men compared to women

Hypothesis on the Female Attraction to Violence and Risk Taking

Female Attraction to Violence
Comments (16)
  1. Jessire Nagy says:

    ♂ What many m.g.t.o.w. tend to be absent minded of is the fact that, yes, female sexuality is very much correlated to provision & protection, but in many cases of hybristophilia, whether minor or major degree, is that in addition to that, there’s also the distraction factor. Remember: humble, rational males are “creepy”, “pathetic”, possibly useful, frustrating, boring, etc.. Any male, including the more oblivious non-m.g.t.o.w., can attest to how females can’t be slightly bored or uncomfortable for just barely 1 min. before moving on to something else. It’s the flaky & lack of integrity factor you also have to consider with such females with their varying degrees of hybristophilia. ~3 seconds of “awkwardness” is inflated to be 1 minute of it. The males with conduct disorders, etc., & impulse can spare her the “creepy”, “awkward”, “pathetic”, “frustrating”, etc., of rational, humble males who give that “void” to females that they just have to fill. ♂

  2. Human interaction always rests on an economic basis. Where violence and extreme risk taking yields higher results, such partners are preferred or at least can buy their way into partnership with the spoils of war. In that sense even violence and risk is just another mode of how to generate enough resources, nothing really more. The bond between men and women, even between child and parent is always an economic one. Once child bearing and marriage did not yield anymore higher results and the market drove the opportunity costs up (the theoretical income women could earn while staying single) female fertility dropped already sharply in the 19th century, while divorce was already rising sharply in the 20s and 30s. It is the economy and the economic relations that drive societies and even sexuality and reproduction, not the other way around. We are after all just homo oeconomicus.

    1. Life’s but a series of trade-offs, which carry with them a far reaching impact. Completely agreed. However I’d say that just as economic relations drive us, sexuality and reproduction are huge drivers of economic relations. In essence it’s a feedback loop.

      1. True, true…reality is not just a mono-causal result but a living complexity, although the economic system is fairly complex itself since humans are most of the time economically active beings. But to put it in your own words of your excellent article (where I think we are at the same page really): “In short, right now in our specific environment and context I have reason to consider that violence and aggression as traits don’t hold a direct, overt influence over reproductive success. To repeat my previous point, the attraction for the “bad boy”, isn’t for what the “bad boy” is, but for what his traits can get. So instead of a direct influence, aggression holds a lingering indirect influence on reproductive success, while essentially the bottom line is all about resources and provision.”
        Couldn’t have said it any better mate!
        Obrigado mais uma vez e cordiais saudações from Germany!

  3. CS MGTOW says:

    Excellent article GEO, I share your conclusion that the link between the capacity for violence (or the ability to resist violence) has so long been linked to resource provisioning that females have become somewhat adapted to selecting more violent men by default, like a form of operant conditioning. I still maintain that the capacity to resist violence would have had a stronger impact on evolutionary adaptations since the initiation of violence carries with it substantial risk, especially for males who are yet to reproduce (and form the majority of persons likely to initiate lethal violence), hypergamy would have certainly conditioned women to select for this trait, irrespective of its origin. The data you provided on divorce rates of men in active service vs those who have retired, is particularlying illuminating, and shows a blatent hypergamous bent by the military service mens wives (also known as Dependas), and certainly supports a position that in a trade off between the capacity for violence vs resource provisioning, resource provisioning better satisfies a women’s hypergamy, to the extent that hypergamy can ever be completely satisfied.

    1. From what I understand, fearlessness, propensity for taking risks, and aggression are a sort of double-edged traits. Just as they inform on the capacity to commit violence, they also inform on the capacity to resist it. Resisting a raid from a rival is in a sense a risky behavior, whereas submitting isn’t, for instance.
      One reason as to why I think that the desire for protection doesn’t share the weight of the desire for provision in sexual selection, is that women could easily find protection within close kin/family/tribe/nation, protection available without the need for sexual investment. Again, of course, all this is extremely sensitive to context. In a violent, cutthroat, high competition setting, surely an extra investment on protection goes a long way.

  4. Jessire Nagy says:

    A lot of m.g.t.o.w. come from “straight” society which will give an analysis by terms of business, etc… I’ve been involved in different “sub-cultures”, for a lack of better description, to offer a different comparison, where females were drawn to male bullies more for some archetypal fetishism with novelty craving,. It was not “hypergamy” in monetary terms. Some females will, if you’re lucky, say something like: “We don’t like it when a male gives us everything we want”, which roughly translates to a guy with hugely amplified confidence. But this is still another form of greed by the female because this translates to females desiring that they will nearly constantly be policed – a form of greed for sensory experience. You could call that some form of “hypergamy” because hypergamy is just greed, but in this different type I have given, it’s not monetary greed. There’s females who will be with ex-convict losers who have trouble with money.

    1. I see this resource acquisition centered model as more of a reference point than as something completely rigid and immutable, and therefore I must concede that of course there is a degree of flexibility in the hierarchy of a woman’s desires and needs, when a different context and environment is in place. Absolutely. But again, as always, we’re talking here of average inclinations working on an unconscious level.

  5. Tim says:

    The MGTOW mindset exists to free men from the burden of dying for women’s entitlement, women’s rights, women’s narcissism, women’s enforcement of male disposability, women’s cluster B personality disorders, women’s hatred of men and women’s desire for widespread cultural misandry. The naive men that fall prey to these women’s sociopathy we call white knights. Why? Captain-save-a-hos are as deadly to the masses of men as “women’s groups”. Powerful men and entitled, narcissistic women are men’s true enemies. No-fault divorce was devised by NAWL (National Association of Women Lawyers) to grant women the power to dispose of their husbands while simultaneously giving women the power to retain their X husbands current and future assets and income – all while fucking their next door neighbor’s underage son – and forcing their X husband into suicide. To this day, these same folk are devising new and improved ways to destroy males. Thanks to no-fault divorce, trillions in wealth have been transferred from naive men to women and untold hundreds of thousands of men have taken their own lives.

    When you drive down the road, how much of what you see was built by women? What wars did women fight and die in to secure rights and privileges for men? Recognize your place beneath women yet?

    1. Jessire Nagy says:

      ♂ Tim, interesting. ¶ Do you have a link you could type of some good source of that, preferably of PDF book format, or article? ♂

      1. Tim says:

        What? You mean PDFs that prove that older female teachers use their scholastic influence to fuck naive, underaged boys? The evidence of this is in the news every day – though it will never be collected as a national stat. Why? Only men can be rapists. Women only take advantage of young boys due to patriarchal oppression. It’s always men and boys fault. Never women’s. Women are sugar and spice and everything nice.

        Countless millions of men have died for women’s rights and freedoms. Any researcher with any salt could look this up for his or her self. I’ve no reason to go to the library to prove it. You go.

        Ever hear of the “Istanbul Convention”? Ever hear of the “Cohabitation Rights Bill”? I have. Both were specifically put forth to free women from men’s oppression, by allowing women state enforced rights over men’s current and future assets and income – just like women enjoy through divorce – only without marriage. What does that mean? It means forced wealth and power transfer through de facto relationships. Look it up. It’s all the rage now. What the hell? The whole world is going to forced transfer of wealth from men to women through de facto marriage and you need a PDF?

        Not going to do your research. Look it up.

        It’s a sad state of affairs. To many want their information breast fed.

      2. Tim says:

        OK. Here’s one source to get you going. Learn to search Google for info. If you master Google, you’ll rule the world. For example, search for “feminist” “hate”. Oh the articles.

        I found the below link instantly by searching “India” and “men’s rights” and by breaking my search down to the last week. Want to have lots of fun? Just do a search on “Men’s rights”. That one is my fave. I run that search on google week by week. It’s fun knowing how badly men are hated by women’s and white knight’s groups. Just remember, women are 98% of alimony and child support recipients. Add that amount and multiply it from 1965 forward and you get a shocking number of wealth transfer. This info isn’t collected. Why? You’re not meant to know. That’s why MGTOW are considered losers by white knights and women. You’re not supposed to be able to figure it out for yourself. You’re supposed to bow to women and white knights.

        1. beaker12 says:

          Also, check out this book:

          “The Feminized Male: Classrooms, White Collars and the Decline of Manliness” by Patricia Cayo Sexton, published in 1969.

  6. Jessire Nagy says:

    Tim, I asked if you knew a good book or direct article because I’m a writer & could’ve turned that into another instant article. You also answered my further reply that you would be met with a lot of shuffled content from the apposition, which requires more sifting through.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *