[This is part 1 of a two part series, with the second post, The Righteous Alpha, hopefully coming tomorrow out now.]
Since I have taken the “Red Pill” I have seen more than a few manospherians make the argument that women are actively attracted to evil. As this seems to be a theme that bubbles to the surface every so often in these parts, I thought I should address it briefly.
The Dark Triad
It seems that the most common support for the idea of women being attracted to evil lies in the attractiveness of the Dark Triad. For those unfamiliar with it, the Dark Triad is a set of three traits, which are: Narcissism, Machiavellianism and Psychopathy. Here is how wikipedia describes them:
- The narcissistic personality (in the clinical sense) is characterized by a grandiose self-view, a sense of entitlement, lack of empathy, and egotism. Some theories, such as those of Heinz Kohut, associate it with the protection of a radically weak, shamed, or damaged self.[8]
- The Machiavellian personality is characterized by manipulation and exploitation of others, with a cynical disregard for morality and a focus on self-interest and deception.[9]
- The psychopathic personality is characterized by impulsive thrill-seeking, and in its “primary” form by selfishness, callousness, lack of personal affect, superficial charm, and remorselessness.
Looking at each of them, it is easy to see how they are amoral at best, and outright inclined towards evil at worst. The whole package together seems to be custom made for conducting evil.
Roissy, who often preaches the importance of extreme confidence, is one of those who especially likes to beat the drum of the Dark Triad traits. The reason is simple: they work. Many women do seem to be attracted to men who display these characteristics.
Of course, plenty of “Bad Boys” are able to attract women without resorting to the full measure of the Dark Triad. But when you peel away the layers you start to see some similarities between their methods and the practitioners of the Dark Triad.
Back to the Basics
To understand why the Dark Triad traits and Bad Boys attract women, it helps to understand the basic attributes that determine male attractiveness to women. I’ve detailed them before in my LAMPS theory, which states that there are five principle attributes which women look for in men to determine attractiveness: Looks, Athleticism, Money, Power, and Status. A truncated explanation of each of them follows:
Looks- This includes physical attractiveness, such as facial symmetry and strong masculine features in a man’s face.
Athleticism– Here we have the overall physical attributes of a man. His strength, muscle tone, endurance, dexterity and general athletic ability.
Power– This subcategory is a short-hand for Masculine Power, or Masculinity. Aspects of a man’s personality such as confidence, assertiveness, self-mastery, dominance, a commanding presence, poise and posture would fall under the Power sub-category.
Money– This sub-category includes a measurement of both the amount of resources that a man can call upon in the present, as well as what he might be able to make or create in the future.
Status– This sub-category includes the social position of the man and is principally based on where he is on the social ladder. Any authority that a man can exercise in the community based on his position would fall under Status.
In terms of importance, from greatest to least, they are: Power, Status, Athleticism, Looks, Money.
Turning the Power On
Look back at the descriptions of those Dark Triad traits, and then look at the Power attribute again. Notice anything? The Dark Triad is all about Power. Narcissism is about confidence taken to its extreme. Machiavellianism features assertiveness and the exercise of Will unbound by social chains. Psychopathy encompasses dominance and a commanding, to the point of frightening, presence. A man who exercises the Dark Triad is a man who screams Masculine Power to any woman who catches sight of him. This is because the Dark Triad traits don’t hold back, they doesn’t restrain themselves, they represent an exercise of Power that is breathtaking in its forthrightness.
Remember, attraction is amoral. It is based on set biological cues which we have little to no control over, whether we are men or women. Is the exercise of the Dark Triad evil? Probably. Does it attract most women? Undoubtedly. But it isn’t the evil of the Dark Triad that attracts women. Rather, it is the fact that it gives off signals which women interpret to mean an abundance of Masculine Power. Women don’t know why they are attracted to it, there is no conscious choice involved. Their subconscious can only discern that a man with the Dark Triad traits is confident, assertive and dominant to a point to overshadows nearly everyone else. This is translated to mean that he must be the Alpha male of the group, otherwise he couldn’t/wouldn’t act in a such a way. And that trips all of the necessary triggers in a woman’s mind to make him seem attractive to her.
