Tuesday, June 10, 2014

Security vs sexual desire

Women's sexuality is more complicated than men's in part because it tends to directly conflict with their desire for stability and security:
She wired up a plethysmograph to women's private parts and then showed them a series of images to monitor what made them become aroused.  Bergner explains: 'The results reveal that women get turned on by all sorts of videos. Straight women get turned on by naked women exercising; lesbian women get turned on by gay male porn; the sight of apes having sex is a turn on.' But he added that many women were in denial about what they found to be a turn on. 'The plethysmograph was showing lots of arousal when women were telling Chivers they didn't feel turned on at all,' he said....

Bergner said Chivers' study also contradicts the idea that all women want to to settle down with one man - and that they will have the best sex with that one man - because of the emotion intimacy their relationship brings. In fact, Chivers' study found the plethysmograph 'flat-lined' when the women were shown images of their love-term lovers. Seeing someone they knew was a 'lust-killer'. But images of a handsome stranger were a turn on.
This is merely a different perspective on the same ALPHA/BETA conflict observed by various theoreticians of Game. What a woman wants sexually and what she wants materially tend to be in contradiction to each other, and in most cases where a woman is not being actively supported by either her parents or the government, she will choose her material desires over her sexual ones. Women are, in the end, an intensely practical sex; it is men who are the hapless romantics.

And this is why civilization ultimately depends upon providing incentives, or restrictions, to ensure that women continue to pursue their material desires.

50 comments:

Crowhill said...

>... civilization ultimately depends upon providing incentives, or restrictions, to ensure that women continue to pursue their material desires

Yes, or to put it another way, a sure way to destroy civilization is to make it easy for women to pursue their sexual desires in a safe, free, stable environment.

JP said...

Anything contrary to God's law is bound to destroy civilization sooner or later.

Bob Wallace said...

I have pointed out several times, based my personal experience starting when I was in my middle teens, that promiscuous women don't have sex with just "Alphas." They have sex with anyone even halfway attractive, including having gangbangs. Now that I think about it, I was more like 13 when I realized this.

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

Good luck imposing those "restrictions" under the current form of government.

Chad said...

Lets be honest among us men.

This is a study on the sexual desires of whores. Any woman willing to sell off the chance for someone to stick something in their vagina and wire the woman up is a sick whore.

Such women should be expected to have sick desires and view long term relationships in such a light. Only the weakest and most desperate of men would accept such a woman to walk into their doors, let alone into their beds.

Such women are the death of men and will drag them down to Sheol with them.

There's a lot to be said about the dichotomy of female desires. Lets not look at the most blind sinners with death of the soul and the devil as a close companion to make cases for how we should approach the rest

76a86186-641e-11e3-a4c7-000bcdcb5194 said...

Laguna Beach Fogey said...
"Good luck imposing those "restrictions" under the current form of government."

Actually, I think it's quite feasible. Much of the problem is that we now subsidize bad behavior with welfares. Miss 1964 knew that having a child out of wedlock meant poverty and ostracism. Miss 2014 expects a fat welfare check, and subsidized health and child care. Take the welfares away and much of the problem will clear up.

And taking the welfares away can be easily justified both on cost grounds and on the grounds that we don't want to reward bad behavior.

En-sigma said...

Buy her a house that is spacious and comfortable yet made for entertaining guests, top of the line appliances and entertainment system, biggest most comfortable bed out there, Jacuzzi tub, monitored alarm system, flowers in the yard, get her a car, fully loaded, leather seats, rear DVD for the yutes...meh...shes content....you get "meh" relations, at "meh" intervals.

Call her a bad girl that needs a spanking...she cannot get enough of you. Actually go through with the spanking part (not rough, but so she knows it), she will not let you sleep.

Funny ole world indeed.

Steve Denheyer said...

Men's desires, it should be noted, also pulls them in opposing directions - we are highly responsive to cues of sexual availability ("sluttiness") but also very much want sexual loyalty (paternity certainty).

Likewise, civilization depends on restraining men's polygynous impulses.

swiftfoxmark2 said...

This is a study on the sexual desires of whores. Any woman willing to sell off the chance for someone to stick something in their vagina and wire the woman up is a sick whore.

Yep, that's what I was thinking. I know that there is probably some element of truth to the study, but it is skewed due to the nature of the women who were willing to participate.

Nymphomaniacs are going to behave differently from other women. Not all women are Nymphos.

Trust said...

What is sad is their desire for a provider will manifest itself as sexual desire prior to the wedding. After that, her material desires are a legal guarantee, so she then resents her marital duties since she sees no benefit in tending to then.

So her choices are to either pretend, which sucks, or come clean and reveal her courtship excursions to be a fraud. Since neither gets her what she wants without criticism, these women will normally twist things around to make their husbands the culprit.

Peregrine John said...

An additional point of learning here is that while many men suspect women of lying to them on many levels, the fact is that it would seem women are lying to themselves on some of the most foundational levels of behavior and belief. Even if Chad and Mark are correct about the self-selection - actually, especially if they are - this is notable.

vashine said...

@Chad, Swift, JP...

Agreed. And though the participants would logically skew towards the slut side of the female spectrum, it does show us what happens when women are not disciplined nor educated on the realities of life as per God's Law and natural order. It shows us exactly what happens to the female mind and soul when disconnected from godly, Christian leadership, guidance, and submission to His Truth.

What you get is women chock full of competing impulses and desires, trying to serve two masters, lying to themselves and lying to others constantly, and then actually going out into the world and trying to discern or decide which men they should be dating, pursuing, sleeping with, or attempting to marry. The internal chaos combined with an uncontrollable outer world leads to the marriage and demographic epidemics you see to day in the West. Beautiful 30, 35, 40 year old women still single or just getting married and not being able to have but one or two kids, if any.

They can't make up their minds. And they don't want to. At the end of the day, they really just want someone (a man, a government, a philosophy) to decide for them. Without the discipline and long-term time preferences demanded by genuine faith in Christ, you get the very women and results seen here. A disaster of thoughts and emotions, ensconced in a false confidence that needs constant re-affirmation and justification from feminist messaging in the media and their social circles and in their own brains.

"I am woman!" Yet they have no idea what that even means. But it makes them feel good, for a moment or two.

alphaisassumed said...

@ Laguna Beacn/76: Cutting welfare and government-based student loans, stopping laws and regulations that require employers to bend over backwards to accommodate their female employees, reforming paternity law, and returning to fault-based divorce would work wonders in limiting bad female behavior.

Obviously, we also need some pretty substantial cultural changes too (to make the legal ones stick if nothing else). However, before we devise all sorts of ways to legally restrict bad female behavior, how about we focus first on not subsidizing it?

--Martel

Kgaard said...

The last two posts here are in direct conflict with each other. This post indicates women are polyamorous. The last post (on the decline in marriage) argues that western civilization is doomed if marriage is not strengthened. Okay ... if we take both arguments as valid (fair enough) you are asking women -- let's say 80%+ of women -- to go directly counter to their biological nature. Why should they do that? How can we expect them to do that?

It seems pretty obvious to me that the days of lifelong monogamy are basically over. Remember that monogamy is a relatively recent invention. Man was polyamorous for the vast majority of his time on earth (in hunter/gatherer bands). Now that basic material needs are socialized and birth control prevents kids being born, there is zero incentive for young hot women to settle down with one guy. What could possibly change that? Why would women vote for any change to this system?

Markku said...

if we take both arguments as valid (fair enough) you are asking women -- let's say 80%+ of women -- to go directly counter to their biological nature.

My guess would be about 98%. But we wouldn't be asking, we would be telling. With a threat of force.

GG said...

"..this is why civilization ultimately depends upon providing incentives, or restrictions, to ensure that women continue to pursue their material desires..."

Vox, what strikes me as so tragic is that you and many of the men here seem to live in this world where what men desire most, women's love and respect, can never really be achieved, because men don't believe they're worthy of our love simply based on their own merit. You reveal yourself again in this statement about material desire. You cannot even conceive of the possibility that you may have an identity beyond that of providers. You may have qualities we desire beyond sexual urges. We may seek you out for reasons unrelated to protection. You may have something to offer us that goes way beyond the material and biological world.

It's a fascinating bit of male solipsism, but it's kind of sad because you can't see yourself through our eyes. If you don't love yourself than you can't imagine why anyone else would, without incentives and mandates.

Hanns Strudle extra gooey said...


It seems pretty obvious to me that the days of lifelong monogamy are basically over. Remember that monogamy is a relatively recent invention. Man was polyamorous for the vast majority of his time on earth (in hunter/gatherer bands). Now that basic material needs are socialized and birth control prevents kids being born, there is zero incentive for young hot women to settle down with one guy. What could possibly change that? Why would women vote for any change to this system? This statement is mind-numbing. You have no idea about nothing before written history.

Mark said...

Kgaard, the change isn't going to come from persuading women to vote against the welfare state. It's going to come because it has to come. We can't afford the female-centric welfare state long term. We are already in a spiraling economic decline that is being covered up short term by the media and federal reserve low interest rate policies that can't continue. Average family income is slowly declining. The change is going to come from what men do and don't do. More men are going to stop working hard enough to provide surplus income that can be taxed away to provide economic support to single moms. More men are going to stop getting married due to unfair divorce laws. More men are going to move overseas. More men are going to learn game if they want sex or enjoy other hobbies and interests if they don't think that's worth the effort. The feminist erected welfare state rests on the false assumption that men don't respond to incentives and will continue to act the way they did when working hard and being the economic provider would win you a loving wife and the respect of your community.

mindstar3000 said...

"But we wouldn't be asking, we would be telling. With a threat of force." Thus one step removed from the Taliban and something which Western society will never tolerate let alone approve of.

As others have said the only way to change bad behavior is to stop rewarding/subsidizing bad behavior. That will lead to change but it will take at least a generation.

Markku said...

Thus one step removed from the Taliban and something which Western society will never tolerate let alone approve of.

The assumption is that there wouldn't any longer be anything like what we currently understand as Western society. And that this development will happen on its own, and we just have to bide our time and survive until then.

Or, Muslims take over, establish Sharia, and that solves the problem in another way. But that way, to me, goes TOO far in the other direction.

Kgaard said...

Hans -- Sure we know what human sexuality was like before written history. It's evident all through our current behaviors and biological make-up. You should read the 2011 book Sex at Dawn. It is absolutely mind-expanding. Why do men have a head on the end of their penis? To scoop out the product of the dude who just rolled off 15 seconds before. Why do women make more noise during sex? To call in other men. Why are men quicker in sex than women? Because there are four other guys waiting. And on and on ...

Mark -- Much of what you say is reasonable but there's one mistake. You say the US is in spiraling economic decline, but that is not true. Most indicators of economic health are moving in the right direction. Human productivity is soaring, so society can indeed afford to keep more and more people on the dole. That's what's going to happen. The future is going to look like a combination of the movies Idiocracy and Elysium. (Actually, the PRESENT looks like a combination of Idiocracy and Elysium.) It can and will continue. The US is going to be something like Brazil. The question is how we as individuals respond. Personally I am always tempted to go to Europe and build a life there. But every time I go I get worn out after a few weeks and come back to the US. So I have no answers.

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

Cutting welfare and government-based student loans, stopping laws and regulations that require employers to bend over backwards to accommodate their female employees, reforming paternity law, and returning to fault-based divorce would work wonders in limiting bad female behavior

These are good suggestions, but, as long as female and non-white voters exist, you're not going to get them passed under the current form of government.

Markku said...

Most indicators of economic health are moving in the right direction.

This has been debated ad infinitum on the Vox Popoli side, so there's really no reason to do it here. Suffice it to say that I disagree, and you can join the debate at VP if you want.

JCclimber said...

he he. Taliban. You all post as if every woman living under the muslim regimes and so forth are much less happy and fulfilled than the shrieking harpies living here in the west.
Frigging themselves to 50 Shades of Gray.
Going into total bitchfest mode at their hated jobs.
Ripping their own flesh and blood out in the abortion clinics by the millions every year.

Yeah, the Taliban women really are MUCH unhappier than western women. Any western woman will confidently tell you the same, without ever having traveled to and spoken with those women over there.

If the life under the Taliban is so awful, why don't the women just commit suicide or flee, like they do by the thousands in the west?

Chad said...

@ vashine

Agreed

I didn't claim that it does not hint at what women are made of, only that it is a very.... obscured hint. It is looking at a pile of broken glass and, without rearranging the pieces, guessing at what the stained glass picture would have been with the sun shining through it, as it was built to do.

That is what sexual sin does to people, it ruins their ability to love correctly. As such, yes, you see the broken nature of the attractions of whores and sluts. They are not able to piece together provider and submission into the same object.

So instead you see disgusting, foul attractions to sodomy and beastiality; and a dry desert to men as they are.

Properly educated, raised, and given to a man in marriage you wouldn't have these broken women. Whether it is a father giving her or her giving herself, women must die to the self to create a new, single flesh with a man that can fuse her burning passions with her need for stability

Doom said...

Did you honestly need research to know this?

"...she will choose her material desires over her sexual ones." Mostly. In time, or after failing maybe. I don't know if wives were ever on your bad boy menu, but they aren't difficult. Just as college women are rather easy. Picky, but... what was it, something about if you won't your sister will? They may find their way to it right away, or later, but they will stray. A simple polygraph would bust up most marriages.

As to men being hopeless? True. But it is only the ones who believe their romantic notions that are the problem. I am a hopeless romantic, when I can disbelieve the facts and just go with the flow. But I don't... it isn't for her. It's for me. I will shape her actions, teach her how to fulfill her role. Unfortunately, women are terrible actors... worse liars (at least if you didn't need the experiment to know the truth of what it suggests).

Markku said...

Did you honestly need research to know this?

Well, attraction to an animal over the husband was still kind of surprising. Not hard to believe, but worth a brief raise of the eyebrow.

Jack Amok said...

We shouldn't forget the carrot in all this either. Game is above all else about men increasing their sexual attractiveness. Getting a BETA to add more ALPHA allows a woman to get her emotional and material needs met with one guy.

vashine said...

@Chad

Amen.

------

Who cares to unpack GG's statement? Not I.

Neither natural love nor Divine love will remain unless it is cultivated. Love is spontaneous, but it has to be maintained by discipline. - Oswald Chambers

Markku said...

Who cares to unpack GG's statement?

Dalrock.

Retrenched said...

I highly recommend Rollo's Preventative Medicine series, in which he talks about why women's preferences in men change from the sexy alpha to the dependable beta and back at different stages of their lives, depending on what is most important to them at that stage.

http://therationalmale.com/2014/03/16/preventative-medicine-part-i/
http://therationalmale.com/2014/03/26/preventative-medicine-part-ii/
http://therationalmale.com/2014/04/08/preventative-medicine-part-iii/
http://therationalmale.com/2014/04/13/preventative-medicine-part-iv/

Jack Amok said...

GG's statement? Markku got it right.

That, and maybe her hamster got into the chocolate covered espresso beans.

Bluntobj Winz said...

GG-

"You cannot even conceive of the possibility that you may have an identity beyond that of providers. You may have qualities we desire beyond sexual urges. We may seek you out for reasons unrelated to protection. You may have something to offer us that goes way beyond the material and biological world."

Certainly. Emotional commitment without sexual or material aspects, babysitters of offspring not theirs, servicers to do tasks not pleasant or easy for a woman to accomplish. Vamprisim or parasitical behavior that focuses on short term gratification and that will kick the male to the curb immediately to be replaced.

The TL;DR version: One way relationships are what you offer. Nothing in return that men would want (Sex, loyalty, submission, compassion). You are only concerned with that you want, on your terms, offering nothing. So, you get nothing, but rationalize it away as the man's fault.

To paraphrase Rollo: Women can't love men, not the way we want.

GG said...

"That, and maybe her hamster got into the chocolate covered espresso beans"

But of course, Jack Amok. I love to feed my hamster chocolate covered espresso beans.

When I met hubby, I actually remember the conflict I felt between making a practical, material choice, and simply jumping into the abyss. He blindsided me and reason clearly did not win. I forgot all about material desires and I'm quite grateful I did. But than again, I've already established that I am crazy and insanely romantic.

"Seeing someone they knew was a 'lust-killer'. "

One of the awesome things about marriage is that people change and than you have the opportunity to fall in love all over again. But whatever, perceive it anyway you wish.

Retrenched said...

'The TL;DR version: One way relationships are what you offer. Nothing in return that men would want (Sex, loyalty, submission, compassion). You are only concerned with that you want, on your terms, offering nothing. So, you get nothing, but rationalize it away as the man's fault.'

They demand everything from men while offering nothing in return, and then wonder why men only want them for a quick roll in the hay. It is to laugh.

cailcorishev said...

At the end of the day, they really just want someone (a man, a government, a philosophy) to decide for them.

That's something interesting I've noticed at the dating site Plenty Of Fish, which asks each person his or her ideal first date. Even girls who wrote a long profile about all their wonderfulness will rarely put more than a sentence or two there, and a surprising number will say something like, "Anything that's fun," or, "Surprise me."

Of course, if you asked them straight out, "Do you want a man to make your decisions for you," they'd deny it like crazy. But deep down they really do -- it just has to be the right man.

brian said...

Cail - you have completely nailed it.

At their very core, all women desire one thing - the "right" man to come in to their life and bring them to heel.

Ever Light said...

The conflict is always there.

Women want BOTH: the attractive Alpha man's genes and personal lifetime relationship + the Beta man's resources to provide a safe, (relatively predictable) stable home environment to raise her children in.

I've just written on this here: http://ghostofalphaspast.blogspot.com/2014/06/sigma-game-what-women-wantwhat-men-want.html

All a man can really do to overcome is be the desirable dominant man of attraction and security to keep a woman's hypergamy at borderline.

Like JP and others have said here -- we need God's Roles in our lives: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Family/Marriage/roles.htm

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Porno/playboy_philosophy.htm

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Family/Parents%20Corner/got_dad.htm

This can be done individually but the effort rests on every man, woman and child.

~ EL

Remo said...

"Good luck imposing those "restrictions" under the current form of government. "

The beauty of that is current form of government is doomed and unsustainable. Its lasted long enough to wreck a few generations (mine included of course) but our grandchildren will have something very very different. Starvation makes for loyal mates and if the gal can't simply pick up the phone to remove you domestic bliss is possible. Independent women become very tame when faced with the realities of a nature, cold, exposure, thirst, and hunger. Funny how that works.

Markku said...

The beauty of that is current form of government is doomed and unsustainable.

Precisely. Think of a computer. Pretty amazing and powerful system. We take them for granted because we're so used to them, but when you really consider what goes on in it, it's unbelievable.

But now, increase the electromagnetic radiation in the vicinity above a certain threshold. Soon it becomes decidedly un-amazing. Its complexity becomes its weakness. There are so many places where something can go wrong, and when it does in even one of them, everything falls apart.

Quickly you find that an abacus is more powerful than that computer.

Tommy Hass said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
liberranter said...

Starvation makes for loyal mates and if the gal can't simply pick up the phone to remove you domestic bliss is possible. Independent women become very tame when faced with the realities of a nature, cold, exposure, thirst, and hunger. Funny how that works.

What remains to be seen is how many men will stand for being burdened with weak, needy, hypergamous skanks once TSHTF. Methinks more than a few are going to just let deh Empoweredwimminz[tm] fend for themselves in Dystopialand, like they've been bragging about being able to for the last half century.

buzzardist said...

And this is why civilization ultimately depends upon providing incentives, or restrictions, to ensure that women continue to pursue their material desires.

I'm not sure I can agree with this last sentence, Vox. It's the single-minded pursuit of material desires at the expense of sexuality, particularly on the part of women, that is upending our society right now. Why are women single and not having kids? Because they are pursuing educations and careers instead of marriage and childbearing.

Among women who are having kids young, why aren't they marrying? Because the government is their sugar daddy. Many women could get more materially from a different arrangement, but the government (unlike men) doesn't care with whom the women have sex, and having an employed husband around mostly disqualifies women from receiving government welfare. On welfare, the women are able to pursue their sexual desires with fewer impediments, but they are still very much making sure that material needs are met.

So on one hand we have materially independent women who shut off their reproductivity until almost the end of their fertility cycle. On the other hand, we have materially dependent women who rely on the government to meet their needs, freeing them up to be more sexually promiscuous. In both cases, women are ensuring their material desires (or at the very least their material needs). What differs is the one group isn't reproducing, while the other reproduces without a committed, long-term relationship with the offspring's father. Both trends harm civilization, and with one eating away at civilization from the bottom end and the other eating away from the top end, there is really only a narrow, shrinking middle in class and intelligence that is maintaining any anchor for civilization.

John Rampton said...

"No" is usually nothing more than a smokescreen that confounds lesser-rank males

qq terry said...

In the past never did I feel the great significance fifa 14 coins of gratefulness. I had been holding that everything about life cheap fifa 14 coins would become nothing but turn back to dust at the end of life. Maybe at that time I had seen through life and death, thinking that life cheap fifa 14 coins was running to the end unceasingly regardless of our sentimental sigh

Dario McNut said...

Yes, women's sexuality can be pretty hard to understand. But you have to give it to them and understand them to be able to understand it. helpful slaptheface website

dady hidayat said...

It is best to participate in a contest for among the best blogs on the web. I'll recommend this website!
vimax, Vimax Indonesia Enhance VigRX Plus metropathies Vimax france Amp Do Vimax pills really work mastoidal
More Info:
Toko Vimax & VigRX Plus|Vimax France|Vimax Malaysia|VigRX Plus | VigRX Indonesia

Martin said...

Will any of us ever really understand women's sexuality? After all every woman is different.
best penis pump

Simon Knapp said...

Women can be very difficult to understand as they sometimes won't tell you exactly what they are seeking sexually. It takes some clever actions to uncover their deep desires sometimes. It also helps if you can take control in the bedroom, or even add some male enhancers. In fact here you can compare vigrx plus vs vimax

Pussy-ManiaGirls: http://goo.gl/w9Oepq said...

watching my collection, we have upload more video at here:

Collection Part 1:

Doggy Style and In Missionary Position

Hot Sex Anal With Amazing Girl Friend

Sex Under Hot Lights Bad Girls

Give Me The Cum

Cum In My Panties

Nude Amateur Teen Girls

Sexy Brunette Girls

Young Kinky Sluts

Busty Tattoo Chick On Car

Young Asian fucked anal

Latina Havana Ginger gets

Teen Threesome Porn

Hot Blowjob

Amateur Pulls Down Tanga

Sweet girl amazing hot

Sexy japanese babes getting their tight

TEEN BLONDE ANAL SEX ORGY




Collection Part 2:


Hot asian blowjob and pussy creampie

Sucking dick, Audrey put vegetables in all holes

Blonde love fuck

Naomi Russell And Her Royal Ass

Sexy blonde gives blowjob in the car

ASIAN XXX PORN VIDEO

JAPANESE XXX PORN VIDEO

ARABIC XXX PORN VIDEO

HARDCORE PORN VIDEO

GAY XXX PORN VIDEO

WATCH STREAMING PORN VIDEO

USA CELEBS XXX PORN

LATINA XXX PORN

LESBIAN XXX PORN

Hardcore Porn Celebrity

HOT TURKEY PORN MOVIE

INDIAN NUDES CELEBRITIES VIDEOS

UZBEKS Fuck PORN VIDEOS

HOT RASTA GIRL


100% MAKE you satisfy......








































Reply Delete

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.