sensitivity training, take women at their word rather than see the message in her medium. They never have the opportunity to truly grasp the socio-sexual strategy women employ over the course of a lifetime to optimize hypergamy and Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks. And even after he’s been on the sharp end of that equation, most guys still don’t want to believe her medium was ever the message.

If a woman is reserved with you sexually, if her conditions for being sexual are based on a perceived reward or a gifting mentality, that is the message. If a woman needs convincing to be more sexual with you, that is the message. If a woman is sexually aggressive with you, if she exhibits behaviors that indicate she’s planning to create an environment that would facilitates your having sex, that is the message. Women who are into you won’t confuse you. Understand the mechanics of how her sexual strategy works, how the particulars of it are manifested in her words, attitudes and behaviors, and how to leverage it to your advantage or see the warning signs in it, and you will be better prepared to see those red flags before you invest yourself in a woman worth or not worth investing in.

Nursing Power

matriarchy_rome

Needless to say, last week’s post sparked some interesting, not to mention predictable, conversations and response. After sifting through all of the ego-invested brinksmanship by the token feminist reader of RM, the takeaway was actually a better understanding of the latent purpose of feminism.Perhaps not the understanding she intended, but certainly a confirmation of premise.

A handful of my male readers often ask why I don’t moderate comments, or that the message of Rational Male would be better served if I banned certain commenters. I’ve mentioned on several posts and threads as to why I won’t ever do that (except for blatant spamming), but in a nutshell it’s my fundamental belief that the validity of any premise or idea should be able to withstand public debate. People who aren’t confident of the strength of their assertions or ideas, or are more concerned with profiting from the branding of those weak assertions than they are in truth, are the first to cry about the harshness of their critics and kill all dissent as well as all discourse about those assertions.

That’s the primary reason I’ve never moderated; if people think I’m full of shit I’m all ears – I’m not so arrogant as to think I’ve thought of every angle about any idea I express here or on any other forum. However, the second reason I don’t censor, ban users or delete comments is that I believe it’s useful to have critics (usually women or fem-men) provide the gallery with examples of exactly the mentality or dynamic I’m describing in an essay. With a fair amount of predictability, a blue pill male or an upset woman will just as often prove my point for me and serve as a model for what I’ve described.

I never intentionally try to make rubes out of the critics I know will chime in about something, but I will sometimes leave out certain considerations I may have already thought about something, knowing it will get picked up on by a critic. I do this on occasion because the I know that the “ah hah! I got him, he forgot about X,Y, Z” moment serves as a better teaching tool and confirms for me that a critic does in fact comprehend what I’m going on about.

Take the Power Back

So it was throughout last week’s commentary about the branding of the Strong Independent Woman® social template offered and reinforced by the feminist mindset, and endorsed wholesale by pop-culture and popular media. Considering the new outside awareness the manosphere is receiving courtesy of Return of Kings these days, I expect we’ll see more of the point-and-sputter, dismissive ignorance of offended egos, or we’ll see more cathartic overwritten mission statements repeated by feminists confronted with logical arguments that contradict their comfortably solipsistic world-view.

Doctor Jeremy actually started me back on considering gender power dynamics with his comments here:

As always, your article is insightful. I get concerned with the limit to the progress the manosphere can make, however, because I think the discussions are missing a central concept – power. The goal of this branding, social engineering, and gender-role change you identify is the redistribution of various forms of power and influence within our society. For some reason, however, much of the manosphere’s writing and discussion does not seem to include that level of analysis. This is unfortunate, as feminist and women’s discourse is often focused on redistribution of power – and quite successful as a result of that focus.

As support for my point, please review the quotes I have extracted from livingtree2013′s various comments [emphasis mine]:

“But it is not because women want to eliminate men from the equation. It is because women have historically been entirely dependent on men for their survival, which gave men far too much power over us, and we have worked tirelessly to extract ourselves from that position of inferiority.”

“So why would you expect anything different from us? Its simply not going to happen, at least not until the men in power actually force us to obey their will, which truly, I can see coming in the near future.”

