had an interesting experience,, felt like talking about sexual psychology quirks in women

650

• (+5/-0)

I was out at night for a stroll, stopped by an outdoors bar, just to drink orange juice, east some chips/crisps served as appetizers, and enjoy the beauty of the oldest parts of my city at night.

I ended up failing to hide my power level when I wound up talking to some of the gentlemen at the bar, first i was in cool redpill territory, but when i started dipping into the "alt-right" (sigh) side of things when I started to give my opinions on the George Floyd trial, I concealed it because it was starting to rustle some jimmies in the guys i was talking to.

I returned the conversation to a more pleasant tone, and had a great rest of the time, then I started to head out, when a black girl who overheard me saying some spicy things came up to me, I thought she'd be upset, but no, she was clearly flirting and wanting to get in contact with me, the strange white guy who she knows is probably racist.

This is not a new thing, and my night tonight has just reminded me of this topic: non-white women who deliberately seek out white men who are racist against their race, because they perceive them as attractive as a partner. It's stupid to anyone who thinks women are thinking like a guy would expect them to, but knowing female psychology and seeing this happen before, it's perfectly understandable.

In the 70's there were a bunch of men who went on trial for raping and killing and eating women who they didn't know, seemingly chosen at random, these men were in the center of the attention of women who were outraged - At the fact they couldn't get to these guys in order to have sex with them. These women sent these men letters, gave them money, and campaigned for their release, they even sought these men out for marriage, they knew what these men had done, and in their minds it made them superior partners.

This is the exact same thing that is occurring when those black and brown women showed up at alt-right events looking to get some nazi to take them to bed, a thing that was reported a lot during the time throughout 2015 and 2016. In their eyes, we were dangerous, especially for them, scary, and also somewhat mysterious, a lot of people had trouble understanding them and conflicting accounts were spread across the media.

For a female brain, the men who would be the greatest threat to them were also the most worthwhile partners if they could be seduced, and women always had a good chance of securing a mate from these types of men rather than becoming one of their victims, this is therefore something that is programmed into them through evolution.

The opposite is also true, and that is why the nice guys who are liked by women, are sexually unappealing to them, in fact, they are downright repellant, while the guys who "treat them like shit", aka the guys who women constantly tell men NOT to be like, the types of men that women hate, are also their first choice for a mate, precisely BECAUSE they have all the qualities that women find unlikable.

Masculinity in men is both unlikable to women, and also sexy, while femininity in men is likable to women, and also sexually repulsive, women lack the ability to be aware of this until they actually experience either and feel that inner response from their reproductive instincts, so they will say they find something attractive that actually repels them when they see it, and say that something repels them when they actually find it irresistible when it's right in front of them.

The problem with imbeciies like (((Adam Connelly))) is that he equates the likeability of a man to a woman to their sexual attractiveness to them, and women would attest to this if questioned about it, since it makes sense, while in reality, these things actually don't go together and are in fact in opposition to one another. it all comes down to evolutionary history.

Adam also gets it wrong when he claims that "alpha male" and "beta male" refer to some wolf analogy, they don't, the actual origin comes from the concept of mate preference, and an "alpha male" is one who possess characteristics that women prefer, as demonstrated by these types consistently being their first choice of mate, while a "beta male" is one whose characteristics are a mix of "alpha" and "omega" male traits, making them the second choice of a woman, and "omega male" is one who possess none of the traits that women prefer, so they occupy last place in a woman's mate preferences. The "wolf analogy" is still sometimes made, since these types of males also typically sort themselves into a similar positioning in all male hierarchies, most notably workplaces, with "alphas" occupying leadership roles, "betas" occupying the middle, and "omegas" being at the bottom this is because men respond to these traits in each other as well, just in different ways.

To say that all women are naturally bisexual is an understatement, women are evolutionarily programmed to be willing to pair-bond with and fuck anything.

Since women are guaranteed to be left with the pregnancy, birthing, and raising of children, it makes sense to have an instinct that allows them to find and bond with anyone or anything that will help them in doing these things, another woman can help raise offspring as a proxy for the father of her child, and sex produces pair-bond responses in both sexes, meaning that woman who could sleep just as easily with another women as with a man is at an advantage when it comes to the survival of her children.

Same goes for a woman who would open herself up to another man when her partner isn't around, and a woman who would open up to a wide variety of callers (desperate single moms, anyone?), even women who could have sex with animals as easily as with humans is at a benefit over one who would have higher standards, because a lot of this is tied to the same part of her brain that is being affected by selection here.

So a woman who claims she is bisexual is just saying "I'm a woman".

I was out at night for a stroll, stopped by an outdoors bar, just to drink orange juice, east some chips/crisps served as appetizers, and enjoy the beauty of the oldest parts of my city at night. I ended up failing to hide my power level when I wound up talking to some of the gentlemen at the bar, first i was in cool redpill territory, but when i started dipping into the "alt-right" (sigh) side of things when I started to give my opinions on the George Floyd trial, I concealed it because it was starting to rustle some jimmies in the guys i was talking to. I returned the conversation to a more pleasant tone, and had a great rest of the time, then I started to head out, when a black girl who overheard me saying some spicy things came up to me, I thought she'd be upset, but no, she was clearly flirting and wanting to get in contact with me, the strange white guy who she knows is probably racist. This is not a new thing, and my night tonight has just reminded me of this topic: non-white women who deliberately seek out white men who are racist against their race, because they perceive them as attractive as a partner. It's stupid to anyone who thinks women are thinking like a guy would expect them to, but knowing female psychology and seeing this happen before, it's perfectly understandable. In the 70's there were a bunch of men who went on trial for raping and killing and eating women who they didn't know, seemingly chosen at random, these men were in the center of the attention of women who were outraged - At the fact they couldn't get to these guys in order to have sex with them. These women sent these men letters, gave them money, and campaigned for their release, they even sought these men out for marriage, they knew what these men had done, and in their minds it made them superior partners. This is the exact same thing that is occurring when those black and brown women showed up at alt-right events looking to get some nazi to take them to bed, a thing that was reported a lot during the time throughout 2015 and 2016. In their eyes, we were dangerous, especially for them, scary, and also somewhat mysterious, a lot of people had trouble understanding them and conflicting accounts were spread across the media. For a female brain, the men who would be the greatest threat to them were also the most worthwhile partners if they could be seduced, and women always had a good chance of securing a mate from these types of men rather than becoming one of their victims, this is therefore something that is programmed into them through evolution. The opposite is also true, and that is why the nice guys who are liked by women, are sexually unappealing to them, in fact, they are downright repellant, while the guys who "treat them like shit", aka the guys who women constantly tell men NOT to be like, the types of men that women hate, are also their first choice for a mate, precisely BECAUSE they have all the qualities that women find unlikable. Masculinity in men is both unlikable to women, and also sexy, while femininity in men is likable to women, and also sexually repulsive, women lack the ability to be aware of this until they actually experience either and feel that inner response from their reproductive instincts, so they will say they find something attractive that actually repels them when they see it, and say that something repels them when they actually find it irresistible when it's right in front of them. The problem with imbeciies like (((Adam Connelly))) is that he equates the likeability of a man to a woman to their sexual attractiveness to them, and women would attest to this if questioned about it, since it makes sense, while in reality, these things actually don't go together and are in fact in opposition to one another. it all comes down to evolutionary history. Adam also gets it wrong when he claims that "alpha male" and "beta male" refer to some wolf analogy, they don't, the actual origin comes from the concept of mate preference, and an "alpha male" is one who possess characteristics that women prefer, as demonstrated by these types consistently being their first choice of mate, while a "beta male" is one whose characteristics are a mix of "alpha" and "omega" male traits, making them the second choice of a woman, and "omega male" is one who possess none of the traits that women prefer, so they occupy last place in a woman's mate preferences. The "wolf analogy" is still sometimes made, since these types of males also typically sort themselves into a similar positioning in all male hierarchies, most notably workplaces, with "alphas" occupying leadership roles, "betas" occupying the middle, and "omegas" being at the bottom this is because men respond to these traits in each other as well, just in different ways. To say that all women are naturally bisexual is an understatement, women are evolutionarily programmed to be willing to pair-bond with and fuck anything. Since women are guaranteed to be left with the pregnancy, birthing, and raising of children, it makes sense to have an instinct that allows them to find and bond with anyone or anything that will help them in doing these things, another woman can help raise offspring as a proxy for the father of her child, and sex produces pair-bond responses in both sexes, meaning that woman who could sleep just as easily with another women as with a man is at an advantage when it comes to the survival of her children. Same goes for a woman who would open herself up to another man when her partner isn't around, and a woman who would open up to a wide variety of callers (desperate single moms, anyone?), even women who could have sex with animals as easily as with humans is at a benefit over one who would have higher standards, because a lot of this is tied to the same part of her brain that is being affected by selection here. So a woman who claims she is bisexual is just saying "I'm a woman".

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

In fact, the most advantageous thing for a female's genes Is to be sexually attracted to anything at all, especially that which possesses a masculine character, hence the reason things like violence/rape and monsters/bestiality are major fetishes among females.

As for beta and omega males, it would be more accurate to say that females are programmed to have preferences, rather than things they like and dislike. These males are typically repellant, but in the absence of an alpha, the beta is attractive, and in the absence of alphas and betas, the omega acquires sexual appeal.

Lastly, female sexuality is strongly impacted by the immediate social environment and what that is telling her is sexially desirable in a female mate. Lesbianism explodes in a social environment where other females are seen as good mates for females, similarly, the appeal of fat men in Polynesian society or small penises on Greek society are also preferences borne of social environment on female sexuality.

Women's minds are extremely sensitive to social pressures, hence why cults frequently have young females as their first members, this is why women should not be permitted to vote, their degree of free will is extremely questionable, and as suggestable as women are, it would be a recipe for disaster if they had a say in matters of any import.

This is the true problem with women's liberation, women having agency is a problem not because women are stupid, but because they are too easily influenced by their environment into adopting whatever they perceive to be the most socially preferable opinions.

Imagine a guy on scopolomine 24/7, that is what a woman is like.

Think about it this way, the barbarians who talk about building a pyramid from the skulls of their enemy tribe will likely only do so to the males, and the females who resist will get the same treatment, but those females who do not resist and instead try to buy their sparing with sex, opening their legs fir those who seem to want them dead, will likely succeed in being spared, if only to become a sex slave for the conquerors, the children that result from this arrangement will grow up as members of the conquering tribe, and thus it is evolutionarily advantageous for a female to be attracted to their enemy. In fact, the most advantageous thing for a female's genes Is to be sexually attracted to anything at all, especially that which possesses a masculine character, hence the reason things like violence/rape and monsters/bestiality are major fetishes among females. As for beta and omega males, it would be more accurate to say that females are programmed to have preferences, rather than things they like and dislike. These males are typically repellant, but in the absence of an alpha, the beta is attractive, and in the absence of alphas and betas, the omega acquires sexual appeal. Lastly, female sexuality is strongly impacted by the immediate social environment and what that is telling her is sexially desirable in a female mate. Lesbianism explodes in a social environment where other females are seen as good mates for females, similarly, the appeal of fat men in Polynesian society or small penises on Greek society are also preferences borne of social environment on female sexuality. Women's minds are extremely sensitive to social pressures, hence why cults frequently have young females as their first members, this is why women should not be permitted to vote, their degree of free will is extremely questionable, and as suggestable as women are, it would be a recipe for disaster if they had a say in matters of any import. This is the true problem with women's liberation, women having agency is a problem not because women are stupid, but because they are too easily influenced by their environment into adopting whatever they perceive to be the most socially preferable opinions. Imagine a guy on scopolomine 24/7, that is what a woman is like.

(post is archived)