Women Are Grown Children Who Need A Master

From Open Letter To American Men About Women, Love & Power, a man named Tom writes to the author:

I love my wife very much but in doing so I’ve become perhaps her servant (housework, childcare, sex) and less her man. I’ve always wondered that perhaps being a loving and stronger man would be better for her. Reaching to what you are perhaps suggesting is deep down her desire for a real man.

My problem has been that she is an alpha, and I love her even though I’m tired of the power struggle. I don’t want to go about this like I’m breaking in a horse. I don’t want to win every time. I want a partner.

But I feel like my actions of love are perhaps enabling. Then I feel like husbands I know who aren’t serving so much or some that are real ‘dicks’ have their wives clinging to them, and it sounds like the sex is good. Because although they might err on the side of being a jerk, if their firmness is demanding, respect seems to drive their woman closer.

I just wonder if she’d be happier if I lovingly put my foot down. I know how to do that with my kids, and I know they’re better for it. I wonder if that’s what I need to do for my wife, but then it seems like I’m treating her like a child. I just don’t know!

Here’s my advice to Tom and other men in the same quandary –

The thought that you should find an equal partner in a woman is arising from your idealistic conditioning. The notion that men and women are or should be equals – in marriage or otherwise – could not be more faulty.

Women are, generally speaking, physically weaker, intellectually poorer, and mentally unstable when compared to men.

Women are not equal to men, nor do they want to be treated as such. They won’t say it, but they reveal it all the time through sexual dynamics.

It’s in the nature of woman to be subservient to a dominant man. A dominant woman can’t be a happy woman.

A damaged woman (i.e. a woman plagued with feminist ideology) who can’t be tamed by a dominant man can’t give herself a happy marriage.

Don’t go by what women say, go by what they do. Tom has already observed that the husbands who are ‘dicks’ are happier in their marriage. What he needs to be certain about is that their wives too are happier.

Tom would benefit from reading this article. Just keep in mind one thing that the linked article is a guide to getting women’s love in the short term. It correctly describes women’s nature. However, when it comes to long term relationships and marriage, the right mix of assholery and niceness shifts towards more niceness and less assholery.

That said, a man must always be assertive and dominant.

In the context of marriage, I agree with Suzanne Venker where she says this:

Being dominant does not mean being a you-know-what. It is not the same thing as being domineering. What conveys dominance, notes Townsend, are three things: confidence, self-assurance and assertiveness. It is true most women do not want a domineering man, but neither do they want a man they can dominate.


What they’re looking for when they do this is a man who’ll provide and protect and assert himself—in other words, be a man in the traditional sense of the word—but who’s also good, kind (not nice, kind) and willing to change diapers and do dishes. She wants, in other words, a saint with balls. When a man becomes too accommodating, as in Tom’s case above, he loses his manhood. And that’s when the relationship begins to deteriorate.

Lastly, I will say this: In a happy marriage the man raises an additional child who is his wife, for women are grown children – not equals or partners – who need a master.

Confessions by Women Settling for Niceguys

In this post I mentioned:

[…] the dynamics of sexual marketplace change after women reach the age of 30, more so after they cross mid-30’s, depending on the “market” conditions. As women grow older their SMV (sexual market value) declines and they look to nice guys to settle down with.

In the red-pill literature it is called The Wall. A point in life of a woman when she suddenly realizes that she is no longer youthful and is failing to attract attention of men. The wall usually comes by the age of 30. For some exceptional women it would come a bit later but it would come as surely as death.

A beautiful woman in her youth does not live in the reality. Reality that the rest of the women who are fat and ugly, and all men except the filthy rich celebrities live in. After she hits the wall, however, the tables are turned against her in the sexual marketplace and the brutal reality strikes her. It is then that she realizes that she needs to settle down, before it is too late, with a nice guy she has been rejecting in her prime as she was getting pumped and dumped by the exciting alpha jerk-boys.

The modern woman who marries as late as in her thirties is doing so because she has been chasing the mythical True Love or The One in the bad-boys she is biologically wired to get attracted to. Removal of sexual restrictions on women and the brainwashing from romance novels and movies have given rise to this nightmare of a situation.

