Woman and biology with resources – secret woman like money

Been reading this good book called ‘The Importance of Sex’ which is about evolution and what makes woman actually chose in males – it was written in the 90s before feminism went totally crazy, you can tell because it talks about how woman want money – a harsh truth that is suppressed now.

A lot of women/feminists talk about how ‘gender is a social construct’, which is a pretty obvious untruth, but this book proceeds to document society after society, but current and historical with male/female dynamics and how men acquire resources which then give them access to females.

The book goes into depth how personaility matters nearly zero, the only thing that matters is birth/family (rich families usually have more kids), a male’s status/job and how much resources he has.

It is easy to read because it makes sense, as much as society tells us ‘woman aren’t shallow’ ‘woman dont care about money’ etc.  This is why fake alpha works in the PUA world, because it falsely demonstrates that you have resources, thus woman are attracted to it.

The stunning thing was in some societies if a man came from a poor family and was unmarried, he had only a 3% of having offspring, whereas a rich guy, but never married had something like a 46% chance of having offspring.

Money matter, resources are real, despite SJW/Feminism to the contrary.

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “Woman and biology with resources – secret woman like money

  1. Pingback: Woman and biology with resources – secret woman like money | Manosphere.com

  2. Men are shallow: men like young, pretty, slender, nurturing women. Women are shallow: women like resource-rich, handsome, strong, dominant men. Our bodies only really care about the genetic dose to be mixed with ours and where our descendants’ daily meals will come from.

      • Not necessarily. Otherwise rape and polygyny wouldn’t have been viable reproductive strategies. In fact, men primarily care for their mate because she is hopefully caring for the man’s children. Our every drive as animals is self-serving in its conclusion: keep our genes alive.

    • “Shallow” and “deep” are man made concepts. Nature and biology, from which our attraction cues are derived from, have no care for them.

          • That humans are inherently shallow. Our instincts (mate preference, reproductive imperative, greed, etc) are the base design. As social animals we employ foils against the backfiring of our instincts (for example altruism over lust, moderation over greed).

            When we deny foils we must either act like our foils are natural behaviours (“fatness isn’t natural, therefore gaining weight is a sign of an abnormal mind or an impure diet”) or we deny there is a way of controlling our instincts (“it’s natural to want to have sex with certain legal minors, so I can’t be held to account for knowingly having sex with a 14 year old”).

            When we deny instinct we assume all behaviour is social (“there is no such thing as greater muscle density, men are just encouraged to be stronger”), do not have a foil, we revert to preservation of the self above preservation of society.

            Therefore, as today women are viewed as above reproach (denial of instinct), women will act increasingly instinctively and selfishly and therefore damage society.

            For a healthy society, we must acknowledge instinct and acknowledge the foil that keeps it in check and use the latter as a playpen to give some controlled space to the former.

  3. The problem, of course, is taking this general understanding and THEN FOOLIISHLY IMPOSING it on every female that one comes across. Same goes for the female who attempts to impose the general understanding of males desiring fertile females on every male she comes across. Clearly, many males do not want children and so “fertility” is a moot point. Likewise, many females can now acquire resources EASIER than can be acquired from a male in a loyal relationship, So in fact, these general understandings imposed at the personal level ARE LARGELY DECEPTION. Deceptions used to hide personal preferences that run the gamut, but nonetheless, almost always center around not having children and vowing no loyalty to one another. The charge made from each side… All you want is money… All you want is young, fertile female… Are really just COMPLIMENTARY accusations utilized to extricate oneself from business of perpetuation. Both “white” male and “white” female are extremely guilty on this front.

    • Rollo talks a lot about the effects of birth control on intergender relationships and I think he is on the right track. There was no such thing as “I don’t want children but I want to have sex” until very recently (recently from a history of man point of view). Having children and having sex were one and the same. Even if the thought of having children outright disgusted a person it would not matter because the overpowering desire to have sex would still ensure the propagation of his own genes as soon as he engaged in it. The disconnection of sex from procreation and the normalization of this disconnect in society was essentially a removal of a kind of a safety net. It is not surprising that all kind of complications and unexpected side effects have arisen from tampering with nature in such a way. Most people would laugh if you said birth control changed society in more radical ways than computers and the internet but I don’t know… I’m not a luddite but technology should be monitored and regulated much more closely.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s