“Unfortunately, you guys didn’t want us doing those things because it negatively affected you in the power balance, but that didn’t stop us from needing it.”

She is not talking about independence. She is not talking about self-esteem. She is talking about who has the power to control the interaction and call the shots…

As far as power is concerned I think anyone who’s read the Rational Male for more than a few posts knows I quote Robert Greene’s 48 Laws of Power more often than any other resource here, and regularly use those laws to illustrate how they apply to intergender relations. That said, I have dedicated posts to the influence power has in personal dynamics, and I certainly recognize, if sometimes indirectly, the power dynamic in Frame, Dread, and certainly in The Feminine Imperative.

I fully understand the redistribution of power in our gender landscape from a social perspective, but the fundamental question about any form of real power isn’t about who has it or not, but to what ends they apply it.

I felt so strongly about the Truth to Power essay that I included it in the Rational Male book. The salient point in that post was this:

Real Power is the degree to which a person has control over their own circumstances. Real Power is the degree to which we control the directions of our lives.

I expect that would align with what our token, self-identifying feminist LivingTree was repeating, but the underlying question is what are women using that power to achieve?

As I stated prior, feminism as a social influence, has never been about its stated goal of egalitarian equality between the sexes, but rather it’s been about restitution and retribution from the masculine it perceives as its historical oppressors. This was the original intent of feminine independence (before it became the brand it is today), a separation from the dependency (perceived or actual) of women on men. However, the problem inherent in that separation is that in creating a new, autonomous sex role for women, the innate differences and deficits that the former complementary interdependence with men satisfied had to be compensated for.

All of the inherent weaknesses of the feminine that were balanced by the masculine’s inherent strengths had to be provided for in order to achieve this new independence from the masculine. I should also point out that in this feminist separation the masculine is also left in a deficit of having its own inherent weaknesses balanced by the compensating strengths of the feminine.

Power Slaves

I’ve quoted that feminism is the mistaken belief that a more equitable society can be achieved by focusing efforts solely on the interests of one sex.

Sarcasm aside, this is exactly the use to which women have applied the power that feminism and the feminization of society has afforded them since the sexual revolution. Feminism is not, and has never been about leveling a playing field or equality amongst the genders, it’s been about power and applying it to separating from, marginalization of, and eventual eradication of, the masculine influence that the feminine imperative wants restitution and retribution from. LivingTree illustrates this for us here:

Independence for women meant we didn’t have to tolerate abuse anymore because we had the option to leave. It meant that if you left us, we wouldn’t be completely desperate. It meant we didn’t have to cling to you guys for support. It meant we could make decisions about our own lives. It meant we didn’t have to be “seen and not heard”. It meant we didn’t have to be a slave to a stereotype anymore. It meant we could be self-actualizing if we wanted to. It meant we could pick and choose which man we wanted to mate with. And it meant we could admit we had sexual desires.

Tucked into LT’s recitation of feminist boilerplate is the true application and intent of use of the power women’s emancipation from the masculine wants to achieve – direct control of the conditions dictating their innate hypergamy.

The gist of LT’s reasoning for women wanting power, and “Independence” (as a brand or otherwise) from men is due to women’s innate need for security. This need for security and certainty is literally written into women’s DNA, their neural wiring and hormones. As the ‘nurturers’ of the next generation of humanity, evolution selected-for, and reinforced the biological and psychological mechanisms of women with the best capacity to filter for situations that would provide her and her offspring with the best possible security in a chaotic and insecure world. This drive for security is what’s at the root of hypergamy, and in all fairness has been a successful survival mechanism for the human species.

Hypergamy’s constant, limbic, survival-level question for women is “Is this the optimal condition I can secure to ensure my wellbeing and my (future) children?” Whether she’s been married for decades or is out on the town with her girlfriends, that question nags a woman in her hindbrain from childhood to death. Hypergamy’s question and doubt is at the heart of every unconscious shit-test a woman will ever deliver. Hypergamy’s unrealizable quest for optimization extends from the individual woman to women’s social influences. From the micro to the macro, Hypergamy’s constant want of an unachievable contented security defines the Feminine Imperative.

Rigging the Game

In terms of women’s pluralistic sexual strategy (Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks) that question extends to who she selects as a sex partner to breed with, as well as whom she selects to be the provider for her long term provisioning. At the heart of it, women’s desire for independence and the perceived power they believe it should give them is an effort in controlling the conditions that they believe will satisfy Hypergamy’s question. Every popular woman’s issue you can list will find its way back to the want for control of the circumstances that dictate how well a woman can satisfy her Hypergamy.

Fat acceptance, the right to vote, child custody and paternity laws, divorce laws, slut walks, accusations of rape culture, more women in the boardroom, feminization of men and culture on whole, hell, every item LivingTree mentions in her comment, just name the issue and underneath the social or personal veneer is the clutching after of some usable power to control the conditions that will satisfy her need for security and optimize women’s Hypergamy.

LT is correct, women don’t want to eliminate men, they simply want to control them, both directly and indirectly, socially and personally, subtly and subconsciously as well as overtly when necessary, to comply with satisfying their innate hypergamy. They want independence from men’s influence in the process of satisfying hypergamy – they want to rig the game by replacing his genuine desires by forcing him to comply with her control of his conditions. Women want the power to control men’s desires, their ideologies, their sexual response, their individualism and the decisions that result from them all in order to optimize hypergamy

The problem in all this effort for control is that nature stagnates in homogeny. Androgyny, homogeny, are the first order for inbreeding. For as much as women make efforts to emancipate themselves and change the rules of the game to better fit their deficiencies, they are always confounded by the innate drives and desires of men. They get frustrated with men who wont play their version of the game, or worse, the ones who play it more poorly than they themselves do. So they jail them, they shame them, they pathologize his sexual impulse, they condition feminization into them from their earliest development, they punish them for not playing the game that should  always end with them optimizing hypergamy’s nagging doubt – in spite of falling short of it under organic circumstances. For all the delusions of independence, autonomy and the fantasy of some form of control of the process, they find men will simply not cooperate. They wont give them the satisfaction of optimizing their solipsistic hypergamy, because the Men who have the capacity to do so, the ones women want to be satisfied with simply aren’t playing their version of the game.

The Epiphany Phase

6p9eg8

When I was detailing the landscape of our contemporary sexual marketplace in Navigating the SMP there comes a point on women’s SMV (sexual market value) progression where she becomes cognizant of her SMV decline and impending date with The Wall. Generally this occurs in women’s late 20’s and possibly early 30’s but as a rough estimate on the graph I provided in that post, this is the point of transition at which women realize their decaying capacity to hypergamously compete with women in their sexual primes, and the point at which men are beginning to realize their own increasing SMV potential. I dubbed this intersection the point of Comparative SMV. It’s also important to note that this phase conveniently coincides with the social convention of women’s mythical biological clock. (more on this later).

The Epiphany Phase

I’ve previously described this phase as a parallel to men’s feminine-redefined midlife crisis. This is a precarious time for women, usually the years between 28 and 30, where she makes attempts to reassess the last decade of her life. Women’s psychological rationalization engine (a.k.a. the Hamster) begins a furious effort to account for, and explain to her reasonings for not having successfully secured a long term monogamous commitment from as Alpha a man as her attractiveness could attain for her. Even women married prior to this phase will go through some variation of self-doubt, or self-pity in dealing with the hypergamic uncertainty of her choice (“Is he really the best I could do?”)

It’s during this stage that women will make radical shifts in their prioritization of what prerequisite traits qualify as ‘attractive’ in a man and attempt to turn over a new leaf by changing up their behaviors to align with this new persona they create for themselves. Since the physicality, sexual prowess and Alpha dominance that made up her former arousal cues in a Man aren’t as forthcoming from men as when she was in her sexual prime, she reprioritizes them with (presumed) preferences for more intrinsic male attributes that stress dependability, provisioning capacity, humor, intellect, and esoteric definitions of compatibility and intimacy.

