Our culture assumes that freedom is generally good, and that people should be free to pursue their own desires, unless that pursuit conflicts with the freedom of others.
The level of passivity of women - and the level of aggression it actually takes to seduce successfully - are completely at odds with everything I was taught about equality.
Most of the other successful seducers I know are extremely aggressive. The nations that are above replacement rates - Africa, Caribbean, Middle East - all harbour extremely sexually aggressive men.
The only women that are genuinely sexually aggressive are the absolute bottom tier in terms of attractiveness - it is their compensatory strategy.
However, even in the developing world, as this prosperity increases, the same tendancy as in the West is beginning to show up even in the developing world.
Women will not solve the birth-rate crisis - it must be men - one way or another - either by becoming Lothario level seducers that women will yield to - or by imposing structural reforms - ie the Taliban.
Either way, it must be men. Women simply do not feel the urgency during their most fertile years. It is amazing how many women I've been with were essentially dormant for a period of months or years before our liaisons. I on the other hand am quite literally never out of pursuit. It is not q question of enjoyment or not - it is simply an endlessly restless testosterone fuelled drive. It doesn't actually decline much with age either, rather just become more tolerable.
The people who disagree with you simply lack real world experience which, in this domain, is the only thing that counts. Sexuality is not a theory.
I fear that you are in fact lame and cringe and we can smell your premature balding and infertility from across the digital ether.
tbh it's a bit of a waste that thousands of years of evolution culminated in the human species producing something like you. The majority of people reading this are just wincing at your stupidity.
In all seriousness though this is so embarrassing, this sort of thinking will not fill that void of emptiness that weighs on you every morning. It will just expand it.
You seem to be confused. This essay isn’t about me. I’m sure that I have more children than you’ll ever have, and I have plenty of hair too, but that is irrelevant. I could be a bald, fat, lonely sexual loser, or the biggest chad in the world, and that would have zero relevance to whether my claims are true or false.
Are you capable of understanding that? Probably not.
I am sorry, but evo-psy is bullshit. Truth: humans are evolved to be the hypersocial species and thus everything is a social construct. For example, do you eat hot spicy food? Capsaicin evolves so that mammals don't eat those plants, and it works for every species - try to feed hot spicy food to a dog - except humans.
Ah yes, humans like a little spice in their food, therefore we transcend biology.
Sorry, that’s just silly. The theory of evolution has enormous explanatory power for human nature. Yes, humans are complex, so there are exceptions to most generalities, but the generalities still hold and have biological explanations.
“Everything is a social construct” is absurd. What would it even mean?
There are actual social constructs, such as money, laws, rights, etc. There are culturally emergent forms, such as language. These don’t come out of nowhere. They come out of brains interacting.
For example, why are we social? What does it mean to be social? Social behavior is an evolved adaptation. You can’t understand society until you understand its biological basis.
I feel for you, bro, but I think you are making a rather critical error here. The current state of sexual market is not "sexual freedom", it's far from it - both current left and right are severely anti-sex. The only people who tasted the actual sexual freedom were young hippies and activists back in the Sexual Revolution era - and those turned out quite ok, with enough play in the youth and settling down peacefully afterwards. But when their ideas were taken by the old farts in the government - that's where it began to go wrong. At least in my opinion, the best politics would be - leave people the fuck alone, they'll figure it out.
Yes, we do have sexual freedom. There are no restrictions on sex, other than the age of consent, hence "freedom". There is another kind of sexual freedom, which is more relevant to the essay: women don't need individual men as protectors and providers. And no, the hippies didn't turn out okay. They took a long time to settle down and had low fertility.
Did you read the essay? I really don't think so. I think you just read the title and maybe a few sentences, and then decided to babble in the comments.
“Women waste their fertile years waiting for men. They feel no urgency about getting a mate. A single man feels a desperate longing for a woman. A single woman does not have the same feeling.”
