On women as women, and men as men
I’ve been observing the countless Instagram reels where someone tells us how women work and gives advice on how to pick them up. All these someones — lads, lasses and adults — say more or less the same things, things that had been said for decades by all the ‘coaches’ on YouTube and Forocoches.
I’d like to know what the someones think about my theory that women are simple and difficult (as God or death) whilst men are complicated and easy (as a maths problem).
In the meantime, I enjoy hearing an Argentinian girl say that she feels intimidated when the Spanish men look at her butt in Spain, but that she likes it. I think there are, indeed, ways to look at a girl’s bum that are both cheeky and polite, and if you have that innate courtesy, revealed through your eyes even in your cheekiness, both you and the girl will go home happy. She will feel as though she had been touched by hands that are firm, extensive and soft at once, the way one might imagine women would like them.
And yes, of course, stating my theory about the specific and metaphysical nature of men and women can, in turn, be an awesome weapon of seduction, whether approached as small talk or developed into something finer and more serious. (But lad, don’t get too carried away!, since the theory is not only applicable as a weapon of seduction or flirting, but it is true, and for it is true, telling it to a girl will leave your inferior condition — that of an easy and complicated being — abysmally exposed in the face of her difficult, particular simplicity!)
Returning to the masters of seduction, it must be acknowledged that the hackneyed and stereotypical features they attribute to men and women are generally true — the problem is that they do not fully understand them, they have not thought them through properly, they do not know how these categories are ordered and hierarchised, nor how they relate to each other and to other factors that they likewise neither understand nor even consider.
Let us also clarify that we are speaking here at all times about the realm of romantic/sexual attraction between the woman and the (infrequent) purely heterosexual man; about mad love, erotic fervour more or less wrapped in epic and/or deep sentimentality… without entering into the question of whether it is a fleeting passion, whether it is compatible with fairy-tale romantic love, with marriage and the founding of a home and a family... And let’s then check the example, from here to the end, of sexual experience.
It is true that women, by their very nature, tend to be attracted to men with prior sexual experience with other women: the more, the better. And it is also true, and in a much clearer, more pronounced, invariable, and one-sided way (although seduction gurus never emphasise this point, and sometimes don’t even mention it, perhaps because the consequences of women knowing and pondering such point aren’t profitable), that men, by their very nature, tend to be attracted to women with no sexual experience with other men.
The man, due to the overwhelming allure that feminine beauty (if you’ll pardon the redundancy) exerts over him, is prone to suffering and harming women and other men when this (aesthetic-aristocratic) criterion, good and noble in itself, prevails over other elements that are even better, nobler, and more important. That’s how they usually become detestable.
The woman, for her part, is naturally inclined towards evil, error, and pain for herself and for everyone, insofar as her criterion of attraction (a mercantile, economic, liberal-democratic criterion) is inherently flawed and detestable.
There is no such thing as male physical-anatomical beauty, and therefore it is impossible for physical-anatomical beauty to exert any influence on a woman’s desire.
Unlike a man, whose reaction to the sight of a woman is instantaneous and independent of external factors and opinions, usually a woman doesn’t even know whether she likes the man she is seeing for the first time or not.
She needs other kinds of information to trigger her romantic/sexual desire. She may also feel attraction to a man’s anatomical features, but not because they are beautiful: a woman’s criteria may include the visual, but not from aesthetic sensibility — which, moreover, could never be satisfied by a man’s body, since male physical beauty does not exist.
The complete picture of how attraction works in women will always remain a mystery, further complicated by the individual characteristics of each woman, in general, and at each time and place, due to innate factors and acquired biographical fetishes.
(My brother's ex-wife, for example, stated in the light of day — and with her dark eyes — that all she wanted was a blue-eyed man to have a blue-eyed child: something undeniably positive in her case is that she did not experience the usual splitting of her will with respect to the erotic figure on the one hand, the husband on the other, the provider, and the father as a means of transmitting the desired genes to be reproduced and to be forever bound to them — by blood and conception.)
But it is true, we repeat, that there is in women a powerful impulse of romantic/sexual attraction towards men whom she perceives as sexually successful with other women, preselected for her and for all, by those other previous women — and verified as valuable also by other simultaneous and subsequent women.
In the absence of immediate and independent aesthetic-aristocratic criteria, women are lost and require democratic information about a man’s value to others, in general (the clue of socioeconomic status, massive recognition, recognition by others; Ken Wins, etc.), and to other women, in particular (the clue, on the one hand, of his triumph-victory with them, and on the other, of the supposed sexual skills acquired by having sex with them, from which the current sexual recruiter expects to be the greatest beneficiary).
Who and how many have voted for or bought the new (unknown) sexual candidate is what this mercantile-democratic criterion seeks to discover, a criterion that values — overvalues — sexual experience and is, in turn, a consequence of the instinct for survival, so pronounced in women: the invincible fear of deprivation, of suffering, of losing, and, ultimately, of dying and becoming extinct, of being nothing, because nothingness, for such instincts and philosophy, is worse than the worst being — nothingness is worse than bad, non-being is more despicable than what is truly and justifiably despicable.
(Compare those instincts and that philosophy to what is said in the article On existence as a predicate of perfection.)
Having explained all of the above, which sheds light on much of what happens in the world, it is time to turn to the part that is spared from such abomination.
Indeed, the obsessive instinct for survival, the sick, ignoble dependence on victory and on the opinions of others, the nihilistic mercantile/democratic criteria, the demand for sexual experience in men — these are tremendously powerful forces in the woman. But they can be overcome, even very quickly and easily annihilated, once her first barrier has been broken down — where vulgar impulses run rampant and ensure that only the most vulgar and detestable men, the worst men, have any chance of advancing as sexual figures.
First, there is the obvious, trivial truth that the criterion requiring sexual experience is not only foolish and ignorant (ignorant paradoxically due to a lack of experience — because she has thwarted the sexual advancement of the best, she’s not allowed sex with those who would have proven to be the truly best lovers), not only, as we said, wrong, but also impossible to maintain: if that were the only or predominant criterion (or if it were not possible to deceive, confuse, or annihilate such an instinct in some way), we’d have a world in which no man would ever be sexually accepted by any woman unless he had first been sexually accepted by other women. This would mean that no man could ever even have his first sexual experience, and therefore, no woman could have sex with any man, since all men would have been rejected equally by all other women and for the same reason. Everyone, men and women, would go through their entire lives without ever having their first sexual experience, and the human race would have become extinct the moment the first man and woman appeared in the world.
It is clear that this is not the event; therefore, it is necessarily true that there have been women who have agreed to have sex with men who had not previously had sex with other women, and therefore, it makes sense that we continue to talk about these issues and that it is even possible to do so with a certain and justified optimism.
Whether by pure chance, deception, miracles, rapture, abduction or assault, an inexperienced man can have sex with a woman: a fact that, in itself, wouldn’t represent a great emotional leap or a significant source of motivation. The truly good news is that not only can an inexperienced man have sex with a woman, but the woman will then discover firsthand, through the testimony and evidence of the sensations in her own body, that everything important is innate.
However, it must be also pointed out that in some cases, a woman can be so tainted by her survival instincts, the mercantile-democratic logic, the obsession with sexual validation of a man from other women, that it becomes utterly impossible for her to enjoy and appreciate the effects of the innate gifts and skills of the best lover (expert or inexperienced). These instincts and criteria may operate decisively within her, like a fetish; she may not even be capable of sexual arousal or passion unless she perceives that her fetish (the sexually experienced man) is present and being indulged… (just like a man, as a man, no matter what the woman in question be, do and deserve, may not be able to become aroused if she isn’t visually attractive to him… Or just as my brother’s ex-wife might not have been able to enjoy or desire anyone who didn’t have blue eyes). It can happen, and it probably will often, but it hasn’t happened to me, at least, nor do I recall any instances.
My humble experience (slim, light, lithe experience) tells me that once that first feminine barrier has been broken down (and wrong feminine impulses stop running rampant ensuring that only the worst men have any chance as sexual figures), all women of all kinds are glad for the scope of the innate expertise. At this point, I am all optimism.
Given the impossibility of escaping by honest and natural means the vicious circle of inexperience, men (who obviously come into the world without a sexual curriculum — unless we consider the possibility of Pythagorean metempsychosis: and in any case, the poetic vestiges in the reincarnated soul would not pass the implacable and prosaic test of the woman) have been forced to improvise solutions of various kinds.
It is possible, as we have just said above, to overcome the barrier of misguided criteria and then prove to the woman that she was wrong in her desire for an experienced man, but it is not possible to deceive her about the experience the man in question actually possesses. Women are born with some infallible sensory apparatus for these matters so crucial to them.
A usual tactic of men — who know perfectly well how vital their sexual experience is in the eyes of a woman when she takes her seat as sexual examiner — is to openly boast about their extensive record, or else subtly hint at it. In any case, that will be pointless and will only make them look ridiculous, whether their suggested record is true or not — and by just one glance will she know if it’s true.
That would leave, then, only the most primitive, crudest, and most ancient resources: one, civil; the other, criminal.
The civil remedy would consist in paying a prostitute — all the better if they are many and different, in order to acquire greater and more varied experience.
The criminal one just disregards all of the woman’s criteria and her consent, obtaining sex through sheer violence, applied by the man’s superior physical strength.
It is worth asking whether a woman can prevent rape from occurring in such circumstances.
•
We have heard that some women fantasise about being raped. This is of the utmost interest, but irrelevant to the point we are going to make here. Here we are going to talk about rape on the assumption that the woman’s will and behaviour are oppose to being raped.
In some parts of the Muslim world, rape is interpreted as an act that the victim would be capable of avoiding in all cases: the woman must resist with her life, or else the sexual act will be considered somehow consensual and guilty (of adultery or fornication).
For most Westerners, the hypothesis of dying while avoiding rape is a greater horror than that of rape itself and life continuing afterward: what the woman must do is try to survive, and that’s the end of the whole thing and all the questions, as far as those people are concerned.
As far as I’m concerned, by contrast, death without rape seems much less horrible than life during and after rape, and so I still have several questions that I haven’t been able to resolve, but which I consider important to formulate.
At that point of survival after ignominy, we can think of the belief that any horror will eventually be repaired and will make sense within the universal plan: whatever happened, whatever it be, will necessarily be the best for the whole and for each of the parts, because this is what the infinite goodness and wisdom of the Creator would have wanted and allowed, whose work exceeds in perfection what we creatures could understand.
And that is such a final, compelling debate, but irrelevant to the topic at hand. (Fascinating and irrelevant — here — like the aforementioned hypothesis of female rape-fantasy.)
What is relevant here — my question — is whether the very assumption that a woman will resist rape with her life is a realistic requirement — realistic in absolute terms: that is, we are not asking whether it is improbable, hard, or tough, but whether it is actually possible.
Normally, no matter how much the woman resists, the aggressor won’t need to kill her to achieve sexual intercourse. Does the requirement to resist with one’s life then refer to suicide?
And, in any case: is it (normally) even possible for the woman to have some way of ending her life before the rape occurs?