Are women biologically programmed to reward cruelty, evil and domination?

Why thank you. You have bought yourself my continued imagination for the time being. I do think that Imaginary Beings should be careful to not upset those who are imagining them. After all, we could easily become bored or aggravated and decide to imagine something else, and you would simply cease to exist! Muahahaha!

 

Luckily for me, the majority of people on this website are stoned as we speak, and their imagination cannot cease to create the weird and the wonderful

enter yours truly

 

Aha! Truly a reasonable explanation.

 

Your reading of me is a bit misinterpreted. You see me as someone who was happy living with the Evil World, but then had a little boo-boo saw how evil the world is and became sad and miserable. Yet unwilling to do anything about it. If fact I devoted my entire life to fighting the evil of the world. It is true in my youth I didn't have a detailed study of the day after, but I knew I had to accumulate power to change things. After the Fiasco, things did change. And I was in rage all through college. But Generation Y doesn't care. In some ways the me you describe is a somewhat accurate description of me at the start of college. My old militarist ethos had been lost and I searched for a new more humane worldview. More egalitarian, but raging with hatred, fury and bloodlust desire for vengeance. Also at the time I hated all the college females around me, considering them the Whore of Babylon. Well anyway, that was years ago. And for a few years I did fight for Good, driven by sheer rage. That is how I learned just how powerful the dominant ideology was. Just how internalized into people's common sense. So I'm far past the stage you see me at.

-Sorry about the last post, I was just ranting in despair and depression. A lot of the "yous" just meant all humanity except me. Not "you".

 

My boss is nothing like that.

 

Well I guess there are two options. The "moral" option. What is morality? What society, the state, the democratic majority says is right and true. Are the people manipulated by elites? Irrelevant. Truth is what the majority actually believes, not why they believe it.

So specifically what is the "moral" thing to do? Go night-clubbing to satisfy the sexual sadist duty during the weekends and weekdays dutifully obey a boss while climbing the ladder so that while today I'm the boot-licking sniveling sycophant tomorrow I will have my own victim/employee to abuse.

Quotation marks aside, that really is the moral option. Duty. Responsibility. At least if morality is to be democratic and historical as opposed to individualistic and universal. And yet so-called universal morality is the least universal. Since any ahistorical individual can follow their own so-called inner light. The only Ethics that deserve the name are social and collective.

I didn't get that for so many years of my life. I guess America is a little ashamed of her ideology because it is so cynical and materialistic. But the cover-up makes it worse than it is. America is so big on not having ideology, and the Americanized world is so big on ideology being dead, that one figures it must be some giant DaVinci code cover-up. But when you dig it out its not the worst thing in the world. Their are legitimate points of disagreement. But it isn't "insanely evil" it has its own internal logic. And maybe if it had just been out in the open and explained to me at a young age, I would have simply accepted it. The poison my not lie in post-ideological ideology but simply in the clumsy attempt to hide it.

Now for a while I did consider doing the right thing. But I guess I'm just a bad man.

I'm reminded of Huckleberry Finn. Here he was stealing the property of a nice old lady who had only treated him with kindness. She had done nothing to him, and yet he was stealing her prize slave. He knew in his heart the right thing to do was give him back. But he was attached to Ol Jim and just couldn't do it. The Angel on his right shoulder lost out. Despite all their attempts to civilize him, Huck was just a bad seed. He knowingly did what he knew was wrong.

Don't defend Huck. Don't patronize him. Give him a little credit, he DID know what was right and wrong. If ethics and morality have any meaning they have to be defined by the white slave-owning south that he actually lived in. He was wrong. Immoral. Sinful.

So I guess I have the same bad conscience as Huck. As an individual I just don't want to play the game of life, where all it amounts to is the scramble to hold the knife over someone below you, to unleash a frenzy of sexual sadism. I know it is immoral to not do that. And I have no rational or ethical position to defend my individualist position from. Individualism can never be defended. It is the essence of evil. Evil is a meaningless term outside of individualism. The separation of the individual from the mass. Thats the ultimate act of evil. Thats why Huck Finn was right to feel so guilty. Regardless of how historical conditions of slavery have changed, Huck was evil. And if I myself am going to embrace the very essence of evil, what right to I have to judge any lesser act of evil?

But I'm stupid and evil. And I know thats how this society must see me. Words aside, all I'm saying is waaah- I don't want to be good.

 

But the accumulation of power -is- the 'dominant' theme you talk about. So all along while railing against it, you were acting directly in accord with it. And raging against it with bloodlust and fury actually is also a big part of it. Because bloodlust and fury is a central component. Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity. You cannot do Good with a heart full of hate. Your failure was not in the world, but in your heart. Your 'dominant ideology' is what has fueled your own actions every step of the way. So it's deeply unsurprising you failed to single-handedly overthrow it. Not only is it far more than any one person can do, but you were working at cross purposes the whole time.

