Is women’s sexuality profoundly narcissistic? That would explain a lot.

7 Mar

I find myself with a little down time – the academic book chapter has been submitted and I completed the rewrite on the novel and I’m waiting for the next round of notes…. So, let’s get caught up!


A while ago I read a book by Daniel Bergner called What Do Women Want:  Adventures in the Science of Female Desire, and holy shit! This is an interesting book, to say the very least.

The tl;dr version is this:

Bergner is looking for actual, empirical evidence to support the idea that women are more monogamous by nature and have a more vested interest in sexual fidelity.  He doesn’t find much.

Most of our understanding of female desire is grounded in what evolutionary psychologists call the Parental Investment Theory.  The basic idea is that because women have so much at stake reproductively – bearing the risks of pregnancy and childbirth and having a finite fertility window – they are picky about the genes they allow into their bodies via sex that might result in pregnancy.  If you can only have X number of children over your lifetime, then you don’t want to be breeding with some genetically inferior meathead.

This theory is insulting on a number of levels – it assumes, first and foremost that only women care about the well-being of their offspring.  Men will father children with any vagina that presents itself, willingly or not and they take zero interest in what happens to that child after it’s born.  It’s brutally dehumanizing to both men and women alike.  And it makes no logical sense.  Why would males of any species kill the offspring of other males if they don’t give a fuck about their own offspring?  Bergner puts forth the theory that female promiscuity is a protective measure against infanticide because it masks paternity.  Males in primate troops characterized by rampant promiscuity on the part of females don’t know which children are their own, so they don’t kill any of them.

But if men have no vested interest in their own offspring and are going for quantity over quality, then why would they care?  Kill all the infants and start from ground zero.  Could it be that males actually care about their little ones and want to see them thrive and survive?

The general story we tell ourselves about men and women is that women are naturally cooperative and community oriented and men are naturally competitive and individually oriented, and yet the evidence that Bergner has amassed suggests that exactly the opposite is true:  men are more likely to cooperate with one another for the good of the community and women are more likely to compete with one another to achieve personal goals. Recent research into the effect of status on relationships between women seems to bear this out:   women are happy to cooperate with other women as long as they perceive their status to be equal.  The second a higher status woman enters the scene, it’s a bitchfight!

Unrelated human males regularly interact in groups, which can include higher and lower ranked individuals. In contrast, from early childhood through adulthood, females often reduce group size in order to interact with only one individual of equal rank.

What does this have to do with female desire?  Well, it’s the beginning of a narcissistic theory of libido:  women are driven by deeply felt personal needs rather than broader “catch the best genes that I can for the benefit of my children” motivations.

The actual empirical evidence about women’s sexuality and desire is exactly the opposite of what we are collectively taught.  Women don’t choose the best genetic material to have sex with:  men do.  That’s why men prefer the .7 waist to hip ratio almost universally.  It’s a marker of reproductive fitness.  Virtually all the physical characteristics men prefer are markers of reproductive fitness.  We are taught that men are driven by insatiable lust and will fuck anything that moves based on satisfying that desire, but it’s actually women who make their reproductive choices based on insatiable personal desires.

It’s really quite funny to read the mostly female researchers freak out over their own findings.  When confronted by the idea that being raped by a stranger is one of women’s biggest turn-ons, an extremely common sexual fantasy, Marta Meana stumbles all over herself trying to find the words to describe her findings:

[Meana] narrowed her ideas into an emblematic scene:  a woman pinned and ravished against an alley wall.  Here, in [Meana’s] vision was an ultimate symbol of female lust.  The ravager, overcome by craving for this particular woman, cannot restrain himself; he tears through all codes, through all laws and conventions, to seize her, and she – feeling herself to be the unique object of his unendurable need – is overcome herself.

(p. 97 of Bergner’s book)

But, but, but – it’s not a rape fantasy!  “I hate the term ‘rape fantasies’ – it’s paradoxical” says Meana.  “It’s a submission fantasy – no I don’t like that word either – there’s dominance and aggression – I have to find better words”.

Poor Meana.  She actually tries to convince Bergner to write in his book that the man ravishing the woman in the alley is known to the woman, as if that makes it any better.  Anything but stranger rape!  Anything but that!

Except no.  Stranger rape is central to lust for many, many women.

Why?  It’s all about the fantasy of being irresistible.  Of controlling men so thoroughly.  It’s about being the object of unendurable desire.  This was the exact point of my rape culture video.  Rape culture is rape fantasy culture:  it’s women imagining themselves to be objects of desire – to all men, all the time, everywhere.

It’s classic narcissism.  Women’s lust proceeds from their own internal need to feel special, beautiful, wanted, high status – and not out of a desire to select the best genetic material for offspring.  Promiscuity is a way to maximize that need to feel sexually wanted.  Bergner recounts, over and over again, the waning lust of women who find themselves with nice, accommodating, intelligent, accomplished men – perfect genetic specimens for offspring – but they don’t want to fuck these men.

There is no lust.  No desire.  If desire was about capturing good genes, these men would be at the top of their To Do list, but they’re not.  They’re at the bottom.


Because nice, accommodating, accomplished men tend not to trigger the rape fantasy.  Being reasonable, rational, thoughtful and kind is likely to get you nowhere.  Triggering desire in women is a matter of pandering to her need to feel irresistible.  Keeping desire alive in a long term relationship requires constant attention to women’s inexhaustible narcissism.  That sounds like an gruelling chore, but it doesn’t need to be.  There is a very simple way to make it both easy and enjoyable.

To me, the solution seems obvious:  women break up long-term relationships with men because they just aren’t fulfilled any more, which we can realistically take to include being sexually fulfilled. Women’s sexual fulfilment is narcissistic:  her fulfillment depends on feeling utterly desired.  Men choose women based on fitness (the .7 waist to hip ratio, intelligence, clear skin and other health indicators, etc. etc).

But in order to be desired, physically desired – in order to spark the longing and craving that drives women’s libidos, women have to actually meet some of those fitness indicators!

Doesn’t this seem obvious?

Women howl that they want to be valued for more than just their looks – that their looks should not matter – but the standard of beauty in any given society at any given time consists of those indicators that suggest reproductive fitness, which is what triggers male desire, which is required for women’s sexual fulfilment.  And not just a little desire.  A lot.

Rape me in an alley levels of desire.

This doesn’t mean we all have to be 6 foot tall blondes with 25 inch waists.  Nonsense.  Beauty standards change and beauty is relative to your peer group.  But there are standards, and if women can’t hit even close to the mark, there will be no desire from men – nothing to trigger women’s lust other than rape fantasies (also known as romance novels).

Which gets translated into rape culture.  Rapists everywhere!  All these men who want me!  Overcome with lust!

How exciting!

Women investing time and money and energy and effort in their accomplishments (which amount to very little) and neglecting their appearance are setting themselves up for a long life of bitter, angry loneliness.  A long life of sexual frustration.  Whether they are in a relationship or not, the need to be desired, overwhelmingly desired by men, is central to women’s libido and lust.  Women don’t need a female version of Viagara.

They need a trip to the hair salon, a gym membership and some lip gloss. And the common suggestion that you should schedule date nights with your partner to keep the romance alive?

It will work out much more effectively if you schedule your date in an alley somewhere.

And pretend you don’t know him.

Lots of love,


106 Responses to “Is women’s sexuality profoundly narcissistic? That would explain a lot.”

  1. March 7, 2014 at 13:41 #

    Men will father children with any vagina that presents itself, willingly or not and they take zero interest in what happens to that child after it’s born. It’s brutally dehumanizing to both men and women alike

    Living beings are inclusive fitness optimizers. Not consciously, not planningly, but they are made to act to maximize inclusive fitness.

    In human males, the best strategy is to highly invest in one or several wives and their offspring. Increase quantity and quality.

