For real love to arise, romantic love must die: Part three

OK guys, here we go. The third and final part of my series on Red Pill Relationships. To recap what I have covered so far, part one was an effort to disabuse you of the notion that romantic, gynocentric love is anything at all but an exploitation of the mental disability that comes with infatuation; that romantic love as a foundation for pair-bonding imposes onerous double standards on men, crazy unrealistic expectations in women and is more likely to result in relationship failure and injury than in a lasting bond of affection.

I also established that allowing the state to regulate this kind of dysfunctional attachment, as we see in any form of marriage, is an invitation to disaster, particularly for men.

In part two I rested on the need to screen out undesirable women, in all their forms, but more than that to see the act of screening as a developmental shift away from gynocentrism and toward a consciousness that gives men’s well-being and security absolute primacy.

I also established that the screening cuts the pool of qualified women drastically. Call it extreme vetting. And again, a reminder. We aren’t looking for unicorns. Non-gynocentric women are even scarcer than non-gynocentric men, which is to say they pretty much don’t exist.

We are simply talking about being able to spot the minority of women who are trainable; women who have the capacity to adapt to a non-gynocentric path. And those women do exist, even if they aren’t falling out of trees.

I stumbled on a comment recently by a woman on one of my videos. She said she did not agree with everything I said, but that she followed my content closely and found it useful in being a better girlfriend. I take that as a high compliment. Women need to hear this as much as men do, especially women with the capacity to listen, just as I am pointing to in this series.

That said, these talks are not intended to be a recommendation to any man to pursue committed relationships. I am not even holding this stuff out as being better or preferable to monk mode. It is simply meant as some practical suggestions to men who identify as red pill but who have already decided they are not swearing off the possibility of pair-bonding.

And that brings us to step three, which is ABT. Always be training.


The reason for that is simple. Let’s say you have performed due diligence in screening. You have found a candidate. She has a job and doesn’t mind paying her own way. Let’s say in fact that she insists on carrying her own weight financially in the relationship. She is personally secure. She doesn’t whine and she doesn’t damsel or manipulate with sex or emotions.

That alone is a rare find, like plucking a gemstone out of a gravel pit. And it is a great place to start, but what you will find at the end of the day is that she is still just as conditioned to gynocentric privilege as every other woman you have known. And in all likelihood she will walk the relationship to a gynocentric crossroads.

She will be subtler about it. Her displays of childish womanhood will be less garish than most of her counterparts, but you can bet your ass it will happen. There is no such thing as a woman in this culture who does not have “me, me, me,” in her vocabulary, even if she self-regulates with unusual skill. It’s in their DNA, and in ours to accept it.

Once that dialect finds a receptive home in a relationship with a man, it will expand and intensify. Eventually, if you allow it to, it will take over.

You must remember that this culture and arguably this species hardwires gynocentric expectations in women. We train them to measure their worth in terms of sexual power over men. Generally, the degree of sexual power over men that women have is inversely proportional to their happiness. Even women raised by good fathers, with appreciable humility and otherwise sound values are included in that proposition. Sooner or later, that tendency will fuel her quest for dominance and control in the relationship.

Of course, there are other factors, like the rules we all bring with us from the family of origin, that will foment a struggle for control from both partners – each person in the relationship vying with the other to recreate the familial. Such is the lot of all relationships but that is a blue pill power struggle. If the relationship survives long enough, that struggle will might be resolved with years of practiced compromise marked by sometimes heaping amounts of friction and angst. Or, and more likely, it might be resolved with a broken man, living the life of a house cat.

It is important to mention this because the traditional power struggles that couples engage in are at once separate from the struggle against gynocentrism, and a game-changing part it. Gynocentrism gives her the absolute edge in the traditional power struggle. She will use damseling, sexual blackmail, threats of abandonment and challenges to your manhood to prevail in the traditional struggles. That manipulative gynocentrism, unchecked, is a trump card against which you have no defense but red pills.

And the point here is not for you to use anti-gynocentrism to gain an upper hand in typical relationship power struggles. After all, if your aim is to win at every turn regardless of what is fair or proper, then how much different are you than the women you’ve grown wary of? Creating a gynocentric boogeyman every time you feel potential conflict isn’t going to serve you or the relationship. It’s just going to turn you into the monster you are trying to fight. That monster is real enough without help or embellishment from you.

