Males have no inherent value in society.

Female politicians, female scientists, are usually masculine looking and have male characteristics, the one’s that don’t, the Sarah Palins of the world, the Miss Teens, are usually retards.

Adult males have no inherent value to women. Women do not sexually fawn over adult males, except for 1 or 2 males out of the entire population, such as Brad Pitt. Compare this to the horse population, male horses have intrinsic sexual value, females “get in heat” and lust after the male horses. Male horses have inherent sexual value, male humans have no inherent sexual value. There is no “mating season” for humans, and we can see this reflected in the calendar holidays. There is no sexual mating ritual represented in the holidays, only a “valentines day” which is not analogous to “getting in heat”, but more so a day to celebrate the possibility of future friendship and romance, and more so, it is a holiday involving rejection, the lack of getting valentines cards from crushes.

When I said women only fawn after 1 or 2 males out of the population, I did not mean 1% of the population. I literally meant 1 or 2 males. The 1% of the male population does experience more sexual diversity than everyone else, but this is not because they have inherent value to human women. Even the privileged 1% must approach women carefully, sensitively, tactically, and deviously, to accomplish a romance. And these males still have no inherent value. The value of a male is derived from invisible qualities, not his inherent male form. For instance, if a male is hired more often than a female, that is because there is an implied assumption that the male is more intelligent than the female. The male has no inherent value, for instance, if he finds out that the male is actually no more intelligent than the female, the female will be preferred. Males are valued for their abilities, for instance the local handyman is cherished, not because he is a man, but because he his honest, reliable, and can fix things. Males have no inherent value. Males are considered as apes by females, only when a female can look past his male form, and see his invisible qualities, like “Oh…what a good person you are Johnny, I see the angel inside!” does attraction begin. Males have no inherent sexual value, males are like apes, the suicide rate of men is 10 to 1 compared to women.

This seems to be an evolutionary dead end. The only time when males have inherent sexual value to women is when they are teenagers. During this window you will see the female of the species initiate flirtation and contact with the males. After this window, women no longer approach males, and are cold to males, adult males have to resort to using their invisible qualities and seducing women and dominating women. This leads to a backwards society where irresponsible teen pregnancy is the norm, and suicidal adult males who are not cared for by women and have no inherent value to women. Furthermore, the discernment used by women to evaluate invisible qualities is usually irrational, and often immoral. For instance, many women have the minds of brutes and savages, who are attracted to male traits of conspicuous consumption, violence, gluttony, and hedonism. It is often hard to tell that these women are brutes, because of their feminine mannerisms and exterior. For instance, I was reading a shabby romance novel and in it, the author stated that she found vegans and those who were interested in clean energy, weak and unnattractive, and that she was only attracted to meat-eaters and people who enjoyed driving diesel engines and gas cars. So, there seems to be an archetype, Pollution Girl, who is aroused at oil tycoons and men who pollute the planet, and is unnattracted to men who want to clean and help the planet. This is backwards evolution, runaway natural selection where the females are unable to discern what is good for the community. The reason for this is simple, estrogen is a sleep hormone and as such causes mental fog, while simultaneously giving feelings of mental refreshedness, giving off a sense of false confidence to females. This results in a categorical dimorphism of females…certain groups will resist and overcome themselves, which I will call group A, other groups will succumb to themselves, which I call group B of women. Group A of women are usually bisexual or lesbian like, they are often either feminists, or anti-feminists. Their politics are not as rudimentary as Group B of women. Group A will be attracted to feminine men, who resemble them. Thus, the popularity of boy bands, Loki, Edward Cullen, Elvis, Kaulitz bros, Marilyn Manson, Johnny Depp, Backstreet Boys, Michael Jackson, Nsync, etc. who look feminine. Group A is more or less attracted to feminine men who resemble them. This is why they will often be found in couples who look like “clones”…short men who are fragile and definitely not alpha, as their lovers and soulmates. Group B is the opposite dimorphism, these are more or less political bimbos, the type of women who view lesbian behavior as “weird and strange”, the type of woman who is typically ignorant about common knowledge/common sense things. This archetype is attracted to masculine alphas, men who either abuse her or make her feel stupid, men who do conspicuous consumption, gluttons, etc. However, this still means males have no inherent value. Group B is only attracted to males who built themselves up, going to the gym, living gluttonous lifestyles, learning to be bullyish and manipulative, etc. Group A is only attracted to the feminine aspects of the male form, not the male form itself, except for the penis and muscles.

The probable explanation for this is that in times in the wild, conspicuous consumption was good for the community and males who hunted excessively were viewed as good. However, in modern times, estrogen being a sleep hormone disrupting rational thought, with many women unable to discern items of complexity…they are still stuck on the same base psychology of gluttony=good, unable to discern evolutionary superiority in relation to context. Thus, grass eaters and Amish people, are mocked and scorned by women, and instead left for oil tycoons and alpha males in fancy cars. Women, unable to discern that living lightly and taking care of the planet is beneficial to the community, obey their old out of date primitive routines, because they never evolved the psychology of evolutionary sexual discernment.

I always get on people for their evolutionary apologetics…

Groups hunt better than individuals, and groups can take down individuals better than individuals. So rationally, females wouldn’t stratify their sex so much, even in prehistoric times.

The problem is the stratification, women really don’t give a shit about most males. There’s not really something called birth stratification… That’s the least stratified sexual category.

But it’s the harsh stratification which actually goes against group theory and makes most males blackmailed compliant drones. The irony is that the objectifiers and the dogs and dickheads and douchbags are the only ones who get sex!!!

Males need value (a commodity is caused harshly by the stratification) so they become their own enemy just to get sex.

Sex and intimacy are a package deal. Most young males are impatient and want to skip the intimacy and jump right into sex, while young women are too eager to please, and thus are unable to make the male slow down. This leads to cold, mechanical, unsatisfying sex for both parties. This leads to frustration; frustration leads to anger; anger leads to a strained relationship, which makes intimacy even more difficult. Males turn to fetishes, while women fantasize about Brad Pitt, or whichever idealized male they imagine can give them the intimacy they crave. As frustration grows, men turn more and more to their fetishes, while women turn more and more to fantasizing about Brad Pitt, instead of working on their relationship. Eventually they will break up and carry all this sexual baggage over into their next relationships. In the end, the woman will say she prefers chocolate to sex, while the male will buy a blow up doll.

I didn’t say this right…

Because females stratify this so much, males are looking to get sex much more than women from the broad population of men… This makes female lives more valuable… When a woman gets murdered, males are like “fuck! One less possible sexual encounter!” When men get murdered or tortured, females are like “whatevz” no big deal.

Honey dear, I don’t think males have reached the “intimacy” radius yet, perhaps I was unclear. I don’t see women even giving males the chance to even reach the intimacy radius, women have xenophobic tendencies, and intimacy and sex are inextricably tied. When you get one, you get both, and males rarely are presented the opportunity for either, due to interpersonal xenophobia against males and male expendability (the view that males have no feelings, that they are nothing more than mindless cannon fodder, the subconscious cultural view the only purpose for a male is to be slaughtered in the droves.) Males these days can barely make it past the woman’s “bitch shield”, to even begin to discern whether to give more weight to intimacy or sex.

You’re not understanding a situation you claim to understand Trixie.

If women only sought intimacy from sex, there wouldn’t be the severe stratification towards the least intimate males.

I know that, duh. He brought that up, not me! You should be addressing him, you must have read the post name’s wrong.

People start getting cranky when they’re not getting enough /any -but that’s not us -Right?

Now the question is, or at least pertains to, why are so many of us not getting any?

Human biology is fucked up. I know that. You’ve seen the movie Gone with the Wind? You see Scarlett O’Hara, the film’s heroine -desired by every male on the planet. She could have her choice of men. Who does she want? Naturally, she wants the one male who isn’t interested in her. And male biology is just as screwed. If a female is too forward, it’s a turn-off for the male, and females know this. So the only way to attract a male’s interest is to act indifferent towards him. Male or female, you’re always going to be most attracted to those who are least likely to satisfy you.

But just because human biology is fucked up doesn’t mean that one must obey one’s biology. You can trick your biology, and you can have a satisfying relationship with a person who may not have been the one your hormones wanted you to hook up with. And sometimes things go cold between a couple, but that relationship can still work. Trouble is too many people just give up too easily.

P.S. I’m not saying I’m an expert on this subject; just offering some of my own insights.

Um…women get in heat for adult males.

Are you kidding?? Men are turned off by female approaches?? Men do so much of the approaching, that most hard and softcore porn is about the fantasy of women approaching men in terms of escalation.

The ONLY reason porn is more used by men is not because they are more visual, but because sexual stratification causes more male sexual deprivation.

Rubbish, rubbish, rubbish.

I am not cranky for that reason, I am cranky because Ec criticized me for something I did not do, confused someone else’s post and accredited it to me.
Though it is true people can get cranky for that reason, that is not why I exploded at him.

Women only get in heat if the male seduces them and programs them to, unless said male is a boy toy teenager or elvis presley type, which is the only window in which women actually get up and approach males.

No male is repulsed by a hot woman approaching him. The only reason that would happen is if he is in asexual mode, and a woman opens up a can of worms and he doesnt appreciate being at the mercy of a woman and vulnerable again, when he was cool. You seem to have a programmed campaign of wanting to equalize, making women and men look not so bad, as if men are just as guilty as women, and women have it just as bad as men, when they aren’t. Hmm, which is worse? Living your life with too much attention, or not getting any attention at all? Women have options.

There is more than porn that that, women dont watch porn because they are more wordsexual and have less of a sex drive. They are also more sensitive and tend to shut themselves out to visual content. It is not just because women have more options.

Sorry for confusing your post.

Apology accepted.

I have to say that this has certainly been my experience.

Read next one.

Why did you put it in quotation marks?

Stupid phone, the buttons are too small, even with magnification … I thought I picked edit when I really picked quote, and the only reason I needed to edit in the first place is because of the stupid phone.

Let me clarify that. Of course men fantasize about that, but how often is it that a woman approaches the man, rather than vice versa. When a woman does approach a man, it’s the Scarlett O’Hara thing again -usually a guy who has no interest in her. She might have had a chance if she had let him notice her first, but because he wasn’t interested in her when she came on to him, he just finds her annoying.

As you say, women use sex as a commodity, but they’re really dumb about it. With most commodities, the shorter the supply, the greater the demand. But sex is more like a drug -the more you get, the more you want.