Bloody Shovel 3

We will drown and nobody shall save us


A lot of stuff has been going on these days, but I want to go back to talk about women.

A big part of the success of the altright blogosphere is the synergy between HBD and the Game movement. Roissy owes his fame for joining Steve Sailer with Neil Strauss, and making his point with very good writing. The basic idea is that much of our behaviour is biologically determined, and if evolution made different populations distinct genetically, it also did that to sex.

It is a great point, perhaps one of the most important discoveries ever. It changed my life in a way that neither Ovid nor Stendhal did, and I'm sure it did the same for thousands of people. "What do women want?", asked Freud. Now we know.

But if the message that men and women are biologically different has got through, people have a hard time keeping a little perspective. So you see every day on the "manosphere" how people complain at the same time that people women are sluts and that women won't sleep with them.

Well you can't have it both ways. We have to understand that not only men and women are different as groups, there is also variance among them. People are different, and even though human societies assign different roles to each group, that often ignores biological variance.

In my last post commenter Red reminds us that, at least in Europe, every village had a village slut, or a handful sluts, with whom men could satisfy a momentary urge without affecting much the social peace. It's hard for the parents of the slut, but that's how it is. If most human traits are distributed normally, I have no reason to doubt that women's sex drive could be mapped more or less like this:

The cutoff is probably closer to the extremes, but I just got a random pic from Google images and you get the point anyway. You might see that the problem that most young men face today is that they all want an easy lay, but the providers of easy lays are limited. Check for example Roosh's travelog. He has fucked so many sluts that he can see one from a mile away, and he's tired of them. So he desperately wants a normal girl who will sleep with him, and is pained that he can't find one, some of the time at least. Just imagine that, a normal girl who won't sleep with a total stranger who is in town for only a week! Which is the Groucho Marx joke upside down: he only want to join the clubs that won't have him as a member.

Of course women are guilty of the same thing: they all chase the alphas, but those are in short supply. Again, for easy imaging:

We call this phenomenon hypergamy. In the same way we might call the young men's mating strategy eukopogamy, Greek for easy coupling (yeah I just made the word up).

But of course the mysteries of women's mating strategy aren't only reduced to hypergamy. There are many other things that we are just starting to uncover, or at least we are the first to name them in Greek. For example we have hybristophilia, where women are attracted to cruel and brutal criminals. This instinct is separate from the alpha-seeking hypergamy, because if Ted Bundy was relatively good looking and manly, the 77 year old Josef Fritzl doesn't get attention for his Alpha attitude.

Of course this doesn't mean that all women are depraved serial killer fans. My guess is that the distributio of hybristophilia is also like this:

That's why you might ask a random woman at your office or school, and ask her about all those love letters that Charles Manson still gets, and she says she can't understand it. Well she probably can't. Or she's just a damn liar. There's also a Bell Curve for that probably.

Related to all the graphs above is another of the puzzling traits of woman that the manosphere is trying to raise awareness of. Which is the fact that some women like to suffer violence. It's funny that saying that openly is a cause of criminal prosecution in many places, while Fifty Shades of Grey is the fastest selling book in the history of mankind, but hey, that's how hamsters work. Any non muslim man today, hell all men today are sure to feel disturbed when they read news that as much as 50% of all women have frequent rape fantasies.

But that again doesn't mean that all women are masochists who want you to give them a black eye every odd day. Let's say that the pain seeking distribution is something like this:

My conclusion about rape fantasies is that women don't want to be raped by any creepy random dude. They just enjoy thinking that some uber alpha is so obsessed with them, but they are so virtuous, that he might have to just force his way into them. Those fantasies seldom include dark and smelly alleys and dumb black crack smokers as is often the reality of rape. Still if evolutionary psychology has any weight to it, women in the evolutionary environment were treated harshly and had all the odds of being kidnapped and raped by some neighbouring tribe. So the Stockholm Syndrome must have had some adaptative effect.

Preaching morality in a blog or its comment thread is easy and that's what conservatism is mostly about. But we in the altright blogosphere should strive to attack liberalism not by using an older brand of magical thinking, but by harnessing the power of reality. Saying that women must shut their legs tight and all strive to be virtuous wives and daughters is as deluded as saying that all men should be noble husbands and fathers and work honest jobs.  It's not going to happen, and it never really was like that. There is a great deal of ruin in a nation. A smart society is the one that while repressing the extremes also lets some steam get off from time to time.

Inclusiveness is evil because it forces mainstream society to people that don't belong to it, and don't really want to be in it. It starts by forcing the mores of the mean into the extremes, and when that fails (it always does), it forces the mores of the extremes into the mean. Of course that works even worse. It won't last.


Leave a Reply
  • THe difficulty is that while this is true, it's not like people wear a medal around their neck that informs you were they fall on various bell curves. People guess, and sometimes they guess wrong. Sometimes they guess wrong big and get divorced, etc.

    I think the point of morality is to influence those with a negative predispotion that is still weak enough they can overcome it with a reasonble level of self control. If we can get 80% of society behaving "good" things work. 50% illigitimacy rate is just not good enough.

    • ...or to just inform those who are simply smart enough to learn from others. A society teaches morality for the same reason it teaches history, art, physics or anything else for that matter. For every luminary in the next generation, there are a ten thousand shlubs that'll be forgotten, but the luminaries need to stand on the shoulders of giants.

      • I don't think he's talking about morality qua moral teaching in schools; there is a folk morality based on family and peer pressure that's stronger than any catechism taught at schools. You don't need to be smart to know not to kill, and in fact smart people tend to be smart enough to be able to rationalise their own evil inclinations in a way average people can't.

        I think asdf is right in that morality strives to influence enough marginally evil people to have a critical mass of good behaviour, and that's what it historically achieved. But today, modern technology, mass schooling and media means that the means of social control of those on power are orders of magnitude bigger than they were before, so they have been trying to push ever further for 100% compliance to their moral code. And that's bound to fail. Well my point is that it fail so badly that they have turned into inclusiveness by default, i.e. accepting extreme behaviour as normal.

        • I don't have enough time to make the point I want, so I'll make a simpler one.

          When I worked in private industry we would often have problems that we deemed "not important enough to deal with". So you've got 30,000 points of data and 10 are corrupted. You just throw them out and move on, its not worth the hassle to deal with them. Too many resources and deadlines jeopardized if you go for perfection.

          In public work we obsess over checking every box, no matter how inane or unimportant it is to our mission. Public servants have a box checking fetish, everything must be in its place. Even though ultimately we often compromise on these issues, we are never able to just say, "not important enough to deal with."

          Many issues of morality are just "not important enough to deal with." Take gay marriage. A tiny % of a tiny % of the population wants a government seal of approval on an activity they can already do in private. Who cares? What does it matter? That's the same as my 10 entries of corrupted data, just throw them away and focus on the main block. The main block (heterosexual marriage) is falling apart. And people are bending over backwards over some inconvenience to those freak data points. It's nonsense.

          P.S. Despite being box checking fetishists, I recently found out the senior people at my agency are purposely ignoring some boxes in exchange for kickbacks. Apparently our obsessive compulsive box checking is just a cover for their illegal activities. God forbid someone notice one of the other boxes missing and look into the rest.

        • Eh? I didn't say anything about schools. Institutions, if anything, teach negative socialization hence the propensity of homeschooled children to outperform their institutionalized peers in academics and WAY outperform in moral behavior.

  • "Those fantasies seldom include dark and smelly alleys and dumb black crack smokers as is often the reality of rape. "

    Is that true? I always thought that was a tiny % of rapes, and most rapes happened between people who knew each other somewhat - and if that is true then rapists probably are in general attractive to women. After all, how can a rapist get alone with a woman he knows if he is a creepy person? Rapists could actually be extroverted, good looking and good with people.

    • I don't know, any stats on that? A creepy-rape in a smelly alley by a petty criminal is qualitatively different from a non-creepy rape, and the subsequent trauma (the reason we think of rape as such a heinous crime) also would be different.

      • Rape is anytime a girl wakes up at a frat and regrets the previous nights activities. This is the vast majority of "rapes".

        • Asdf, I don't at all doubt that that happens, but I would say it's a stretch to say anytime. The vast majority of regretted sex is just simply so much easier to forget than to transfer blame. Women who do cry rape when none occurred are likely psychopathic to a degree. I'm always wary of rape cases for this and other reasons.

      • In the majority of rapes, the rapist is an acquaintance of the woman. Further, the rape rate for married women living with their husbands is extremely low - which suggests that the majority of rapes are to some considerable extent facilitated by the fact that the woman was looking for some cock, hence probably would not have been categorized as rape in the bad old days when women were not supposed to get drunk in the dark at three in the morning with casual acquaintances.

  • You should read the work of radical feminists. They think penis-in-vagina sex is a noxious evil and unhealthy for women.

    Their New Normal would remake the human world. Or unmake it. Depends on your perspective. They would agree with this summary, and approve.

    • "You should read the work of radical feminists."

      No, I should not. I have better thinks to do with my time.

      They are lesbians, of course they think penises are evil. They can't force their views on the rest unless lesbianism is teachable, and it's not. Normal women are drawn to penises like bears to honey.

  • Excellent post, even if it contains a bunch of "no sh*t" points (that still needed to be said). That point about battered women being masochists was raised by a commentor on (my post on kink).

    I think that most followers of "game" and "HBD" (like followers of most topics) don't necessarily understand what they espouse, and HBD in general is filled with lots of over moralization.

    I will add that I don't think that all of those noted traits exist as normal distributions, but your point is still well taken.

    • Jayman,

      Your second paragraph applies to basically every philosophy, religion, scientific theory, or idea. Most proponents of "something" will not understand what that is or what it means, regardless of the idea.

    • Thanks. Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious, wasn't it? HBD is based in the idea that people are fucked up, and there's little we can do about it. That's a revolutionary idea if you think about it.

  • > we have hybristophilia, where women are attracted to cruel and brutal criminals. This instinct is separate from the alpha-seeking hypergamy, because if Ted Bundy was relatively good looking and manly, the 77 year old Josef Fritzl doesn’t get attention for his Alpha attitude.

    No, it's the same thing, only pathologized in some sense or another. Or damaged, rather. In some sense, though not a very reasonable one, you are 'pathological' if you are ugly looking, or even just medium, or even just less handsome than the most handsome person in history. Or have worse sociopolitical abilities than Caesar. Or (the real crux of the matter) lower fitness than Khan. Suffice to say all organisms are damaged, and even the fittest man in history had far more than zero deleterious alleles and probably suffered considerably more than zero environmental insult ; he just had some number of sigmas less of deleterious mutation load than good & just haute-SWPLs like ourselves, or (moreso) than the average bloke. This is all very important for any thinking about any organisms. Most often the damage is mild or middling but it can easily produce more impressive distortions like alpha-philia --> Fritzl-philia. Just a guess but I don't think normal hybristophilia, namely having a rather stronger desire to lay a man if he's done a heavy crime like rape/murder, is necessarily aberrant at all ; I could well imagine it might occur in something like 5% of US White femmes and might just be a strong normal form of undamaged alpha-philia. Though I mean obviously it wouldn't quite seem as intuitively normal to me among Dutch as among Irish or S-Italians (which is most of our Italians), let alone E-Slavs -- we US Whites are a mixed multitude. Perhaps something like 5% would be more apt to be true for the world population of Whites, and it could be lower for US Whites, basically because we aren't very Slavic.

    Fritzl is very different, and a lot creepier than............ some dude who was certainly always kinda violent and over-assertive in character and wound up doing a murder or rape, not impossibly in a pretty boozy condition or something, and it doesn't seem quite like it was a fated necessity sooner or later owing to his native mega-violence or super-freakiness. Yet what is admired in Fritzl overlaps quite a lot with classic alpha traits -- resolution of will versus vacillation of affective state, clarity about his own desires, poise and control of fear under pressure, relative callousness/egoism or willingness to cause pain (well, not 'relative' in his case), improvisation, a modicum at least (I'm speculating) of the social ability to make a pleasing and smooth yet still 'spicy' (not boring or formulaic) social impression (pretty common in sociopaths), capacity for psychological domination and 'frame control' or even degrees of intimidation in matters large and small, capacity for direct physical domination of others (if only women), etc.

    • > hybristophilia, where women are attracted to cruel and brutal criminals

      Your def doesn't match the wik one, which I am basing my thoughts on. I just don't think cruel and brutal are always apt predicates of rape and murder, it seems to me much underclass US White violence stems from somebody did X and then something led to Y, and plenty of times none of the parties are pure as the driven snow. And then of course infidelity is a huge cause of murder. And for rape, booze and insane lust -- glad I don't have the diathesis to lose control that way but I can still catch a glimpse, introspectively, of how it could happen were I rather differently constituted. But the wik definition even talks about armed robbery in addition to murder and rape, armed robbery being terrifying, and perhaps somewhat traumatizing to some women or high-affect men, but hard to call truly brutal on average IMHO, I mean Fritzl it ain't. I'm actually not trying to be a semantical pain in the ass, but rather, just explain fully why I suspect normal hybristophiles are probably pretty common and normal hyper-alphaphiles, as opposed to Fritzl-philes.

    • Fritzl was of course a defector from the social compact, not a real big cooperator. A free-rider. The main reason a woman is (often) into the Dark Triad thing -- I'm sure someone has more or less figured this out but I'm not so sure I've seen it made really explicit -- is that it's rather difficult for her to cope with socially defecting on her own behalf ; the man is better at it. But if he can do some robust defecting for their common benefit (more than the average bear), and get away with it pretty well, then they can enjoy freeriding the fruits of defection, along with the indispensable fruits of the social compact. It's a more general or deep kind of rent-seeking -- 'darwinian rent-seeking', which will often encompass the issue of rents in the market/money world but will also include other kinds of rents, for instance seducing a woman and then abandoning her when this was strongly against her expectation or the social expectation. Rent seeking is very well known to biologists, only they call it cheating or defection, and I have no doubt that it has been likened to economic rent-seeking more than once, but one does not see the connection underlined frequently.

      Fritzl is an ultra-defector, way waaay past the point of what is fitness-optimizing for him or for a mate. But it's completely typical of very damaged, distorted complex systems (here the alpha-philia biosystem) to seek extreme objectives and stimuli and generate extreme outputs. Humanities academia, or the visual fine arts in the West, are not dissimilar.

      To return to what I said about always considering the damagedness and suboptimality of individual organisms, this again is just the same as it is with institutions. We would never try to model the institutions of the US, Third Reich, EU, Roman Empire, USSR, contempo Russia, without continual reference to greater or lesser degrees of rent-seeking, internal friction, conflict, defection, suboptimality. In social bodies, it's largely individual and factional interest that causes suboptimality ; in individual organisms, the picture is more dominated by genetic damage (though organisms do face the problem of cells defecting against the body out of individual interest -- tumors). The mechanisms of suboptimality are therefore mostly disanalogous ; what is analogous, identical, is the need to keep suboptimality in the foreground of one's mediations.

  • people complain at the same time that people women are sluts and that women won’t sleep with them.

    Well you can’t have it both ways

    You certainly can have it both ways: It is called hypergamy. The middle eighty percent of girls fuck the top three percent of guys. Many of them, probably most of them are sluts, in that they don't worry too much whether the guy is married, how many other girls he is having sex with, and they are open to sleeping with any other guy in the top three percent even if they consider that they are in a relationship with someone.

    • jim check some 'nonpaternity' figures bro. jim's like oh sorry, i thought we were talking about elephant seals the whole time not people. your take on women is over-eager, you must be an enthusiastic spirit after my own heart, on the other hand monsigneur i thought your recent comment on patriarchy was the best short L0&0$ of the subject ive read or heard anywhere.

  • Now let us consider how men would feel about a woman who is strong, vicious, athletic, a fighter and a killer. Or we could just look at the sort of female characters that appear in video games! It may be that male hybristophilia is rare simply because physically "cruel and brutal" women are are also rare.

    • I played lots of video games as a kid, and my take on the unrealistic female characters is that they aren't there to arouse the boys. They're designed to make boys happy by making it seem there are hot chicks who share their interests: fighting and killing. Of course they are still pretty and soft and girly when they have to be.

      • Can't be the whole story, these characters have online Rule-34 fandoms just like purely girly characters do. For that matter, consider the phenomenon of Rule 63, which is mostly male-to-female! So I continue to prefer my explanation.

        • Do real life fighting woman have real life fans though? I don't see Olympic athletes having men groupies. Kids in the internet do lots of shit, doesn't mean it translates into real life things like women marrying Ted Bundy.

          • For me, this is really a question about psychological mechanisms, an issue which extends far beyond female hybristophilia. But let's continue to use that as an example. Is it commoner in women because of an inherent psychological difference, or is it just that there are hardly any real-life "superwomen" who might excite a similar feeling in men? I've had to resort to contemplation of the anime character "Android 18" to find this in myself. 18 mostly appears as a relatively human character, but she does have an incarnation which is brutal and cruel and enjoys it. I've had to pose myself the question, if 18 showed up in real life, would I just run away as fast as I could, for the sake of self-preservation, or would I be tempted to hang around just for the awesomeness of her company, knowing that she might still blast me into bits at a whim? The answer is yes, I would be tempted. And that is now how I imagine certain aspects of "hybristophilia" feel.

            • What makes the company of Android 18 so awesome? She's quite dull. But she's drawn to be beautiful, which is what makes her attractive.

              Why didn't Toriyama draw her as an ugly 50 year old woman (the ugliness equivalent of 70 year old Fritzl). Would you still want a piece of the awesomeness of its company? I don't think so.

              • "What makes the company of Android 18 so awesome?" She can fly and shoot energy bolts.

                The idea of the super-crone is funny because that's like the classic image of a witch! She can fly and cast spells. If the real world did contain hags with superpowers, they would presumably be interesting yet dangerous creatures. But sure, I wouldn't be hanging out in the hope that they'd ride *my* broomstick. In fact, a young man might fear magical compulsion directed towards that end...

                But I will try to return to reality. The reasons a woman might be attracted to a psycho are diverse. He might be handsome or a brute, he might look lost or he might look stern... She could be looking for thrills, she could be looking to save him or reform him. My discussion above really only pertains to the thrillseeking sort of attraction.

          • What would be more common among men is attraction to psychological cruelty in women - arrogant disdain, let's say. In both cases it's about the attraction of power.

    • But you can't discount that both culture and nature normalcy has men leaning to dominance and women to submissiveness, which sort of makes male hybristophilia more exceptional as a deviation of this pattern.

      But perhaps some of the psychological explanations work both ways regardless of that, like some peoples' nurturing tendencies, of feeling compelled to fix the partner's problems (and the male/female differences in this regard also would make female hybristophilia even more likely besides the larger availiability of deviant men). Perhaps some men are also particularly susceptible to histrionical women, who may have some degree of more classic psychopathy/socipathy. But maybe the majority prefer submissiveness, perhaps another true analogue would also be the complete inversion, a somewhat pathological attraction to women who are totally idealized and "pure". There must be a "philia" name for something like that already, even though I'm just guessing here about the validity of this analogy.

      Perhaps another analogue in EvPsych terms would be that men are commonly attracted to promiscuous women, who aren't the best marriage deal either. That's perhaps the more common natural approximation of the violent male, as females themselves don't need or can't often resort directly to violence. But, as some studies show, attraction to girly/fragile females changes based on environmental conditions, so perhaps in other cultures where more "masculine" women are seen as more attractive, there's also more of an attraction to violent women and to extremely violent women the corresponding tail of the distribution.

      I particularly find kind of cool the idea that a woman could kick somebody's ass, being able to physically defend herself, but that's pretty much how far it goes. Even doing drugs without having much trouble with it is kind of a turn off already, having had trouble with the law with things other than running topless/naked where it's not legal is way worse.

  • Spandrel, you are suffering from the women are angels fallacy. Being raped by half a dozen crack smoking blacks in a dark alley is a very popular female fantasy, and a lot of women put the fantasy into action (hanging around in dark alleys)

      • Personal acquaintance. Quite a lot of personal acquaintances.

        When I was in silicon valley a female friend from Australia dropped in on me and stayed a while. But she wanted to wander off not in my company - in other words get fucked. So I gave her instructions for wandering around silicon valley, and I took out a big map and marked the places that were extremely dangerous for white women, number one in all America then being East Palo Alto, which at the time had the highest murder rate in all of America. I then dropped her off at the train station, again reminding her to avoid dangerous places and in particular, and especially, East Palo Alto, and went to work. After a few hours I got a phone call. She was in a McDonalds, and had lost all her money and stuff - in a McDonalds in East Palo Alto.

        Plus, I can simply read women. Their eyes light up when you tell them that doing X is risky.

        There is no bell curve. All women are like that. If they find a reasonably alpha male who is willing to stick with them, then they will refrain from doing shit like that for fear of pissing him off, but usually their guy if sufficiently alpha just has them, on booty call, in which case they are likely to go looking for something nasty or if he sticks around but is insufficiently alpha, they also go looking for something nasty and degrading.

        Good behavior in females is contingent on good male authority, on their submission to good male authority. It has little to do with the characteristics of the individual female. Women are all alike, all respond to the same buttons, more or less. There are racial differences, with asians being better behaved than whites, but the racial differences are not huge.

        High T females do nasty shit because they are looking for adventure, low T females do nasty shit because they are looking for submission.

  • 1 pingbacks