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

There's another set of words for your ideal Victorian man. Deceitful, pampered, privileged, two-faced, manipulative. All fit quite well. Oh, and coward. Ah, the prestige of the illusion of... what the hell ever kid. You take playing up to high school drama as if it was a noble calling. All you were doing was playing an underhanded and deceitful game.

It is not dishonorable to say what you want. It's -honesty-. A rather noble and courageous act, obviously outside of what you have the courage for. It may not always be as effective in the short term as being a lying manipulative bastard, but it earns respect in the long run, both from others and yourself, and it tends to create a more open and understanding world.

Now stating what you want and then going out and -taking- it,, or even just demanding it, that's a different story. The courage comes from stating what you want with no demands. From the vulnerability of honesty. From asking. From letting people know, sometimes openly and sometimes subtly, what you desire. Letting them know the option is at least possibly open.

Like, say, the courage that you scorn in those girls who showed you affection. Maybe they didn't all want and desire you. Maybe they were just having fun, flirting and playing the game. Flirting can be fun, it's like a dance. But it's also an act of vulnerability. A showing of weakness, of opening yourself up, just a touch. And that takes courage. Because the dance can hurt. Rejection sucks, having someone push to hard sucks. You have to open a little, and then push a little, and keep an eye on what the other person is doing, actually care about their feelings in the matter. It's a dance. It's intimate. It's hard sometimes, but so very worth it.

But you wouldn't know. Such petty vulgar things are beneath you. So instead your cowardice leads you to lock yourself away from it all. To fester and rot in a pool of self-loathing. Because you don't have the courage to try. You don't have the courage to leave the tiniest opening, to trust for moments. Because someone might hurt you.

All your lofty ideals are merely excuses for your cowardice. Take a chance. What is the worst that will happen? You will be hurt? How is that worse then the misery that is now your life? How can you possibly condemn something you've never known? Because of the writings of other bitter men? What makes them right?

If you want to read about noble action, the challenges of being, about meaning and meaninglessness, hunt out some Herman Hesse. I recommend 'Narcissus and Goldman'.

 

Well my ideal in JRHS and HS was this: I would have a lot of prestige from being a well known character, funny, strong, and on sports teams. So that the girls would have to come to me, and I would be in a position to be above temptation. Its no use being free of sexuality, unless it is clear to everyone you could have what they desire, but are so elite that you willingly turn it down.

The ideal man needs to possess a certain cold detachment.

As I said I was rather shy and introverted in elementary school. So it was quite a revolution when in my new town, my new qild, crazy, psycho character was able to have every girl in the grade calling me cute, and literally chasing me. But I never could be sure if they really liked me or were just playing around. I would have looked like a fool if I had taken it seriously and it had been a joke. I was suspicious it was a trap. Then a tad of a decline set in, but I re-emerged later in high school by playing sports and being one of the strongest guys in the grade. Showing emotional attachment to a girl would have been out of character, for the character I was trying to create. My ego was certainly stroked by having female attention, but knowing that unlike my male peers I was above all temptation.

I wasn't against having a relationship forever. But I vaguely figured that once all the great tasks had been done, I would get a fair maiden as a prize to retire from public life with. At time I did have the naive view that girls were a trophy I would receive if I could just benchpress X lbs.

Was I a coward? It is true I never wanted to be put into a position where a girl has the power to reject me. What could I do, I could never be sure whether their affection was just teasing. But I think I've made clear that it was part of a larger picture. I guess at times I took a rather cavalier attitude towards women, but by in large I think it was benign. But I did also feel that in any sexual relation either the male is taking advantage or the female is a seductress.

I'm not the same man today that I was in JRHS and HS. At that time I had unbounded optimism and I practically worshiped my own destiny as a religion.

I suppose the disapearence of all this contributed to my misery in college.

IDK, what do you make of all this?

 

Well you do at this point, have a vested interest.

 

Nah, I'm not that invested. I know that I can't actually 'save' this kid from his deluded personal hell. Only he can do that. I can only provide a different perspective, and hope it helps some. And in the process, it reminds me of my own ideals, and therefor brightens my life. Plus, it seems to have been positive for at least a few other folks here. Which is nice.

 

Yep, basically an ego-trip. Look how awesome and above all of you pathetic peons I am. Muahaha. Girls are just your tools, your little playthings, existing solely for the purpose of boosting your ego and making you look good to your friends. Big man.