For the spiritually inclined woman (which is to say most women) this may manifest in a convenient return to convictions she’d disregarded since her adolescence. For other’s it may be some kind of forced celibacy; a refusal to have sex under the hypergamic auspices of her ‘party years’ in the hopes that a well provisioning male (the ones not realizing their own potential SMV as yet) will appreciate her for her prudence – so unlike herself and all of the other girls who rejected him over the last decade.

The self-affirming psychological schema is one where she’s “finally doing the right thing”, when in fact she’s simply making the necessity of her long term provisioning and security a virtue she hopes men will appreciate. And if they don’t, then there’s always shaming them to think they’re ‘less-than-men’ for not living up to her eating her cake once she’s had it.

The Shifting Point

Case in point Hephzibah Anderson, author of the book Chastened, The Unexpected Story of My Year Without Sex. Here we have a graphic insight into the inner workings of women’s rationalization at the crossroads of acknowledging her decaying SMV, the need for long term male security, provisioning and intimacy, and realizing the necessity for a new psychological paradigm to justify her shift in behavior.

It’s easy to dismiss this interview as just another 3 women allowing their hamsters to colate on camera, but when you view this clip in a red pill context a surprising amount of information is revealed about the Epiphany Phase women experience.

We begin here with the now clichéd Kate Bolick Brand® former boyfriend-in-love regretfulness as the catalyst for Hephzibah’s newly gained insight. He’s serendipitously buying a ring for his new fiancé and the Alpha Widow mojo takes root in her psyche, “some girl found him valuable enough to marry.” She then proceeds through the predictable, “I’m 30 and need to reprioritize my life” boilerplate that’s made more than a few women authors a good deal of money writing for The Atlantic.

As I noted earlier, this phase also coincides with a woman’s sharp decline in fertility and childbearing capacity, so the instinctual urgency to breed, reinforced by the myth of the biological clock contributes to this internal crisis. All of this coalesces into some amazing feats of rationalization hamster acrobatics.

I’d thought those thoughts once or twice, but it would never have occurred to me that I’d actually go ahead and voluntarily eject sex from my life. It took a bizarre serendipity, a torrid affair and a chance anecdote to make me realize that the kind of sex I was supposed to be cool with as a post-feminist, 21st-century Western woman — a casual sort of intimacy without intimacy — was not working for me.

Better late than never right? Unfortunately no. While I’m sure this realization will seem ennobling to the more moralistically predisposed  mindset, what you see now is the expectation of a new appreciation for her insight which was prompted by her need, not a genuine introspective. It’s kind of ironic in that the Chastening Hephzibah is so proud of was prompted by her own necessity.

All right, in most circumstances it’s still just about required for life’s perpetuation, but we can lead perfectly healthy and, indeed, happy existences without nooky, whoopee or bonking. People can — and do — go decades without sex. Some live their entire lives without it.

Side Note: In Girl-World a woman can electively forego sex for an entire year and it’s recognized as a sacrifice worthy of writing a book to be published by a major print publisher, while the only way a man can be recognized for his 40 year celibacy is when he enters a fitness center and guns down 7 women in a pilates class. As I’ve stated before, when a woman tells you “I don’t understand why sex is sooooo important to guys“, she’s telling you the literal truth.

Elizabeth I was known as the Virgin Queen, and there was nothing metaphorical about the title, history assures us.

Robert Dudley and a long list of the Queen’s confirmed lovers disagree. What follows here is an attempt by Hephzibah’s rationalization engine to affirm what she’d like to think is her radical decision to go abstinent – plenty of luminaries from the past have gone without and lived perfectly fine lives. What she’s in denial about is the necessity of sex in a mature human experience. Sex is the glue that holds a relationship together; without sex a woman becomes a man’s mother, sister, daughter, aunt, friend, but not his lover, and certainly not his wife. Deemphasizing the importance of sex, actively desexualizing yourself in the hopes that it will make you more sexually arousing is an effort in self-defeat.