Dailymail has published some confessions from the women, through the anonymous secret-sharing app Whisper, who have settled for nice guys post wall:

  • ‘I feel I settled for my boyfriend. Like I couldn’t do any better than him. I feel like that makes me a terrible person. I just don’t want to be alone anymore.’
  • ‘I’m so afraid of ending up alone that I’m settling for a mediocre relationship that I don’t want.’
  • ‘I settled for my nice guy… because the man I really love will never love me like he does.’
  • ‘I’m settling for a man that I know is not meant for me; but only because the man I truly love is doing the same.’
  • ‘I’m settling for a guy I’m lukewarm about because I’m too old to find ‘the one’ I want a baby and he’ll be a good father.’
  • ‘I don’t think my husband is attractive, but I know emotionally he’s good for me so I settled.’
  • ‘I fear I’m settling for him because on paper he’s everything I always thought I wanted.’

They are depressing, but like all red-pill truths, they can be liberating too. For they provide for men great insight into the nature of woman.

Condition of Modern Relationships

A relationship can be lasting only if the man and woman require each other beyond emotional and sexual needs. In a modern-day relationship, once the “novelty effect” wanes, there is little else to fuel the relationship.

Women today are not happy to cook for their men, there are no large families to look after, household work is done by maids while women work in offices,.. (Hail feminism and women’s “liberation” movements.) What, then, is the usefulness of women to men in the society?

Similarly, “empowered” women don’t need men for survival and protection. In the technologically advanced world, women can do almost everything for which in the past they needed a man in their life. Thus, as far as comfortable survival is concerned, women don’t need men. They would do just fine on their own.

Usefulness of men and women to each other, therefore, has reduced to gratifying sexual and emotional needs of each other.

Sex drive and emotions are fickle. Hence, fulfillment of sexual and emotional needs would only keep the man and woman together till the spark remains.

It is very easy to lose the “spark” or the “connection” in the world with virtually unlimited choices of, and easy access to, potential mates (Facebook, WhatsApp,..) and where sexual freedom is celebrated as a development.

In the world where women don’t need men for survival and protection, marriage (even a long-term relationship) can’t sustain. In absence of any real practical use for men in their life, women feel no pressure to be useful to men. Manifestation of brutal market forces in nature.

From here:

A marriage will survive if two people need each other to be happy and if they need each other to live well. If they are self-sufficient, and each can do anything that the other can also do, the stability of their marriage is going to be an uphill struggle. There will be frequent validations required, a search for ways to “keep the spark alive”, a persistent need of expressions of love, chronic feelings of inadequacy, and a predilection to go one’s own way if the going gets tough.

In the past, if the man was being a good provider and protector, and the woman remained pretty or in shape, was a good homemaker and a mother, it was very easy to have a happy home. Now-a-days, if both earn, and both act as a mother to the children, and both do housework, it is not easy to see why a marriage will last long. Emotional bonds, in the absence of other factors, are fickle. Sexual desire, or shared hobbies, or shared values, can bring two people together, but cannot sustain their being together.

People who seek the amorphous goals of “fulfillment” and “growth” through their relationships are not going to have an easy time. Fulfillment and growth are side-effects, as it were, of a healthy relationship. A relationship can’t be based on these goals, but needs to have something more concrete at its foundation.

Consider two scenarios:

A: A wife tells her husband that she is going to be away for two weeks, and the husband says, “No problem, I’ll manage without a hitch.” Or, a husband is to go on a business trip for a week, and the wife says: “Have fun! I will too.”

B: A wife tells her husband that she is going to be away for two weeks, and the husband says, “Aw shucks, how will I manage?” Or, a husband is to go on a business trip for a week, and the wife says: “Oh dear, it is going to be so difficult for me alone.”

Which scenario makes you think that the husband and wife are going to have a long, stable, happy marriage?

And which scenario is the current ideal for an individual in our society?

I think increasingly, due to prosperity and various other factors, people are relating to each other for purely emotional or sexual reasons, and they can manage their lives and homes and careers just fine (or so they think) on their own. They want to feel great with each other, to spend time with each other, and so they invent activities (mostly related to vacuous show-business events or to spending money eating out, shopping or seeing a “new place”) to do together. They have a nagging suspicion that it is too much effort and that they would rather spend time with themselves.

We are told by the media that emotional or sexual reasons are primarily why we should get married. That love is all-important, and nothing else matters. I think that is a very wrong message. A couple certainly needs emotional and sexual compatibility, and for them to love each other is great, but that is not enough, not by a long shot, to want to spend their lives together.

A nut and a bolt may love each other, but even if at times they don’t, they are and will feel incomplete without each other, and will not be fulfilled for long on their own. Two nuts, on other hand, may decide to be together because they feel they have a “connection”, but they are tempting fate.

Modern men and women won’t feel fulfilled living alone, either. For when it comes to emotions and emotional needs, humans have not evolved as they have intellectually. Men still have the instinct for protecting, and women still have the instinct for protection from a strong man. That’s why women find strong men attractive, and men find women who are not strong more attractive. The instinct served well in the state of nature. In the modern world, the instinct is misplaced, and would create a void that can’t be filled.

Peacock Theory of Mate Attraction and Decline of Culture

Among modern urbanites it is becoming fashionable to look like a hippie. More and more men now get themselves tattoos and piercings. Long hair for men is also increasingly becoming acceptable. Not to forget various accessories that urban hippie men now wear which in earlier times were only seen on women.

Need I spell out that fundamentally it is all about sex appeal? Maneuvers for mate attraction. It is what Neil Strauss in his book The Game describes as Peacock Theory. An excerpt from the book goes as follows:

Peacock theory is the idea that in order to attract the most desirable female of the species, it’s necessary to stand out in a flashy and colorful way. For humans, he told us, the equivalent of the fanned peacock tail is a shiny shirt, a garish hat, and jewelry that lights up in the dark—basically, everything I’d dismissed my whole life as cheesy.

As the world gradually transforms into an unregulated sexual marketplace, I postulate that we will see more and more men taking cues from our primal animal nature to attract women.

While women use makeup, flashy clothes, hairstyles that make them distinct, piercing and ornaments etc. to stand out and attract men, culture has taught that the way for a man to deserve a woman is to be socially productive and responsible.

Unlike the state of nature the civilization demanded of a man to form a family and provide for the woman and children for better part of his life. Civilization also expected a man to contribute to the growth of society by participating in production processes. This a man could do only if he was productive and possessed socially desirable qualities. A man who proved himself worthy in this way would be accorded high status by the society. And through social conditioning and mechanisms culture made sure that such high status men top the positions for most desirable marriage candidates.

Women on the other hand have been free of the responsibility of providing for a family, much less contribute majorly to the larger entity that is society. Culture put no pressure on women to prove themselves worthy by being socially productive in the same way it pressurized men to do.

Therefore, in order to win women men had to earn high status in the eyes of the society. In order to win men women mostly just have to look attractive for which they use various attention capturing maneuvers.

While beauty-enhancing makeup, nose and ear piercing and wearing rings through them, tattoos (in Indian tradition it is known as mehndi for women), long hair and creative hairdos with them,.. is considered adding grace to woman’s appearance, the same maneuvers when applied by men have been considered indecent and cheesy by culture. A man using those maneuvers is agreeably described by the term hippie, which explains how little the mainstream society valued them. Even today most traditional societies would be scrupulous to accord high respect to a man who wears an earring, has tattooed his arms and other visible body parts, has long hair etc. And these societies have a point.

Sex is a fundamental goal of our life. If culture has to develop it has to do so by strategically exploiting man’s sex drive. By forming mechanisms wherein men get women, and thereby sex, only if they prove their worth by being socially productive, culture ensures its continuation and growth. In the state of nature a man could attract women by killing mighty animals and other men, thereby establishing himself as alpha male – and it works even today as far as attracting women is concerned. (Evolutionary biology has plethora of evidence that women are sexually attracted to bad-boys and psychopaths.) But letting men get sex by such displays of strength is not conducive to development of the civilization. Hence, culture would form mechanisms to ensure that such men got no sex, by putting the men into prison and making outcasts of them.

Likewise, culture discarded many a way of men that worked for attracting women in the state of nature, and retained only those (like accumulation of wealth) which would help the culture grow. So much so that the most worthy man in the civilized culture is such that he would have hardly attracted any woman in the state of nature (a beta male). And a man who would have attracted most women in the state of nature is such that he would stand on the lowest rung in the civilized culture (a sociopath). This is because of disconnect between the goals of rationality and the biological goals of the species.

Culture is a product of human rationality, whereas in the larger picture human beings are organisms with biological goals. The goals of culture I would call human goals, and the biological goals are nature’s or evolutionary goals. Nature’s primary goal is propagation of genes and expansion of gene pool by reproduction. Survival of the fittest is the law, and nature has no regard for human well-being or prosperity. Those are the goals of rationality, the human goals. Hence the disconnect between the two types of goals that direct human organism. It is man’s fight with nature.

To attract mates by appealing to biology is to take cues of animal nature. It works for we are animals. When women attract men by using aforementioned maneuvers they are appealing to men’s biology, not rationality. (That is why we say it is irrational to get influenced by women’s outer beauty, and all the talks of “inner beauty”.) In the same way when a man attracts women by being a hippie he is appealing to women’s biology, and it works. Except that if men got women, thereby sex, that way then why would they employ their rational faculty to achieve high status by being socially productive? What will happen to culture then? Because society and culture are products of rationality and their growth is dependent on its members being driven by rationality instead of mere biological cues.

Culture, mostly through religions, formed mechanisms whereby men employing their rational faculty in ways that helped the culture grow were promised women. This was enforced mostly by religious teachings of virtue (which is also a product of rationality) and conditioning of women and society at large, so that they would value virtuous and socially productive men and view the likes of hippies as unworthy of having a woman.

This, however, is changing rapidly. With erosion of religious teachings and traditional values from modern societies, culture seems to be going downhill. A culture that allows its women to get attracted and won by men employing animalistic maneuvers and fails to reward virtuous men in the sexual marketplace, faces grim prospects survival. It would likely spiral into the state of nature from where it evolved.

Regulated and Unregulated Sexual Marketplace

Originally written in September 2013

Since life is fundamentally about spreading one’s genes through reproduction, it is the primary goal of life. Rational beings may not have it their goal consciously, but in nature’s design it is the only goal.

Sex is a resource that women possess which men have to compete for (a facet of survival of the fittest game). A woman would be naturally selected by evolution to mate with a man who comes up as the best bet for the spread of their genes. That gives rise to the market mechanism in nature. And since the pursuit of sex is central to all of human life, the world of human beings can be viewed as sexual marketplace.

How market forces work in the domain of human sexuality is brilliantly explained in Sexual Economics by Roy F. Baumeister.

The forces of sexual marketplace are not human-engineered but natural, and hence are often detrimental to well-being of human beings as rational animals who have pursuits and goals apart from the nature’s evolutionary goals. The market, by objectifying humans, robs them of dignity and undermines everything that one values as a rational being. Hence, regulation of sexual activities is necessary to subdue the brutal market forces. Religions have historically been regulators of the sexual marketplace, but are losing the power and authority now.

Unregulated sexual marketplace

Unregulated sexual marketplace is a society in which sexual pursuits and activities of its members are not governed by religious norms or traditional values. Modern urban world is mostly transformed into one.

Contemporary mass media, technological “developments” and consequent changes in lifestyles are major factors contributing to washing away of traditional values, whereas scientific advances have long challenged religious worldviews. Although religions still have strong foothold, they hardly have any influence on the lifestyles of urbanites.

In market, survival of the fittest is the norm. The battle is always on, and there is no peace. Participants in market operate with relentless self-interest (as opposed to being cooperative) since market essentially is a place where one participates to get benefits for oneself – and that too more often than not short term ones since the life is finite.

In the unregulated sexual marketplace, romantic love would a disease, and marriage and family would be virtually non-existent. There would be few winners while most people would lose. And even those who win would have no peace of mind since sexual competition would always be on.

Unregulated sexual marketplace is a nightmare of human existence, though people living it may not know any better.

The Female Biological Imperative

Originally written in September 2013

Am I a misogynist? I don’t know.

It is a well known fact that women are attracted to bad-boys. That makes it hard for any man placing high importance on the life of virtue to respect women.

Left on her own without any kind of social conditioning a woman with good SMV (sexual market value) would not choose an intelligent, respectful, dutifully loving, caring and virtuous man. Because they are beta male qualities. In the evolutionary past those qualities would not have conferred survival advantage on men. Men carrying those qualities would die out sooner than those carrying what are called alpha male qualities.

Alpha males are physically strong, emotionless, overly self-confident, lacking empathy, narcissistic, psychopathic,.. It is not a stretch to understand that unlike the beta traits mentioned above, these are the traits that correlate with the behavior which is necessary to survive in the harsh conditions of the wild state of nature.

It was to women’s advantage to choose alphas for mating partners. Women mating with alpha males would have better chance at survival and leave more progeny. Thus, evolution naturally selected women who would be attracted to alpha males.

But isn’t virtue all about fighting one’s nature and check harmful natural impulses and emotions by the use of rationality? What else is being human?

Most conflicts in our lives are due to the non-reconciliation between our nature shaped through evolution and the current living environment. Owing to rapid increase in intelligence our living conditions have changed faster than the pace at which evolution progresses. As a result we experience many impulses that served a useful purpose in the evolutionary past but are harmful today. For example, aggression in men. Since men’s role was to face dangers, aggressive men were more successful at survival in the state of nature, so evolution favored aggressive men. That is why men are more aggressive compared to women. However, today we are no more living in the conditions where men have to face such dangers that require them to be aggressive. Therefore, aggressiveness is a negative quality today. Calmness is generally considered a positive trait. Even though nature has made men more aggressive, virtue is to be able to remain calm.

Likewise, even though nature has shaped women’s biology to be attracted to bad-boys, virtue for women is to be able to love decent men and choose them for mating partners. Failing which a woman can’t be seen as virtuous.

Now we don’t live in the jungle. But like men are still more aggressive than women owing to their evolutionary past, women too have retained their nature. They are attracted to uncaring, narcissistic assholes. The fact that in the current living conditions these qualities may not confer any survival advantage on men (sadly) doesn’t matter. Calm, intelligent and virtuous men would be better able to provide for their women and the family today, and women understand this rationally. But they are biologically incapable of being aroused by such men, at least not so much as alpha males arouse them. That is the reason why compared to men, women in their prime suffer more internal conflict about selecting a partner.

I think it won’t be totally inaccurate to say that since the time we were apes women have not fully evolved to select a human being (a reason-oriented creature) for mating partner.

Civilization in large part owes itself to religions and their imposed restrictions on sexual activities (regulation in the sexual marketplace). In the natural conditions where women would only select alpha males for mating partners there is no possibility of the civilization as we see it today. Civilization has progressed so far because religions by regulating sexual marketplace made sure that women selected virtuous beta males as husbands who would stay committed for life and form families.

I am forming a thesis that it is difficult for men to be virtuous only because being virtuous has negative payoffs in the sexual marketplace. Since life is fundamentally about leaving behind one’s genes though reproduction, qualities that serve that goal the best in the sexual marketplace are naturally selected in organisms. By that reasoning, lack of virtues in men is attributable to women’s tendency to reject men with virtue under unregulated conditions. If virtue was an advantage in the sexual marketplace, that had to draw more and more men towards the life of virtue.

It is thanks to religions and traditional cultures that being calm, caring, loving, dutiful etc. came to be considered as being virtuous. And it is because they implemented mechanisms wherein women would choose virtuous men for husbands that we see men with those qualities around. Tradition, thus, gave incentives for men to be good. And gave good men the fortune of having a woman to love and create a family with.

Instead of bashing religions and traditional cultures of the past for restricting their freedoms, I think, women should be thankful to them. For they made women lovable and worthy of respect. Alas, but now and in the future where women have their freedoms, and there is no influence of religion on people’s lifestyles, and where traditional values are forgotten, biology will once again rule in the sexual marketplace.

Expect the decline of marriage, decline of family, rise of assholery in men, rise of sluttiness in women,.. The end of civilization as we know it is nigh. That is the female biological imperative.

I don’t hate women. I just am pro-civilization.

Notes on Love and Relationships

Originally written in May 2013

One’s ability to love truly (true love = respect, empathy, compassion) grows in direct proportion to wisdom gained through understanding life. And that is the only way.

Romantic love (as against true love) is everything love should not be about.

Attachment – the kind that entails pining and mental agony – between man and woman is romantic love, which being mating drive is about reproduction/sex. That love which depends on sexual act for its expression is but a sexual desire in disguise of love. Be ruled by sexual instincts (animal nature) and prepare to be miserable.

Is it because we fall in “love” that we have sex (to express love), or because we have to have sex (so that the species continues) that we fall in love? Reproduction is the primary function of any organism. So the latter, doubtless, is true. Thus, there is nothing great or special about romantic love.

To indulge in purely romantic love is to surrender whatever autonomy one has and leave oneself at the mercy of brutal natural/biological forces. For one doesn’t develop romantic love for reasons palatable to one’s mind, and one would lose the feelings in the same way, too. Where the head doesn’t have a say, the indulgence is of animal nature. That is why romantic love is such a waste of life for the creatures of intellect.

Today romantic love is a huge psychological cost to pay for sex. Romantic love exists because in the evolutionary past sex meant producing an offspring whose survival was best ensured when the parents stayed together. Hence, the mechanism evolved which made the mating partners fall in love so that they could concentrate their mating energy on each other exclusively. In our times, however, sex more often than not means pleasure or fulfillment of bodily need – consciously keeping an offspring out of the way. Even when it means producing an offspring, the environment is good enough for the offspring to survive without the parents being together. Romantic love, therefore, is redundant.

True love (empathy, compassion, respect), unlike romantic love, is maintained at a psychological cost of defying the universe (natural forces) for greater human goals (family and life-long companionship). Only the best and the greatest human beings can achieve it, especially in modern times.

Advisably, one should not make any important decision of life when under the effect of romantic love. The tragedy is, we are tempted by nature to make the most important decision of life – about life companionship or marriage – in that state.

People in “love” don’t want to be together when the “spark” is gone. Let me break this: The spark is like a high one gets when one is drunk. The reality of a relationship begins where the spark ends. For a fulfilling, long-term relationship, one should choose one’s partner for the reality, not for the spark. If one is lucky, the spark may remain, but that should be secondary.

If romantic love can not be bypassed, it should follow – not precede – commitment which is based on good reasons like matching thoughts and interests, common goals,.. Even practical reasons traditional arranged marriages were based on are better than romantic biological pull or a mere crush. A couple united through arranged marriage or a couple united because they have common goals in life developing romantic love for each other subsequently is the good way to be in love.

True love and passionate sex can rarely survive together on their own for long. Sexual passion requires romance (romantic love), and romance thrives on mystery – not on honesty and sincerity. Mysterious (dishonest, insincere, aloof,..) assholes are, therefore, more successful at scoring women and keeping their passion alive than dutiful beta males. There is, thus, a trade-off between love (respect-empathy-compassion) and (passionate-) sex.

Faithfulness in relationship is possible but not natural. If people join together because of biological pull – popularly known as romantic love – it is next to impossible, because this love is by nature impermanent. That is the reason in cultures of the past it was condemned. In the present times faithfulness is only possible if two persons are living by conventional wisdom (which is nowhere to be seen) or they are highly philosophically developed and rational enough to not be ruled by biological instincts.

When romantic love becomes the valid basis for marriage, the era of marriage is reaching its end.