Ah, so the ideal you strive for is sociopathy, then?

So you were scared they mind have been just fooling with you. To scared to take a step out of your comfort zone. And later too scared to act 'out of character'. Oh, what would people think? You and your ego. I think you missed the point of asceticism somewhere.

Again with the women as objects. As obstacles to be overcome and prizes to be won. And you wonder why you've been labeled misogynistic. Newsflash bub, women are -people-.

Yes, you were a coward. You admit it in these words. 'I never wanted to be in a position'... where any girl could ever have the power to hurt you. Basically, women scare the crap out of you unless they are submissive little trophy wives. And well, I can see why. Rejection hurts, it's scary. Easier to just 'rise above' all that. Easier still to simply hide away from it all.

And why do you feel that in all situations, someone is using someone? You have desire, she has desire. You both have the capacity for pleasure. And the pleasure you can both feel together is greater then you can feel apart. Have you ever stopped, for a moment, to consider the possibility of ever doing anything in the interests of anyone but yourself?

What I make of it is that you were a highly privileged, pampered kid. You had social prestige basically handed to you on a plate. Every action you took was in direct service of your own gratification, aimed at elevating your social standing. And you were good at it. You got the wild rush of ego-gratification of being a really big fish in a small pond.

Then you got to college and all that peer affirmation dropped out from under you. Suddenly, you weren't Big Man on campus anymore. All your little games that had everyone in awe of you looked pretty foolish and pathetic to the kids you met at college.

The crash you dealt with was from the supply of your favorite drug getting cut off, plain and simple. Social standing and ego-affirmation was your vulgar, base, drug of choice. Still is. You're a junkie for it. You've spent a year getting clean, but you still can't see what it is that had you hooked from the get go. More, you've been hermiting and filling your head with a new poison. A new kind of ego-drug, this one easier and cheaper to get a hold of. It's not as clean a high, in fact it's a miserable experience, but it still scratches that itch.

It's a dirty mix of arrogance, self-righteousness, cynicism, and self-pity.

You want to get clean? You want to find yourself in a place where you can look in the mirror without loathing what you see? Try doing something for someone else for a change. Go volunteer at a soup kitchen. Hep someone out with some task or chore. Give gifts to people. Try to make someone smile. Get involved in your community. Fuck, get off the couch. Go out and do -something-, anything.

Yo want to try something really challenging? Show some vulnerability. Put yourself in a position where people can hurt you. Be honest with people. Maybe try, in each interaction, to make it as positive and powerful and uplifting and helpful as you can afford to. There are limits of course, but you don't know them because you haven't ever tried. Approach dating and sexuality from a position of servitude, from a position of giving. Really try your damndest to have each interaction be a gift, freely given, with no expectation of anything in return.

You will not succeed every time. Fear is a powerful thing, fighting it is hard. Fighting it is the most noble thing in this world, because it's so damn hard. It might be the -only- noble thing one can do in this world, because fear is at the root of every vice. You will fail, and fail, and fail again. If you have courage, you will pick yourself up, brush yourself off and try again. People will abuse your trust, just like you have abused theirs. It happens. But if a gift is freely given, is it abuse if it isn't received well, or if there is no reciprocation? If an offer is given, is it abuse if the offer is rejected?

But despite the fact that you will have your trust abused, it will also be rewarded. By -real- connections. Real esteem. People who actually care instead of just pretending to because it's useful. The cold detachment you speak of is the enemy of love.

 

So you just like to talk.

 

Well, -that- should be fairly obvious by now.

But, I also like finding that my words and actions have been helpful, positive, useful or pleasurable for people. So I try to tailor my actions in manners that will bring this about. I don't always succeed, but trying is enough for me. Usually.

 

I don't see how abstaining from pleasure, in order to serve higher causes makes one selfish. It is true that I behaved in an egotistical manner in JRHS and HS at times, seeing everyone else as rivals and put self-interest above all. But this was only because I saw so much importance in my great task, and saw the need for me to be in the right place to do good. Perhaps I cracked too many eggs to make my omelet, and got too caught up in the ends justifying the means.

As I saw it in HS getting caught up in a relationship with a girl would be a very corrupting and distracting enterprise that would distract from higher purposes.

So none of this was done out of ego or selfishness. I am only human. As a young male I certainly enjoyed attention from the opposite sex. But my true pleasure came in being above their charms.

I see now that in some ways I may have errored but I think my general impulse was noble.

Its not like I was "big man on campus" in HS, but I am proud of some of my achievements considering how far I had come. But
I can never be sure how genuine any of it really was. As I said I was more comfortable submitting or at least tolerating the social hierarchy of HS over college.

I don't mean to dwell in the past. But my current situation can't be understood without seeing where I fell from.

What kind of guy sets as his goal, the desire of attracting popular females only to always reject their advances? I think that says something about my character. Even if I never fully reached my goal, doesn't that show you something? Thats not what someone interested in pleasure wants. That shows that I was devoted to higher causes and not to myself. But it is meaningless to be free of lust if it is not clear that it is freely chosen in spite of temptation. Most teen guys have fantasies about girls saying yes to them, my fantasy was to say no to girls.

 

You are doing good.

 

I suppose that depends on how you define a 'higher cause'. Because all the higher causes I've heard from you so far seem like self-centered ego gratification. Even 'saving the world' for you seems to be more about having been the one that saved the world. All the rest seems simply like mental masturbation.

What good did you do? What good could possibly make up for acting in such heartless fashions? What could you ever hope to accomplish that would be worth scorning compassion?

Generally? A misogynistic prick. See, if you'd have been raised a girl, you'd have known that doing that sort of thing hurts people. You'd have been warned that if you acted that way, you'd make guys angry. You'd have been warned, like most girls are, in a hundred tiny ways that doing so would get you physically hurt or violated. Because guys are taught to respond to being hurt with anger, and often with violence.

But you weren't. So you never got called a cock-tease for leading people on only to reject them. And since girls are, by and large, taught to respond to such hurt with sadness and shame, and to hide it, you probably never even got to see the hurt you caused.

Well, it is something someone interested only in pleasure wants if the pleasure he's after is the kind that comes from social standing, from feeling that he's better then everyone and having people affirm it by giving him a prominent place in the social order, with all the privilege and protection that provides, yeah, it is.

Hey, look at me, I'm free of lust. Aren't I awesome. I'm so much cooler than you. Hey look, I can prove it by leading this girl on then rejecting her. Isn't it awesome that no girl can ever hurt me like I just hurt her?

Maybe you just have a low sex drive. Really, that's nothing to be so ashamed about if so. If not, then you've taken what is one of the greatest aspects about being human and called it sin. And in the process set up in yourself a seed of hatred for all humanity, including yourself, but especially for all those who celebrate the gifts that you scorn.

The question is, what becomes of it? What was this great goal anyway? To save the world? No one man can do that, it takes cooperation. Ego-driven leadership is what's fueling the mess we're in, it's not going to fix it. Were you looking to be an ascetic saint? Why? What was the reason for it? What good did you hope to achieve? What was the impetus for all this strange behavior? If I knew what you wanted, what your ambitions were, I might gain some understanding of where things went so wrong for you.

 

Well it never got so far that I actually hurt any girl. Like I said they were just joking around. If anything they were being what you call "cockteasers" since they were deliberately leading me on just to be cute. But I didn't resent it, because it was ok.

Had it ever come to the point where I turned down a girl who really did have feeling for me. I could see how that could be hurtful. But it would be a complex situation.

I don't deny that some of my JRHS and HS attitudes could be seen as misogynistic although my heart was in the right place. I saw girls as temptress distractions from the important things in life. But I shouldn't be judged by the past, and I don't think there is any remnant of misogyny in me now.

It is true that my virtues were somewhat ascetic. But the model was more that of a Knight than a Saint. In retrospect they were perhaps severe to an extent unnecessary to serve humanity. I considered myself a great warrior-king. And your right, I was more caught up in my role in the crusade, than the utopia that my banner was for. Well that collapsed and came to nothing.

But worse than that fiasco, was the culture clash between my Neo-Victorian values and the wild hook-up frats gone wild culture of college. And I really hated it from the start.

Incidentally in Wright's book the Moral Animal the founding text of Evopsych, he argues that in many ways evopsych proves that Victorian norms and prejudices are superior to the ethics and beliefs of our own time. Actually I came across PUA and evopsych while I was still in HS and it didn't depress me at all. I figured I was already using PUA tactics by being rude, playing hard to get, and baiting. And I didn't consider evopsych a big deal. So I suppose I needed to be in a more hopeless mindset to begin with for the poison to really sink in.