For “Bad Boys”, similar dynamics are at play. A Bad Boy is by definition someone who breaks the rules, who stands alone. Again, this screams confidence, assertiveness and all of the other aspects of Power. In a healthy society men who show these traits but who are actually dangerous (as Bad Boys are) would be weeded out. They would be killed, imprisoned (permanently) or exiled. Unhappily, we don’t live in a healthy society. And even more unfortunately, the female subconscious doesn’t realize this either. So women see men who demonstrate traits that would otherwise indicate suitability as mates, and fall for them accordingly.
Black and White
It is not evil that attracts women, it is the fruit of powerful, unrestrained evil: Dominance, Confidence, Assertiveness, Mastery. These are all intoxicating to the female mind; they ensnare the senses and reason. Do women fall for weak, sniveling cretins? Of course not. They are drawn to strength, to Power. “Weak evil” is no more attractive than “weak good.” The reason why so many women are drawn to evil is because it is so much more common to find “strong evil” than “strong good” in the present age. Women cannot help but be drawn to strength, no more than the moth can resist the flame.
Is this a flaw in our species? Of that, there can be no doubt. But on the other hand, it is a flaw that can be controlled for, assuming society has the Will to do so. Sadly, ours doesn’t. In the immortal words of Spaceballs:
Good is Dumb.
In conclusion…
When it comes to attraction, there is no Good. There is No Evil. There is only Power.
Update: Apparently this post was linked to by a feminist blog. I allowed the pingback, but I suggest caution for anyone who follows the link
Donal Graeme 
“Looks- This includes physical attractiveness, such as facial symmetry and strong masculine features in a man’s face.”
When it comes to looks. It indicates more than you think:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002106
@DG
My point there was this: Stick to your guns. You know–really know–your experiences and your witness. Even if you perceived things wrongly they are the only way you could have perceived them. You also know you are a Christian, so argue from that perspective. You don’t need to pull arguments from the evo-psych paradigm of thought to bolster your cred. If you do, then you’re going to get caught up and confused.
Case in point:
What are you saying here? Are you saying there is nothing good about women desiring strong men because strong communicates ability to provide and protect offspring? Because the Evo-Psych/Materialist position is that this is why women are attracted to whom they are attracted. If you accept that position you MUST say it is a good as the ONLY good in E-P/M paradigm is propagation of the genetic line. And, a Christian MUST NOT say that propagation of the genetic line is merely amoral as genetic lineage and its functions (whatever we deem those to be) are designed by God for their purposes (again, whatever we say those purposes are).
Even rocks are not amoral. A rock is a rock, and as long as the rock is rock-like then it is a GOOD rock. If I throw it at you to get your attention, and instead wind up braining you, even that does not make the rock bad. It is the fact that it is a good rock, acting consistently with rock-like behavior. In the same way, if we accept the E-P/M argument that women are choosing Dark Triad men for the subconscious purpose of harnessing their ability to provide and protect, then we MUST say that their subconscious purposes are good, and Dark Triad traits are good.
That’s a real problem because no one–Christian or otherwise–can look at the example of Christ’s life and say that Christ displayed anything like Dark Triad traits. He was so Beta that he let Himself be hung on a cross for imaginary (things that only exist in the mind) things like sins. And not only imaginary, but not His. And not only not His, but imaginary thing belonging to utterly undeserving people who could do Him no good whatsoever. And not only utterly undeserving people, but the very people who hung Him on a cross for no reason at all. To be Christian–“little Christs”–is to follow that example. As Rollo endlessly repeats: “It’s amazing that Christians manage to reproduce at all.”
The answer to that comment is not to re-write the story of the life of Christ (or the Christian tenets of marriage, family, etc.) so that it seems plausible or copacetic to the E-P/M paradigm, but to reject it outright as foolishness. Our foundation is on Christ, and on His truth; especially as expressed through His life on Earth. From that Foundation, nothing Dark Triad can be called good; nor things that desire it…such as women.[1] This makes sense, because Christians know this:
We don’t have to justify bad behavior like Dark Triad behavior, or choosing men with Dark Triad traits (e.g., “amoral”, or, “good but misguided”, or “understandable but misguided”. Indeed, we had better not. It’s not amoral, good, or understandable for the simple fact that it’s not Christlike.
Stick to you guns, and don’t leave your foundation.
[1]Just to be clear: That’s not special condemnation of women beyond condemnation of men, but beside me. Our iniquity may be the only place we have equality.
@ Cane
Going to need some time to respond to the points you raised.
@ Cane
Here is my response.
By “those traits” I meant the Dark Triad traits. Not confidence or assertiveness; those traits have definite value. The Dark Triad traits may provide a specific individual with a greater chance of survival, and perhaps even a greater chance of procreation, but they are a negative for the species. This is because they hinder community building and group interactions, which are a key component of our survival as a species.
I will try and make sense with this, but it is a difficult concept to explain…
The Dark Triad traits are like wolves in sheep’s clothing. They appear to the female subconscious to be “good”, that is, to be indicative of valuable traits in a mate. Those traits are valuable because they help ensure the survival and the advancement of the species. But the Dark Triad traits lead to the opposite effect: they impair the survival of the species by promoting anti-social/anti-group behaviors. Again, women aren’t choosing men for their Dark Triad traits, they are choosing men for the appearance of confidence, assertiveness, etc. Unfortunately, women fail to realize (at a subconscious level) that the Dark Triad traits, which lead to those appearances, are not what they seem to be.
Perhaps the best metaphor/analogy would be those insect species which pretend to be another species, relying on that similarity to gain an advantage for itself.
Again, its possible that in the distant past there was an advantage to these traits, but not anymore. And assuming the there is some truth to the theory of evolution, our species hasn’t caught up to that fact yet.
As for Christ…
I would not call him Beta. At least, not how most of the manosphere uses the term. Look at the Gospels, and tell me that Jesus wasn’t someone who held his frame at all times? Or acted with confidence and assertiveness at all times? He openly defied, and ridiculed, the religious leaders of his day. He used a whip to drive money-changers out of the Temple. He didn’t back down. He didn’t conciliate. He told the Truth, knowing full well what it would mean. When he was before Pilate, when His life was on the line, did he beg? NO. He basically threw Pilate’s words back at him. How is that not Alpha?
Once again, I am not justifying that. I merely stated that women find such traits attractive. That is unfortunate, to say the least. But that is not a moral choice. Attraction is biological. We do not choose what we find attractive. We cannot choose what we find attractive.How women act based on that attraction… now that involves a moral choice. How we, men and women both act based on what we find attractive… that is where we can choose to follow Christ or not.
@DG
Two sentences into your argument, and you’re already apologizing for women’s conscience and subconscious choices again; as innocents having been fooled by these “bad” traits. You remove choice from women, and you give choice to things that cannot make choices: traits/genes/etc. Genes and genotypes do not and cannot care about what is good for the community. They do not have minds, and only do what they are built to do: preserve and reproduce. Dark Triad traits DO these things, and they DO these things BETTER than whatever traits you imagine are looking out for the good of the community/species–a concept of which a gene cannot comprehend because things without minds cannot do anything like comprehending.
The difficulty you are experiencing in explanation is not a function of the complexity of the subject, but in your refusal to actually regard what you have learned from others. This is why Roissy and Rollo don’t argue from a Christian understanding. They take it as an (unavoidable) good that alphas with Dark Triad traits get laid and Betas don’t. Vox, you’ll note, never argues from the Selfish Gene framework that women are making subconscious choices for the best chance of propagation of their genotype.
This is wrong. I know: Mind. Blown. But this is just wrong. We DO choose what we find attractive. We often just don’t like doing so. The other part of this is we often DON’T choose what we find attractive.
This is exactly the justification of Christ that I was referring to, and you’re right: most of the ‘sphere would agree with your assessment. But the sentiment is manufactured; it’s a farce to appease the Christian culture within the larger Manosphere.
You’re being obstinate here (though I do not believe you’re trying to manufacture discord) and cherry-picking a few instances that might be construed as Alpha to gloss over the fact that the most powerful being ever became a zygote, and then right on through to birth and childhood so he could grow into an adult, travel around for three years helping individuals, and then gave himself up as the sacrificial lamb and–pay attention here–took our sins upon Himself. Alphas do not do that. Don’t misunderstand: He didn’t just take on the task of fixing us, or pity us. The wages of sin is death. Since He was sinless, to die He had to become sinful; else He could not have died. God is always just and righteous, so He never pays unjust wages. Do you understand what we’re talking about? This is embracing His own cuckolding on a scale I do not believe you have even begun to fathom.
@ Cane
There are two arguments here. I will deal with the second first. I don’t like the “Alpha/Beta” dichotomy, and it shows. As for the general theological point, I need to explore my faith further before trying to argue anything on that subject. I might end up agreeing with you, and I might not.
But the first point… we are clearly at an impasse. This statement alone explains it all:
See, I don’t agree with this. I doesn’t match up with my experiences at all. Perhaps you can provide some solid proof to back it up. But I stand by my assertion that attraction, sexual attraction, is a biological feature. Barring outright changes to core brain architecture/chemistry, it is not something that we control. Further debate is pointless, because are are operating under two fundamentally opposed understandings of human nature. If you can support your contention, please do so. Part of me would love to be proven wrong.
And if anyone else has any thoughts on the matter, please feel free to chime in. It seems like this is something worth arguing over.
At first blush I’d have to agree with donal here. I don’t think we can choose what attracts us or what we find sexually attractive.
Note that I am talking here about what we find sexually attractive, what turns a man on, what gives a woman the tingles, what makes a man and woman want to jump each other’s bones. I’m not talking about desirable traits or anything other than raw sexual attraction.
I think the most that can be done is to massage and manipulate attractors a small amount based on things like location, the ratio of men to women, the availability of attractive women, and what venues we choose to frequent. For example, if you’re naturally attracted to blue eyed blondes but you live in Italy where plump brown eyed brunettes are the order of the day, I bet you could still find himself attracted to at least one local lady. Or, if you live in Alaska, you’ll be limited on how many attractive women there are, and you might be able to calibrate yourself to one of the local ladies there. You won’t get attracted to women who frequent clubs if you never frequent clubs yourself.
I met a couple of girls who were really into me and liked me. One was in grad school; the other was in my first job. Very nice, very cute. I just wasn’t attracted to them. I tried to be. I couldn’t muster up enough attraction to get past a couple of dates. I kissed them. Felt nothing. If I could have chosen attraction to them, I might have done so because we were compatible in a lot of other ways.
So no, I don’t agree that we can choose attraction.
Somewhat analogous:
You can’t negotiate desire.
Debate is really only possible because we have two different views. Don’t give up on me now! I like it better when you tell me I’m wrong. More to the point: I’m the one telling you that you must choose one of the views! You’re the one trying to conflate them, i.e., justify Christ to an Alpha standard. I mean justify here in its truest sense; to make correct. The Jews erred because they thought He would come as a
As for the theology: What theology I’ve stated here is entirely uncontroversial, and is claimed by Catholics and Protestants alike.
Is there a guaranteed way to be the best-looking guy in the room? If so, how is that achieved?
Cane, What theology I’ve stated here is entirely uncontroversial, and is claimed by Catholics and Protestants alike.
Perhaps I’m not understanding things, but if I do, I would say nothing being argued here reaches religious “theology” from a Catholic POV.
@ Cane
True. But not when both share opposing views and are not going to change those views absent new evidence requiring us to reexamine our fundamental worldview. You are arguing attraction is not biological only, whereas I am arguing it is solely biological. Without new data to examine, I’m not going to change my opinion on the matter. And I strongly suspect the same of you.
If by “best-looking”, do you mean most attractive? Or simply the most handsome. The two are not the same. Women are attracted to more than just physical looks in a man. Assuming that you meant “most attractive”, then the answer is yes. Have the most masculine physique, be the richest and highest status guy in the room, and have the most dominant, charismatic and masculine personality. If all three are the case, then you will be, guaranteed, the most attractive guy in the room. Status and money come from a mix of luck, divine favor, and hard work. Physique is partially controllable when it comes to working out, but genetics plays a significant role too. Fortunately, that isn’t as important as the others. As for personality… or Power as I like to call it, that requires experience, discipline and Will. Genetics might help or hurt here too, but I think most of it is based on willful action.
@DG
I guess we’ll see!
Correct.
Also correct.
You left out the truly important source of status and money. What is it? This is important.
Physique is partially controllable when it comes to working out, but genetics plays a significant role too. Fortunately, that isn’t as important as the others.
Largely irrelevant, as you seem to agree.
I don’t understand this conflation of personality and power (even considering the term charisma, as charisma is only a component of personality), and that leads me to think that this is where you’ll find the weakness in your argument. I digress.
There is a more sure way to be the most attractive guy in the room: Pick a room with less attractive guys, right? There is yet another sure way: Be in the room where everyone else says your the most attractive.
I am (as Novaseeker has rightly accused me in the past) playing hide-the-ball here because I believe you’ll get it better if you invest in the problem. I get the sense that you’re not trying to see this discussion from my perspective because you’re dismissing it out of hand as your experience tells you that attraction “just happens”, and I am saying it is a choice. You think those two things can’t be reconciled, but they can if we run our arguments through the Who, What, When, Where, Why gauntlet.
Who is making the choice?
What is the choice?
When is this choice made?
Where is this choice made?
Why do we make this choice?
You can’t make yourself have feelings of attraction to someone simply by deciding to.
However, you CAN decide to train your flesh over time.
To a Christian, nearly every aspect of our existence demands that we restrain the desires of the flesh. This does not mean that God wants us to suffer, it means that He wants us to avoid indulging the flesh in destructive ways.
The reason God does not want me to be a poon-plundering PUA is not so that I experience denial of my wants, it is for the good of my soul and the souls of others. The reason I should not overeat, nor drink to excess is so that my body (the temple of the Lord) is not corrupted any more than it already is.
We are permitted pleasure, and pleasure is obviously good, because many good things give it. God made fruit sweet, for example.
Likewise sex is supposed to be a very pleasurable part of marriage.
However, our modern society treats relationships as though sex is the only component that really matters. Our sexual awareness is ignited early via media and social trends, and then it is further inflamed until for many, it becomes THE overriding element in their lives.
The Amish and Muslims, despite their obvious flaws, at least understand that the endless public display of female flesh has a destabilizing effect on a culture. Imagine how much more the average man would be turned on by his wife’s naked form if it was the only naked woman he ever saw?
Homelier and chubbier women would certainly benefit, in the same way that an ordered society governed by laws helps make the average beta male more attractive, because he is not in daily violent conflict with alpha males who would be pillaging his wealth, like in savage societies. Natural alphas still find themselves dominant, but not the the extent they would be in a warlord culture.
In a warlord culture, you have a few total apex alphas, their next tier of henchmen, and a bunch of male nobodies.
In our political system, you can be a tech alpha like Zuckerberg. In a warlord culture, he would be shining the warlord’s boots.
Likewise, when the female is allowed to deploy and exploit her natural beauty without restriction (slutty apparel and behavior), the female part of the society becomes like a sexual warlord culture.
If they keep it up, the men will follow, as they always have. The productive beta males that have built civilization will not be as abundant as they once were.
Never finished my original point:
Why do Christians think that while in every other area of our life, we have to life with restraint, and that somehow we are entitled to massive tingle/attraction in this one single area?
A person serving Christ needs to keep the sexual attraction piece in proper perspective and weigh it responsibly when evaluating a potential spouse.
When you look at all of the potential partners that a person could get to marry them, what are the odds that the one that generates the most tingle/boner effect is also the best choice?
Imagine if society put sexual awareness and attraction back in its proper place and quite endlessly obsessing over it.Young women would be getting on with marriage and children, the cock carousel would be less of an issue, and young men could find substantially more chaste wives to choose from.
Also, since they are marrying earlier and getting sex sooner, young men could focus on personal productivity and not chasing tail all the time to the exclusion of more life-enriching endeavors.
Jack, This does not mean that God wants us to suffer…
Actually, he does. He disciplines us for our good, so that we may share His holiness. All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness. Heb 12:10-11
Jack, Homelier and chubbier women would certainly benefit…
The majority of overweight women (and men) are engaging in the sin of gluttony. That’s why they are unattractive, and less fertile.
@Jack
Jack’s pickin’ up what I’m puttin’ down. We make these decisions (choosing to what we are attracted) long before the opportunities arise, and we don’t choose them alone. Others have a huge influence in our decision-making process.
Here’s another good thought experiment: It’s a truth that the most attractive women get approached on a frequency less than somewhat-attractive, mildly-attractive, or fairly-attractive women. Why is this? “Because men have more confidence” is not a good enough answer. Why do men have more confidence with the less attractive women?
Men don’t have more confidence regarding average women; they lack the stones and sense of self worth to approach the hotter chick.
Tom, Men don’t have more confidence regarding average women; they lack the stones and sense of self worth to approach the hotter chick.
Many men don’t like the work, drama, and competition of trying deal with women 9 and above. It’s a lot of work being Roissy. Truth be told, a man’s ego is a lot less bruised getting snubbed by a hot chick than an average one. He is merely making a logical energy investment, bang for buck calculation. Stones typically have nothing to do with it for men who will naturally hit on women, merely horse sense.
A single “nine” means that someone else got sick of her attitude and tests, and dropped her. That, or she is picky and dropped him. Look at her and if she is that good looking and alone, there is a reason why. Someone else got tired of her.
You might be able to pick up a decent girl, but the odds are against it. No sense investing much into a bad deal.
The Shadowed Knight
Of course, most men are not that smart, and it is a lack of confidence in his own worth. Not having thought about it, he is basing his decision on his own introspection and evaluation. If he comes up lacking, he will not approach. Which is true, either way you go about it.
The Shadowed Knight
Nope, 9’s come with a lot less baggage but the theory that they do plays well with folks who are ok with settling and need a reason why.
@donalgraeme:
Goes well with Master Morality (Nietzsche’s theory).
@jack:
“Beauty is a short-lived tyranny.” – Socrates
@Ton:
That’s a really nice way to put it. In the balanced form, he is a man who takes care of his self-interest, which is important because a) he needs to procreate, b) the woman needs protection and sufficient provision from the man she has sex with.
@Redpillnewby:
Exactly. That’s one of the goals of “hypergamy” according to Donal’s theory: protection.
@Retrenched:
The world has become feminised, and those who conform lose the sexual war.
Makes me wonder: is politeness, manners and courtesy a feminine trait? I certainly think so.
@justincampbell:
But there is this problem: regardless of whether the attraction is good or bad, if a woman can get away with it, why not relish in the pleasure?
We need a motivation to act “morally”.
@Cane Caldo:
Interesting. Goes pretty well with Master Morality (Nietzsche’s concept).
I take it you mean we can alter the social situations we place ourselves in, effectively changing (for men) the women we are exposed to and (for women) the men we are exposed to. For example, if we are lower status and less wealthy in one community, we can jump to another community that is lower status and poorer than the one we’re in, to increase our sexual attraction.
@Larxene
Yes, exactly. Nihilism. It’s very smart. It’s also antithetical to Christianity; which is the confusion I was talking about.
There’s much more, but this is a good start.
God wants us to be disciplined, He does not want us to suffer.
@ Cane
I don’t have time to play hide and seek. Be forward with the points you want to make and back them up, or take your ball home.
@ Ton
I tend to think that you are right much of the time. Part of the reason many men don’t approach high SMV women is because they consider the women “out of their league.” Of course, having the attitude of women being out of your league makes you less attractive, and thereby ensures that they are in fact out of your league.
@ Larxene
Power isn’t referencing some idea of Nietzsche, it is a shorthand for Masculine Power, which is my term for those masculine personality traits that women are attracted to.
@ TSK
I don’t find that women who are 9’s go long without male companionship even if they have awful personalities. They simply have to look a little lower than they would like. But many men are willing to put up with it, there is no shortage of masochists out there.
Donal, that was my point. If she is alone and old enough to be in a relationship, and for some reason, she is not? Why not..? Like the virgin in her thirties, you have to wonder. Why is she incapable of inducing a man of sufficient quality to commit to her? What is her single status saying? Although, this does not apply to most men, because they are not thinking into it.
Ton, I was not talking about baggage, I was talking about her being a poor wife prospect. Dealing with her attempts to ensure that you are the alpha she wants is more than I would care to do, even were I looking for a wife. This interests me. Are you saying that the more attractive women do not do this? Just as they are more polite because they know that your attractiveness is not a reflection of theirs, does their habit of tests work the sane way? Do they act less bothersome because they already qualified you?
Hot Dog, hiding from the men or women you find attractive is not changing what arouses you about the other sex, it is Gaming the system. That is the exact kind of moral choices Donal is meaning. Avoiding temptations and making decisions that alter the field, but the underlying mechanism is unchanged. Besides, rewriting attraction/arousal triggers? That already got tried; it is called “Fat Acceptance Movement.” Other attempts to alter human nature are called “Socialism” and “Egalitarianism.” How well did those work out?
On the other hand, we have this thing called, “Christianity,” which directs mankind rather than trying to alter it. We are what we are for a reason, though we may not understand the purpose. It is not for you to decide what is and is not permitted. Someone Else already handled that for us, and I trust His judgements far more than I would yours. Or any man, for that matter.
The Shadowed Knight
Many men don’t like the work, drama, and competition
Never liked dealing with that from ANY chick.
Moderated hypgeramy has a filtering effect. But contemporary hypergamy has a toxic effect, substituting attraction to dark triad traits instead of seeking out character, maturity, integrity, sense of humour, all the traits women CLAIM to want, but only ever ‘settle’ for once their carousel ride is over….
I repeat: the more rebellion is present, the more game is required. And the less i was interested. Are women attracted to evil? It depends. What are the outcomes of dark triad behaviour? Positive? Encouraging? Civililsation building?
I thought not.
Thanks Larxene
I’ve seen less fitness tests and the like from 9’s. Look, life is easy for them because they are pretty and it does set up a certain kind of entitlement mindset( not usually one of high demands but an expectation of a lot of personal assistance), but that has often been offset by an otherwise very pleasing dispositions. Life has been easy on her so there’s a lack of bitterness and what have you.
Why is she available? Who knows but I invite you to hit a night club or what have you and watch. Many guys will fawn and beta orbit around her, but few men will actually walk up and lay down some game. A genuine smile/ smirk, a “howdy darling” and get to a talking. She is pretty and feminine so “neg” her by asking stuff like “how’s your softball team doing?” and “hey your girlfriend isn’t going to get pissed we’re talking and start something is she? Getting my ass kicked by a lesbian again would be really embarrassing”
Chicks date the guys who ask, guys date the chicks who say yes. Watch guys around a pretty girl and see who is actually working her and who is orbiting her ( which is a version of game but that doesn’t change my point any)
He does not want us to suffer
Some might say that women have that task well in hand . . .
Hey Ton, thanks for the kind words earlier…. it looks like we’re onto something with the ‘Good Girl’ thing we talked about, but it also looks like it’s been thoroughly covered before 🙂
http://whoism3.wordpress.com/2013/10/22/good-girl/
Nothing new under the sun aye, still something to pass on to anyone it might benefit…
Your comments about very attractive girls rings true to me logically and from what I’ve seen. It reminds me of a Polish beauty I worked with a few years ago in a clothing boutique…. she was lovely to look at, sweet as sugar and SUCH a princess! One time she screamed at a cockroach in our store, and ran outside vowing not to come in until I’d ‘taken care of it’! Hehehe….
Thing is, she was a pleasure to do nice things for so I didn’t even mind that she was an Entitled Princess that didn’t even consider my thoughts on the matter! She seemed to belong in her position and so the behaviour was fitting, getting her lowly minions doing her bidding 🙂
(Maybe that’s what it feels like to be a ‘Beta Orbiter’?)
@Ton:
“Chicks date the guys who ask, guys date the chicks who say yes.”
Yep.
My pleasure darling, it a rare opportunity to compliment women, one that I miss and don’t like to pass up on
LOL yep you are a doll
Ps, it all goes back to the notion women are never fully mature adults but somewhere between 9 & 16, depending on the day and the event. Anything that speaks directly to her inner girl makes her happy and tingly
@DG
It’s a deal.
Pingback: Why women are attracted to evil and how to use this knowledge to improve your love life. | bodycrimes
@donalgraeme:
I know, I read your original article. I’m not saying it’s a reference to Nietzsche. I am suggesting that those attractive masculine traits are similar to the traits that those with Master Morality exalt.
Some quotes:
“For these strong-willed men, the ‘good’ is the noble, strong and powerful, while the ‘bad’ is the weak, cowardly, timid and petty.”
“The noble type of man experiences itself as determining values; it does not need approval; it judges, ‘what is harmful to me is harmful in itself’; it knows itself to be that which first accords honour to things; it is value-creating.”
Assertive, Self-Confident, Narcissistic/Ethical Egoist. Similar?
Pingback: The Righteous Alpha | Donal Graeme
Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/11/20 | Free Northerner
I don’t have time to read all of the responses to this piece, so forgive the lack of reference to them. I wanted to say that you are exactly right, your perceptions are as clear as they can get. Power is power, and what evil does with power is evil. Power in and of itself is simply, and as you said, power. It is quite easy to see the issues it raises for women played out metaphorically in the story of Eve in that garden. She’s attracted to the resources and what they can afford, the forbidden fruit and its delights, and cannot see the trap for what it is, until it’s too late.
p.s. I have to clarify a point – it relates to your earlier ideas about what attracts men to women. Certainly the physical qualities you’ve mentioned come into play, but they don’t explain why men end up with women who don’t have those qualities, or how men end up with one particular woman who possesses them and take a pass on other women who have those qualities. Men are attracted to the woman’s subconscious qualities as well, and led by their own, as well. As for women’s attraction to power, I’d also add that it’s an attraction to resources that are often just beyond her reach, given the ways in which women are often side-lined or marginalized when it comes to significant roles in the power structures that allow men to acquire resources. It’s been part of nature for women to look to men as providers. Societies tend to reinforce this. Evil knows what women want, and simply acquires it, offering it to the targeted woman as bait. I’ve said no to this, and I know what it means to pay the price for having said both yes (in ignorance) and no (in awareness), at different times. So those are my two cents. Thanks for a *very* interesting post.
You’re completely right, I was just reading on Waytoosocial that power was one of the most important things to attract women… and it’s not that power is evil (it can be good and bad depending on the person). It’s just that we have an odd association with it.
Women luv Dark Triad personality males.. it’s a FACT.. and I’m also a Dark Triad MAN.. the dark personality is alluring.. because it symbolize POWER and STRENGTH.. Dark Triad people have confidence.. even in their weakest period of their life.. it’s the ego that will never relent and keeps them going strong..
Pingback: Wolves in sheep’s clothing | Christianity and the manosphere