Why An Understanding of Female Sexuality and Sexual Strategy Can Reduce Male Misogynistic Attidudes

Luna Rose writes:

Were you hacked by Beast Ganon?

Beast Ganon is a disturbed, profoundly misogynistic young man who has a highly irrational and one-sided view of females. He doesn’t get it. His views don’t resonate with me at all because I am actually the complete opposite of him. I am the opposite of a misogynist.

Female sexuality and female sexual strategy operate on an extremely primitive level.

Much of the weird, bizarre, stupid, self-defeating, masochistic, ridiculous, baffling, counterintuitive, irrational, cruel, wicked, and seemingly insane behavior of females derive from the fact that she is behaving according to her very primitive sexual programming, which is really on the level of a lower animal.

On the other hand, not everything a woman does is all about sex. Probably much of a female’s life has little to nothing to do with sex. This is outside the realm of our discussion. and females can be as advanced as any other humans when it comes to this sort of thing.

I have a strong feeling that male sexuality may also operate on a similar primitive animalistic level akin to the lower animals. In fact, male sexuality and sexual strategy is probably just as primitive and base as women’s, if not worse.

I think male sexuality is much worse than female sexuality because it is so wrapped up in sadism, domination, abuse, cruelty, violence, aggression, meanness, humiliation, degradation, destruction, desire to hurt and even downright evil. Male sexuality is probably 20 times worse than female sexuality when you get down to it.

I would like to have some discussions on this about whether readers think male sexuality is as primitive and base as female sexuality.

I am not a misogynist. I am the opposite. I actually love females and prefer to spend most of my time around them because I can’t stand males. And believe it or not, females love me and it’s been this way for most of my life. I sort of grew up with females via my cousins and by teenage years was best friends with my female cousins. After age 18, I had countless female friends, acquaintances and even lovers.

However, I know females very, very well. I understand them better than they understand themselves, which admittedly is not saying much.

That you read this and could not figure out what I was talking about and instead thought it was a bizarre sexist misogynistic screed shows that like most women you don’t have the slightest clue about female sexuality and sexual strategy yourself even if you engage in it yourself which you may well do.

This is because you probably have blinded yourself via self-delusion to the true nature of these parts of yourself. When it comes to sex and sexual strategy, most females could not give you the slightest reason why they do whatever they do, although the reasons are obvious if you study them enough. When you point out to a woman why she is engaging in the sexual strategy she is, she typically angrily denies it.

This is because female nature blinds the female herself to the rather rude, nasty, amoral and even cruel nature of female sexuality and sexual strategy.

Female defenses are fantasy and denial, especially denial. The capacity of women to blind themselves to unpleasant facts is truly stunning.

Now I happen to believe female sexuality can be a lot of fun. I have dated maybe 200 women and girls in my life, and I know females better than most of them even know their own gender at least when it comes to some things.

You can have a Hell of a lot of fun with women when it comes to sex. Sexual activities with women are a blast and can be very rewarding in so many ways.

Another part of female sexuality is love and deep emotional relationships. This is how the female bonds to her male of choice, through this very deep, wildly passionate, almost slave-like worship of the male she loves and dedicates her life too. A woman in love is a wonderful thing and there are few more wonderful things in this world. I have seen this creature many times and even experienced her quite a few times myself such that I can spot a woman in love half a mile away blindfolded.

Once you understand the rather base and raw mammalian nature of female sexual strategy, so much of their bizarre, infuriating, exasperating. trying, incomprehensible, stressing, chaotic and dramatic behaviors finally make sense in an often strange but somehow logical way. Believe it or hot, females are engaging in a lot of this weird and puzzling behavior for some solid reasons that are rooted in evolutionary biology and psychology.

Once you understand what drives females, you lose a lot of your anger or even hatred (misogyny) towards them because now a lot of contemptible and nutty female behaviors can be seen as quite rational in their own often odd way. Believe it or not, women are doing almost all of these things for deep-seated reasons that often make perfect sense in an evolutionary way sense.

Understanding the raw mammalian base level on which female sexual strategy operates does not lead to increased misogyny, contrary to popular lie. Instead this understanding can actually lessen misogyny by making the insensible sensible.

With understanding comes liberation, acceptance and even love and appreciation.