Back in HS I guess I had mixed feelings about relations with girls. I mean ideally I would win a girl as a prize, once I reached the appropriate bench press weight. But then be so above it all, that I gracefully turned down my earned trophy. But perhaps part of me wanted to show a bit of faliability if it ever did come to that.

 

Unless they were actually flirting with you because they were actually interested. It really doesn't seem like you know much of anything about girls, so it's likely we'll never know.

Thing is, this is what you fantasized about. Hurting people. This was your high ideal.

Again, warrior-kings are what got us into this. And can you possibly envision a -more- egocentric ideal for yourself? It's hard to imagine one.

Well yeah, because they're both -ideologies- that espouse some similar ideas. Ya know, sex is for procreation and any sex that doesn't lead to such is a failure. Men are 'naturally' superior and dominant, women are objects to be won and defended...from other men. Life is a competition and winning is basically all that matters. Winning social standing that is. Because that's what most all of nobility and honor and such tend to boil down to. Social standing.

Now Victorian ideals had some other elements that evo-psych is agnostic about. Sexual restraint being one of them. Not immediately obvious how that one works, aside from one key thing: Evo-psych isn't a set catechism. It's a methodology and a way of looking at the world. It's methodology is to take whatever you decide to about humanity and dig up 'evidence' that this is the right and natural way for humans to be. So really, it can be used to prove just about anything about humans you want it to. It's the new thing on which to blame the edicts of the ruling class, since blaming it on God has gone out of fashion.

Again with the girls as objects, trophies to be won.

I still want to know what you hoped to accomplish aside from self-aggrandizement.

 

Well evo-psych generally upholds the Victorian view that sexual intercourse represents a defeat for women and a victory for the man, due to the relative scarcity of eggs to sperm, and female investment in offspring. Thus evo-psychs are strong defenders of the double standard. While Victorians were not as blatant about it, they too had a double standard about male promiscuity. While evo-psych if anything encourages male promiscuity, EO Wilson's R/K selection theory, suggests that those dads who invest in their offspring as opposed to cads who run off, would be more likely to raise more successful children. It is the difference between a sniper shot and machine gun fire. As far as sexual selection goes, a man who demonstrates that he is equal in everyway to the alpha in masculine virtues, but not promiscuous, would be a good catch for a female, since it would mean a full investment, which is a rare trait in males. Complete asexuality doesn't make sense, but demonstration of asceticism does. As most maladaptive evopsych traits, are adaptive traits taken to its extreme.

As for my youthful goal, I believed that once I had enough power, I could use it to do good in the world.

 

Higher causes?

It shows you where very vein and conceited, not to mention deluded.

And the fact that you still try to call that a higher cause shows that you still are.

 

wow 16 pages of this.....

 

Yep. And both are pretty much full of it. For different but similar reasons. Thing is, the double standard is a purely social convention. Otherwise promiscuous women simply wouldn't exist. Otherwise there wouldn't be so much of a need to protect virginal girls from -themselves- when it comes to sex. Because there is a -huge- societal investment in that.

See, women like sex. Women desire sex. Women get horny. If women get good sex, it's no defeat, it's a 'victory'. Most tribal humans raise children as group, so the whole getting a guy to provide for you isn't exactly an issue. In fact, the only reason it is an issue is due to our bizarre, very recent, non-communal social structure. And due to male monopoly of the means of survival.

But now we have this nifty new toy. Something that changes all the rules. It's called birth control. And the result of that? Well, women are a lot less uptight about sex then they were when any sex act might mean either marriage or disgrace and poverty, quite possibly prostitution for survival, the one 'job such a woman was considered fit for. Like it did under your beloved Victorian standards.

Well, then, that's very specific. The desire to do good in the world. And how much power would have been enough? That at least explains why you were so distressed to discover that girls were no longer interested in your charms in college. I mean, if it was just about proving your noble state of being 'above' such petty vulgar things as lust, well, you'd already done that. Already proven it, to yourself. If it was about actually noble spirit, having girls no longer tempt you would have been a boon.

But no, you were after the social recognition of nobility. You only acted virtuous because it was getting you something, social regard. When that went away, you were lost. No power, no constant affirmation of what a great guy you were.

Doing good was never enough for you. You wanted to be -The One- who saved the world. You wanted enough power to be able to single-handedly remake society, in your image of course. And of course, to receive all the accolades that would entail. And your trophy wive, the mother of your children, personal maid and sex-toy. How noble.