Ah, my beautiful unique little snowflake. You have no idea how incredibly normal this line of thinking makes you, do you? 'All of humanity except me thinks this way! I am the only one who sees things how they really are!'. That exact mentality is so common as to be nearly universal, amongst teen-agers. You're just a slow developer.

 

Listen to me. Really listen. You are wrong. The attitudes and actions you speak of are not normal. Most men are not sexually sadistic. Seriously. I've been around a bit. I've traveled all over the country. I've known many, many men. I've had sex with many men. I've held men as they cried out their fears and distresses, their rage and frustration. I've seen men bare their souls to me. I've known many women. Who've slept with even more men. We've talked about men, we've talked about sex. A lot.

Most men are not sexual sadists. They are an extremely small minority. They just happen to be very loud and full of bluster and for some reason very good at gaining the respect and admiration of other men. Especially young men. And other men tend to try to emulate them in word, while amongst men. When they are alone with women, most men are quite different.

If you want to know what men are really like without all the bluster and bravado, ask women. Don't talk to guys on the internet about what society is like. The internet is the ultimate forum of impotent male machismo, desperately thrashing for the last vestiges of life. Talk to women. Not radical feminists who've had a few intensely bad experiences with those worst of men, and had it color their whole perspective. Just women. Men-loving, rational, proud, self-reliant, self-loving women. You'll see a very different story.

Read women writers. Again, not radical feminists, just writers. Fiction authors, historicists, sociologists, philosophers; heck, bloggers.

Your view of the world is -broken-. Sin is not sinful. Women are not evil temptresses, nor are they hapless victims. We're people. Men are not sexual sadists, by an large. Humans are not mindless drones following the beat of their biological impulses, nor are they all following perfectly in lockstep to some simple 'dominant ideology'. We are all individuals, each and every one with our own ideologies, our own memetic ideas, our own impulses. Each with a complete, separate and unique idea of right and wrong. Many thinking they are they only one who -really- understands what's going on, and thinking everyone else a mindless drone. It's funny.

If you keep seeing the same patterns, the same interactions, the common denominator in them is -you-. It's not some vast societal ideology that everyone in the world aside from you shares. It's you. It's your eyes and your mind and your behavior generating the same patterns over and over. You actions that people respond to in the same ways over and over.

It's not a matter of the moral individual against an amoral society. It is a matter of an individual with a specific morality who -imagines- he's the only one. The special precious one. And that all the rest of the world somehow shares a completely different and horrific moral code. But they don't. You are dealing with a personal delusion. There are far, far more like you then you know. And even more that share -some- moral elements with you and not others. And many, many others who have their own ideas of morality that differ from both.

There is no dominant ideology. There is no moral code that the vast majority follows. Particularly not evo-psych or sexual sadism. These ideologies exist, but they are really pretty rare as codes that actual people actually live by. Except for the people that live in your head.

 

I specifically said that society WAS moral. That is the only possible morality. I'm not some special Keanu Reeves hero who sees the truth by going against society. Just an immoral individual.

Ok so the dominant ideology, the state, youth culture, pop culture, everyone on the internet all say life is about sexual sadism.

Now you tell me real women don't feel this way. And that men just talk but don't really ask this way. If thats true then wouldn't contrary claims ALWAYS be disproved? If I claimed that women were attracted to morbid obesity it would never gain traction because experience would always disprove it. Yet ever male and female both on the internet and pop culture says women are attracted to cruelty. IF it is so obviously false, how does it hold up? Shouldn't it be as ridiculous as morbid obesity?

How can I disprove it in real life? Go around asking females? First off the PUA guys base their whole evopsych system on female words not matching deeds. They may say they want kindness but really want pain. Second if male-female relations are that screwed up, then who can believe what they say? They will obviously tell me what they think I want to hear out of fear and terror. Plus on a personal note- I'm pretty sure thats what I saw in college. Although to be honest I didn't watch closely. I hated males and females in college. I didn't consider females victims then, more like Whore of Babylon.

So what specifically can I do to find out for myself that girls don't want torture?

 

The Ironic thing here is that the actual findings of the PUA guys are the clearest evidence that the claims of the PUA guys are flawed. They claim women don't care about the appearance of males, yet find that 'peacocking', getting dressed up and prettifying themselves, works wonders. They claim that women reward macho, tough assholes, yet find that building a feeling of comfort and safety, paying attention to subtle signals, drawing women out and really listening to them, being emotionally sensitive, not coming on too strong, etc are all things that work well. Stuff that feminists have been saying for -years-.

The claims they make arise out of what -has been- a, if not the, dominant paradigm for several thousand years. That of aggressive, macho, violent male dominance. Because if you leave men alone to decide who is in charge, they will tend to pick the most aggressive, dominant male. It is men that reward cruelty and sadism in men, not women. In the emerging social environments where women have a stronger say, a very different leadership structure is beginning to appear.

One area they have absolutely right about women. The idea that women want sex less than men is a myth. One that is propagated by women as much as men. Male dominant systems have required chastity on the part of women. Women have been reliant on 'catching' a man, in order to ensure any form of financial support for themselves and their children. And men have demanded to be assured of their paternity of any child they support. So female sexuality has been repressed. In this system it has been essential that women suppress their own sexuality, and feign a lack of interest. For only in attaining marriage -before- sex could they attain any financial security.

Birth control, feminism, and women in the workplace are changing the rules of the game. But it takes time. And a several thousand year old idea structure takes time to die. Evo-psych is merely the same old violent, sadistic male war-cult adapting to a post-christian world. Using new ideas to justify it's perpetuation. But change is in the air, and patriarchy is losing ground everywhere.

Women have a say. And we are starting to choose for ourselves. It usually takes a bit of time for each woman. And one challenge is that men are lagging. They still often choose amongst them the most violent of men as the 'top dogs'. And being a top dog instills confidence and confidence remains a highly sexually attractive trait. So women are left with a choice between gentle, sensitive, caring men with no confidence, or violent sadist assholes who are extremely self-assured.

This is actually one reason why the PUA guys are so successful. They manage to at least give off the air of being 'the perfect guy'. Confident, sensitive, interested in a woman's feelings, actually engaging a woman as an equal. And even if it's just a sham, even if it's all illusion and artifice, we are eager to be fooled. Because we want an excuse. We want an excuse to shrug off the internal barriers that tell us we shouldn't be having sex unless the guy is 'just right'.

It's much akin to the interesting phenomenon of guys who see prostitutes preferring that they at least seem to be really into what they're doing. At least seem to care. Even if the guy knows it's probably all an act, just a fantasy, if she's convincing enough he can convince himself that maybe he's something special. That this beautiful girl who can have sex with any guy she wants is really into him, more than other guys. I've known enough sex workers to know that this is so common a desire as to be nearly universal.

If a PUA guy was to run a good game on me, I'd probably bite. I'd want to be fooled. Even if I knew it was probably all a game, if he was convincing enough I'd be able to convince myself that maybe it was real. That this confident, sensitive, discerning man was really into me, for me. Because that's another main theme in the PUA scene. The importance of at least creating the illusion of being picky. Creating the sense that you need to be convinced that she's 'worth it', that she's really your type. Creating the feel that it's actually her that's winning her way into his bed, instead of the other way around. What a hot fantasy! He draws her out, really listened to what she says, and appears to decide she's interesting enough to continue to engage. Even though he originally seemed to have other things to do. Then feels comfortable enough to open up some himself. Reveal some small vulnerabilities. Is won over by -her- charms. From what I've seen, half of the PUA moves involve convincing her that she is the one convincing him into having sex. What a reversal! What a complete motion away from aggressive male sex strategies. And what's more, it works!

PUA guys repeat over and over that being to pushy, being to aggressive, not listening, not letting -her- lead at least some of the way, will result more often than not in failure. What more proof do you need?

 

Well you said that I needed to see for myself from actual experience that women don't reward cruelty. But now that I ask how I would be able to see this empirically you tell me about PUA strategy. Which BTW I think you have misinterpreted, internet PUA is reduced to simply demonstrate cruelty- get girl.

So how can I see for myself in the real world that this is not true?

And what about men rewarding cruelty? Of course the male alpha hierarchy is just part of the drive for sexual selection. It is just an insanely cruel world. How can I deal with humanity?

My parents make this big stink about how I must be mentally ill to want to avoid humanity. But if humans really are the beasts painted by evo-psych, why would I want to associate with them? Simply to play their game of bestial orgies? Humanity is insanely evil. What other solution is there than total isolation and eventual starvation on the streets? But no one takes my arguments seriously. Since obviously any action that leads to the failure to survive in this oh-so-wonderful world MUST be insane.

 

I think you have to spend some time in it, bro.

 

Obviously you haven't read any of the material actually produced by the guys who actually did the 'field research' on which PUA culture is based. If you had, you'd see a very different image than those internet wankers who say more in a week than they can stand to in a year. Try actually reading some of the source material.

A lot of the 'demonstrate cruelty- get girl' thing arises out of one actually rather controversial technique, out of the dozens that the PUA guys recommend. The concept of the Neg.

The neg is a technique suggested for use -only- on women who are really high on the conventionally attractive scale, and dressed to the nines. Women who get hit on -constantly- and have developed numerous social defenses against guys hitting on them. The idea is to make early on one or 2 mild negative comments. Nothing -cruel-, just signs that you are unimpressed. The idea is to set yourself apart from all the guys that are constantly fawning over her, and present a challenge. Again, trying to entice -her- to fight to get him, rather than the other way around.

Thing is, this runs smack into misogynistic patriarchal bs and warps around into stupid slut-shaming woman hating idiocy. And no one gets around to mentioning that such idiocy doesn't actually work too well, because they're too busy with macho wanker braggadocio to admit they suck at actually attracting any women with a shred of self-esteem.

Well, I told you to go out and talk to women, and you claimed that we were all going to lie to you out of terror, and that PUAs prove that women lie about stuff. So I tried to use logic to point out some of the flaws in your ideas. But you seem to be immune to logic, so I'm pretty close to being out of ideas.

Seriously, if women were so terrified of sex and of men, why would it be that ever since women have had more say in society, we've been as a group acting more and more sexually aggressive? Why would it be that more and more women are actively seeking out sex? It's not like society looks too kindly on 'sluts' yet, though far more kindly than in years past. Really there's nothing at all in it for women who go out and cruise bars looking for one-night stands -aside- from the hope of a mutually pleasurable sexual encounter.

It is not an insanely cruel world hon. Really. It's a sorta mixed bag world. Good and bad in varied proportions. You just have blinded yourself to all the wonderful aspects of life. You've lost sight of beauty, of love, of compassion. It seems to me you see the world as heartless because you yourself have become heartless. In all this conversation I have yet to see you make any mention of any compassion or caring for anyone but yourself. Aside from a vague care about 'the good of the world', which too often translates into 'a world that is nicer for Enamdar' to my eyes.

As for men awarding cruelty, it may have to do with sexual selection. But not entirely. Studies of tribal humans show that human groups tend to form male alpha hierarchy structures as a temporary measure to deal with dangerous or difficult circumstances. It makes sense in such a society for the most competitively effective male to be in charge. The benefits of such a position include sexual aspects, but also involve access to resources and social prominence. In most human societies, this circumstance is quite temporary. Some time in our history one human society, the Proto-Indo-European culture, flipped into this state and never flipped back.

Recently though, there is a strong trend toward a more sustainable and balanced social order. Feminism's rise is a huge indication of this. As are the civil rights movement, the rise of communist ideals, Social justice, the birth of the middle class and many other aspects of the 20th century.

We're at a lull right now. Forward progress in this has halted and there is a bit of a backlash. We made so much progress so fast that we seem now to be taking a rest, and reorganizing things. Letting the changes of the last 100 years settle in before taking things any further. There's tension, as both sides of this equation, the hyper-liberal freedom, cooperation and equality side of things vying against the conservative, tradition, stability and competition side. One side being very feminist/women friendly the other side being more controlled by what you call the 'dominant ideology'.

In the 80's the conservative side won a lot of ground in the media and politics. And has leveraged that to gain ground in the youth culture. Your generation does seem notably more conservative than mine was. But I do see positive things in store. Strangely enough, the recent economic and environmental disasters are a bit of a boon, as horrific as they are. I'd personally wish it wouldn't take calamity to mobilize the people, but it does seem to work. The short-sighted hyper-competitive idiocy of the alpha male dominance system has again proved itself untenable. Between the economic crash and the gulf disaster, people are starting to think about social consciousness again.

I have hopes for a resurgence of a 60s style social consciousness. You could be a part of it, a vanguard even. You have such a passionate nature, if you could turn that toward hope instead of despair, if you could take that stubborn resolve and fuel it with love instead of hate, you could be a powerful force in for the world. Not the one, not the savior of humanity, not the man everyone looks up to. Just one of the ones who leads by example. Who's willing to work, and work hard, for the benefit of humanity and the world.

But it would take you getting over your self-pity and self-righteousness. Take getting over your fear of being used, your fear of vulnerability. It would require you to be forgiving and show compassion for those who haven't got it together yet, even for those who never will. Take an open acceptance of the fact that -none- of us have it fully and completely together, nor ever will. Take a willingness to fight against the stream, to take the harder road, even though it may win you little prestige or social power. It would take the courage to act selflessly.

 

Yeah, this too.

 

I don't think you understand the stage of my life I am at right now. In the immediate aftermath of the Fiasco, when I saw that I did not have the talent to meet my Grand Ambition, I was where you think I am now. I was entirely lost. And it was true that up to that point I had used the Good Cause as a fig-leaf for naked ambition. But after that I actually began to look at Right in and of itself. I began to study history and theory outside of military conflict. And it lead to my interest in philosophy. Initially scientific-materialist optimistic philosophy not mired by the mystical pessimism that now haunts me. And I was very confrontational with my views. I joined a few college clubs but was very dogmatic and saw everyone else as spine-less. IF you weren't entirely with me your entirely against me. So even at Frat U I knew some folks like you who wanted to save the world their own way. And since they didn't perfectly match my anger I grouped them with the Enemy, to be perhaps used for my cynical Machiavellian games. There was this one group that was entirely discussion-consensus based and I just burst in chiding them for inaction and do-nothingness and demanded they implement a hierarchical structure. I guess its ironic when I finally found an entirely democratic egalitarian based group I demanded that strict hierarchy be implemented. I was full of hate and rage still. But slowly I calmed down. After I transfered schools, I was mellow enough to cooperate with any vaguely "good" group. But I fell under the leadership of this really badass macho hero. Some saw him as a gangsta thug. I worshiped him. He was very confrontational and the weak do-gooders feared him. He was like f- this and f- that, cursing them all out. We rose fairly high at first. But we were never able to recruit any new people. I completely and totally accepted his authority over me, but was happy to be his loyal dog-servant because he was one of the Good Guys. But neither his aggressive confrontational approach nor my more philosophical ramblings were able to strike a chord with GenY.

Thats a digression. But the point is I already went through the phase your urging me to go into. I WAS at one point lost and forced to find new good values. But it got no where. But I already took your advice years ago.

You mention the economic collapse. It was the continued cynicism and indifference of GenY and the American population and to a lesser extent world population that really started my spiral downward.

My whole problem with life and this society history is lip-service. In the past societies were evil but they paid lip-service to good ideas they never bothered to implement. We're too cynical to bother. Thats all I need. I don't care what you actually do if you at least say the right words and do the opposite I am content. I guess I'm like the Catholic Church on that point.
Although it is true that it was only fairly shortly before my Collapse that I truly began to embrace a more humanistic approach and actually feel sympathy and compassion as opposed to simply being enraged about injustices and slights against my own honor.

 

a super-simple behavior chart:

 

Well, at least you tried. Tried and failed, but at least tried. I'd call it likely you failed because you backed the wrong horse. Those motivated by hope usually have little love or patience for macho, confrontational, aggressive guys. What you saw as fear may have simply been distaste tinged with a certain animal nervousness. Meanwhile those motivated by fear, who such guys can easily sway, have little passion or drive for 'doing good'. It is far better to inspire and empower those whose hearts have hope than to badger and belittle them.

But regardless of why you failed, you did. And you gave up. Haven't you heard, one of those classic virtues you hold so dear is diligence. Perseverance. If at first you don't succeed and all that?

 

Try, try again is good advice for learning how to ride a bike. But if the spirit of a generation is cynical and settled with life as it is, there is no point banging your head against a brick wall. Generation Y are the young people. So its pretty clear I'm stuck with the world as it is. The question is well I live in it or not? And I just can't bring myself to accept my role in it.

It is too simple to blame my failure on machismo hero. He was intimidating to some but in other ways he demonstrated the heroic leadership style that I always dreamed of having, but if I'm honest- never possessed. Plus he was the only one at my new school who closely shared my rage and views. I was actually the moderate, calming him down and seeking compromise.

At my old school- I was basically him- though less effective. But even at Frat U there was a small minority of people- basically like you. I was fairly hostile towards them, and only cooperated to use them.

 

Bah. Coward. You tried one thing, once. And in failure you turn from the world in despair. That try, try again is not just for riding a bike. It's for anything worth accomplishing.

You have yourself convinced that you failed because -they- aren't good enough. That it's all -their- fault. You aren't to blame, it's just that all the rest of humanity is corrupt and evil. You don't have the courage of your convictions and you blame it on the world.

 

Well one of the stages I went through at Frat U was Stoicism. I will be perfectly virtuous though the world around me is debauched. Like the last Republicans of decaying Rome. A model of virtue for the world, a city upon the hill. But it just doesn't work. I am not an individual.

I finally learned that pure will-elan is worthless. I need concrete fact-based logical arguments about the nature of the historical process. And in my despair all I see if frozen larger structures that we like ants have to accept and live under.

My original point still stands. I'm passed the point in my life you thought I was. I already tried out your advice. Do you have any feedback on the way in which I carried it out through college?