What follows here is yet another overwritten self-examination of a woman facing the Wall and attempting to reconcile a past of eschewing offers of genuine intimacy with (albeit probably beta) guys and her own hypergamous impulses during her 20’s. When a pre-Wall Anderson makes a conscious effort to remove sex from the equation in order to bring her more “clarity” about a man’s long term value what she’s doing is attempting to dissociate hypergamy from that process. In doing so she devalues the important sexual aspect of a relationship and turns off the men she’d probably fit well with because she believes that sex is the foil in her past failures, not herself, not her ego-investments, not the delusions the feminine imperative has saddled her with. Sex isn’t her problem, her innate hypergamy will eventually reveal this to her, but it’s how she’s been doing it and the late hour at which she’s come to her “new” epiphany with all of its urgency.

Hephzibah is easy pickings for the manosphere Men with a bent for shaming women about riding the Cock Carousel (she even alludes to this in the article). That’s a given, but it’s not the operative issue I’m on about here. What her story illustrates for us is the psychological machinations behind the reconciliation of her unfulfilled hypergamy and her need for future intimacy, security and provisioning.

For red pill, Game-aware Men, this is a supremely important stage in women’s maturation to consider. A woman in the Epiphany Phase is looking for a “fresh start” for a much more visceral reason than some newly inspired sense of self. This motivation prompts all kinds of behavioral and social conventions to facilitate a man’s commitment to forgiving her past indiscretions. As Roosh has pointed out more than once, it’s women in this phase of life (or the mothers of women in this phase) who most vocally complain about men’s lack of interest in committing to them. As Hephzibah is painfully aware of, women in their peak SMV years don’t complain about a dearth of marriageable men– “Man Up” is the anthem of women in the Epiphany Phase.

Sexy

Sexy isn’t always slutty, but slutty is always sexy.

As a relative rookie to blogging I’m starting to develop a better sensitivity to what people find important enough to share with a global audience. One annoying phenomenon I’ve encountered is that I find myself deeply concentrating on some topic and crafting a well thought (at least I think) analysis around it only to be shaken out of my brooding by something that I think needs to be more immediately addressed. Such was the case with Emma Watson’s above diatribe regarding the quandary of sexiness. This bit of her inane post-pubescent aphorisms is being shared around Face Book (generally by older and less attractive women) as some confirmation of what I can only presume is men’s inability to fully comprehend sexiness, beauty and the feminine mystique. Fat acceptance and body image issues aside, it’s ironic that the same women nodding along in agreement are reposting Emma’s wisdom on their wall right next to their most recent GNO (girls night out) party photos in mini skirts themselves.

Any cursory browsing of 4Chan will probably turn up a Rule 34 thread with Emma’s face clone-tooled over some random porn star’s face while getting double penetrated. She’s easily one of the most available celebrity porn fakes. That may have a bit to do with her Harry Potter role and various fetishes, but the short version is guys want to bang Emma, and barring the actual experience, they reaaally want to see her naked. It’s a pity that Emma doesn’t understand how to be sexy, but she’s in the majority; precious few women know what turns men on, and still fewer have any capacity to effectively be so.

Sexy isn’t always slutty, but slutty is always sexy.

In the same sense that women lack the capacity to truly appreciate the sacrifices a man must make to ensure her reality, most women also lack a fundamental understanding of the male sexual impulse. As I’ve stated in prior threads, until women are steeped in 17 times their normal testosterone levels, they will never understand the male experience with regards to sex. When a woman utters the words “I don’t understand why sex is such a big deal for guys”, she’s speaking the truth. She can’t know, but along with that comes a disconnect between her lack of understanding the male sexual impulse and her fem-centric social conditioning of what sex should be like for him.

“I find the whole concept of being ‘sexy’ embarrassing and confusing.”