Yet, no amount of power would have been enough. Because there are lot's of other people competing for that same power. And somewhere along the line, odds are very good you'd lose yourself in the acquisition of power and social status. The mind is very good at fooling itself, so for much of it, you'd still believe you were on a noble quest, all while making noble excuses for more and more vile acts. You were already on that road. Very likely, many of the worst offenders in this world started out that way. A bit of self-righteous zeal is really helpful in the old power game. Gives you deniability, makes it easier to charm people, and fuels your ambitions with a fire few others can match. Point at any really powerful, successful and intensely greedy ceo or politician, and odds are at least 1 in 4, I'd say, that they started out just like you. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Losing your social standing is quite possibly the best thing that ever happened to you. That temptation has been denied you, and you've seen it for the poison it really is.

The question is, now what? You can still do good in the world. Even though you aren't a man of power. You can still help people. It'll require you to learn a thing or 2 about a few real noble virtues. Like humility. And courage. Honesty. Charity. Diligence.

Or, you could sit in your parents basement. Until they kick you out. And then you could do...what exactly? Probably find yourself striving for mere survival until you have some space to breath, then fall back into your comfortable depression. And be a miserable, angry, bitter, resentful wage slave the rest of your days. Sounds like fun.

So you won't have the social power needed to rework the whole world. Your not the next messiah. Big deal. You can still do good. Having social power isn't the only way, or even often the best way, to make the world a better place. The world is made better every time someone acts selflessly. The greatest heroes in history are all unsung, unknown. Do you have the moral fortitude to be one of them?

 

Well there is some truth to what you said. A good cause is crystal meth to ambition. One pursues self-interest with far more zeal and fire, when one believes it has nothing to do with self. And its also true, that I only started thinking about the good society in detail and not as a vague banner to fight under, after I had already suffered my world-historic defeat.

I think I made it very clear that the only way to demonstrate virtue was for it to be clear to the public that I could be sexually successful but honorably chose not to. So my isolation in college could never be a boon.

I suppose I grew lazy in HS in my senior year still living off the reputation I had earned way back at the start of JRHS. I grew complacent and elitist and ceased to reach out to the regular folks. Senior year was a comfortable time, when after many trials, I at last retired into the respectability of an elder stateman. I ceased to be an iconoclast. Perhaps too much of this conservative stasis carried over in my character in college, when it was crucial I reinvent myself. Well my warrior career had already been smashed when I started college. So I started college with a mood of catastrophic defeat. And I guess I was somewhat hostile to begin with. I mean no one in college was really bad to me.

It was only completely powerless and having lost all influence and ability to change the world, that I began to explore humanistic ideas in depth.

My life reminds me of the Anabaptists who tried to take Germany by sword and set up a Messianic Kingdom. Only after they had been decisively defeated in battle, did they suddenly discover the virtues of pacifism and non-violence. Lamenting the folly of war.

 

Dude, being sexually successful is NOT hard.... All you have to do is have sex... pretty simple, really. In fact, it's beyond simple, it's instinctive, you don't even need to know a language to have sex.

In high school, we snickered at people like you, for thinking anyone of importance gave two fucks what you did or did not put your penis inside of.

 

Well I've been clear from the first post this isn't about my personal sexual success or failure. IF the nature of the world were different, I would be happy to remain a lifelong virgin. I guess I lack that strong biological drive. Or maybe years of suppression have beaten it into submission.

My problem is that in this society what it takes to be sexually successful is that the male has to demonstrate cruelty, brutality, sadism, in order to dominate the female into submission. I am not jealous that I can't do that. I'm distressed of the world and society that comes out of that. Look if the sexual formula was the exact opposite, if it were based on demonstrating kindness, and I played my hand in the sexual free market, and wasn't kind, compassionate, and altruistic enough to get sex, that would be wonderful. As it is I have never put myself in a position where a girl would even have the chance to reject me.

As for HS, I don't know if I was successful or not in reaching my goal. But if I did reach it then it would be clear that I COULD have had sex, but chose not to out of nobility. Well of course high school guys would snicker at it. How could they even conceive of a male voluntarily turning down sex? I can't stop that, all I can do is make myself so prestigious, mainly physically but also in other ways, so that it was undeniably voluntarily.

 

Ya know what, it's sad but i really believe that in your warped little mind you believe that the male has to demonstrate cruelty, brutality, sadism, in order to dominate the female into submission. You must have had a very sad life.....