    Additionally get as much offspring as possible from any willing or unwilling vagina one can fertilize, without additional cost. If cost is near zero, and there are good chances of getting offspring, then the males who don’t lose this chance pass on their genes more frequently and the frequency of these genes increase in future generations of the population.

    This also explains the “Coolidge Effect”

    Also note that before government welfare, fatherless children had quite a low chance of survival, thus it pays for a male to care about a few of his own children. Especially those where he kept close watch on the woman and can be fairly sure that they are his.

    . And it makes no logical sense. Why would males of any species kill the offspring of other males if they don’t give a fuck about their own offspring?

    They kill other males’ offspring as to get the female into estrus more rapidly, and to allow or force the female to give all attention to HIS offspring.

    All this so he gets more surviving AND more capable offspring. Especially high quality males that can fertilize many females.

    Never forget that in the EEA, over the last 50 000 years, 60% of males never got any offspring. So low quality males are pretty useless for passing on one’s genes.

    Bergner puts forth the theory that female promiscuity is a protective measure against infanticide because it masks paternity. Males in primate troops characterized by rampant promiscuity on the part of females don’t know which children are their own, so they don’t kill any of them.

    This is the case with chimps.

    Forgive me the remedial class in evolutionary biology and psychology.

    Some terms you might want to google.


  2. judgybitch March 7, 2014 at 13:46 #

    They kill other males’ offspring as to get the female into estrus more rapidly, and to allow or force the female to give all attention to HIS offspring.

    Exactly. That’s my point. He desires his own offspring and has an interest in what happens to them. That doesn’t fit with impregnate random females and then walk away. Those offspring are not likely to survive.

    And once we’re out of primate territory and into humankind, it’s ludicrous to suggest that average men don’t care what happens to their own children.


  3. human2stupidity March 7, 2014 at 14:03 #

    Here we get into R-k theory. Of animals that care more or less about their offspring.

    One extreme are elephants who get one offspring ever 4 years (?) and are extremely protective. On the other hand some fish who throws a million of sperm onto a heap of thousands of eggs and leaves.

    And Humans differ in the amount of parental care. Some are less dedicated, some are more dedicated. But yes, you would even expect the most deadbeat dad to occasionally pass some morsels and protection to his offspring. But some invest less into the offspring, and more into partying and obtaining hot consumption items to get chances at fertilizing MORE and OTHER females.

    Philipp Rushton proved that human races have different amounts of parental investment, that much that they differ in biological markers such as twin births, earlier menarche, etc. I will skip details as to avoid attracting too much unwelcome discussion about this peripheral topic.

    But it is less disputed that within races some men clearly dedicate more resources directly to family and offspring then others, who are more into fertilizing additional females (philandering). And, men ideally pursue both these roads to maximize offspring.

    Penniless men can still pursue such strategies. Higher ranking men can not, because family court will ruin them. Nor can they get several wives, though they perfectly would have the means to take good care of several wives and their offspring (and still sleep around).

    Your point that men do care about their children: It is extremely rare that biological fathers kill their own offspring. I believe much rarer then biological mothers, who occasionally can gain reproductive advantage by killing offspring who is unlikely to survive anyway or takes resources away from other offspring.

    There is a book “Homicide” by evolutionary researchers (?name).

    So certainly, they all do care. But men vary how they distribute their limited resources between child rearing efforts and mating efforts (attracting and fertilizing further females).

    But yes, all men are expected to care to a larger or smaller extent about children they believe they fathered.


  4. human2stupidity March 7, 2014 at 14:07 #

    You probably know the best strategy for females.

    Females do not gain from having sex with innumerous men (except to make all of them believe they could be the father, and invest a little in the offspring).

    They do gain from having a dedicated beta to rear the children, and get good alpha genes from a romp during their fertile period. Read “Sperm Competition” by Baker and Belkins (?).

    Of course, if they can get a dedicated alpha, then this is romance novel material. And still, even in that case, they might want to get super-alpha genes from extra-marital trysts.


  5. judgybitch March 7, 2014 at 14:24 #

    Bergner’s investigation says this is not really as a big a factor as evo psych makes it out to be. The status of the male matters, but it’s the one who can make her feel desired that will win out reproductively.

    A genetically fit alpha who appears indifferent will lose out to a beta who demonstrates appropriate desire.

    The alpha might be socially desirable because he increases the woman’s status but her sexual desire will be kindled by the one who triggers her own sense of worth.

    I think that’s the key point of narcissistic desire. It’s not about genetic fitness. It’s about the woman’s own personal feelings.


  6. Wilson March 7, 2014 at 14:42 #

    That’s conscious rather than instinctual though, there is no attraction to the beta, which is why as soon as it becomes possible they demand that government guarantee that their needs are met (and keep the betas away from them)


  7. Spaniard March 7, 2014 at 14:59 #

    I find the analysis of Bitch very perceptive and I agree 100%.
    Interesting to read, as well: “Promiscuity”, by Tim Birkhead.

    My sociological analysis about my own country after decades of observation is:

    *Women want to have children in order to have guaranteed the financial stability. Does not matter if father/hubby is a slob who watches soccer 6 hours a day.

    *Men want to have children in order to have guaranteed a pussy in their beds every night. Does not matter if wife is a bitch from Hell.

    Both reasons are obsolete:

    *Since 2012, hubby can be fired from company (and even from the State) in any moment.
    *Since 1981, wife can divorce and get alimony and child support.

    No good business anymore. For men is not since 1981. But they kept on dreaming (and still) for 33 years.
    Women are not going to be so naive.


  8. Just Saying March 7, 2014 at 15:03 #

    “Stranger rape is central to lust for many, many women.”

    When I was in college, I added to my income by helping at concerts – women tend to be “easily” available at concerts and more than a little willing. Several times I found myself jammed up behind a woman and ended up having sex. She never turned around – never wanted to see my face, she was young, cute and small (from what I could tell from behind) – pretty much my criteria. Of course there was no protection – unless she was on the Pill. I never asked or really wanted to know.

    So the “rape” fantasy is more than just a fantasy for a lot of women, of course is it rape when she actively puts his cock in her and moves against him? I’m sure that a lot of feminists would say so, but it was a lot more common than a lot of women let on. Gotta love groupies… And today, I perform at “vacation” spots, and have have more than my share of anonymous sex with women – although I make sure that she has a fit body, and not flabby, but after that – all I require is she be warm, wet, and willing… Women just have a lot better PR than men… That is the only difference I’ve found over my years…


  9. Spaniard March 7, 2014 at 15:10 #

    According to Dr. Birkhead, the gain for females is variety in the genetic pool.
    According to Dr. Fisher is achieving resources from several men who are SURE that, at least one of the children is his.
    According to Dr. Diamond all the children of ALL the females of the comunity are considered the children of ALL (or most) of the males of the tribe. That makes a strong sense of comunity.

    I have to say I preffer by far, Bitche´s explanation of the issue. Honestly I think she spots on.


  10. Denise March 7, 2014 at 15:16 #

    “The alpha might be socially desirable because he increases the woman’s status but her sexual desire will be kindled by the one who triggers her own sense of worth.”

    This makes sense, but I wonder if her perception of *his* worth does not also come into play. Plenty of women, it seems, have had experience with a boy or man who really, really wants them, but who they do not want in return. Perhaps it is that their perception of those guys is not high enough for their desire to validate her own self-worth.

    I’ve said elsewhere that what men complain of as “nuclear rejection” is caused by a (young) woman being offended that a man she perceives to be not good enough for her would think that she is on his level (much lower, as she sees it). The harsh–leave no hope for him and grind him to dust–response is a way of her distancing herself from and letting him and others know that he is not a reflection of her value. Pretty nasty.


  11. Denise March 7, 2014 at 15:22 #

    This is really interesting. Thanks. I agree for the most part but it seems some observations are left unexplained. For instance, it is more common for men to walk away from their offspring, even when they are positive that they belong to them, than it is for women to do the same. I’m not sure how this theory explains that.


  12. judgybitch March 7, 2014 at 15:27 #

    That might be cultural, though. In Western cultures, women are the assumed custodians of children, so getting away from the woman in question means the children are abandoned, too.

    But what about cultures where the men are assumed custodians? In cultures where children are automatically granted to men, how common is it for men to abandon their children?

    I don’t know the answer to that, but it would be interesting to explore. If children were the assumed property of men (ie: men always got custody of their children and could avoid the mother for whatever reason) how common would it be for men to abandon their children?

    I suspect it’s the mother men want nothing to do with.


  13. Spaniard March 7, 2014 at 15:36 #

    Nature made an strategy to keep the alpha man close to the woman and the children. It is a chemical mechanism that women do not have, but they neet men to have (and men do):it is called “love”.
    That is why men fall strongly both for virgins and skanks. Does not matter.

    The case of the beta man is different: keeping close to the woman and the offspring is the only way to get pussy regularly.

    Fisher wrote a lot about this.


  14. Spaniard March 7, 2014 at 15:38 #

    They NEED men to have


  15. Denise March 7, 2014 at 15:50 #

    Yes, it would be interesting to see how it differs in other cultural contexts. And I definitely agree that how men treat their oow children, or even children after a divorce, often has a lot to do with their feelings about the mother.


  16. FuzzieWuzzie March 7, 2014 at 16:00 #

    After reading the original post, I am at a loss as yto how to make somethig constructive out of this. Something tells me that even feminists will come to regret letting this out of the bottle.


  17. judgybitch March 7, 2014 at 16:02 #

    It gives new meaning to the idea that all men are rapists, doesn’t it?

    An overwhelming number of women WANT to be raped – by men of their choosing.

    And there is no bigger libido killer than enthusiastic consent – asking permission every step of the way is exactly the opposite of what will stoke most women’s fire.


  18. Reformed Hippie March 7, 2014 at 16:05 #

    Something I’ve been thinking of…for much of human history, being the “beta bucks” wasn’t the genetic death it is in this day and age of large scale society. In matriarchal societies, helping raise your sister’s children is in your genes best interests. and it is important to note, if you’re living in a tribe of a under a hundred people, it is likely the child you are helping to raise comes from your cousin or brother, who just happens to be sexier than you but is still mostly the same genetic material. the more important competition is not that the child be YOURS, but that you work together to survive and out compete the neighboring tribe.


  19. YouSoWould March 7, 2014 at 16:16 #

    I stopped reading at “This theory is insulting on a number of levels”.

    The veracity of a theory doesn’t care about feelings. Any rebuttal whose opening line declares that something is insulting doesn’t deserve any attempt to be critically assessed.


  20. judgybitch March 7, 2014 at 16:19 #

    Wow. Semantics much?

    Chill out dude. No one seriously thinks gravity cares about anyone’s feelings. This is a human social interaction theory, and therefore, by definition, involves feelings.

    Because humans. And social. And interactions.

    Get it?


  21. Oscar calme March 7, 2014 at 16:19 #

    I think that you are confusing the culture as defined by divorce courts here Denise. Consider the likelihood of a man gaining custody of a child in the event of a separation is less than 20% throughout the developed. Most men will be advised by lawyers not to even try to get custody as there is almost no chance in the event of the mother contesting the issue. This is a correct stance for the lawyers as they know the chances of success as minimal..

    I would suggest to you that what you are confusing this with is that men are not walking away from their offspring but are being ejected from the relationship by the mother as she is not happy. The mother will normally try to retain custody of the child for two reasons. Firstly, if custody is retained then cash and prizes flow to the woman such as houses, pensions and child support. Secondly, at least in part, the woman retains proxy control of the man as many men will do almost anything to see their children.

    Would welcome anyone’s thoughts on this interpretation.

    Good to see you posting here again JB


  22. Denise March 7, 2014 at 16:29 #

    Actually I don’t think I am confused. I’d first say that who wins custody most often has shifted back and forth over the past 50 years. And who has custody often depends on whether or not it is contested by the men, which is not always done.

    But also, there are varying levels of custody, and neither parent, if they are not abusive or otherwise deemed unfit, will be barred from seeing their children. So regardless of who has the children most often, both parents are generally afforded the opportunity to be a part of the child’s life to one degree or another.

    So when I spoke of walking away, I was speaking of exactly that. Minimal to no contact. No emotional involvement or voluntary financial support. It is more common in this country for men to completely walk away from their children in this manner than it is for women to do so.


  23. Jeremy March 7, 2014 at 16:43 #

    …women are naturally cooperative and community oriented and men are naturally competitive and individually oriented…

    The problem with that view is the inherent bias in view towards community and competition that presumes virtue in one and evil in the other.

    Competition from a male perspective is a self-organizing aspect of a masculine power structure. Competition over something outside of ourselves means that what matters is the group goal. Individual performance is ONLY optimized against the needs of the common goal. The standard against which that individual performance is measured is always external to the self, so the “fight” (if it can be called that) is over who can contribute the most towards a common goal. Masculine competition is thus a virtue.

    Likewise, community building can just as easily be an evil. When politicians in a blood-line monarchy surround themselves with people and create a community of sub-rulers to surround themselves with, they do not surround themselves with people who are most likely to be fair and honest. They are surrounding themselves with people who want to suckle at the teat of power, which means the community they build is one more likely to be filled with evildoers than good people.


  24. LostSailor March 7, 2014 at 17:09 #

    This theory is insulting on a number of levels – it assumes, first and foremost that only women care about the well-being of their offspring.

    I don’t think I agree with this, especially as it’s being presented in the context of female desire and mating decisions. Indeed, being picky about the genes that could potentially father a child is a core element of female hypergamy. But the other core element of female hypergamy is investing in a mate that can provide the necessary resources to protect and raise a child, which by its very nature means testing potential mates not only for genes but for parental involvement of the father.

    The general story we tell ourselves about men and women is that women are naturally cooperative and community oriented and men are naturally competitive and individually oriented, and yet the evidence that Bergner has amassed suggests that exactly the opposite is true

    I don’t find a discrepancy here because the context of male vs female competition/cooperation is vital to understanding which is true and when. The difference is between individual mating strategies and social dynamics. Clearly both men and women are competitive when it comes to mating strategies and women are often the more vicious at it. But on a larger social level men are still competitive with other men to achieve social status; on a societal level men will be cooperative, usually in distinct groups, while maintaining competition between groups (and often within groups). Women on a social and societal level have been shown to favor cooperation as it is the best way to ensure resources to maintain themselves and their offspring in case of loss of mate or other larger social disruptions. I give you the welfare state as exhibit A.

    Not that this necessarily invalidates the idea of a narcissistic theory of female libido but it points to the fact that men and women are selecting for different genetic traits. Yes, men are looking for markers of reproductive fitness. Women are looking for different signs of reproductive fitness. In a Marriage 1.0 society, what those markers were is slightly different than today. Then, women still desired the strong, handsome, successful man because that indicated reproductive fitness as well as social fitness (status). There were still cads around, but fewer bad boys. Today, of course, women still desire the reproductively and social fit man, but now that man has options and she has more competition.

    What’s revealing is to look at partner-choice before a woman finally wants to “settle down” and actually reproduce when she starts to consider the complete range of reproductive and social markers. When not having to consider actual social markers of parenting fitness, women tend to go for a more atavistic choice in men that more clearly shows the underlying raw libido. Hence the rape fantasies.

    And it’s here that I think an important distinction needs to be made between women’s elemental lust and women’s mate selection. Yes, there’s overlap, but elemental lust, the kind that leads to rape fantasies, operates on almost a limbic level–the animal urge for the strongest, most dominant man. Mate selection has a genetic component to be sure but it also has an evolved social component to determining genetic fitness.

    That doesn’t mean it’s not narcissistic, but, assuming she doesn’t have bastard offspring, many women are still choosing the beta-provider as mate and father. It’s quite true that the elemental libido may eventually take over and she’ll frivorce him for cash and prizes, but there’s still enough of the evolved social mate-selection process that he’s being selected at all.

    I do agree that that social selection process is starting to break down and women now have the option of taking the atavistic bad boy seed and still snagging the resources of the beta-provider (whether directly or through the state). Or at least they will have that option until our Feminist society crashes and the realities of thousands of years of evolutionary psychology and social evolution come roaring back to bite them in the ass.

    Or rape them in the alley. Which, I imagine they’ll find less pleasing than their fantasy…


  25. Spaniard March 7, 2014 at 17:11 #

    It is “insulting on a number of levels” because it crashes against the evidence that (at least, apparentely) men DO care about their offspring. The theory it is insulting to the facts but not to people. At least, I got it that way.

    My own particular theory is (observing Spanish sociology, I do not know about the U.S.) is that MEN they do not give a shit about their offspring. First: they procreate in order to have pussy regularly.
    Second: Once they have children, that means “social status”. To be integrated in society. Children are at the same level as “car” or “house” or “country club”. Are just goods. More or less like cattle.
    And I think that WOMEN they do not give a shit about children neither. It is just the business. Of course, once they have them, they love them, but they want to get pregnant because the business.


  26. zykos March 7, 2014 at 17:14 #

    People often misunderstand the arrow of causality in natural selection. It is completely one sided, and it goes backwards. So when we say that women have evolved to select men who are strong, aggressive and confident, what that means is that *some mechanism made these traits prevalent in the population*. That mechanism could be women consciously desiring these traits for their offsprings, but it doesn’t need to be, and we have ample evidence it isn’t.

    The correct way to put natural selection in the picture is not to say “women have evolved to like assholes” but rather that “women who liked assholes were more likely to pass on their genes”. And that’s how you come to rape fantasies. In uncivilized time, men who went ahead to get sex from women were more likely to pass on their genes than the men who performed long mating rituals, waiting patiently for the woman to give them permission. And women who weber averse to these men and ran away were less likely to pass their genes than the ones who embraced being taken forcibly. All of this explains how women came to love assholes, but it doesn’t explain the psychological mechanisms by which women love assholes which, according to your analysis, is mainly a need to be desired.

    And to look at the male side of things: men also don’t select women based on a conscious determination of fertility, but surprisingly, everyone knows that and we aren’t afraid of saying it. Men have evolved with a visual preference for big boobs, wide hips, thin waist, smooth skin, long hair and youth because women with those traits have higher fertility and offspring survival rates.


  27. Oscar calme March 7, 2014 at 17:32 #

    Denise. My understanding of the situation in the states is that who wins custody most often irrevocably changed with the acceptance of the tender years doctrine prior to which the default custody was with fathers.. This doctrine was established in the late 19th century and is the default in all English speaking countries to this day.

    You say that custody depends in part on whether the father contests this and I can accept this to an extent. If the father does not contest custody he will not get it. However, back to the point of my original post which is that a lawyer should advise the chances of getting custody are slim as the default position under the tender years doctrine is that the mother will get default custody. In this case the father would have to establish that the mother was unfit to have custody.

    As for the concept of shared custody the feminists have a track record of resisting this in all circumstances. I am sure you could find the amount of shared custody orders in your jurisdiction and I think that this will be low. Given default mother custody and the child support post divorce standard what has a mother to gain by accepting shared custody.

    Given Mother custody as a default this is usually of the form of one evening per week and alternate weekends. This is a legal format but there are no consequences of a mother violating a contact order from the court so a father seeing his children really depends on whether the mother deems this to be OK. If not the father doesn’t see the children. I will not generalise to all situations but in my case constant pressure from my son’s mother made it very difficult for me to maintain contact and I am sure many men are in the same position.

    In summary, you accuse men of walking away and they may appear to you to do so. This is fine if you believe that all of these women who are left with the children are sugar and spice etc. They are not, they are people just like men and can feel betrayed, rejected or just bored with the men in their life and needing a clean break. In other words they are just like men. What you seem to be missing is that society has structured family courts throughout the Anglosphere so that there are incentives for women to detonate their relationships such as the child support model. Why put up with a man one evening a week and alternate weekends when you can just refuse contact and still get the prize of child support.

    This holds good for children born outside marriage too and I will refer you to Lionel Tiger and his concept of ‘bureaugamy’ where modern women are increasingly becoming married to the state.

    I have looked for a case in the UK where a man had accumulated over £100,000 in legal bills in, I think, 48 legal appearances to try to get his ex partner to comply with court mandated contact orders … and she still didn’t let him see his child. The case was reported in the Daily Mail.

    Just remember that when you see a deadbeat dad story there is often a deadbeat mum on a power trip.


  28. Spaniard March 7, 2014 at 17:32 #

    I agree with that.
    That is why bonding Rand´s individualistic philosophy ONLY to libertarian capitalism is not fair. Starting with Ayn Rand herself. I think she was wrong at this point. She was right in many others, anyway.
    Her philosophy can be bonded, perfectly, with social-democrat policy. Not with marxism socialism, of course.


  29. Bob Wallace March 7, 2014 at 18:00 #

    I wrote about this book last December, but long before that came to the conclusion that men civilize women, and that when women get out from under men’s authority civilization goes down the crapper.

    Here’s my review.


  30. caprizchka March 7, 2014 at 18:29 #

    Perhaps the obesity epidemic is responsible for the rape culture hysteria. Perhaps the commodity-driven dietary advice including that which supposedly slows global warming (it doesn’t) is entirely the wrong one for a more peaceable culture.

    All well-nourished society is a more peaceful one–until it is time to hunt. Perhaps this ability to compartmentalize peace and hunting or war is what makes for a good father who in turn passes on his nurturing impulses to the females in his realm–by example.


  31. Bob Wallace March 7, 2014 at 18:59 #

    “They do gain from having a dedicated beta to rear the children, and get good alpha genes”

    Show me, scientifically, the difference between superior alpha genes and inferior beta genes. You can’t do it, because it doesn’t exist.

    My late father was 5’6″ and had a little black book with a 50 women’s names in it. I’m 6′ and was never came close to being as popular as he was.

    I’m amused at gross misapplications of evo-psych, which isn’t even a science, anyway.


  32. LostSailor March 7, 2014 at 19:06 #

    Which gets translated into rape culture. Rapists everywhere! All these men who want me! Overcome with lust!

    Interesting idea and one that may be at play on a very subconscious level, but I think there are two other far more important drivers in the feminist push to create rape culture, which are both practical and political.

    The first one is that the incidence of rape has been steadily declining over the last 40 years and that decline threatens feminists money and power. Money because rape crisis centers and endowed university chairs in Rape Studies aren’t going to fund themselves, and declining rape rates aren’t going to increase government funding. This is borne out be how rape culture is being created by feminists: vastly expanding the definition of “rape” and drastically reducing the level of evidence needed to “prove” rape, both of which also serve to preserve the power of the rape accusation over men.

    The second is the need to drive more women into the feminist orbit. Many women today, even college women, do not self-identify with the feminist label. Things are pretty good for them, all the artificial advantages are already in place, so there is little need to engage in “feminism” or feminist activism. But by manufacturing rape culture where it doesn’t exist allows feminist to brand these women as “victims” (another way of increasing rape statistics: telling women that they just haven’t realized they’ve been raped and need “education”), but more important, ushering them into the status group of “survivors.” These days, being able to claim the status of “survivor” is becoming a right of passage and a badge of honor which firmly cements more women in the feminist camp.

    Women may get a very secret thrill from “rape” and rape culture does give them protective cover by which to hide this, but the creation and advance of rape culture is driven by far more concrete mercenary concerns…


  33. caprizchka March 7, 2014 at 19:13 #

    I agree that “enthusiastic consent” is a libido killer for all high testosterone men and women *except* when he makes her beg for it. That can be hot and humiliating. Of course, dictating that protocol or dictating *any* sexual protocol is the worst mob mentality of all and I would compare that to a social “gang rape” of anyone who is more physically attractive than they are.


  34. Jeremy March 7, 2014 at 19:16 #

    Ayn was more reactionary than most supporters will admit. She had good reason as she saw first hand what happens when one view of humanity is taken to an extreme.

    Where Ayn fails is in not questioning the value of any form of government. Any person on earth would likely admit that the building block of any society is a husband/wife family unit. But few bother to question whether that’s not also the natural endpoint of any form of government. No one asks the question, “Do we really need anything more than a father and mother?”

    Ultimately, if all parents across the globe are raising their kids to understand a sense of justice, there’s no need for government. Anything above that devalues the individual adult, makes them less than they are, by definition.


  35. judgybitch March 7, 2014 at 19:17 #

    I think it creates an interesting feedback loop.

    Men will experience arousal when confronted with physical attributes that strongly suggest fertility – simply viewing a woman with a lot of desirable attributes triggers a physiological response. The men want those women. They desire them. Women perceive they are the objects of desire, and experience their own physiological response, based on that desire. In order to maintain male desire, women work to preserve those attributes that suggest fertility.

    And on it goes.

    Whether a woman has sex with every man who desires her is not the relevant point. The simple awareness that she is in fact an object of desire is enough to encourage arousal. If she is in a monogamous relationship that requires fidelity, she is still likely to feel arousal at the mere thought of being desired. She makes a conscious decision to spend that energy on her committed partner.

    And it works both ways. If men are freely and consciously aware and feel no shame whatsoever about feeling aroused by a shapely woman with long hair, etc. etc., they know they can go home and spend their own energy on a woman with the same attributes. The key is that the woman is aware of the importance of her appearance in triggering her own desires.

    What is broken right now is that men are being taught there is something inherently, shamefully wrong with finding physical attributes in and of themselves arousing. You’re only supposed to be aroused by the person. And women are taught to believe that their looks don’t matter. Any man who fails to desire them as they are (fat, slovenly, short-haired, whatever) is not a worthy person.

    So both men and women go ahead and create relationships based on these flawed ideas and after a few years (if that long), neither person can stand the thought of fucking the other. Neither person is providing arousal cues to the other.

    It’s crazy.

    Liked by 1 person

  36. Tom March 7, 2014 at 19:19 #

    Good point–the rape-against-the-alley-wall fantasy is not just a fantasy of inspiring overwhelming desire. It is also the fantasy of being taken by a dominant, aggressive male, a male who brushes aside societal rules and her own objections. In the real world, I think we see often see women giving themselves more freely to aloof but wildly dominant alpha males (athletes, rock stars) than to some average guy who has intense desire for her. If anything women are turned off by a man of average status expressing strong and exclusive desire for her (also known as oneitis).


  37. judgybitch March 7, 2014 at 19:21 #

    Oh I agree with this analysis completely. Rape culture involves a lot of money going to a lot of college educated middle class white ladies who have no marketable skills.

    The reason it is so easy for women to accept and help perpetuate rape culture is the “thrill”.


  38. Tom March 7, 2014 at 19:29 #

    Overall I still find the evo-psych explanation (women seek paternal investment, men seek to spread their seed) more compelling than JB’s version. However, I know myself that I would rather not have sex than have sex with a an undesirable woman, even if she is young and presumably fertile. The evo-psych explanation would imply that, although I might prefer women with clear skin, slim waist, etc., I should still have some baseline desire for any fertile woman.

    Perhaps the loss of status in being seen with a wildebeest is so great, so damaging to future, better mating prospects, that it isn’t worth it? Perhaps there is always some risk–disease, angry relatives, being compelled to invest resources in unpromising offspring?


  39. Lindsey March 7, 2014 at 19:31 #

    This is brilliant JB.


  40. comslave March 7, 2014 at 20:22 #

    I’ve always hate it when feminists reference the book “the beauty myth”. If beauty were really just some random cultural construct, I shouldn’t like the exact same women that Japanese men like. And yet we both agree that Namie Amuro is gorgeous. We come from opposite sides of the planet and still like the same women. “The beauty myth” was just a diatribe to shame men into sleeping with ugly women. The only thing it accomplished was to drive men and women even further apart.


  41. zykos March 7, 2014 at 20:37 #

    There is a feedback loop, but not what you described. You say “Men will experience arousal when confronted with physical attributes that strongly suggest fertility”, but again, that’s now how the causality goes. Instead, we should say that “men experience arousal when confronted with certain physical attributes, and those attributes are usually correlated with fertility”. I don’t think there is any higher-level cognitive process involved, and unless there are studies showing that there is a relationship between what men find attractive and their IQ, I will, as a man, go with my gut and suggest the process is so basic that it has nothing to do with it.

    Here’s the feedback loop, in very broad terms (and disclaimer: I’m not a biologist):

    Genetic code dictates protein assembly, which in turn dictates structural cell arrangement, of which the neural network that is the brain is part of. This neural network, because of some unknown and very complex arrangement, happens to drive sexual interest based on a certain visual stimulus in males (as a comparison, our ability to detect faces works the same way, only it’s much simpler and can be reproduced on modern computers). Randomness in genetic mutations will modify the code in subtle way, in turn changing protein creation in subtle way and slightly modifying the pathways in the neural network. Some of these changes will lead to certain preferences going one way (say, smaller breasts) some will sway them the other (bigger breasts). The individuals who have been born with the preferences skewed for the attributes that are correlated with higher fertility have maybe slightly more offsprings than the others, but repeat this process over millions of years, and the pattern starts to solidify. But in this process, the men are never conscious that the things they find attractive indicate high fertility, that is the huge difference.

    When it comes to sexual behaviors, male are the actors and women are the acted upon. So it makes sense that natural selection would work on passive traits for women (appearance) and active traits for men (behavior). When it comes to attraction appearance, it’s a visual process, and I said it can be compared to face detection or even emotion detection, which we have evidence is a low-level process since it is present in animals and very young children. But attraction to behavior is a slightly different story. It must be a similarly low-level cognitive process that responds to actions, and in this context, the self is all that exists. I’m much less qualified to talk about what women are aroused by, so I’ll leave it at that.

    Now, about what should and shouldn’t be: I completely agree with you that we have a problem, where women, unable to describe what their exact attraction cues are (and further disoriented by a lot of false gender ideology) believe their attraction mechanism to function at a higher level, a level of active cognition (i.e. the whole “I like his personality”). And of course, if men’s attraction mechanism is rightfully described as low-level, it becomes “simple” and “shallower”. But that of course is false, and neither men nor women should be ashamed of what arouses them. They only need to acknowledge it and voluntarily keep it under control when rules of social life conflict with them.

    There is a will to privacy and concealment around human sexuality, not only because the act itself is animalistic but because our whole behavior shifts and our higher cognitive abilities are pushed aside. I’m sure women of generations past knew how stupidly they would act in the presence of an aggressive man as men know how idiotic they become at the sight of a pretty woman. But we’ve confused that, and the result is men who hate themselves for what they think is brutish behavior, and overconfident women who don’t understand their psychology and are prone to making many, many mistakes.


  42. Michelle March 7, 2014 at 20:46 #

    You make some interesting points in your article. I don’t agree with all of it, but it reminds me of this quote from “That Hideous Strength” by C.S. Lewis:

    “The beauty of the female is the root of joy to the female as well as to the male…To desire the desiring of her own beauty is the vanity of Lilith, but to desire the enjoying of her own beauty is the obedience of Eve, and to both it is in the lover that the beloved tastes her own delightfulness.”

    This struck me as a true statement when I read this book a few years ago. It’s amazing what a pretty dress and some lipstick will do for a woman’s libido.

    You’re claiming here that most women fantasize about stranger rape. I have always thought “rape fantasy” was an oxymoron as well, though I hate to agree with a woman who can’t admit she wants a dominant man! When I read stories of violent rape, I feel physically ill. I’ve never been a victim of stranger rape, so I don’t know, but it seems unlikely that women want to be raped by dirty vagrants in an alley. Maybe they want to be raped by a clean, well- muscled stranger of their own choosing? That’s why a more accurate term is “dominance fantasy”. Last time I checked, you don’t get to choose your rapist.

    It’s just semantics- but maybe if women named their fantasies more accurately, they wouldn’t be so quick to accuse dominant men of actual rape.


  43. comslave March 7, 2014 at 20:47 #

    What I find hilarious is the women who create these complex sexual rules and regulations can’t figure them out for themselves. Even they would get caught up in their own definitions of rape.


  44. BisexualWhores March 7, 2014 at 22:39 #

    Female narcisscism is also why women are bisexual by nature – they worship their own sexual formand are attracted to men for their strength/resources. The so-called “straight” woman can be more accurately described as bisexual heteroromantic.


  45. Paul Murray March 8, 2014 at 03:01 #

    A lot of hookers are happy hookers. To be chosen from a line-up, to be paid. Its a funny thing – if a girl offers “extras”, even extras she is quite happy to provide, she wants to be paid. Even a nominal amount will do, I’m talking “Well, have you got five dollars”? It’s not about the amount – it’s about the fact of money changing hands.


  46. Bob Wallace March 8, 2014 at 04:18 #

    “A lot of hookers are happy hookers.”

    I owned a taxi for five years and got to know a lot of hookers from giving them rides. There is no such thing as “a happy hooker.” They were all mental cases.

    Some started at 15, some were heroin addicts.


  47. Julian O'Dea March 8, 2014 at 10:02 #

    It seems to me that the rape fantasies fit OK into the same paradigm as hypergamy. A man who can rape is a man who will pass on his genes. If his sons have the same genetic proclivity, so much the better. (“Sexy Son Hypothesis”.)

    I would guess the imaginary rapist is big and strong.

    The rapist is using one strategy. The provider another. There is probably a “sneaky fucker” strategy that some men might use too. I have certainly seen at least one seduction involving a guitar.


  48. Paul Murray March 8, 2014 at 10:57 #

    That may be because where you live it’s illegal, and so a hooker is necessarily a criminal.


  49. Spaniard March 8, 2014 at 11:45 #

    Jean Paul Sartre, one of the ugliest man ever, he used to shag all the French supermodels of his time.


  50. Spaniard March 8, 2014 at 11:47 #

    Caprice de Dieux you are….


  51. Spaniard March 8, 2014 at 11:57 #

    I agree 100%. And VERY happy.


  52. Spaniard March 8, 2014 at 11:58 #

    Where I live is legal.


  53. comslave March 8, 2014 at 12:20 #

    The problem with constantly pushing rape hysteria on men is there will be a point where men will reach a “care fatigue”. If the “all men are rapists” accusation becomes a matter of accepted identity, then you’ll see an increase in rapes. The “all men are rapists” meme is meant to instill men with the feeling of original sin. That we’re supposed to wallow in collective guilt. But this tactic can backfire. “All men are rapists” can evolve into “real men rape”. This is why it is utterly important not to instill guilt on to men who have not committed the act.


  54. Bob Wallace March 8, 2014 at 13:32 #

    The cops ignore it and protect them. Again, all hookers, no matter where in the world, are mental cases. Screwing 500 guys? Please. Get out of your fantasy world,


  55. Pablo March 8, 2014 at 14:13 #

    Oh! Bryan and Jerry.

    I met him in da flesh in the springtime of 1987. In Sevilla. He was walking down the street hand by hand to a beautiful lady (she was not Jerry) He was very kind and polite. He shaked his hand to me when I approached. I was 17 and already a Roxy Music fan.


  56. Spaniard March 8, 2014 at 14:23 #

    In Spain, back in 1983, came out an “all grrrl” feminist band named Las Vulpes. Their hit at the time was “Me gusta ser una zorra” (“I like to be a whore”) And they called themselves feminists!!!
    I think nowadays most young women they have the secret desire to be prostitutes (high standing) that is why all this “slut culture”.
    If you come to one of Spanish most famous nightclubs, in Madrid -Joy Eslava- you will not tell the infiltrated hookers from the “regular” girls. Maybe because the hookers dress and behave more prudish..

    Life imitates art.

    Mental cases? Could be. But we are just saying that they are happy. We are not talking about sanity or insanity.


  57. Spaniard March 8, 2014 at 14:25 #

    Where do you live?


  58. comslave March 8, 2014 at 14:53 #

    Is there such a thing as a happy sanitation worker? Why is it with hookers that we are concerned about job satisfaction?


  59. Julian O'Dea March 8, 2014 at 19:22 #

    Yes, Bryan and Jerri. I like his music and he seems a real man. I like the picture because she is looking at him admiringly. They broke up eventually though.


  60. caprizchka March 8, 2014 at 19:42 #

    A brand name cheese? Hmmmph. I prefer small-name artisanal, de lait de vache cru, s’il vous plait.


  61. caprizchka March 8, 2014 at 20:05 #

    I disagree with your assessment of Naomi Wolf, the author of The Beauty Myth. Rather, given the hysteria-driven propensity of Wolf to grandstand (for examples, see, I believe that her modus operandi is to blushingly stammer, “don’t hate me because I’m beautiful and slept my way into the feminist pedestal,” or something equally ridiculous.


  62. caprizchka March 8, 2014 at 20:08 #

    Love this ^^^^^!


  63. SirNemesis March 8, 2014 at 22:35 #

    From an evolutionary perspective, you need to be careful about what you term “good genes”, particularly when it comes to men (for whom fertility is not really a limiting factor in reproduction). Yes, “nice, accommodating, intelligent, accomplished men” are “perfect genetic specimens for [good] offspring”. However, what is more important is the “sexy sons hypothesis”. The ability to be dominant and be willing to rape is a reproductively adaptive trait in men, so it stands to reason that women would desire men who would produce similarly sexually successful sons.


  64. SirNemesis March 8, 2014 at 22:37 #

    Regarding the nitpicking of “ravishing/dominance” vs “rape” fantasy (“it isn’t rape if she wanted it?”), it’s interesting to see this:

    Essentially, a girl decides to act out her real rape fantasy and sets herself up to get raped. After posting about it on Reddit, she gets a bunch of PMs from girls who have the same real life rape fantasy:
    “Thank you everyone for asking real questions and talking to me about it. Especially the girls on here! A bunch of you pm’d me to say you wish you could do this or want to, and that made me feel really good.”


  65. SirNemesis March 8, 2014 at 23:06 #

    This sounds eerily like the “if we taught men not to rape, they wouldn’t rape” theory…


  66. Michelle March 9, 2014 at 00:26 #

    I followed that link and skimmed some of the comments. It appears the woman had some sort of real or perceived trauma when she was 12.

    She also chose the men she would provoke, and probably found them attractive. What she did sounds absolutely terrifying to me, and I don’t think I’m a special snowflake. I prefer certain behaviors from my husband, but he is my husband. I’ve vowed to give him my body, so it would be impossible for him to rape me.

    I think many women have these fantasies because men are not allowed to lead or be dominant in any other area of life. I have no way of proving that one way or the other, so it’s just an opinion.

    We lived on a farm for a few years and a female goat got her head stuck in the fence. She couldn’t get away while all the bucks bred her to death. I got the same visceral reaction then that I do when reading about some of the rapes in India. That kind of rape is completely different than a woman wanting a chosen man to overpower her.


  67. Michelle March 9, 2014 at 00:41 #

    I’ve heard this before but I’m not convinced it’s true. Narcissism does not equal bisexuality. Being desired is what does the trick for women, not having a female body.


  68. Paul Murray March 9, 2014 at 02:51 #

    Ok, you have just gone from “maybe you haven’t thought this through” to “definitely giving blowhard opinions about stuff you cannot know about”.

    What else should I expect? All taxi drivers, no matter where in the world, form ignorant opinions about whole classes of people by driving them around for 20 minutes and remembering the bad ones.

    See how annoying it is?


  69. Paul Murray March 9, 2014 at 02:53 #

    Australia, in the state of New South Wales (NSW). It’s fully legal here and in New Zealand. And the sky hasn’t fallen.


  70. Paul Murray March 9, 2014 at 02:56 #

    Because they are women, obviously. Do people angst and fret over whether gay male prostitutes are happy in their work? Do they see the possibility that they might not be as a form of abuse? Of course not.


  71. Spaniard March 9, 2014 at 19:13 #

    Leche de vaca cruda. 🙂


  72. Spaniard March 9, 2014 at 19:22 #

    Yes, women are barbaric beings.
    “When it comes to vengeance or love, women are way more barbaric than the male”
    F. Nietzsche

    But I think some men we love women that way. We do not try to tame women via pregnancy.
    I heard: “You cannot turn a hoe into a housewife”. But… who the hells wants a housewife? Not me. I like the hoe the way she is.


  73. Spaniard March 9, 2014 at 20:54 #

    She did a mistake leaving him for Jagger.


  74. Spaniard March 9, 2014 at 21:05 #

    Neither here.
    It is part of the culture that, after work, men go to “puti-clubs” (whore clubs) to chat and have a drink after a taugh day before they go home. Not necessaraly to have a shag. If you live in a village, In the “puti-clubs” you can find the major, the “boticario” (pharmacist), the “guardia civil” (sheriff) and the “cura” (priest. In case he is straight and not a homosexual pedophile) All together.
    That is why Spanish feminists are so anti-prostitution and they say all that shit about “human slavery”, “agression to female dignity” and blah, blah, blah…


  75. Paul Murray March 9, 2014 at 22:13 #

    That’s worth knowing. It is the same everywhere: feminists oppose prostitution not for the good of the women (plenty of women in those clubs make a good living and are more-or-less happy), but because they hate men.

    Feminist are neo-puritans. Just like the religious right want to ban sex education in the USA, feminists want to ban prostitution out of the same motive. Like all puritans, they are driven by spite.


  76. Paul Murray March 9, 2014 at 22:22 #

    “Big and Strong”? That’s one fantasy. A few years back I bought a stack of romance novels from a second-hand bookstore and read ’em. (props to me for taking one for the team). They are formulaic, of course, and the common features are pretty easy to pick out.
    A romantic hero is not necessarily big and strong, but he is always toned and nicely muscled. The important thing is: those muscles don’t come from a gym, they come from being a physically active person and living an active life. A romantic hero is not a gym rat – he plays a sport, or rides a horse (in historical settings), or he might own a business and routinely pitch in and work.
    My observation, anyway.


  77. Paul Murray March 9, 2014 at 22:25 #

    ” If the “all men are rapists” accusation becomes a matter of accepted identity, then you’ll see an increase in rapes”

    Say what? Men aren’t gong to start raping out of ennui, or “what the fuck – might as well rape a woman”. This is one of the feminist’s lies, that rape is something men just casually do. The truth is that a rapist is a particular (and quite rare) kind of man.


  78. Ed March 9, 2014 at 23:23 #

    Though you’d find this new study interesting:

    ““The major surprise was the size of the findings,” Ludwig said. “Moving out of high-poverty areas had very different effects on boys and girls, and both effects are large. For boys, the increase in PTSD is comparable to what you see from combat exposure among military veterans, while the reduction in depression among girls is equally massive.””


  79. Julian O'Dea March 10, 2014 at 02:49 #

    Yes. I would be fairly sure that many women have rape fantasies, and very few men. Rape hysteria is women projecting their own fantasies on men.

    And in the romance novels, it is extremely common for the man to rape the woman. This is a female fantasy.


  80. comslave March 10, 2014 at 05:39 #

    My concern is that we end up with a repeat of the1980’s and 90’s gangsta culture that was experienced in the African American male culture. Being a “gangsta thug” was all over the music and news and in my opinion started to become a self fulfilling prophecy. When the only thing you hear about your group is shooting and violence, I feel it lowers the bar to entry.

    Especially when the message comes from authority.

    So if the message from teachers to young men become “you were born to rape, but don’t rape”, I can imagine how that would leave a boy messed up in the head. If the only message these boys receive growing up is “you’re a predator”, then they’re going to become predators.


  81. Paul Murray March 10, 2014 at 05:54 #

    The messages which (might) have been something to do with the rise of gangsta culture were not “You were born to be a gangsta, but don’t be one”. They were that being a gangsta was cool, and you’d get sex and money.
    I suppose I see what you are getting at, but I don’t think that the parallels are close enough for you to be concerned.


  82. Paul Murray March 10, 2014 at 06:00 #

    Firstly, I doubt that she actually did it.
    Secondly – hilarious line “and maybe act sort of helpless”. Little girl, if a grown man decides to commit the crime of rape against you, you *will* be helpless.
    If this really were a rape culture, there’d be a hell of a lot more rape going down.


  83. moseszd March 10, 2014 at 18:48 #

    “Men choose women based on fitness (the .7 waist to hip ratio, intelligence, clear skin and other health indicators, etc. etc).”

    Pretty much. Once I got out of high school and the hormones settled down, I wouldn’t date a woman who wasn’t reasonably athletic, who didn’t graduate college with honors, and had ‘conformance’ issues like knock-knees, weak chins, flat-asses and other developmental issues that signaled underlying genetic weaknesses.

    Yet according to Feminist Post-Modernism, I’m supposed to some ‘fuck-anything’ machine instead of the highly selective, monogamous man that I am.

    I just wish I could get my daughters to understand that. The losers they date… Fuck me…


  84. caprizchka March 10, 2014 at 19:28 #

    LOL. You have no idea. 😉


  85. Alex March 11, 2014 at 01:01 #

    it’s just this one works. who are you gonna listen to about not breaking the law, your parents or some faceless entity who is probably already halfway to finding you guilty of something? you get the parents to teach their kids right from wrong and make sure they know it and that’s all you’ll ever need.


  86. Anne March 11, 2014 at 08:57 #

    “I think many women have these fantasies because men are not allowed to lead or be dominant in any other area of life. I have no way of proving that one way or the other, so it’s just an opinion”
    I could not agree with you more.

    On another note:
    The problem, I think, with some of these narratives is that they assume that a man is either an uncaring brute or a submissive care-bear..
    Care and virility are not mutually exclusive and there is a huge spectrum of men between these extreme caricatures.


  87. Tony Smyth March 11, 2014 at 15:57 #

    Never forget that in the EEA, over the last 50 000 years, 60% of males never got any offspring. So low quality males are pretty useless for passing on one’s genes.

    I’d like to know how this figure was arrived at. The most likely explanation I can think of is studies of the Y-chromosome, but if so then there’s a logical fallacy here: Everyone has mitochondrial DNA passed down through the female line, but only sons have their father’s Y-chromosome. Thus a man could have 10 daughters but his Y-chromosome will die with him, and this man will (apparently) number among the non-reproducing 60%.


  88. YouSoWould March 12, 2014 at 14:17 #

    The validity of the theory – even if it is a theory about feelings – shouldn’t be attacked by an introductory sentence saying that it is “insulting”. It’s unscientific, detracts from the credibility, and implies that rhetoric is going to be used.

    Many consider HBD “insulting”, but that doesn’t prevent it from having sound scientific basis.


  89. Mark Waldie March 20, 2014 at 01:28 #

    Dear JB:

    Thank you for your keenness of mind and keenness of heart.

    Mark Waldie, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. 🙂


  90. Goober March 20, 2014 at 21:32 #

    “The general story we tell ourselves about men and women is that women are naturally cooperative and community oriented and men are naturally competitive and individually oriented,”

    Absolutely NOTHING could be further from the truth. In fact, they got it exactly backwards.

    Men go to war, and go off in packs to hunt mammoth together. They need to have ties with every man in the group, because you don’t know which guy will be standing next to you when you need someone to save your life. If you have bad blood with the guy who just so happens to be the guy holding the spear that will keep the mammoth from killing you, or the barbarian from stabbing you to death, you’re probably going to die.

    Hence, the general capacity of men to have very large circles of friends, many of whom he isn’t particularly intimate with or close to, but still round out his “posse” and who are still his pals.

    Women, on the other hand, would be more apt to view other women in the group as competition. Any kids her man had with another woman would be resources from her man going to another woman and her kids. Any resources that go to another woman’s kids, in general, might be resources her and her kids don’t get. They would go gather roots and berries by day, and every root or berry one of the others picked is one she would not be able to pick. The only thing she needs is one or two very close, very intimate friends to share the child rearing duties with (someone to watch the kids while she gos to do something or other). Thus, the tendency of women to have one or two super close, intimate friends, who then sit around and back-bite and talk shit about other women. I’m really surprised that the “general story” shown above got it so wrong,a nd in fact, almost exactly backwards.

    I wrote about this the other day in the context of a David Wong piece on Cracked about why we don’t find women funny. Here it is, if you’re interested…


  91. Goober March 20, 2014 at 21:36 #

    Also, the idea that men don’t care about their kids… click the above link to see what I mean.

    JB, before you signed off back in November or whenever I told you that my wife was pregnant. About six weeks later, we lost the baby.

    It was ugly, and bad, and my heart is still broken.

    What kind of man am I , if I am not supposed to care aobut such things?

    Any bitch that says I don’t care about my kids can go right out and fuck herself.

    He had always wanted a son. But what man does not want a son? What man wishes to die and leave no man to carry on, to continue the strain, the bloodline? Who wishes to waste what he has learned? Who wishes to see it die with him?Old as life is the desire for sons. Old as all life upon the planet. It is this that carries on the species, and it is necessary for each man and woman to breed. That was the will of nature. All else came after. The species must continue, it must go on.So there is deeply seated this desire, this wish. – Louis L’amou


  92. Todd Ehlers March 25, 2014 at 11:13 #

    “The idea that men don’t care about their kids.”

    So glad to hear this, as well as your disgust at this lie.

    I’ll never forget when I found out that, a decade previously, a daycare provider’s husband had exposed himself to my two little girls on a not-infrequent basis. They were between 1 – 5 years old at the time. I overheard my daughters recounting the horror of those moments and how it still haunted them.

    Then I find out my (ex)-wife had known of this for some time and done nothing, least of all report it to me.

    I hit the roof. Inside of 15 minutes I had phoned this demon and asked him to meet me in the local Wal-Mart’s parking lot “at 9.” It was early evening. I raced out to the site and I do think I may have killed him. I was seeing red. I was outside of myself and my mind with rage.

    He didn’t show. Another phone call revealed that he thought (he said) I had meant 9 a.m. I had cooled slightly, just enough to get some measure of the long-term ramifications of what I wanted to do. I cursed him out and told him to never approach me or my daughters again in his life (this is small town, Midwest America).

    My point is that the girls and my ex allowed these incidents to go unreported and unaddressed for years. I was ready to exact revenge in 15 minutes. Who cared more?


  93. Donald L Denis April 2, 2014 at 21:02 #

    YouTube is telling me your rape culture video has been “removed by the user.” Did you do that? I’d like to see it.


  94. judgybitch April 2, 2014 at 21:03 #

    I didn’t no. How curious.


  95. Lean Back April 8, 2014 at 03:58 #

    I’ve never heard of “rape fantasy”. Is this an Anglo cultural thing?


  96. Lean Back April 8, 2014 at 04:12 #

    “When I was in college, I added to my income by helping at concerts – women tend to be “easily” available at concerts and more than a little willing. Several times I found myself jammed up behind a woman and ended up having sex. She never turned around – never wanted to see my face, she was young, cute and small (from what I could tell from behind) – pretty much my criteria. Of course there was no protection – unless she was on the Pill. I never asked or really wanted to know.

    So the “rape” fantasy is more than just a fantasy for a lot of women”

    – Those “young cute and small” anonymous women you slipped your penis in obviously weren’t the only ones with a “stranger rape fantasy” were there?


  97. Lean Back April 8, 2014 at 04:33 #

    About fathers who “abandon” their kids when they separate from their kids’ mom JB said: “That might be cultural, though. ”

    – As is the so called “rape fantasy”. At the risk of sounding “racissssssss” (oh my!), I’m going to jump to the conclusion that Just Saying and the anonymous “young, cute and small” women he jammed up against and penetrated in public at music concerts are white people from “western civilization” and most likely of Anglo or Northern European descent.

    Culture matters. A LOT.


  98. Rebecca April 16, 2014 at 03:52 #

    Or it could be that a blowing nut is more likely to lead to pregnancy than indifference…


  99. Steven June 30, 2014 at 12:48 #

    “Bergner recounts, over and over again, the waning lust of women who find themselves with nice, accommodating, intelligent, accomplished men – perfect genetic specimens for offspring – but they don’t want to fuck these men.

    There is no lust. No desire. If desire was about capturing good genes, these men would be at the top of their To Do list, but they’re not. They’re at the bottom.”

    It depends what you mean by good genes. This could just be some beta male fantasy of what good genes are or a modern rational idea of what good genes would be in modern society. Was being gentle and nice really survival enhancing for a man throughout our evolution? Maybe women desire mentally and physically strong men who could protect them and their children and gain prosperity and social status and even dominate other men. Maybe throughout most of human evolution, they were the survival enhancing genes.

    My contention is that women do try to capture good genes but our idea of good genes- a nice, accommodating man (sometimes referred to in the north fo England as a wet lettuce)- isn’t really good genes in a survival sense, at least throughout most of human evolution.

    Note: the strong man can also have a heart, love his children, be nice to his girlfriend; he doesn’t have to be a psychopath but he should be strong and masculine.



  100. Steven June 30, 2014 at 13:14 #

    and that is not to even mention good looking, which those nice accommodating guys that provoke no lust may not be.

    You (or the author) emphasize that men are attracted to women with very specific body ratios that show reproductive fitness etc but then imagine women will or should be attracted to some nice guy despite the fact he may not have physical signs of fitness and strength himself. And this is apparently evidence that women are not in it for good genes but because of their narcissism.


  101. Steven June 30, 2014 at 13:29 #

    “If desire was about capturing good genes, these men would be at the top of their To Do list, but they’re not.”

    If desire was about narcissistic reinforcement, wouldn’t these guys be high on their list? They adore an desire beautiful women plenty.

    Those average to bad looking, intelligent (as if more forceful men can’t be intelligent too), very nice and accommodating (rather than confident and decisive?) may actually not be the most desire worthy men from the point of view of survival and reproductive fitness.


  102. Steven June 30, 2014 at 13:51 #

    By the way, I’m not denying that narcissism is a element of female sexuality (it even is for males to some extent)…wanting to be desired and adored…clearly are things that appeal in a big way to women (confession: I want to be desired and appreciated too). But clearly narcissism isn’t the single driving force of female sexuality as this claims. Clearly, women are attracted to a particular type of body and personality for fitness reasons, just like men are.



  1. Diet, Behavior, and Violence in Under Nourished Creatures | caprizchka - March 7, 2014

    […] Is women’s sexuality profoundly narcissistic? That would explain a lot. […]


  2. The QUIBCAGs keep on coming, even if Hipster Racist is ignorant of Pythagorean mysticism | vulture of critique - March 8, 2014

    […]… […]


  3. the Revision Division - March 9, 2014

    […] JANET BLOOMFIELD: Is women’s sexuality profoundly narcissistic? That would explain a lot. […]


  4. Is women’s sexuality profoundly narcissistic? That would explain a lot. | Manosphere Me - March 14, 2014

    […] Is women’s sexuality profoundly narcissistic? That would explain a lot. […]


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: