The most common and strongest driver of women's horniness is betrayal. Specifically a traitor who gets away with it.
When a man says it's important to be attractive to women, he is declaring it is his intention to betray you. If he hasn't done it already, it's only because he hasn't yet managed to secure his getaway driver. Don't worry, he'll have a plan worked out soon. He genuinely thinks it's important and isn't going to get lazy or forget.
To a woman, treachery and parasitism is exactly what [high status] means.
Women keep letting themselves to be drawn to men who abuse everyone else, then acting shocked when he treats her the same way. "No no you're supposed to abuse everyone except me! I'm the exception!" "Oh no, how could he do this to me, who could have possibly seen this coming."
Women are specifically attracted to bad ideas, and their plan is to ride the tiger, trying to suppress the badness using female game or whatever. I repeat: if associating with you is not a bad idea, it's startlingly difficult to make a woman wet. It's not an emergent property. Being hueg incidentally makes it cheaper to beat someone up but that's not the point. It's being a bad idea in and of itself; being hueg or whatever is merely the means. The [danger] she wants is the risk you'll do to her what she loves so much when you do it to everyone else.
Red pill dating advice is basically to trick her into thinking she has you tricked or appeased, but to [[accidentally]] slip the bounds from time to time to show you both need to be appeased and can be restrained, somehow, by a woman. E.g. muscles mean nothing if you would never use them to hit her.
It's a major reason white government hasn't been tried. If you're not abusing your underlings the women lose interest. A king trying good will go tyrannical to make his wife more excited about the bedroom. Telling folk what to do is not enough, they have to want to refuse but fail.
Why can't male peer groups allow women, especially unattached unrestrained women? φαγγωτρυ? No, the opposite: someone always tries to appeal to the woman by shanking one of his former friends. An ingroup man witnessing this realizes he wants to do the same thing, and realizes all the other men are realizing the same thing. Cooperation and femininity are antonyms. P.S. Phi alpha gamma omega tau rho ypsilon.
It is not a coincidence that profound thinkers across time and space keep trying to make celibacy a major virtue.
P.P.S. I just now noticed that chastity is particular to women, while celibacy is particular to men. They're very different behaviours. Male chastity is trivial, unavoidable. Female celibacy is impossible, it's a self-contradiction.
P.P.P.S. It is also not a coincidence that the virtue-celibates keep failing to make their system coherent.
3 comments:
on one hand the comment i just made on the other post more properly belongs here. it is actually related.
on the other, because i happened to decide to read the other one then post comment instead of read both posts then comment made me appreciate this post more.
"Women keep letting themselves to be drawn to men who abuse everyone else, then acting shocked when he treats her the same way. "No no you're supposed to abuse everyone except me! I'm the exception!" wow it's just like what i just said about the video, what if-- and then you just say it. the text is the same both ways. but i wouldn't have gotten the same thing if i was just reading along as usual. i got it because i was already there.
"It's a major reason white government hasn't been tried. If you're not abusing your underlings the women lose interest. A king trying good will go tyrannical to make his wife more excited about the bedroom. Telling folk what to do is not enough, they have to want to refuse but fail."
the tax haven complaint is being interested.
the whistleblower chronic abuse is a brag.
'when we finally make it impossible for everyone to defect, everyone will cooperate' have you tried cooperating with cooperators and defecting on defectors? it's something you can do today.
but that's not the kind of thing they're looking for.
>"because i happened to decide to read the other one then post comment instead of read both posts then comment made me appreciate this post more."
It's important to allow one's muse to make one do things that may appear inefficient.
"belongs here" I mean, does it? Doing the other way seems to have worked out better. Whoever decided things should or shouldn't belong didn't have all the information.
recently on drawing i've changed my mind on references again and decided i should have my own reference files so i can look at how i thought through something before. this is better than looking how other people think because i'm a lot closer to me - previously i thought me right now is the closest to me, which is true, but only so much can be rederived this moment; expansion requires outsourcing, one of the best outsources is me in the past.
opened a file and started sticking everything in it.
having stuck two things in it, occurred to me this was untenable. a single large file that expands in 2D. the important part is im able to retrieve the information, not that it's a single file. so made a new folder and copied old drawings into it instead.
having copied all relevant files into it, occurred to me this was also untenable in the future. it's the historian problem: organization is a full time job. the work i do is to solve a specific problem at a specific time. even if i thought it was about a certain thing, it may not address a broader or somewhat different idea at a different time in the future. the only way to have perfect organization, to compile a book, i have to know the entire set of things and what i think about it.
which i don't.
recently i had fish and i kept a couple of the bones cause they had interesting shapes. the real gain though was noticing these two could not connect together. rather than one side concave the other side convex, both front and rear sides are concave. they're connected by a double convex soft thing (which i had removed). the two hard bones are 'the same type' but they cannot be 'together'. not without something soft inbetween. hard-soft-hard. everything that's 'the same' has to have something different in the middle, seems to be a general idea as far as i've looked.
in context of cooperation and women, men are hard. the connection between two men (hard) has to be an idea that is soft (negotiation, cooperation). if the idea is hard (religion, law, code) then the men become soft (soy, tranny, cuck). this also means, supposing men are naturally hard, women and ideas are naturally the same type.
i think there should be a similarly simple model on how to control switching, cause switching seems to obviously occur too. e.g. i like drawing and don't draw because appreciating a drawing is being soft to drawing's hard. but in order to create the drawing, i must be the hard. this means i take both positions. especially during execution: paying attention and noticing results is very clearly using the ears and not the mouth.
i dunno though. so far it's been great just having the new idea in mind. "things dont seem to be working" "flip that switch over there to its other side" "oh that fixed it, neat"
Post a Comment