I think this is a very oversimplified view of female sexuality, and since you are not a woman, you can only see it from the perspective of someone from the outside looking in. As children, girls develop crushes on the boys in their class. They dream of being princesses and marrying Prince Charming. They whisper to each other about cute boys walking past. This is not only socialization, this is biology kicking in. As we grow up and become adults, the urge grows even stronger. Women (in general) love romance in all forms, be it novels, movies, or matchmaking in real life. Yes, women play a more passive role, but that absolutely does not mean that they are not looking for a man and giving signals to the men they are interested in. If a woman is very attracted to a man and he is a bit oblivious, she will often even blatantly tell him that she wants him. That women are just sitting there, completely asexually, waiting to be taken is not consistent with my experience as a woman or my understanding of the world. Think about it, most women nowadays are still dating and falling in love. They’re definitely not being taken by force, so there is some instinctive drive there.
First, we don't need to have a first-person perspective on something to understand it. In fact, understanding human nature requires adopting a detached perspective on it. We must view ourselves "from the outside" to really understand ourselves.
I didn't claim that women are asexual. Women are sexual in their own way. For example, they put a lot of effort into being attractive. But then they reject men who are attracted to them, or make themselves unapproachable. When women display their beauty, they are flexing their sexual power, but this does not translate into relationships or even sex, because men don't have an equal amount of power in the modern mating game. Women advertise their wares, but men can't pay the price.
Yes, of course women have crushes and fall in love (although this is mostly around the age of puberty). But women have a lower level of sexual desire, and a much higher level of sexual repulsion. A woman might desire a very attractive man, but be mildly repulsed by average men. You can see this in the stats from dating sites, or just by observing people.
The difference in sexual desire is analogous to the difference in physical strength. Yes, women have muscles and can pick up objects. Yes, some women are stronger than some men. But overall, men are much stronger than women. The same applies to sexual desire.
You can really see the difference in music. Men write almost all of the love songs. Women write songs about wanting to be wanted, not about wanting. There are a few exceptions, but they are rare.
Yes, women signal sexual interest. They signal/attract and wait to be approached. But this is low-risk and often insincere. Men learn to be skeptical of these signals from experience. If a signal is low-cost and low-risk, it has very little value. E.g. a woman might make eye contact with a man in a public place. How can he respond to this? "Hey, I saw you looking at me, and I thought...uh..."
Yes, women love romance, because romance is a female fantasy genre, designed to appeal to women. But romance isn't reality. Women fantasize about being swept off their feet by a tall, rich, handsome, mysterious stranger, while they ignore the real men around them.
Are most women dating and falling in love? Yes, to some extent, but there has been a big decline in relationships, marriage, fertility, etc. since the sexual revolution. Many women are not dating and falling in love, or they take 10 years to get into a serious relationship.
This is not the fault of women (or men). It's a consequence of changing the environment. That's the point of the essay. Our instincts are adapted to the ancestral condition, not the modern condition.
okay! have fun spreading esoteric knowledge with your abstract and hyper intelligent friends who also take pleasure in dominating women. you sound incredibly intelligent yourself! im sorry i dared to criticize your massive brain and even massiver penis.. hopefully you dont start dominating men too, lest i become a victim of your sheer power!
I read the essay throughly cause i very much like to assess and remind people like you of your position on moral grounds, who reduce women's status to "a thing to be ownned" . And i am happy my " performative outrage" successfully shattered your fragile male ego. Before i go and play my little game somewhere else i'd like to say sorry to the woman in your life (if you have any) and your mother, whom you see as objects, on behalf of entire women community.
Hahahahahahahahahah lol. I was posting from phone and connectivity issues make the app crash again n again so i posted it multiple times not sure if it got posted or not. But dude! I am really enjoying your broken male ego that makes you come to this post again after saying bye. Well sleep tight soldier with your broken armour
I was responding to someone else, and then I saw that you had posted the same thing 3 times, lol. Have a good night. It's not my bedtime, but I think it's past yours.
Cant help but assume how misogynistic of a man who thought about this topic and collected all the evidences that weights not more than pile of rubbish and compose them to show how sexual freedom is only for men and how women who opposed it and questioned it and later adopted it as age progressed now this sexual freedom is making women miserable because apparently according to author this privilege should only be reserved for men because they are so called protectors and women are mere objects to be owned and exploited. Never seen such pervert thoughts before, AMAZING must say.
Your emotional reactions (based on assumptions) are not philosophy, are they? No. It's just performative outrage. You're obviously not interested in the ideas, and you probably didn't even read the essay (did you?). So, go play your little game somewhere else.
I read the essay throughly cause i very much like to assess and remind people like you of your position on moral grounds. Who reduce women's status to ‘a thing to be owned’. And i am happy that my “performative outrage “ successfully shattered your fragile male ego. Before i go and plag my little game somewhere else i'd like to say sorry to the woman in your life (if you have any) and your mother whom you see as objects that are owned, on behalf of entire women community.
Yeah, the daddy state replaced the husband as protector and provider. But the daddy state has no reproductive interest in the woman, unlike the father or the husband.
We didn't evolve to be communists, if that's your idea. So yes, we did evolve to own things: to be possessive of land, objects and mates. Property/ownership is a social construct, but it also has a biological basis.
The ideas in the essay are based on the theory of evolution and its application to human nature. There is plenty of evidence out there, but I'm not making an empirical argument. I'm explaining how things work.
I've noticed that "Where's the evidence?" is a typical cliched "criticism" used by people like you, people who like to pose as "the critic".
If you think an idea is wrong, then make an actual argument. You think evidence is required for a certain claim? Then tell me what claim and what evidence.
But that would require effort, and (even worse) it would expose your lack of knowledge and intelligence.
I would say that most of this is correct, but not enough research and background investigation has been done just yet to give anyone a truly in depth understanding of the problems you're seeking to correct. JD Unwin, r/K theory, cannot just be ignored. Like any field, becoming familiar with prior work and prior art is essential before you can make headway on any problem.
Afterall, The first step in curing an ill is a proper diagnosis before any prescription for action is even possible. Tinkering in the cockpit while flying at 40k feet is not a great way to learn how to fly. Experience is the best teacher, but some lessons are not survivable. That is why I AM a traditionalist. It's 'traditional' to follow the flight manual. Its 'Traditional' to understand the mechanics of flight before attempting a barrel roll with 8 billion people on board modern society. Attempting to re-invent everything is sheer laziness and hubris. Lazy because many 'yungin's' don't want to invest the deep time and focus required to truly understand the issues before attempting to 'fix' things. Hubris to believe you don't need to invest that time and focus before you're qualified to pilot anything.
If you can make an argument against something that I have said, go ahead and make it. Saying "You haven't done enough research" is not substantive criticism. It's just a lazy attempt to diminish or dismiss something.
Traditionalism is useless. To extend your analogy, it's like thinking you can fly a plane in the same way that you ride a horse.
I can guarantee that I have thought about these things far more than you. I see no evidence that you have thought at all. From what I see, you have adopted an off-the-shelf ideology (traditionalism) without thought, and are trying to use it to claim superiority, by spitting out cliched takes.
Make a real argument, or go do your posing somewhere else.
As a serial seducer this has been my experience.
The level of passivity of women - and the level of aggression it actually takes to seduce successfully - are completely at odds with everything I was taught about equality.
Most of the other successful seducers I know are extremely aggressive. The nations that are above replacement rates - Africa, Caribbean, Middle East - all harbour extremely sexually aggressive men.
The only women that are genuinely sexually aggressive are the absolute bottom tier in terms of attractiveness - it is their compensatory strategy.
However, even in the developing world, as this prosperity increases, the same tendancy as in the West is beginning to show up even in the developing world.
Women will not solve the birth-rate crisis - it must be men - one way or another - either by becoming Lothario level seducers that women will yield to - or by imposing structural reforms - ie the Taliban.
Either way, it must be men. Women simply do not feel the urgency during their most fertile years. It is amazing how many women I've been with were essentially dormant for a period of months or years before our liaisons. I on the other hand am quite literally never out of pursuit. It is not q question of enjoyment or not - it is simply an endlessly restless testosterone fuelled drive. It doesn't actually decline much with age either, rather just become more tolerable.