Consider this, though. We coined the term “When Momma ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy,” to describe how women typically win control. The term radiates gynocentrism. It’s serve or suffer. That includes everyone. Children are no more exempt than men. You either make a woman happy, or you pay. And it passes for normal in this world.

That diamond in the rough you found? The one who cheerfully pays her way and takes the occasional no with some grace and dignity? Well, she is more than capable of the exact same behavior if the relationship has room for her latent gynocentrism to blossom. Whether its conscious on her part makes no difference at all. Sooner or later it will emerge, and if you are not prepared to train her out of it, it will consume the relationship and possibly you with it.

And this brings me to an unavoidable part of this series, and a pivotal point on training. When you are going up against gynocentrism in a woman, or a man for that matter, you are the only adult in the room. Get that into your head and let it steep there indefinitely. In her gynocentric mode, she is not an adult in waiting. She isn’t one pithy line from you away from instant maturity. She’s a child, and a petulant, incredibly destructive one at that.

That’s the point. Gynocentrism is the enabling credo of an indulgent childhood. It is not rational. It is not healthy. It does not know limits, or propriety or even common sense – and very, very importantly, it doesn’t want to. Ever. It is a child screeching for something it wants without regard to fairness or consequence, and it will only react to your bargaining and reasoning with more childishness.

This is where you can do some good with the right approach. And it is where we need to remember one of the key lessons from part one. Much of this work is about an evolution in your self-perception. You don’t buy into romantic love and you don’t invest yourself in attracting women near as much as you do in your ability to screen out the wrong ones. Those two changes are not just in behavior, but in identity. It’s not just what you do, it’s who you are. If you are trying to fake it you are going to fail.

The same kind of shift in identity is essential to take on the task of training. It means surrendering the days when you were a frustrated guy trying to reason with his sweetheart so her can feel like he won the fight, or even to just get back into her good graces. In the face of gynocentric control, you shift into the role of dispassionate disciplinarian. Your lessons from screening kick in and you take on the task of dispensing sufficient pain to send the message that you won’t bargain with a child.

I imagine that some of the snowflakes who scour my material just started melting at that one but there is really no other way to put it. Training is about punishment and reward.

Think of it this way, if you are a male supporter of my work, you’ve probably been trained by women, with the use of pain, to be exactly where you are now. By using abusive forms of control, most women train men to either become lapdogs, or to say fuck that and fuck you. Sometimes it takes years. Sometimes decades. But there is no arguing that it is training.

And as I have said before, even in more healthy circumstances, we all train each other in how we are treated. You will either train a woman in how to treat you with boundaries and solid values, or by being a doormat. Either way, she will get the picture of who you are and act accordingly.

To get more to the purpose of what I am talking about here, I will give you a fictional circumstance. And in that I am not trying to teach you technique, but the ongoing effect of your attitude on her.

Imagine that you are at a social gathering with a group mostly comprised of her friends. And now imagine, as proof to her friends that she is large and in charge, she says something personally belittling to you in front of the crowd. And let’s say it is not typical for her to do anything like that. After all, she is your diamond in the rough. She’s the one that legitimately passed screening, and this is the first time you’ve seen her act this way.

Now imagine the look on her face as you get up and walk out on her in front of all her friends.

Next, imagine that she comes home later and demands to talk about what happened, because you know, women like to talk about things. Now imagine her hearing you say calmly that the only thing you are interested in is a sincere apology, an explanation for her behavior and some reasonable assurances that there won’t be a repeat.

Imagine her face again when she realizes you’re dead serious, because you walked out the door again the moment she tested your resolve.

Now imagine again that you stay completely and totally unplugged till she wakes up and smells the coffee. You stay that way as she claims you’re manipulating her, as she claims that you are pouting and acting like a child. And she will. Women are perfectly capable of acting like three-year old’s and then telling you that you are childish if you disapprove. Gynocentrism is always on the ready to add two and two to get five.

At any rate, you hold your ground till she caves to the truth or goes away. You refuse to participate in life with her. You don’t kiss, fuck, talk, sleep or even share a meal with her till she grows up and faces the problem like an adult.

And that is this whole series in a nutshell. The entire enchilada. By cultivating non-gynocentric attachment with women, by refusing to put yourself in the role of a vassal for love and by practicing a healthy boundary — that you don’t ever try to reason or bargain with children in grown up bodies — you do two key things on your own behalf.

One, you quietly, and without any need for drama, force her hand to either change or leave. As long as you are willing to live with either choice over tolerating her abuse, then you can’t lose. That is why I keep saying you can’t fake this stuff. If you are a man that will tolerate abusive gynocentrism, abusive gynocentrism is what you will get, for which, of course, you only have yourself to blame.

This applies to almost any scenario you can imagine. Gynocentrism takes on many faces in a relationship. Most often it is the pressure to do everything her way, which is to say that what she needs and wants comes first. Or, more directly, you come in last, every time.

Sometimes it can be a bit challenging. After all, what is the difference between just wanting your way in a particular instance vs wanting your way because of gynocentric privilege? I can’t tell for sure in every case, but I look at gynocentrism like pornography. It’s can be very hard to define, but I damn well know it when I see it. I recommend trusting your eyes and your instincts way over any doubts. You are still, even at your red pill best, more likely to overlook gynocentrism than create it where it does not exist.

Finally, for you to succeed at training, the first and every other encounter with her bald gynocentrism is that it results in her being reminded that you don’t have any tolerance for it, and that the one and only way she can move forward with you is by suiting up in her big girl panties and being a responsible adult. After all, when it gets down to brass tacks, refusing to be controlled by gynocentrism is exactly analogous to refusing to be bullied. There are very few unhealthy ways to put an end to that.

It’s a necessarily painful strategy, but while the pain is intentional, it is not inflicted maliciously. The point is, if you have adequately screened, you are dealing with a woman who has some kind of moral compass. She is not trying to be a bully, even if she is doing a good job of it.

The problem with gynocentrism, and its proxy romantic love, is that it separates people, men and women alike, from their capacity for reason. It removes the direct pathway from a presenting problem to a values-based solution.

The purpose of the withdrawal, and the subsequent pain, is to reconnect her to her values. Her defensiveness will invariably slow that process down, but sooner or later, in dealing with the brick wall that you have become, she will either reconnect with her values, or get a connecting flight. There is literally nowhere else to go. Your job, in the event she opts to change course and do the right thing, is not to be a gloating asshole and rub her nose in it.

Remember, if she is opting for good values for the sake of your relationship, she is literally defying as much pre-programming as you did in swallowing red pills. Treating her supportively for doing that isn’t gynocentric, it’s basic human decency. And if you can’t do it, it’s because she didn’t screen well enough.

If you have payed attention to this series, that disappointing end game where she leaves is pretty much as bad as it will get. By not getting married, sharing finances, or cohabitating in a way that gives her legal reach into your life, you have insulated yourself from most of the consequences except for the grief you will feel when she leaves.

The only other possibility is an attack by damseling; faking a DV or sexual assault claim, or trashing you with lies to your friends or family. Then again, if you screened out all of the many varieties of garbage very early in the game, your chances of that are significantly less.

I wish you the best of luck in your efforts.

Leave a comment

20 thoughts on “For real love to arise, romantic love must die: Part three”

  1. Really good advice … now how many of us can put it into practice ? You really do have to be mentally prepared to let them walk out of your life or you yourself be prepared to do the walking. metaphorically speaking, I like to play baseball with them >>> 3 strikes, you’re out, no longer in the batters box and heading for the dugout. Shit, even 3 chances might be to much now that I see what I’m writing. Reading between the lines of what Paul said, it’s probably best to strike down the gynocentric-shit-show attitude the first time it rears its ugly head.

  2. Thank you – this was an excellent series. For me it merits a re-read in its entirety.

    What a shame that such life-lessons are so rarely imparted in today’s society. With fewer and fewer fathers and male mentors in boys’ lives, the importance and need of such writing increases greatly.

    Now – how to get this incorporated into the Men’s Studies curriculum everywhere…

  3. “When Momma ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy,”
    I’d rather everyone be unhappy than Momma having her gynocentric way. There is a counterpart to this saying that is taboo and forbidden:
    “When Momma is held accountable, she shuts the hell up and everybody be happy in the longterm, including herself.”
    You need to think of Momma as a spoiled child throwing tantrums. She’ll thank you later for disciplining her.

  4. I agree that the biological underpinnings that seem to rule our sex and pair bonding lives can be overcome by our cognitive capacities. I think what Paul describes herein, is just one way that we need to work on changing any biological directives that will dominate and ruin our lives.

    I detect that some people flatly disagree with me, but apparently I am not the only one who believe we humans can do better then our supposed hardwiring.

    As a side note, I once met a woman who detested the notion of “happy wife, happy life.” She thought it was self-centered, one-sided, and a form of bullying. (Interesting that Paul used the word bully in this series). She thought that for a woman to say if she isn’t happy then no one else will be either was one of the most selfish things a woman can do to people she is supposed to love. If it hadn’t been for other variable that eliminated her as a possibility for my pursuit, I may have given her a try. But I am picky. You bet. And for good reasons.

    A friend’s father used to put unrealistic demands on his two sons to “find them a woman” …for it was “making him and the family look bad” for his two boys to not be shining examples of women-getters. His pursuasive tactics yielded exactly the opposite of what he wanted. His boys were so controlled by ther fathers approval that they “fell in love” with women that which they actually settled. Both of them.

    Now both are also divorced and strapped to their ex’s by payments. Settling is the abdolute WRONG thing to ever do., This same man/father also said to me one time,”What, are you picky?” I defensively said back to him, “Yep.”
    I do not regret it, and I am not looking back.

    If I have to settle, then what I will settle for is nothing. Something so important as finding the right mate, deserves much more then settling. I either get what I want, or I go my own way. IMO, that is one of the most important components of manhood. And I won’t let anyone tell me otherwise.

    The Eagles’ song “Desperado” moves me; sure it does. But not to the point of foolishness.

    1. If you are thinking of going into a serious relationship with a woman……any woman…..then you are thinking of settling. You’re settling for a legal situation in which you have no power……and no rights…..only responsibilities and obligations. As long as the legal situation is as it is……then no matter what verbal or written agreements you come too……you have no power to enforce any of it…..and you have no right to cancel without huge costs and maybe permanent ruin of your life. That’s a lot of settling.

      You know what I know believe, after being in more then my fair share of committed relationships in the past, and also observing many others. Marriage, and marriage style relationships only work for the long term…..if the man has the power…..the authority…..the final word. And not just because she says so…..for as long as she allows it…….that is nothing but an illusion. Yes there are some NAWALTs…..but they are usually married at relatively young ages…and they stay with their first husbands. They aren’t available for you to find…..unless he dies.

      I have a number of very good intimate and sexual fwbs situations with women….and they all treat me very well. And you know why that is. It’s because I have the power. I have the authority. I can just dump their arses any time I like…..with no consequences. And believe me, my dump button is on a hair trigger. And every one of them has seen it in action. And how do I maintain this power? Firstly, I don’t marry them, or live with them. I don’t allow any third party assumptions or recognition of me and any woman… a couple. I correct anybody who makes these assumptions. A fwb I was seeing a while back invited me a few times to come to some of her family things. I made excuses. In the end she asked me why I don’t want to meet her family. And I said……well….are you going to introduce me to them as your fuck buddy……your casual piece of dick? And she said “No way” So I asked….what about just your friend. And she said they already know she has a sexual relationship with me. And I said, and they will assume that I’m your boyfriend, and we are in a monogamous relationship with commitment and moving forward towards living together or something……right? And she said…….”I suppose” And I told her that I’m not pretending to be anything other then what I am…….a single man…..who is going to stay that way. I told her…….believe me……you don’t want me to be at your family gathering with your parents and bros, and sisters, because I’m not going to pretend to be anybody’s man……except my own man. Wasn’t long before the same old broken record had to be played every time I saw her….about getting more serious. So I told her she has to go and find what she wants elsewhere. She did……and ended up living with him. Split up now LOL. And got back in touch with me and wants to come over for some casual fun lol

      The thing is……you can have all the screening in the world….find the biggest NAWALT that ever lived…..but if you make the mistake of getting into a situation where SHE has the legal power…..the authority……she has no reason anymore to treat you as anything but her subordinate…and that is how she will end up treating you…..because she can. It’s as simple as that. I bet that guy she went and lived with got quite a bit of hell……demands……demands…..demands…….and in the end…….dumped. Why? Because he gave her the power. He surrendered control. And that is what you are doing whenever you agree to any sort of legally recognized relationship with a woman.

      1. True in most places, but not all. Many states in the USA don’t have de facto assumption of marriage based on cohabitation. If a man is fortunate enough to live in one of those states, and is smart enough to keep finances rigidly divided, and property in his name only, he can stay out of the reach of the law.

        That won’t save him from the emotional wear and tear, though, which can be as bad as getting screwed legally for some men.

        1. I believe the legal status of casual relationships as ‘Defacto’ applies only in Australia and New Zealand. There is something similar in other countries via little bits of legislation but usually watered down from the Aus version.

          In countries other than Aus and NZ she can’t automatically take half your money and stuff if not married, for example.

          I haven’t looked deeply into it but it appears each country needs to be considered separately in terms of the damage that can be legally done to a man in non-marital relationships.

          1. The legal status of casual relationships as defacto doesn’t exist here really either. You have to live together normally. But there are other ways to be deemed defacto. For example……have a kid together and jointly raise it……living together or not. Joint property purchased by both of you. And this is the biggy and easiest for women to pull off……..the reputation of the relationship lol In other words….if you are publically considered a couple…….life partners……and that relationship spans a number of years…….then guess what……you’re married. But in all these instances…..what they are saying is that your behavior, and mode of operation of the relationship, demonstrates a serious or committed relationship……not a casual one. So I make things so that nobody can consider me to be anybodies life partner. The easiest way to do this….is to have a number of casuals…..and best if she does too. That alone will rule out most women…..but I don’t care because all that means to me is that I’m ruling myself out of a lot of danger and risk. Whatever the laws become, I will adjust. I will fly under the radar, and outside the grip of family courts……even if that means I wont even be able to go on a single date with a woman one day. Yes Australia has set new heights of ridiculous for relationships, but most places in western countries consider living together as a couple, for a certain period of time….as a marriage…..even if they don’t call it that……she becomes entitled to the same things as a wife is. And the trend in all western countries is to lower the bar as to what constitutes a marriage. The trap gets easier and easier to lay for women, and more risky and costly for men.

          2. I should have used the phrase ‘committed relationship’ not ‘casual relationship’ as the thing Defacto applies to – and even then Defacto is a legal designation only in Aus and NZ, from memory. In other places like USA for example she doesn’t automatically get half your stuff legally upon separation. What you bring into the marriage you keep. Closest thing to Defacto legal status in USA is registered relationship.

            Each country a bit different but all are dangerous to different degrees.

        2. Stu assumed that I would have lived with her or would let her live with me.

          Wouldn’t happen even if she had been a 10 in every category.

          Not the perfect MGTOW but I have been the way I am for a very long time. I do know better. My eyes have been open… since I was a youngster.

          Not the same woman I mentioned in my initial comment for this thread, but in my early 20s I lapsed a bit (three years is more than a “bit”, but. compared to the rest of my life…). I did fall in love. I have mentioned this here before, some time back. We broke up at my initiative…related to her beliefs on procreation power that I just could not live with. Plus, she started acting like I needed a new mother. Too, she started not liking some of my friends. Warning flags galore.

          However, I don’t know how she would have reacted when I would have told her that we would be keeping separate residences. Seriously, I had thought that far ahead. If after several years, I saw that she knew how to behave herself in all the ways we speak of here, perhaps the living arrangements could have changed. I don’t know. But even then I was keen on the cohabitation laws in my state and my inner compass was wary. I never hated her so I am positive that the dictionary definition of misogyny should not equate “distrust of women” with that of hatred.

          So, I almost did, but never did. Now, I never would. I have learned to live comfortably on my own, by myself, with loads of freedom that others will just have to envy. As long as I am happy—mostly—then that is enough for me. Not a perfect life, but being alone doesn’t have to mean being lonely. And one is as lonely as they allow themselves to be; too many ways to stay connected with people.

          Anyway, Stu has a point, just that he assumed something that wasn’t to be.

        3. Well you have to look at the legal ramifications of any relationship you are in or considering getting in, from the state of country that you are in what the laws are there. But you also have to look at the trend, of where things are going. A guy may live in a state, or country right now that says for example…..that if he owns a house before he met her….that house remains his and his alone if the relationship breaks up. That might be the law now…….but what will the law be in 5 years time. He may wake up one morning and find that his house is no longer his. Shit like this has been going on all my life. The goal posts keep moving….and always in favor of women at men’s detriment.

          1. Don’t have time now to go back and reread part 2, but , was one of the selection criteria that the woman have her own shit? If it wasn’t, it should be. Educated women with their own shit have no interest in losing it. How about He lives in his house and She lives in hers. No co-mingling of funds.

  5. I started training my wife, after 2 years of BPD related abuse (yes, I failed to filter before the marriage and failed to lead during it). She opted for Door #2 – taking the connecting flight. Two months later, she asked, “why did you let me do it?”

  6. Just WOW Paul ! It’s so true that that if you don’t screen well everything you say happens. They go ballistic in public settings over some perceived slight, they go nuclear on the relationship at the slightest provocation and when you call them out on it they hamster and hamster. My experience is when you do the final showdown after they tell you that you are the source of their unhappiness, “apologize or go away” they go away (because that is gynocentric drama) and when you never speak to them again, they keep coming back. The trick is to be done as you said. Because it all groundhog days on you again if you let them back in.

  7. “Happy wife, happy wife” Baaaaaaarrrfff!
    My number 1 phrase on the pissing me off meter, with “Ladies first” a close second.

    Bad enough that society perpetuates treating women like mentally deficient children that are ready to stomp their feet, but this kind of shit is in Disney movies.

    Watch the end of “Meet the Robinsons”; you will be picking up your jaw off the floor when you see the filth that is being peddled to little kids. So at the end of the movie, the genius kid protagonist is saying goodbye to his future adult self along with his future adult wife. So future adult wife decides to give young Robinson a word of advice about dealing with her when they finally meet and get married. She says (get this) “Remember I’m ALWAYS right (tee hee)”. Do you believe that shit? Then the kid’s future adult self chimes in while wearing a shit eating grim “I think it’s best”.

    Yes, yes, let’s lie our asses off by saying women can do everything a man can do and do it better (nudge, nudge, wink, wink), and then turn around and and kiss their asses and treat them like bunch of goddamn babies.

  8. “By not getting married, sharing finances, or cohabitating in a way that gives her legal reach into your life, you have insulated yourself from most of the consequences except for the grief you will feel when she leaves.

    Yup. We have to be honest with ourselves. We can be strong, but we aren’t machines.

  9. ♂ Advances Of Data Quantification:

    Firstly, if you believe that if it’s not professional enough, it’s “worthless,” you are sadly mistaken, which I will prove. If you also believe that it’s always “unscientific” to refer to ones own experience, you are sadly mistaken. I will prove, with scientific references, ( citations on end) that you don’t always need scientific citations to validate all anecdotes.
    There’s a final chapter of ‘The Story Of Psychology’ by Morton hunt, typifying that articulate stupid people do exist, & academia is full of them. Many other sections of psychological research have been regularly, fiercely & often successfully opposed by special-interest groups & advocacy groups – politics, sociology, etc., resulting from threat of violence, physical attack, terminated promotions, lack of tenure, etc.. Genetic differences of mental abilities of sexes & biological basis for differences of sexes are some. The record is far longer, but that is enough to state the facts are as unpopular & detestable to many segments of the population, especially including the women. Just imagine how much that actually happens considering that women comprise of a large percentage of the population. Popularity is not the test of truth. Legitimacy is not determined by social appeal. Calling it “pathetic” & believing that you know more than those who are free from entertaining & being liked by others is irrelevant of this context.
    Donna Eder [1985] studied rudimentary dynamics of popularity with females. She concluded that when females were nominated as the most popular, they were the most disliked by other females because of the who-does-she-think-she-is mentality – “don’t get out of line,” which we all know when they gossip in the bathrooms, etc.. Since they are much more prone to collectivism, it’s scientific to make anecdotal generalizations about them. (males are currently somewhat collectivist because that’s the current state.)

