Sunday, November 24, 2024
What boys should know about their deal with girls
The original article from msn.com is at the bottom of this page, just below the idealistic photo of a girl and a boy. The researchers suggest that boys are not happy with their relationships with girls. The article says: "Young teen boys want closeness and trust, then something changes boys as they become older teens; instead of closeness and trust, they now desire to get as many girls as they can." The researchers say, "Boys feel burned by girls and have lost trust in them." They suggest: "Boys need guidance to teach them what they can realistically expect from a girl and how to better cope with a breakup."
The short answer: Because the imbalance in the mating market favors girls, girls get their way (to having a dominant boy, instead of an honest boy). To cope with the unreasonable costs and difficulties girls impose on boys, many boys shift strategies away from their default inclination to: trust, hold, and care for a girl—before sex; to: dominate, disrespect, and horde the scarce sexual resources. Boys do this by gathering many women into their circle to increase the odds that at least one girl will say yes. A dominate or starve strategy.
What many boys experience is the following: Be kind and respectful to girls, and chances are they will disrespect and use you in return.
The mate-selection market in the United States today is oppressive. There is an imbalance of power: most girls have power, and most boys have none. Boys want status (to feel powerful) but need physical contact (from hugging to sex), while girls want physical contact but need status. Boys must go through a girl to fulfill their needs. Whereas girls have the option to use their sexual power to get what they need or bypass boys all together and fulfill their need for status independently, Girls can and do: use and bypass boys—to fulfill their needs. When the mating game deck is stacked against boys, boys are more likely to lose respect and trust for girls.
Throughout history, girls have held almost total ownership over a natural resource that boys need: themselves (their face, hair, and body). Boys are born with the need to touch and mate with a girl. This is not a want; it's a biological need—just as important as food, sleep, or a place to call home. This need will turn on when a boy reaches puberty. Around the age 15, sexual starvation begins. To fulfill this need, a boy must go through a girl. Boys and men are not independent; they are dependent on girls and women. Without this biological need, the human species would not exist. A girl wants to mate about once every two weeks at most, whereas boys need it once a week. That fact alone means there are about twice as many boys in the world as are needed. There is no substitute; there is no futuristic technology on the horizon that can even come close to fulfilling this need.
I can list many reasons why the female mating resource is so scarce. Here are a few: too many men, equality, the freedom women have to sell their sexuality in all its forms (prostitution, pornography, gold-digging, exotic dance clubs, etc.), wealthy or popular men taking more than their fair share of women, a degraded gene pool, out of control immigration, the standard American diet (SAD), dieting, tattoos and piercing's that vandalize the body, the freedom women have to alter themselves with plastic surgery with no good reason, the freedom to alter their health and looks by participating in activities like body building, marathons, the military, or becoming anorexic to mimic their favorite super-model; drugs, alcohol, smoking, contamination from mating with the wrong type of men, technologies such as social media and smart phones.
In recent history, a girl's need for a boy or man has decreased because boys now have less status (power). This is something completely new in all of human history. Boys are built for the outside, but today, almost everything takes place inside; girls no longer need a boy to protect them from wild predators or the elements—all the dangerous animals are either already extinct or going extinct. Equality has taken away a boy's earning potential as well as his bargaining power in his relationship with girls. Now he must compete—with girls—for his livelihood. A livelihood he will likely provide to girls. In other words, girls earn money for themselves, and boys earn money for girls. Girls don't even need boys to have a child anymore. A sperm bank will pay a boy about $50 for one unit of sperm—just enough money to stop by the gas station to fill up his car. Compare that to a girl being paid $5,000–$10,000 for one egg—enough for a down payment on a Lexus. Almost everything a girl needs from a boy, a boy does not have direct control over in the same way a girl has control over her body. This means a boy cannot just take what he needs without real social and legal consequences.
Girls, however, feel entitled to take what they need from boys, sometimes conducting psychological warfare in the process of owning their sexuality (purposefully making boys feel starved and powerless). This kind of sexual harassment is legal in the USA and goes a long way toward fulfilling a girl's need to feel sexually powerful without giving a boy anything of tactile value in return.
The only thing that gives a boy leverage anymore is his social dominance (influential boys who can advertise themselves as being on the leading edge of what is trending). Unfortunately, trend-following is not an intellectual endeavor; in fact, it is the opposite of independent thinking. Girls prefer boys with minimal self-control and intellect. This has huge consequences for the types of genes that will be passed on to the next generation. Evolution directs girls at puberty to have a reduction in confidence. Girls and women trade sex for social dominance (a type of confidence); it's the basis of attraction. Both girls and women discourage closeness and trust in favor of dominance. As the social economic distance between the haves and the have-nots grows, so does a girl's desire for dominance.
Making matters worse, only a minority of boys can qualify for social dominance. Girls would rather share these few popular boys with other girls than have a lone boy—all to themselves. This gives the sometimes false appearance that boys want as many girls as they can get. The reality is that girls have the power to choose, not boys. Boys will pretend to be popular with the girls because that's what they notice. The situation many boys find themselves in can be summed up in one sentence: dominate or starve. This is evolution 101.
The women's movement (the quest for equality) started out with good intentions. Before 1970, most women could look forward to spending their lives home alone in the suburbs, raising their kids. However, for hundreds of thousands of years, women evolved to be in a group like a tribe or village, with children being raised in part by close relatives. Being alone is unnatural and leads to depression. Meanwhile, an occupation can provide both a social life and independence from men.
But equality is not true equality if it ignores man and woman's evolutionary ties. Today, women who are the benefactors of equality (women born after 1970) have been socialized to believe they are disadvantaged by an unequal pay gap, yet these very women still feel entitled to a man providing for them. For example, a man must still pay for dates. A date can be a time-consuming, degrading, and financially costly ordeal, with no guarantee that a man's own needs will be fulfilled. In other words, women dictate the terms of the relationship because they're in a less needy situation. It's sort of like a glass ceiling. Women let men believe there’s a benefit for them, but more often than not, it’s a struggle for nothing.
The mate market, in some ways, mirrors unregulated capitalism. Girls control a monopoly on sexual resources, and their actions cause the formation of a dominance hierarchy, which is a precursor to the male patriarchy. So when a boy says, "He has been burned," maybe what he's really saying is, "Something is wrong; I am too young to fully understand it, and I don't feel at liberty to say what I really think, but something is wrong with this picture."
Under the circumstances, closeness and trust are unaffordable and apparently not what girls want, so instead, boys switch strategies and try to fulfill only their sexual needs in any way they can. Most likely, boys are thinking, Someday I will find a girl I can trust.
An environment such as this can turn boys into arrogant oppressors and encourage drugs, alcohol, and crime. I think historically, men coped with this problem by creating a social system that we now refer to as religion. The purpose of this is to keep the peace by dividing the sexual resources, so each man gets one woman. The message to women was to follow this social plan, and one day you'll be with your alpha male: God. Of course some religions have harems (multiple women share one man); in addition, the less attractive women can bypass men and still have a dominant male by becoming a nun and worshiping God directly. Because women need status (power) more than a physical body, they always have more options than men. This is why there is an imbalance of power.
One of the ways [New State] will fix this societal ill is to create a new social system that carefully regulates the mate market by adjusting the male/female ratio.
Total reproductive freedom should not exist in modern times. The simple days of Little House on the Prairie are long behind us. The world has become a dangerous place; today, women should give birth to fewer boys than girls. Adjust the ratio to something like nine girls for every one boy. Observe how this effects society and adjust back and forth on a continuing basis—each generation—to optimize the fulfillment of the needs of both sexes. The optimized result might be around ten girls for every four boys. Keep in mind that there are other factors involved and more than one solution to a problem.
I predict that this will cause most of the drugs, alcohol, organized religion, suicide, crime and war, pornography, exotic dance clubs, prostitution, sex trafficking, stuck-up attitudes, pickup artist schools, and gold digging to fade away. Fewer boys will cause every girl to be a little star struck, which is what girls want anyway.
END
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The short answer: Because the imbalance in the mating market favors girls, girls get their way (to having a dominant boy, instead of an honest boy). To cope with the unreasonable costs and difficulties girls impose on boys, many boys shift strategies away from their default inclination to: trust, hold, and care for a girl—before sex; to: dominate, disrespect, and horde the scarce sexual resources. Boys do this by gathering many women into their circle to increase the odds that at least one girl will say yes. A dominate or starve strategy.
What many boys experience is the following: Be kind and respectful to girls, and chances are they will disrespect and use you in return.
The mate-selection market in the United States today is oppressive. There is an imbalance of power: most girls have power, and most boys have none. Boys want status (to feel powerful) but need physical contact (from hugging to sex), while girls want physical contact but need status. Boys must go through a girl to fulfill their needs. Whereas girls have the option to use their sexual power to get what they need or bypass boys all together and fulfill their need for status independently, Girls can and do: use and bypass boys—to fulfill their needs. When the mating game deck is stacked against boys, boys are more likely to lose respect and trust for girls.
Throughout history, girls have held almost total ownership over a natural resource that boys need: themselves (their face, hair, and body). Boys are born with the need to touch and mate with a girl. This is not a want; it's a biological need—just as important as food, sleep, or a place to call home. This need will turn on when a boy reaches puberty. Around the age 15, sexual starvation begins. To fulfill this need, a boy must go through a girl. Boys and men are not independent; they are dependent on girls and women. Without this biological need, the human species would not exist. A girl wants to mate about once every two weeks at most, whereas boys need it once a week. That fact alone means there are about twice as many boys in the world as are needed. There is no substitute; there is no futuristic technology on the horizon that can even come close to fulfilling this need.
I can list many reasons why the female mating resource is so scarce. Here are a few: too many men, equality, the freedom women have to sell their sexuality in all its forms (prostitution, pornography, gold-digging, exotic dance clubs, etc.), wealthy or popular men taking more than their fair share of women, a degraded gene pool, out of control immigration, the standard American diet (SAD), dieting, tattoos and piercing's that vandalize the body, the freedom women have to alter themselves with plastic surgery with no good reason, the freedom to alter their health and looks by participating in activities like body building, marathons, the military, or becoming anorexic to mimic their favorite super-model; drugs, alcohol, smoking, contamination from mating with the wrong type of men, technologies such as social media and smart phones.
In recent history, a girl's need for a boy or man has decreased because boys now have less status (power). This is something completely new in all of human history. Boys are built for the outside, but today, almost everything takes place inside; girls no longer need a boy to protect them from wild predators or the elements—all the dangerous animals are either already extinct or going extinct. Equality has taken away a boy's earning potential as well as his bargaining power in his relationship with girls. Now he must compete—with girls—for his livelihood. A livelihood he will likely provide to girls. In other words, girls earn money for themselves, and boys earn money for girls. Girls don't even need boys to have a child anymore. A sperm bank will pay a boy about $50 for one unit of sperm—just enough money to stop by the gas station to fill up his car. Compare that to a girl being paid $5,000–$10,000 for one egg—enough for a down payment on a Lexus. Almost everything a girl needs from a boy, a boy does not have direct control over in the same way a girl has control over her body. This means a boy cannot just take what he needs without real social and legal consequences.
Selfies on social media demonstrate a technology used by women to fulfill their need for status by supercharging boys lustful feelings. A challenge prior generations of boys never had to contend with.
By comparison, a boy's needs are tactile in nature. No such technology exists that can adequately replace his need for a woman. This is just one technology that adds to the imbalance of power between the sexes.
By comparison, a boy's needs are tactile in nature. No such technology exists that can adequately replace his need for a woman. This is just one technology that adds to the imbalance of power between the sexes.
Girls, however, feel entitled to take what they need from boys, sometimes conducting psychological warfare in the process of owning their sexuality (purposefully making boys feel starved and powerless). This kind of sexual harassment is legal in the USA and goes a long way toward fulfilling a girl's need to feel sexually powerful without giving a boy anything of tactile value in return.
The only thing that gives a boy leverage anymore is his social dominance (influential boys who can advertise themselves as being on the leading edge of what is trending). Unfortunately, trend-following is not an intellectual endeavor; in fact, it is the opposite of independent thinking. Girls prefer boys with minimal self-control and intellect. This has huge consequences for the types of genes that will be passed on to the next generation. Evolution directs girls at puberty to have a reduction in confidence. Girls and women trade sex for social dominance (a type of confidence); it's the basis of attraction. Both girls and women discourage closeness and trust in favor of dominance. As the social economic distance between the haves and the have-nots grows, so does a girl's desire for dominance.
Musician Justin Bieber and three fans.
Making matters worse, only a minority of boys can qualify for social dominance. Girls would rather share these few popular boys with other girls than have a lone boy—all to themselves. This gives the sometimes false appearance that boys want as many girls as they can get. The reality is that girls have the power to choose, not boys. Boys will pretend to be popular with the girls because that's what they notice. The situation many boys find themselves in can be summed up in one sentence: dominate or starve. This is evolution 101.
The women's movement (the quest for equality) started out with good intentions. Before 1970, most women could look forward to spending their lives home alone in the suburbs, raising their kids. However, for hundreds of thousands of years, women evolved to be in a group like a tribe or village, with children being raised in part by close relatives. Being alone is unnatural and leads to depression. Meanwhile, an occupation can provide both a social life and independence from men.
But equality is not true equality if it ignores man and woman's evolutionary ties. Today, women who are the benefactors of equality (women born after 1970) have been socialized to believe they are disadvantaged by an unequal pay gap, yet these very women still feel entitled to a man providing for them. For example, a man must still pay for dates. A date can be a time-consuming, degrading, and financially costly ordeal, with no guarantee that a man's own needs will be fulfilled. In other words, women dictate the terms of the relationship because they're in a less needy situation. It's sort of like a glass ceiling. Women let men believe there’s a benefit for them, but more often than not, it’s a struggle for nothing.
The mate market, in some ways, mirrors unregulated capitalism. Girls control a monopoly on sexual resources, and their actions cause the formation of a dominance hierarchy, which is a precursor to the male patriarchy. So when a boy says, "He has been burned," maybe what he's really saying is, "Something is wrong; I am too young to fully understand it, and I don't feel at liberty to say what I really think, but something is wrong with this picture."
Under the circumstances, closeness and trust are unaffordable and apparently not what girls want, so instead, boys switch strategies and try to fulfill only their sexual needs in any way they can. Most likely, boys are thinking, Someday I will find a girl I can trust.
An environment such as this can turn boys into arrogant oppressors and encourage drugs, alcohol, and crime. I think historically, men coped with this problem by creating a social system that we now refer to as religion. The purpose of this is to keep the peace by dividing the sexual resources, so each man gets one woman. The message to women was to follow this social plan, and one day you'll be with your alpha male: God. Of course some religions have harems (multiple women share one man); in addition, the less attractive women can bypass men and still have a dominant male by becoming a nun and worshiping God directly. Because women need status (power) more than a physical body, they always have more options than men. This is why there is an imbalance of power.
Little House on the Prairie, a drama series, revolved around the 1870s adventures of the Ingalls family.
One of the ways [New State] will fix this societal ill is to create a new social system that carefully regulates the mate market by adjusting the male/female ratio.
Total reproductive freedom should not exist in modern times. The simple days of Little House on the Prairie are long behind us. The world has become a dangerous place; today, women should give birth to fewer boys than girls. Adjust the ratio to something like nine girls for every one boy. Observe how this effects society and adjust back and forth on a continuing basis—each generation—to optimize the fulfillment of the needs of both sexes. The optimized result might be around ten girls for every four boys. Keep in mind that there are other factors involved and more than one solution to a problem.
I predict that this will cause most of the drugs, alcohol, organized religion, suicide, crime and war, pornography, exotic dance clubs, prostitution, sex trafficking, stuck-up attitudes, pickup artist schools, and gold digging to fade away. Fewer boys will cause every girl to be a little star struck, which is what girls want anyway.
END
------------------------------------------------------------------------