Please follow and like us:
error3
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

48 thoughts on “Why An Understanding of Female Sexuality and Sexual Strategy Can Reduce Male Misogynistic Attidudes”

  1. On the other hand, not everything a woman does is all about sex. Probably much of a female’s life has little to nothing to do with sex. This is outside the realm of our discussion. and females can be as advanced as any other humans when it comes to this sort of thing.

    I have a strong feeling that male sexuality may also operate on a similar primitive animalistic level akin to the lower animals. In fact, male sexuality and sexual strategy is probably just as primitive and base as women’s, if not worse.

    True. Women are individual soul beings in their own right which means their lives do not revolve around men. A lot of men in the PUA scene e.g. the Roosh forum douchebags haven’t figured out this simple little thing about women and they claim to be authority on this subject. They behave as if all women would respond to a familiar set of cues and pick-up lines and what not. My girlfriend is on my lap now – we were browsing through the Roosh forum sites. I asked her if there is any truth in what these people have to say – she’s just laughing, doesn’t say anything at all.

    Let’s hear it loud and clear – Women really do not spend their days thinking about sex the way men do all the time.

      1. Man really tired being alone. This girl is with me even when I’m broke as I told you. I’m really grateful, women are better creatures than men by a MILE.

    1. My girlfriend is on my lap now – we were browsing through the Roosh forum sites. I asked her if there is any truth in what these people have to say – she’s just laughing, doesn’t say anything at all.

      LOL, just LOL at PUAtards. What a bunch of fuckwads.

    2. Without women, Man would never have become the first domesticated species of animal on planet Earth. Think about it.

      1. Are Slavs not men, too? And exactly what are West Europeans “superior” at? Fighting the same unwinnable war over and over, again and again, until it finally dawns on them that they need to replenish their racial stock with Slavic women?

      2. Do men dominate society by doing the bidding of women?

        The “dominant” males in matrilineal societies are “uncles”–as in one’s mother’s brother–not fathers, nor husbands. It’s not about genetic inheritance, but rather the inheritance of property.

        Uncles do not exterminate pests. Fathers and sons do.

      3. The Romans had a matrilineal society as well as an empire based on extracting wealth from tributary peoples. The Romans used that wealth to build aqueducts, baths, amphitheaters, etc. They were just about anything else but technologically backward. But the barbarians who eventually overran Rome started out with a technological disadvantage; and it took them quite some time to turn Roman technology against the Romans.

      4. Perhaps you’re confusing matrilineal with matriarchal. They’re not the same thing. Romans inherited both land and public offices from their mother’s brother. Hence the origin of the term nepotism. Sometimes some Romans adopted a nephew as a protégé–a practice that became stylish, or stylized, during Imperial times. But most of the time the family villa was inherited through the mother from her brother. Meanwhile, women in Rome practiced family politics behind the scenes. They were not lacking for influence. But they did lack the power of public office and were not, therefore, Matriarchs in the political sense.

        P.S. If you typed more slowly you might make fewer mistakes.

      5. If the koine fits, it doesn’t matter when the word was coined. Since you’ve studied so hard, you no doubt know how many nephews and grand-nephews The Claudio-Julian Dynasty produced.

        Family politics via marriage alliances are inherently matrilineal. Patrons marry their daughters or sisters to ambitious young sons-in-law or brothers-in-law and the family connections of that protégé’s high-ranking wife confer higher social-rank upon that woman’s children than the ambitious young man could have bestowed upon them, least of all upon the children of some other, lower-ranking woman that he could’ve, but didn’t, marry.

        The Romans were all about marrying the boss’s daughter, marrying into the family and marrying into wealth. It goes all the way back to their foundation myth–especially the episode known as The Rape of the Sabine Women. The Freemen who founded Rome–former debt-slaves, prisoner-of-war slaves and political exiles–had precious little social rank of their own to confer upon their offspring unless they married well–say, a Sabine woman, for instance. Both The Sabines and The Italians were influenced by The Etruscans who had both matrilineal inheritance and matrilineal succession–albeit, without Matriarchal rule.

        The best that you could get with the evidence that you cited would be that Roman society was not exclusively matrilineal. But that same evidence also shows that Roman society was not exclusively patrilineal, either. Either way, the evidence will not warrant your initial claim that The Romans were not matrilineal at all. Perhaps the admixture of different inheritance schemes might explain the recurrence of internecine war in Rome. But they rolled with for quite some time before the barbarians figured out how to beat them.

      6. The rise of “single mothers” in Rome? Did you get that Schmikipedia, too? I doubt it. Rome fell for many reasons, not the least of which would be The Age of Migrations. Maybe the single mothers could be blamed for that, instead.

    3. Conservative values are transmitted from Mothers or nannies or governesses to young men via learning. See the previous comment about the domestication of Man. Then read Manchester’s “The Last Lion.”

      1. At last a point of agreement–sort of. Young adult males from single-mother households are more at risk of both criminal offending and criminal victimization than young adult males from traditional two-parent households. However, single-mother households have far fewer years of residency at their current address than traditional two-parent households, while any given household with fewer years of residency is far likelier than their counterparts to live in a high-crime neighborhood than a low-crime neighborhood–not to mention the ongoing relocation for work.

        As for the transmission of values, traditional two-parent households afford mothers far more time to teach their children well compared to single-mother households where the woman has to work–typically outside the home, much as most men do. Thus, while there are, indeed, fewer middle-aged married men in high-crime neighborhoods, there are also fewer responsible, mature adults of either sex in the neighborhood for most of the workday.

        A similar phenomenon has been observed amongst refugee populations– whether the underlying cause be war or natural disaster.

        Shall I presume that the studies alluded to show that single fathers are superior to single mothers at . . . “the transmission of values” to children?
        If so, then why do women need traditional two-parent households for their children? Perhaps it is men, as well, who need traditional two-parent households for their children. Or do the men more parsimoniously require simply incubators and concubines?

  2. Why are you infatuated with superiority? I don’t think anyone is superior to anyone else by birth, gender, race, religion, nor any other attribute of human social groups one might care to mention. Group selection, in general, turns population genetics upside down and inside out. Meanwhile, group selection for men versus women invalidates the sum total of sexual reproduction. Why not relocate your interests and concerns to the domain of culture? Why this insistence upon shoe-horning the political into the zoological?

  3. Were it in the nature of men to produce things for women, one ought more readily regard Man as the first domesticated species of animal on Earth.

    1. If you set aside your observations about sexual selection, the remainder of your thesis regarding men reads just like a thesis about domesticated dogs dutifully doing things for their mistress and her children out of love and devotion to family.

    2. Had I put quotation marks around “dutiful domestic dogs devoted to the protection of their Mistress’s children, would you have noticed that female’s selection of that “dog” for tameness?

    3. Have you never noticed the way you criticize women for everything? Are you aware of your conditioned reflex to make “women” out of “men” who criticize you? Must you now wonder exactly what gender you are?

      1. The word you’re looking for is “fool”–not “idiot.” Take the “module” on composition and style next semester.

        Meanwhile, consider the possibility that tameness might be something other than docility. Domestic dogs, for instance, have been selected for tameness (read: unwillingness to kill and eat Woman’s babies) for at least twelve thousand years–possibly fifteen thousand–but they have yet to become docile (read: unwilling to kill, bite nor even defend anything at all). In fact, dogs, both male and female, occasionally do such risky things for their Mistress and her children as defend them against an intruder or someone else who shows them disrespect. Perhaps you’ll meet one the hard way someday. I do hope it’s a bitch.

    1. It’s truly difficult to believe that someone other than a woman can work a computer keyboard as fast Beast Ganon does. And yet, it simply must be so; mustn’t it?

    2. Do you understand the meaning of the term ad hominem? Do you think it means arguing against the speaker, only? Have you read your own posts on this blog?

  4. Who is it that said, “To know all, is to forgive all?”
    My understanding of the psychic and escoteric sciences assists me in
    not hating.
    I know why Casey Anthony had to kill her daughter, and why Jodi
    Arias had to kill her boyfriend. It has nothing to do with evolution.
    It has to do with Astrology. It’s too detailed to go into here, but if
    you google “Astrology of Casey Anthony” or “Jodi Arias,” you will find
    out why.
    A 57 year old virgin, would be expected to take the George Saldini
    route. I didn’t because I know about “personality.”
    The stars IMPELL (Pull you in a certain direction) but the don’t COMPELL
    (Force) you in that direction.

    1. Based upon your post about storks delivering babies, females getting pregnant from brushing up against men and evil people keeping us in the dark about the absence of adult-film actresses in our neighborhoods, I had presumed your rhetorical stance to be strictly sarcastic. Based upon your post above, I must now consider the possibility that your position may be quite positively sincere. That reconsideration might take awhile. I hope you don’t mind the wait.

  5. For someone, such as yourself, who complains so sorely about ad hominem argument, you surely do pose a fair number personal questions about your designated target. Itchy-trigger finger–eh, brud?

    Nevertheless, and for the record, I received my name in more or less the same way that most people do; namely, without their consent.

    1. Brud! Your conditioned reflex to attack women is utterly ineffectual at making a woman out of any man who disagrees with you. It is, however, quite effective at making your posts read like an attack dog humping a pillow.

  6. Were females unwilling to challenge collective beliefs none of them would ever become feminists, lesbians, transgendered males nor divorcees.
    Your theses make less sense the barking of a toothless dog.

    1. Do men create everything except new women and new men? No. Wait. That truly is an idiotic question. Men did not create the sun, the moon, the stars, the earth, nor anything else that came before woman created humankind in the very process of selecting men for tameness.

    2. If men, or Marx and Engels, created feminism, then where is the natural basis in evolutionary history and the structure of the human brain for feminism? Did men, or Marx and Engels, create DNA or neurons, axons and synapses, as well?

  7. I can’t even hate Beast Ganon. He impersonates the greatest villain of all time and does it so well behind a computer screen. Actually, I have to say that Majora is the most badass villain ever, but Ganondorf’s not so far behind.

    1. Considering I’m in the 3D and game development field, I probably know more about my favorite franchise than you do. lol Isn’t it ironic how you can’t offend me, Ganondorf? That’s why I love and enjoy your posts!

      1. At least you’re not one of those women who complains that Link can’t be female — in the name of equality, of course — rather than accepting that there is a male-based narrative, even if there wasn’t a tradition of ZELDA being the girl and Link being the boy — in some installments literally!

  8. Iv’e seen no evidence women are more cruel than men are. They might be at the same level or perhaps men surpass women.

    Would BEAST make excuses for men, if he were in prison getting mocked, beaten, and/or violently sodomized?

    1. He’s well aware that his claims are ludicrous. That’s what internet trolls go for. They try to raise hell online just to get a laugh out of it. lol It’s funny indeed.

    2. The stats you posted are not even relevant to, let alone sufficient to warrant, your claim that women, or feminists, or even single mothers themselves are to blame for the break-up of traditional two-parent households. There are numerous, alternative explanations for the dissolution of any given marriage, or for the general decline in traditional marriage, besides the target that you see at the end of your tunnel visor.

      For instance, arguments over money are the number one cause of divorce, even while job loss is the number one cause of arguments over money, even while globalization, information technology, automation and the resulting shift to a service economy are all well-known causes of job loss, job elimination, labor-market instability and the ever-widening income inequality gap. You need a broader scope, Brud.

      1. You don’t suppose job loss and income inequality could be because of illegal immigration into our country in multiples of Sweden’s population, do you? Employers and bent economists who want to present illegals as a positive even admit, illegals are a hedge against rising wages!

  9. RL, you should check out this website illimitablemen.com . It’s contents are quite awe inspiring. Read it’s articles (especially those pertaining to power/dark triad/nature of women and then tell us what your opinion on this site is and if you think there is truth behind what the site creator states there.

      1. Well, that’s the thing, though, people who don’t like it will call it misogynistic. But someone who read your bit about “male sexuality and sexual strategy is probably just as primitive and base as women’s,” could be slammed as “misandry” if someone really wanted to slander you for whatever reason.

        People have called Sowell “Racist” for YEARS for pointing out the truth about the fail of “Multiculturalism” in the MODERN definition of “There Are No Wrong Answers” rather than the old definition of “Take in the positive, discard the negative”. Does that make it true, if enough people say it?

      2. Well I’ll tell you this: just like you, I prefer the company of women and have no I’ll feelings towards them. I do find however, that the website is rather correct in its assessment of women in general. Whether the PC police (which I know you are not a part of) want to label it as misogynist, then so be it. But just know that it seems to be speaking to a deeper truth. The website is more nefarious though because it teaches the arts of power and thus manipulation.

        I hope you read some of the articles there and let us know what you think!

  10. The pretty lies exist becuase they are pretty. Deivations just make men realise that they are cattle, or that women dont like them too much, it depends on how attractive and intelligent they are.

    What about female nature is so wonderfull? they are bassically reducible to an incongruent person youll have to negociate with to get your shit. The greeks understood their place.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.