    With this article, I will prove that females are actually more “macho” than males are:

    The true cause of the slowed process of civilization is due to their own women. I can prove it with scientific references towards end of comment. (Yeah, there’s other factors, but it’s mostly their fault.)

    Women didn’t actually evolve to the same degree as men. Not only did they evolve less, they also evolved differently: female evolution was mostly linguistic, hence why they go to the bathrooms together, they gossip & start politics. The reason that is is because women were mostly doing really basic stuff & babbling, so they also evolved to be more subjective.
    The environmental pressures had men choose to do exploring, discovery, hunting to give to the families, etc.. It made them develop higher cognition. Men evolved to be more & more objective, while females evolved to be subjective.

    An article by health professional, Taylor Larson: ‘Studies Show Lesbians Much More Likely To Beat, Sexually Abuse Their Wives Than Heterosexual Men.’ proves the spectrum of female collectivism that basically keeps telling boys to be “the bad boy”, & all it’s various derivatives – “how to be a real man”, etc.. But the reality is is that there is no “real man” when it’s implied by the female delusions.

    Writer: Ian Miles Cheong has given an another article about data quantification based on what people are typing in search-engines, & it was discovered that women fantasized about violent porn much more than men do. It’s ~98% accurate, leaving that live questions has indirect, incomplete, & even lying answers. His article is the most accurate you’re going to get, also leaving the original obvious truth: male sexuality is mostly bodily/visual, which is also correlated to their objective mentalities – males like to seek their environments & stations & treat things as a muse. Just search for an article ‘FEMALE HYBRISTOPHILIA: PORN FEATURING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IS MORE POPULAR AMONG WOMEN THAN MEN’ by Hedon.

    The fact that women are stuck on “dominant” mode is nothing more than female projected lack of evolution. What are women attracted to? Vampires, Werewolves, billionaires, Pirates, even Jack – The Ripper’ – all unrealistic. (Sure, women are with more patient men, but this is mostly use/indifference for practical reasons.) Did you know that when the serial killer: Richard Ramirez had his infamy, there were actually women from cross-state trying to compete for his affection. You can search for it yourself. It’s called hybristophilia, also known as Stockholm Syndrome, although I wouldn’t put it in such a polite way as syndrome because it connotes that women need to be taken care of, it’s “funny”, it’s “cute.” The idea that women need to be taken care of is absurd. Women are quite happy to thrive with a tedious life.
    Because females evolved more subjectively & less than men, they project on society what men are, or should be – anti-intellect, impulsive, etc., & because of that subjective projection, they are waiting & fleeing to try to get something unreal – something that doesn’t even really exist, wasting a lot of time .
    If you don’t believe that these archetypes of masculinity is nothing more than ficticious projections of female nature, just look at ’50 Shades Of Greed’ ( or they want “spunky”). That story is nothing more than abuse of masculinity under the pretense of “control” of women. The whole premise of that story is that he is a “vicious guard dog” for her to indulge in her immature sexuality. Dogs become that way from abuse by early age. That archetype also represents about 0.001% of the male population. It can only be real due to the synthetic conditions of society.
    With women’s projected lack of evolution , & subjective evolution, combined with their collectivism, they take & want you to be stuck on their level.

    Morality does not equal “shy”/”sensitive.” Men evolved to be more logical than women, & with better logic, you derive better morality, etc.. Acting “dominant” is only rewarding women’s personality disorders.



    ‘A Mind Of Her Own – The Evolutionary Psychology Of Women’ by Anne Campbell, pg.: 120

    ‘The Story Of Psychology’ by Morton Hunt, pg. 770

    The Encyclopedia Of The Human Brain by V.S. Ramachandran, pg.: 301

    Studies Show Lesbians Much More Likely to Beat, Sexually Abuse Their Wives Than Heterosexual Men
    By Taylor Larson – Squawker-dot-org


  10. ♂ This post above is extremely anti-male. Historically, men have been the much more romantic sex. You have to question: Who’s really destroying the family unit? From Shakespeare, to numerous others – that’s the reality. It’s only that society is fixated on the feminine model of “dominance”. “Dominant” men only comprise of ~5% of the male population, so any extrapolation, of varying mediums, of the analysis of masculinity is going to be pseudo science, including from the professionals. The idea that men are less romantic & more “dominant” is false. ♂

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *