Female psychology

What is the most powerful force that motivates women?

- Money
- Sexual desire
- Envy of men's aptitude and achievements
- Having a daddy figure (i.e. a pimp is like a cheap/poor father figure even though he offers nothing)
- Security
- Maternal instinct

Why did some women get turned on when watching the games in the colosseum in Rome?

Why are some women attracted to serial killers?

Why oh why did Eve ruin a good thing just for a fruit salad?

Why do we have a thread about so many female teachers who mess around with pupils?

Why are woman so damn crazy? Are they technically insane at all times? Is being insane just part of their psychology?

Why don't lesbians have fag hags?

These topics and more will be discussed in this fascinating thread.
 

CynicalContrarian

Owl
Gold Member
Their superficial feelings are a major part of it one way or the other.

A single chick can claim distinct aspirations for one endeavour, only to meet a guy who is able to make her forget about her own family.
While those former aspirations also go out the window, never to be uttered again.
 
All women who do not place God first in their life (and even some that say they do) are motivated entirely by ego. How can I brag about him to my girlfriends? How much better will he make ME look in public? How much better will he make ME feel about myself? I can go to sleep peacefully at night knowing I have a better man than the girl next door. These are their true thoughts. To them its all a status game, how much can you level up their internal socialite narcissistic player character. If you can't keep their ego up in the clouds, then they start disqualifying you based on the irrational decision matrix that you can no longer keep them feeling good, or if they don't get that vibe from you in the first place.

You have to break that ego if you want a loyal woman, or bend it to God's will which I feel is almost impossible.
 

gework

Ostrich
Gold Member
I think women value the same thing as men. Primarily it is to survive. If that is not pertinent then people choose one of two options: pleasure or higher purpose. The majority take the former option until survival is again the imperative.

The pleasure drive manifests in many different ways. But at the core and truth what humans really value is quite narrow and specific. The difference between men and women is that skew heavily towards a desire to be worshiped (scarcity) and men skew heavily towards a desire to conquer as many women as possible (availability).

This is derived from evolution. In this construct the ultimate for a woman is to be worshiped, even by the top alpha; and for men it's to be high status enough for you to gain access to many women. Throughout much of history you will see society based on such a hierarchy; which ended/diminished more recently with certain moralising religions.

You see the same today with increasingly larger numbers of women desiring to collect IG followers, Tinder validation, a galaxy of beta orbiters. They desire being desired and are not necessarily available. While men want women to be available and are not bothered about being desirable.

The majority don't fare well on these scales. And it's too painful for many to analyse where they lie to even improve their lot. The lowly man experiences scarcity acutely and escapes into a world of ultimate conquest (games) and endless availability (porn). Unlike the real world, the rules are stacked in his favour. The lowly woman experiences availability, but may struggle to find desire. The rules are stacked against her in the desire stakes - a 5 or below probably never experiences truly being the object of a burning desire - but the rules are stacked in her favour if she wants to make herself available. And a woman being available detracts from her desirability.

This leads to the question:

Why are some women attracted to serial killers?
More broadly: Why are women attracted to bad men?

The underlying reason is again evolution. Throughout almost all of history the most successful women, in terms of fertility, were those who were attracted to bad men; and knew how to play the game to get something out of engaging with him. This is so old that before we could speak any female that may have happened to be attracted to a limp string-bean of a man were all gone. If any female is attracted to such a man, there is something else going on.

This is something that is in all women, just as the rampant sex drive is in all men. Both had previously been successfully suppressed long enough to build the modern world. We managed to get to a place where men were more chivalrous and women were more graceful. The primary mechanism for this was the embargo on more than one sexual partner. But that is eroding at a rapid pace.

In a society where availability is close to one life time partner the male drive for conquest ceases and creates an equal market for life-long relationships. To a fatty, the slump busting masquerading as desire of an 8 is toxic. She should not experience this. The majority of women will not be able to compute what is actually going on - pump and dump. She will have to invent something else. As the lack of availability breeds incels, the lack of desire of women produces feminists, "There is something wrong with men/women."

Inability to play the game leads to people looking for alternatives. For men this is checking out with porn, for women it's doing what they can to feel desired, even if just momentarily. And the easiest way they can do that is making themselves available.

Through social sexual regulation and good parenting the Darwinian female is quite enjoyable. She knows she wants her impressive man and she will like him to show how capable he is at handling things, just so long as she is safe. When a woman realises she probably can't have that via pump and dumps she suppresses this desire and directs all her rage she can't have it at all men - feminism. What is suppressed ends up becoming contorted, as we sacrifice our ability to control such thoughts, emotions, impulses. She also doesn't deal with the self-hate and feelings of worthlessness that come with being discarded. The desire of the woman contorts from a strong and protective man to one who will hate-fornicate them with the goodbye being "I'm not your b****." As the unaddressed self-hate grows the individual degrades themselves by dying their hair pink, dressing like a gay Satan and they make themselves available. Just as a vulnerable child gives off signals that they would accept negative attention so long as it's attention, the feminist gives off signals to the the sinister men abound in the bracket 'male feminist'. There is only one thing you need to know about male feminists. They want to protect women from alphas so they can f*** them. That's all. The lack of self-respect in attire, gait and demeanor of feminists gives off all the right cues to predators and the feminists end up manifesting their rape culture, but only in their lives and at the hands of male feminists.

Today a friend sent me a photo stream of an alternating colour feminist that I have encountered once. She is a repulsive blob. Her self-modelling photos include photos of her looking like a child abuse victim, sexualised photos of her showing off her armpit hair, sacrilege, bondage and one of her turning up for dogging in a dark car park. Dogging is a British term for having sex with random men in car parks.

The art says one thing to me: I wanted to be desired, but couldn't figure out how.

The artwork of lefties is so often a symbol for what they don't want to know.

As with many of our problems the solution is marriage-until-death. That is the higher meaning, socially and individually.
 

CynicalContrarian

Owl
Gold Member
IM
@TellYourSonThis
6m
Her emotions are more important to her than reality, because for her, emotions are reality - even when they're delusional.

You can wield this to your advantage, but by default & with great frequency, it will cause a great many problems and much undue stress.

Tell your son this.
To put it rather crudely, if you're having sex with her, her emotions are your problem. In particular, her negative emotions - and she will feel them often.

She expects you to reassure and comfort her. This can be draining for you. She is not actually the nurturer - you are.
Women nurture children, men nurture women.
If you're interested in a life long relationship with a woman, the number one thing to look for above all else is someone emotionally low maintenance

This means a woman that's generally low in neuroticism and high in introversion

High neuroticism + high extroversion = nightmare
 

pitbullowner

Pelican
CynicalContrarian said:
IM
@TellYourSonThis
6m
Her emotions are more important to her than reality, because for her, emotions are reality - even when they're delusional.

You can wield this to your advantage, but by default & with great frequency, it will cause a great many problems and much undue stress.

Tell your son this.
@TellYourSonThis
5m
To put it rather crudely, if you're having sex with her, her emotions are your problem. In particular, her negative emotions - and she will feel them often.

She expects you to reassure and comfort her. This can be draining for you. She is not actually the nurturer - you are.
@TellYourSonThis
5m
Women nurture children, men nurture women.


Sounds like I gotta find me a proverbs 31 woman ASAP... the girl im seeing now isn't fully committed to the idea of God. I am going to dread it, but I think I gotta break up with her
 

ilostabet

Pelican
gework said:
... Snip...
As with many of our problems the solution is marriage-until-death. That is the higher meaning, socially and individually.
I agree but the problem doesn't end there, because you have to ask: how do we implement this in the modern world? I can imagine no politician being able to enforce proper marriage as it was understood. Cultural artifacts usually last longer than their shelf life - meaning that they linger much longer after the conditions have changed. So in a way it's not surprising that in law divorce took so long to legalize - despite the already dysfunctional sexual market. Just take a look at the roaring 20s, which happened throughout Europe and diaspora. That society was one which clearly was showing that they had mostly done away with the ideal of marriage. After all, lust is lust, even if not consummated - but from the accounts, it was consummated quite often. And I don't mean prostitutes, I mean loose women, including married ones.

Even in the 18th and 19th Century you already have decades of unbridled lust, adultery and sexual entertainment - then followed by harsh repression (like 30s Germany), but that is already a losing battle - once you have to repress that hard, it's a powder keg waiting to explode.

We know these events to be true from historians and the novels people wrote. Now you could say that, the only difference is that people wrote about it - it always existed but it wasn't 'publicized'. But that is precisely it: that shame in making it public is essential to regulate morality. But there have to be reasons, direct physical consequences, not from human punishment but nature, to not engage in those behaviors - and likewise, reasons to curtail them by not publicizing them. The increased wealth allowed for increased independence, increased independence allowed for looser morals in individuals, and that ended the necessity of marriage as it was understood. Of course it didn't end the psychological need, but when you abolish the physical need, then people compensate through other means: unhealthy, of course, but stemming from an unhealthy social and economic setting nonetheless.

Sexual regulation does not come out of thin air and pure will. Every society creates regulations based on the specific requirements of their existence. Our existence is no longer tied to tribal affiliation, local connections and relationships. It is tied to multinational corporations and international trade. Unless this is changed back, marriage won't be changed back.

Tying it back to the OP, normal psychological needs don't change in either men or women, we were made in a certain way, but the means available to satisfy them can change - which ones exist, which ones are forbidden, which ones are taboo - and they end up determining how they are satisfied. Of course, they are not the right way to satisfy them, so a host of psychological problems show up, in both men and women. But the possibility is there. Just as we were made in a certain way, we were also made to live in a certain way. When we deviate too much from those conditions, we end up deviating on the moral norms too.
 

ilostabet

Pelican
Some other thoughts that came to mind, regarding how Darwinism hinders our understanding of the problem, and of how to solve it:

Darwinism (adaptation + mutation) does not offer a correct, or optimal, way of life – it’s all flux. But this wouldn’t be a problem, it could be merely an analytical tool. But it’s not. Its unproved and unproven part (mutation) entails not only agnosticism towards the question of a correct way to live, but it’s positively nihilist towards it: it doesn’t claim to have no answer, it claims there is no answer.

This is why it is a grave contradiction to be both a Christian and a Darwinist. The ‘adaptation’ part – which is what is at stake when we discuss human psychology (unless we one day evolve into another species of course) – is, unlike mutation, observable and not original. You can find quotes in the Bible that mirror the same truth; just as you can find it in most religious texts - it's not really that difficult to conclude. But the mutation part necessarily claims there is no purposeful creation of human beings, and therefore does not acknowledge the Fall – in fact, it proposes development from chaos, instead of entropy and fall from perfection. No correct way of life can follow from such origin story.

But just as we can observe that we do, indeed, adapt to different circumstances, we also have to observe the consequences of that adaptation. The state of humanity under those conditions to which we have adapted to, especially the psychological ones but you can see it in obesity and other physical manifestations of defect as well, clearly show that we are not living the correct way and highlight that there is a correct way to live. Only a non-scientific source can give you that answer – incidentally, this is why Darwinism is not very much science, because it tells you there is no correct way, when it should say, were it to be fully scientific, that it doesn’t concern itself with such questions. But mutation inevitably invalidates this, because it’s not possible to postulate it without a cosmology attached.

We may have adapted psychologically to cope with this unnatural reality, but the most logical explanation to all the problems we observe is that, there is, in fact a natural way of life, and we are not living it. And until we do, we won’t, literally, be right in the head.
 
It seems women's primary motive is to survive.

If that means behaving and conducting oneself in a completely immoral way, that is what they will do.

There has already been a great deal of discussion in the overlapping between narcissism / psychopathy and female nature in the red pill.

Unfortunately, with our current society bending over backwards to make sure of women's participation in every aspect of our lives, these traits of survival and competitiveness and psychopathy also come into the picture.
 
Women's primary motive is to survive. This is true. They don't have grand visions and obsessions the way men do. Women are oriented toward maintaining a base level of survival. This is why they are natural homemakers. All the little tasks involved in maintaining a home are things they naturally care about because they are maintaining what they perceive to be good for them.

I don't think we need to say they are psychopaths though. At least they are no more psychopathic than children are. I think pretty much everything you need to know about women is summed up in the statement "women are like children". They need someone to take care of them. They throw tantrums and give you shit tests the same way children do to their parents.

I don't know that women are more prone to immoral behavior than men are. Their immorality takes a different form.
 

EgoDeath

Pigeon

Haven't watched Denmo but Witcoff seems to think his content can be of value.
 
I think I recently noticed another nasty thing that only a woman will do: keeping her back turned to someone while they are speaking to someone else in their company. Let me explain what I mean. If you are with someone (standing and talking let's say) and another person (for what ever reason) comes over to talk to the person that you're conversing with. Now, no matter who the person is, it is natural to turn around and face them while they're there.

The first time this happened to me was in college. There were these two girls who I was acquainted with, and who I suspected were looking for a lecturer in my department. They were outside of that person's office (door open with no one inside). I had just spoken with the lecturer knew which direction she went in, So as I was passing by, I asked the two of them if they were looking for her. Now one of these girls was fine to deal with, but the other I knew was a bitch. So when I asked, you can guess which one of them conversed with me like a normal person. I forget but the rude one might have been facing with her back to me to begin with, but she did not turn around while I was speaking to the other girl. Strange! What's funny is that (of the two of them) it might have been the rude one that needed to speak with the lecturer. So she could well have been keeping her back turned to me knowing that I was helping her,

This is not something I would even think to do to my worst enemy.
 

MiroKlose

Sparrow
Men act and women react. The main driver of a women are men's actions. Even the feminist movement is a reaction to men's abuse of women as purely sexual creatures for far too long rather than being stoic and celibate as was advised by religions.
 
Top