First of all, women don’t even know what “shy” is. Women are so fucking facile/stupid. Have they ever heard of the “strong silent type?”
They hate the different.
Women have no concept of masculinity other than of what they can benefit from it & the force that helps them occlude multi aspects of masculinity.
Female sexuality has a brutish component to it, yet it is difficult to find serious discussion of it, even scholarly reports of it.
When I was reading The final chapter: ‘The Question Of Female Masochism’ of ‘Sexual Utopia In Power’ by F. Roger Devlin, to spare you of the disgusting paragraphs, the conclusion was mostly (with correlations/subtlety. I have to repeat that, of course, not all women are like that, but they are related to that. ): A thing for nasty boys. If you put a woman in a room of a dozen men, she’ll be focused on the meanest, brutal fellow in the room.
I had major problems with that chapter, not because of the reality of female sexuality – of course, I already knew that, but a misleading concept: “sensitive” vs. dominance:
” Such women may claim to want a sensitive fellow who is in touch with his feelings….What women say comes from their cerebral cortex; how they choose men depends on their evolutionary more primitive limbic system . Even campus Feminists choose arrogant jocks to “hook up” with.”
Female panda bears continue to instigate fights with male panda bears to test how strong he is.
Women do this kind of behavior as well, much of which is instinctive. The more aware women are about those tests, the more manipulative they are.: She does Slamming doors, etc., & other passive aggressive tests, the silent treatment of claiming there’s nothing wrong when there really is – horrible communication skills. Her emotions do not seriously hear & respect the male logic. She then withholds sex because you dared to be masculine – seriously logical.
Isn’t it disgusting that women are much more prone to behaving like wild animals than men are?
The men who promote this kind of “alpha” behavior to be validated by her tests are promoting that female/wild animal behavior that was too late & failed the “class-room” of how to live in a structural world of masculinity.
Men who have an evolved, mainly bodily/visual sexuality are not “sensitive.” They’re just objective.
Anyway, even if you are a sensitive male, there’s nothing wrong with that. When a male has all senses fully operative, that male is “sensitive.” The senses developed in interaction with the multiple patterns & influences of reality.
Of the chivalrous traditions, female greed was promoted, so now female greed has been proven to desire unreal/destructive forms of novelty, as they casually get to dismiss whatever they don’t even know, because they’re too stupid to know, as “sensitive.”
Just like there is no real rape-culture (other than a minute one), there is no epidemic of domestic violence by males, but just an epidemic of hysteria about it. This was according to Massachusetts District Court Judge: Milton H. Raphaelson. Women are more prone to be interested in rape-culture & domestic violence. This proves how delusional female greed/psychology is is as they’re more willing to try the defective, & chivalrous traditions promoted female greed.
Modern man has fixed many problems of the beginnings. It is female nature that will keep promoting more stressful atmospheres. Female personality disorders is a byproduct to male modernization.
Dominance without abstractions leads to basically nothing – a repetitive cycle. The problem is “dominant” men keep reinforcing women’s cancellation of men of abstractions. Women occlude men of abstractions (even when they’re with them.) It was not dominance that constructed. It was abstractions.
Today we obviously don’t behave like wild animals or basic primates. Although this article uses a zoological model that might seem contradictory, it’s to state what gynocentrism does: that female sexuality is very archaic, occludes patient/intellectual males, & can lead to past models. We have been socialized by abstractions to make better decisions. Women have been making decisions to cheapen abstractions.
I got called “creepy,” etc., by whores who masturbate to drug-dealers & other idiots. They say: “get over it.” But the teenager years are actually the most important times of your life. This is the period when you’re actually setting your life.
Thanks to dumb whores, we have generations of losers amplifying, quite literally amplifying, their worthlessness, when they didn’t even make the formula for guitar amps, they didn’t weld the metal pieces together, yet people, especially whores, equate the same level of “skill” or “competence” thanks to the survival mechanisms of female collectivism. Getting a tattoo on your arm doesn’t make you different. It’s how you think – the abstractions, which makes patience, & women absolutely hate (or use) that, which is associated with rational/philosophical/science types.
When females use that, it’s not seriously female sexuality. It’s female practicality.
Some say: “I don’t hate women. I get sex from them. I don’t hate plumbers. I call them when I need something fixed.” Firstly, equating women with something as functional as that is just stupid. Secondly, that’s nice. However, some of us are more capable of analyzing female psychology & it’s detrimental effects. You want a cookie, or something, for being a vagina critic? There’s differences between opinions & facts, You might as well not even speak.
With most of the articles of “you’re a “beta” male”, a lot of it isn’t even pseudo science. it’s just casual garbage.
It’s not “too nice.” It’s “maybe” logic.
A woman who wants a “strong” man has desires for bad situations, which is the problem firstly.
Women know it’s taboo for women to be in a situation of being attacked, even of the abstract war. It is rare for a real reasons for her to be protected. They’re also more likely to resort to tactics of gossip for revenge with other females – rarely beatings. When they say they want a “strong man to protect them,” it really just translates to them wanting to indulge with their immature sexuality.
Robert M. Sapolsky has studied free-ranging baboons in an African Reserve for stress-related diseases.
He found that subordinates to the ruthless exhibited higher relative cortisol levels – the silent killer – when they were subjected to higher rates of stressors & decreased opportunities for social support.
Chronic activation of the stress response is harmful. We need minimal amounts of it though.
Chronic activation can damage by various ways: healthy tissues atrophy, & fatigue happens. With enough time, cardiovascular changes promote hypertension, which can damage the kidneys, the heart & blood vessels. When constructive processes are deferred indefinitely, the body pays a price of reduced fertility, susceptibility to peptic ulcers, impaired growth & tissue repair & diminished immune function.
What once helped us survive a very long time ago, when we resembled wild animals much more so, is now the scourge of our lives, which women promote, often not even realizing it.
Women basically feed off of the state of emotional lives, with the few/defective men infected with female psychology, who will even beat men of abstractions.
Sapolsky didn’t specifically state much on female sexuality because he was busy with his zoological model, but that’s basically what it would translate to when applied to female psychology.
I’m not telling you to give free welfare checks to drug-addict losers. I’m just pointing: “grow up, kids.”
Sexual Utopia In Power by F. Roger Devlin, pg. 160-167
Stress in the Wild by Robert M. Sapolsky – Scientific American, Vol. 262, No 1 (January 1990), pg. 116
Are subordinates always stressed? a comparative analysis of rank differences in cortisol levels among primates | D.H Abbott, E.B Keverne, F.B Bercovitch, C.A Shively, S.P Mendoza, W Saltzman, Ct Snowdon, T.E Ziegler, M Banjevic, T Garland, R.M Sapolsky – sciencedirect-dot-com
Tantric Secrets For Men by Kerry Riley & Diane Riley, pg. 21 ( I do not 100% endorse all references used.)