Quote: (02-25-2019 01:00 AM)Geomann180 Wrote:
Quote: (02-25-2019 12:39 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:
I don't go in for that.
Masculinity is dominance over the female herd members. It's ownership, benevolent hopefully, and attachment is an emotional investment in ownership. "Love" is what it took to convince a man to take on a sabre-tooth tiger rather than just outrunning the women and children.
One of the reasons that women will ghost on modern men for "no reason" is that the man has failed to make them feel owned. If you have no "attachment" then she will sense you have no true investment in her and will seek someone else "less enlightened" that her lizard brain trusts to protect her from sabre-toothed tigers.
My wife's opinions and state of mind have eventually become what I have molded them to be because she trusts in my ownership of her and that I'm "attached" to the idea of her continued survival and that of her children. For women nothing else really matters.
A man can seek enlightenment but if he tries to apply it to his relationships with women then he's destined for disappointment. They're not far removed in their lizard brains from the cave days. Keeping that in mind with all dealings with them will rarely serve you poorly.
Could you elaborate more on that please?
G
I'll try, but it strains at my desire for minimalism.
"Nice guys" often lament that women will dump them for no reason. Not just soyboys but often jacked guys with good looks and good prospects. "I treated her with dignity and respect and she dumped me for NO REASON. What is wrong with women?!"
Nothing is wrong with women, any more than men are defective because they only have two arms when they'd be better served with four. We are as nature makes us. The question inevitably becomes "why were my expectations foolish?"
When an engineer creates a device and it doesn't perform as planned does he complain that the laws of physics are unfair? No. He asks "why were my expectations foolish?" "What am I missing?" Expecting women to simply
unfuck themselves is like me expecting my dogs to start behaving properly without ever having to discipline them. Ridiculous.
Women like all creatures of lesser intelligence are dominated more highly by their lizard brain and their body chemistry. That's why you can get a bang twice as easy when she's at peak fertility than a week later. More importantly for the long term it's why she'll pick a strong man on the basis that he looks strong but she will still sour to him if he later turns out to be a non-dominant "nice guy". That same girl will be slavishly loyal to a skinnier man who takes ownership of her and treats her as a possession. We recognize this in
game, that muscles are not a panacea for maintaining female desire or even escalating to the point of getting the bang. Unfortunately men do not extrapolate this into a long term scenario. Most men here will never stop to think that the behavior which makes women wet must be maintained in the long run in order to keep her submissive. The moment they decide that their relationship with this woman is "long term" they suddenly think they can flip a switch to Brady Bunch mode and if she sours to them over time then it's not their fault for going soy, it's the woman's fault for "being uncivilized".
"My invention isn't working. The laws of physics are unfair!"
Since we have allowed the social levers used to control women to atrophy we are left with the brute realities of natural selection. It sucks but it's a reality. Because of this we must either learn to navigate the jungle or suffer the consequences.
To learn to navigate the jungle you must view women as animals, or mammals, or stone age primitives if you prefer. Then you must ask honestly what their prime directives in life are.
In my opinion their prime directives are status, safety, resources and strong progeny.
Next we need to avoid the mistake of misinterpreting what these things really are. For a primitive or an animal, a mate providing safety does not mean that she believes in her heart of hearts that he would never harm her. Safety does not mean "he's a really nice guy". For a primitive or an animal, safety means "I've got a male who has the balls and the brawn to fuck up anyone that threatens me or my spawn".
This is why women will stay with their abusers and even defend them against white knights that try to rescue them. As fucked up as it seems to
civilised men, those women sense innately and subconsciously that the white knights will not have to balls to do what has to be done when a legitimate enemy tribe attempts to storm the village. The white knights will moan and screech about this but it's simple human/animal nature. They care more about their delusions than they care about the woman being abused, so they
don't confront their delusions. They foster them and complain about the woman "being an idiot", just like a lax dog owner complains for the hundredth time that Fido dug his way out of the yard again. Dogs are gonna dog. Women are gonna women. The biggest problem is that men in the West aren't being men. They got used to having those social levers, but now that those social levers are gone they both refuse to win them back OR learn to live without them.
As for status and resources they're simple, but overrated against safety and strong progeny. Women with status and resources via their chosen man will still try to get pregnant to men who have that vital
will to power. Their lizard brain sees the genetic capacity for violence as the ultimate trump card while resources and status are ever volatile. This is why murderers get so much female fan mail when they're in the slammer. Safety in the primitive sense is therefore tied to strong progeny because there's no point in having kids to a man if those kids don't genetically end up with the
will to power. That
will to power is what makes a 6ft tall scandanavian woman loyal to a 5'5" crooked-nosed dynamo who will throw down at the drop of a hat.
Thuggish? Doesn't matter. It's a fact of life.
We will win back the levers of social control or we will suffer the law of the jungle. I personally prefer Norman Rockwell's America and it's broader Western equivalents. I don't like thuggery, but reality doesn't care what I don't like so I adapt and overcome.
I've been married for over a decade now, and though I was blue-pill as fuck when I tied the knot (got lucky in a lot of regards) my marriage has only been strengthened day by day with my acceptance of
primitive behavioral drivers and how to manage them, in dogs, children and women. Maybe once a year if I get into a slump my wife will decide to shit-test me at some point when I'm particularly irritable. I will lock eyes with her and ask "what the fuck did you just say to me?!"
No witty repartee's. No snappy faggot comebacks. Just pure animal "don't forget who the fucking man is, bitch."
And deep in her lizard brain she thinks "
there he is, the guy I need when the enemy tribe comes over the hill". She becomes ultra-submissive for a couple of weeks. A lizard brain reward for providing the
correct response.
Meanwhile modern politically correct soyfags would have already called the police if they witnessed it, and then wonder why they went home to find their wife fucking the poolboy.
It should go without saying (but doesn't) that some women are closer to the primitive than others but they all have it somewhere below the surface, just as all men do.
Believe me. "Neomasculinity" is just masculinity light. Your great grandfather would have laughed at what passes for "masculine" these days. If you asked your great, great grandfather and every man in your line going back to the stone age "is it OK to slap a ho" they would say "if you've got a good reason, obviously." If I suggested that here, even on an avowedly anti-feminist forum it would be grounds for a temp or permanent ban, and not necessarily because the mods disagreed. The reality is that even half the members on the forum would flip white-knight, and combined with the aggregate of soymales and feminists it would be a legitimate threat to the forum itself. What we get is the watered down version of patriarchy at best. If you want the real deal these days you have to ask Mohammed.
For guys willing to chase the truth no matter the consequences, it's unfortunate because once you start navigating the deeper waters then you become a stranger to the people splashing around on the shoreline. They consider themselves rugged but they recoil utterly at what their forefathers knew inherently. In the long line of patriarchy that brought us out of the caves this sissy abomination that we call masculinity in the last few generations is a mockery of what it once was. Some will find their way back. Others will sit around complaining about the natural order.
Adapt or suffer.
Sink or swim.