A Need for Control
Alot of the need for social control we see coming from women and feminism today is part of an ancestral, evolved desire on the part of women to seek security in a chaotic world. Ever since the advent of unilaterally female-controlled contraception, the Sexual Revolution, and the rise of the Gynocracy, an unprecedented power over the birthing process of the human race has been transferred to only one of the two sexes necessary to perpetuate our species.
“Abortion is Eugenics” (or dysgenics) is a saying I’ve been seeing on Twitter recently. Since the Sexual Revolution we’ve not just ’empowered’ women, but men have systematically ceded any claim to our own paternity while at the same time presumed that women should, by default, be trusted with knowing what’s best for the human birthing process and raising new generations. But it’s not just abortion that is eugenics, it’s also Hypergamy and the dozens of other aspects of intersexual dynamics that western societies just presumes women should know best how to proceed with. We took the women of the Baby Boom generation at their collective word that they’d be more merciful rulers than men if we just gave them the option to be sexual with us. We foolishly believed women would police the worst aspects of their own sexual strategy after we willingly ceded power in exchange for sexual access.
Last month a reader sent me a link to a story about how Ireland had just ceded more of its own authority over their country’s reproductive fate to women by legalizing abortion. The very Catholic island of Celts has made Hypergamy its ruling motive after many years of feminist pressure. Irish women celebrated the decision to allow them to kill their unwanted children. In fact many Catholic countries all over South America are in various stages of legalizing abortion. But the sentiment about abortion in this decade is no longer one of it being a necessary evil as it was in the time of Roe vs. Wade. Today it’s cause for overt celebration among women and men alike.
Before I get run up the flagpole by critics here, my opposition to abortion does not (primarily) stem from moral reasons, it stems from objectively following the power dynamics involved and the latent purpose for abortion. Abortion is eugenics; it is the ceding of any claim to influencing paternity that men may have had for the past 100,000 years of human evolution.
So, why will women fight tooth and nail for the ‘right’ to free and safe abortion over the course of multiple generations? Why is the right to end her (and the father’s) child’s life in utero such an imperative for women?
Ask women and the feminist boilerplate answer is always “My body, my choice!“, but why is it so important to cut men entirely out of the reproductive process? What is the motivation for legally disenfranchising men from even 1% of a say in a child that is at least half his genetic legacy? This is also one of the greatest of offenses to women; that a man might have some control over women’s bodies. “Hands off my uterus!” that too is another rallying cry, but why is it such an abhorrent thought that men might have some influence in who gets born and who doesn’t?
Existential Fears & The Hypergamous Filter
There are certain fears that human beings are born with. Our evolved mental firmware is highly attuned to our own survival. That may seem simple, but we’re born with certain instinctual reservations about our environments. Snakes, spider, animals with sharp pointy natural weapons are critters we don’t have to be taught to stay away from. That fear, that caution, is part of our onboard system when we leave the womb. The same is generally true of heights and tight confined places. We also have a very defined natural instinct for revulsion. There’s actually an entire area of evo-psych study devoted to the human revulsion response. Part of our innate firmware makes us disgusted by feces, dead carcasses and putrefaction. If it’s unsanitary and might make us sick or diseased ourselves we’re repelled by it – unless we’re conditioned not to be.
The above are some pretty basic existential fears most people have. We have evolved inbuilt firmware that does its best to keep us alive, but there are other, more complex fears and accompanying revulsions that look out for our wellbeing too. The one I want to focus on here is what the Red Pill refers to as the Hypergamous Filter. That’s kind of a loose way of saying women have innate revulsions and distrusts of men who would otherwise like nothing better than the experience of having sex with them.
From our ancestral past right up until the Sexual Revolution in the mid-1960s a woman having sex was fraught with dangerous consequences. For about 100,000 years evolution wrote a breeding subroutine into the hindbrains of every human female – always doubt a man’s quality.
The Hypergamous Filter has many ways of determining quality. Last week I mentioned that women universally use a man’s height as a physical qualification for arousal/attraction. That’s one obvious criteria; check the height box, move on. I have mentioned in other essays that Hypergamy is always based on doubt – doubt that a man is the best she can do – but also the doubt as to whether that guy will stick around and stay committed to parental investment.
This Hypergamous doubt is an existential fear for women.
These questions, these doubts, do not stem from a woman’s Rational Interpretive Process, they are deeply rooted in her Instinctual Process.
These questions are asked beneath a woman’s cognition, and as such they comprise part of an unconscious Hypergamous filtering process that is linked to both the revulsion instinct and genuine sexual desire. This is a risk aversion instinct that has very real, life-threatening, implications to it. This is a self-preservation skepticism on the limbic level and it is the primary existential fear a woman has. And women will do anything to alleviate it. Women will do anything to ensure they have failsafes against the life-threatening consequences of having that Hypergamous filter deceived.
Why is there a ceaseless effort to criminalize PUAs approaching women on the street? Because it implies a deception of a Beta male impersonating an Alpha male for the purposes of sex. This is a crime against the Existential Fear.
The Existential Fear in women is that their innate Hypergamous Filter, their Feminine Intuition, might be fooled, and by being fooled she may either die or have her reproductive potential compromised for her lifetime by bearing and raising the child of man who is a suboptimal Hypergamous choice for her – a man who exerted his will over her Hypergamous choosing filters.
In our ancestral past, pregnancy, and/or parental investment, could be a death sentence if a woman’s Hypergamous Filter wasn’t supremely sensitive and obsessively refined. The Hypergamous Filter also evolved as a contingency against men’s biological imperative – unlimited access to unlimited sexuality.
That’s not to say pair bonding wasn’t a feature of our ancestral past, it was also a foundational aspect of mating, but it is to say that a man’s investment cost was much lower than a woman’s when it came to reproduction. That’s simple biology defining a sexual strategy for men. Pair bonding would usually last as long as it took for that child to reach survival autonomy (4-7 years). And that’s not accounting for men’s proclivity to seek extra-pair mating opportunities while pair bonded. I’ll explore this in the next essay.
Fast Times in the 21st Century
Now lets fast forward the Existential Fear and the Hypergamous Filter up to the last 60 years or so. One of the most socially destabilizing inventions of the 20th century was affording women the option to invest herself, or not, in the choices she made about her own sexuality. Unilaterally female-controlled birth control was effectively the greatest Hypergamous failsafe ever invented. It released women from the responsibility of a bad Hypergamous decision. But what it didn’t do is erase that filtering process from women’s psyches. We take it for granted, but HBC (hormonal birth control) unfettered Hypergamy for the first time in human history. And as a result men ceded more and more of their paternal interests in the human reproductive process over to women in exchange for the promise of pregnancy-free sexual access. Ostensibly, unlimited access to unlimited sexuality. Needless to say this also exacerbated women’s sexual strategy to tactically filter out unwanted males and emphasize sex with chosen males.
But the greatest sexual bargain of the 20th-21st century catastrophically backfired on men because, for all the boons of HBC, it couldn’t rewrite 100,000 years of evolved Hypergamy. And, if anything, it exacerbated women’s desire for failsafe’s against the Existential Fear of having her Hypergamous Filter fooled by deceptive men.
The social and political power men ceded to women in the wake of the Sexual Revolution has been used for one unitary purpose by women – to ensure against the Existential Fear. Why is abortion now something to be celebrated rather than mournfully accepted as necessary evil of this century? Because it alleviates the Existential Fear of bearing and raising the product of a bad Hypergamous choice.
Why did no fault divorce morph into the misandrous divorce industry we have today? It alleviates the Existential Fear. A one-sided divorce industry ensures security, support and resources that would’ve otherwise been her undoing in times before the pill. Why are the stigmas of single motherhood that existed just 60 years ago now replaced with rewarding women for their choice to become single mothers? It alleviates the Existential Fear.
When women were afforded unprecedented power and influence their first order of business was directed at changing laws to alleviate the Existential Fear. Virtually every social change, every political change, every egoistic “you go gurl” self-entitlement since the Sexual Revolution that women have initiated has had one latent purpose – alleviating the Existential Fear.
And finally, why is it that Red Pill awareness, practicing Game, a united Manosphere, and yes, even MGTOW, are perceived as an existential threat to the Feminine Imperative?
Because it all threatens to upset the security that women believe they’re entitled to in creating failsafes for women’s Existential Fear. Exposing the machinations of the Blue Pill and teaching men to unplug from a system that makes them a utility in a female-correct social order is an intolerable threat to women’s security from the Existential Fear, but it is also a new challenge the power base that security is built upon.
Empirical evidence suggests that dating influences attitudes because people, although often unconsciously, adopt the socio-political attitudes that best reflect their dating and reproductive interests. That is, people who are sexually conservative and are threatened by casual sex hold attitudes that best defend monogamy and traditional values, whereas people who are sexually liberal hold attitudes that allow free sexual expression. Studies have found that sexually conservative people are, for example, significantly more religious, against gay marriage, and in support of authorities than sexually liberal people.
A person’s popularity in the dating market depends, however, on many ever-changing circumstances. A successful gamer is popular at a gaming convention, but perhaps not at a body-building convention. A person who earns a six-figure salary is popular if they are in an area where most people earn five-figure salaries, but not if they are in an area full of millionaires. It is then possible that a person shifts their socio-political attitudes to promote values that best serve their interests in different circumstances.
https://twitter.com/psychoschmitt/status/1249908383580389377
https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1364496601197273088
Slut Tells from Science, Demographics, and Statistics
- Recreational drug use
- Fresh out of high school, not married, and not in college.
- Low socioeconomic class
- Having the experience of being imprisoned or incarcerated in a detention center
- Black (sorry to say this)
In Our Political Nature: The Evolutionary Origins of What Divides Us,1 author Avi Tuschman interprets political attitudes in terms of human evolutionary strategies. Conservatives have personalities that align with one set of strategies, and liberals have personalities that align with another. It is an intriguing analysis, but one to which I have a number of objections.
Tuschman writes,
Human political orientation across space and time has an underlying logic defined by three clusters of measurable personality traits. These three clusters consist of varying attitudes toward tribalism, inequality, and different perceptions of human nature.
He elaborates,
Tribalism breaks down into ethnocentrism… religiosity… and different levels of tolerance toward nonreproductive sexuality?
There are two opposing moral worldviews toward inequality; one is based on the principle of egalitarianism, and the other is based on hierarchy?
Some people see human nature as more cooperative, while others see it as more competitive.
Tuschman notes that liberals and conservatives differ in terms of the Big Five personality theory, which measures people on scales related to Openness, Conscientiousness, Agreeability, Extroversion, and Neuroticism. Relative to conservatives, liberals score higher on Openness and lower on Conscientiousness.
Within the tribalism cluster, Tuschman says that conservatives tend to be more ethnocentric, more religious, and less tolerant of nonreproductive sexuality. He says that these attitudes serve to reinforce an endogamous reproductive strategy. Cultures in which close relatives marry tend to have more children but lower survival rates because of the narrower gene pool. Liberals tend to hold the opposite attitudes, which reinforce an exogamous reproductive strategy. Cultures that do not discourage marriage outside of the tribe tend to have fewer children but a more robust gene pool. In short, “conservatives insist on endogamy, liberals are comfortable with exogamy.”
Tuschman believes that religiosity can be interpreted in these evolutionary terms.
… the key issues at stake, where politics intersects with religion, revolve around the relatedness of “the tribe”—that is, how successfully an ethnic group is reproducing, how much it mixes with other groups, and which resources accrue to which gene pools.
In particular, he says that greater religiosity is associated with more tribalism.
The more conservative and religious a Christian becomes, however, the force of tribalism often grows as well, just as it would within any other human being.
It’s common for Americans to imagine that lawmakers must oppose contraception if they’re Catholic or Evangelicals, for example, because they supposedly believe that birth control is a sin. But over 98% of American women use birth control at some point in their lives—including Catholics and Evangelicals. People make choices—and so can politicians.
Most Americans of every faith pick and choose which parts of their religion they follow at various times in life (the First Amendment guarantees the right of such convenient selectivity). So there are reasons besides “sin” that so many religiously-oriented people oppose birth control—particularly for other people, here are some of those reasons:
Contraception makes it clear that people have sex for pleasure and intimacy
When people consciously use effective forms of birth control, they are acknowledging the sex that they have as being for pleasure and/or intimacy, and nothing else. This honors our bodies and the sexual energy within them. It honors our adulthood, as we get the rewards of being honest with ourselves and our partner and the rewards of careful planning.
Self-honesty and planning are considered important tools in every other part of life. There’s no reason to exclude sexuality from this—except that fundamentalist religion fears this aspect of sex.
Contraception effectively limits family size, empowering women
Contraception is the single most powerful intervention to increase female employment, female education, female life expectancy, and female equality in both civic and family life. With more money and more experience in the world, women’s expectations and performance in the world both rise.
For the most part, organized fundamentalist religion fears this. As we know, most fundamentalists religion divides the world by gender roles, typically assigning women tasks at home rather than responsibilities (and power) out in the world.
...
Contraception may make abortion more acceptable
Although neither the Old Testament nor New Testament condemns abortion, and both Jewish and Christian thought tolerated early-stage abortion until at least the Renaissance, religious fundamentalists tend to be obsessed with abortion—many seeing it, for example, as worse than child molestation.
There actually is a slippery slope—once people see the advantages of controlling their fertility, it is easier to see abortion as just one more choice regarding healthcare, ethics, and family/marital well-being.
To those who support a couple’s right to a full range of reproductive health choices, this is totally acceptable. To those who oppose adults’ right to choose abortion when it can enhance the life (or prevent crises in) of various already-living people (such as existing kids, the couple, either would-be parent), contraception can look like a gateway drug.
The Important Lesson that “Barbie” Teaches Us About War | Psychology Today
Both men and women hold negative attitudes toward female sexuality
One of the quotes that struck me the most from Barbie was delivered by Sasha, a tween who, with her mother, Gloria, helps the Barbies take back control of Barbieland. In a moment of frustration, she tells Barbie that in the real world: “Women hate women. And men hate women. It’s the only thing we all agree on.”
Her mother Gloria responds by saying that things are more complicated than that, but later in the movie Gloria gives a powerful monologue, where, among other things, she admits that both men and women are threatened by female sexuality: “You're supposed to stay pretty for men, but not so pretty that you tempt them too much or that you threaten other women because you're supposed to be a part of the sisterhood.”
Does empirical evidence provide support for Gloria’s observation that women and men both hold negative attitudes toward overt expressions of female sexuality? It seems so. A series of experiments published in Psychological Science found that both men and women stereotype women, but not men, who have casual sex as lacking self-esteem. Notably, the stereotype was unfounded because the sexual behavior of women who participated in these experiments was not related to their self-esteem.
Research has also shown that both men and women are prejudiced toward women who choose to wear somewhat revealing clothing or who are perceived to be open to casual sex. Both women and men are also more likely to behave aggressively toward a woman who is wearing revealing clothing compared to the same woman wearing more conservative clothing. Clearly, people show antipathy toward women who openly express their sexuality.