Considering Emma’s boyish pixie cut (eerily similar to a younger Sinead O’ Conner’s) this should come as no surprise to anyone. What Emma doesn’t get is that sexy isn’t always slutty. She doesn’t understand how to be sexy, but few women do because it is Men who’ve classically defined what is sexy and feminine in women. What has historically worked as sexy, and what has been historically confirmed as feminine is defined by the response and effect that particular behavior set evokes from Men. What we consider today as sexy behaviors and appearance were characteristics ‘selected-for’ that endured to become gender indicative aspects of being feminine. The inverse of this is true for women; women define what is sexy in men.

The problem women have with being sexy in the last 50+ years is illustrated in Emma’s next point:

“I know everyone wants a picture of me in a mini-skirt. But that’s not me. I feel uncomfortable. I’d never go out in a mini-skirt. Personally, I don’t even think it’s that sexy.”

On a rudimentary biological level, Emma actually does know what is sexy (i.e. what turns Men on about women), but she is “uncomfortable” in being so. People want to change her into someone who is comfortable with being sexy because they see such potential – ergo the popularity of Emma’s Rule 34 popularity. Her refusal or discomfort in being so is where the feminine imperative picks up the banner and runs with it. Here is an arguably beautiful young woman (by men’s standards) who wont conform to what men’s appetites want to make of her. Like all contemporary women, she wants to define what sexy should be for men using metrics that she is comfortable with. The problem, as with all things fem-centric, is that this social push to redefine for men what they should find sexy slams headlong into Men’s biological imperatives. Despite feminizations incessant efforts to the contrary, we still want to fuck the girl who most closely resembles the Playboy centerfold and our erections are the litmus test.

Show Up Naked, Bring Beer

Another great irony of our age is that we still cling to the idea that it’s women who are the best seducers of humanity. In the same misdirection that women would like to believe that they are the more romantic gender, so too would they like to believe they are the most effective seducers. Both of these are far from the truth. It’s Men with the greatest art that have gone down in history as the greatest seducers of the genders. So much more is required of Men to be effective seducers than women.

In this age female seduction amounts to show up naked, bring beer.

Men are stimulated primarily by the physical, but there’s a lot more a woman can do to be seductive. Quite honestly I think seduction is a lost art for women. Very few women know how to be sexy, much less seductive. Even fewer ever feel a need to be seductive. This is due to an environment that, for the past 50 years, has simplified sexual exchange for women to the point that all she need do is stay somewhat fit and wear a thong occasionally. So many men have become so acclimated to just these visual prompts as sexual cues that women don’t really need to learn seduction. There is no greater reward for being sexy or seductive beyond what she’s already capable of prompting in a man, so seduction practices aren’t reinforced for her.

Now add to this the feminine priority westernized culture has placed on women’s sexuality. Any woman feeling a need to be seductive for a man is cast in the role of putting his sexual value above her own. Remember, according to Cosmo and Oprah it is he who needs to be sensitive to her needs. Her sexuality is a GIFT he qualifies for, not something she should ever feel a need to sell to him by means of seduction.

Women don’t need to seduce men anymore. The feminine-priority dynamic has put a default value on women’s sexuality. Those hot enough to simply wear something revealing never need seduction, and those not hot enough can’t sell it anyway. And the girls who’re in between – the one’s who’d benefit most – are discouraged from learning seduction since it’s denigrating to women who should already be on a pedestal to begin with.

Ever since the sexual revolution there’s been less and less motivation for women to develop seduction skills. If anything there’s a resentment for ever having needed them in the past. I’d argue that feminine seduction skills have been replaced with emotional and psychological manipulations (see BPD) in order to make men comply with their imperatives as a result of having abandoned those seduction behaviors.

It’s Men who are learning seduction skills now. How many men do you suppose have read the Art of Seduction by Robert Greene in comparison to women? It’s men who’ve created a global community dedicated to seduction techniques. Perhaps this is the best evidence of the gender reversal the community discusses so often? Women’s sexuality has been elevated to such a degree that it’s men who find it necessary to collectively study seduction.