The people who disagree with you simply lack real world experience which, in this domain, is the only thing that counts. Sexuality is not a theory.
I fear that you are in fact lame and cringe and we can smell your premature balding and infertility from across the digital ether.
tbh it's a bit of a waste that thousands of years of evolution culminated in the human species producing something like you. The majority of people reading this are just wincing at your stupidity.
In all seriousness though this is so embarrassing, this sort of thinking will not fill that void of emptiness that weighs on you every morning. It will just expand it.
Can you provide a counter-argument to any of his points - or does a tantrum suffice for you?
You seem to be confused. This essay isn’t about me. I’m sure that I have more children than you’ll ever have, and I have plenty of hair too, but that is irrelevant. I could be a bald, fat, lonely sexual loser, or the biggest chad in the world, and that would have zero relevance to whether my claims are true or false.
Are you capable of understanding that? Probably not.
I am sorry, but evo-psy is bullshit. Truth: humans are evolved to be the hypersocial species and thus everything is a social construct. For example, do you eat hot spicy food? Capsaicin evolves so that mammals don't eat those plants, and it works for every species - try to feed hot spicy food to a dog - except humans.
Ah yes, humans like a little spice in their food, therefore we transcend biology.
Sorry, that’s just silly. The theory of evolution has enormous explanatory power for human nature. Yes, humans are complex, so there are exceptions to most generalities, but the generalities still hold and have biological explanations.
“Everything is a social construct” is absurd. What would it even mean?
There are actual social constructs, such as money, laws, rights, etc. There are culturally emergent forms, such as language. These don’t come out of nowhere. They come out of brains interacting.
For example, why are we social? What does it mean to be social? Social behavior is an evolved adaptation. You can’t understand society until you understand its biological basis.
But I think you don’t want to understand.
“mapped dominance simply to a sexual fetish, not understanding that it is a deeper thing.” lol
Yeh, but not by you.
Epic burn. #rekt
If you actually read the article before making a stupid comment, you might learn something.
I feel for you, bro, but I think you are making a rather critical error here. The current state of sexual market is not "sexual freedom", it's far from it - both current left and right are severely anti-sex. The only people who tasted the actual sexual freedom were young hippies and activists back in the Sexual Revolution era - and those turned out quite ok, with enough play in the youth and settling down peacefully afterwards. But when their ideas were taken by the old farts in the government - that's where it began to go wrong. At least in my opinion, the best politics would be - leave people the fuck alone, they'll figure it out.
You feel for me? What is that supposed to mean?
Yes, we do have sexual freedom. There are no restrictions on sex, other than the age of consent, hence "freedom". There is another kind of sexual freedom, which is more relevant to the essay: women don't need individual men as protectors and providers. And no, the hippies didn't turn out okay. They took a long time to settle down and had low fertility.
Did you read the essay? I really don't think so. I think you just read the title and maybe a few sentences, and then decided to babble in the comments.
What if men evolved to be dickheads?
Life is intrinsically selfish and violent, so in that sense, we all evolved to be dickheads.
“Women waste their fertile years waiting for men. They feel no urgency about getting a mate. A single man feels a desperate longing for a woman. A single woman does not have the same feeling.”
I think this is a very oversimplified view of female sexuality, and since you are not a woman, you can only see it from the perspective of someone from the outside looking in. As children, girls develop crushes on the boys in their class. They dream of being princesses and marrying Prince Charming. They whisper to each other about cute boys walking past. This is not only socialization, this is biology kicking in. As we grow up and become adults, the urge grows even stronger. Women (in general) love romance in all forms, be it novels, movies, or matchmaking in real life. Yes, women play a more passive role, but that absolutely does not mean that they are not looking for a man and giving signals to the men they are interested in. If a woman is very attracted to a man and he is a bit oblivious, she will often even blatantly tell him that she wants him. That women are just sitting there, completely asexually, waiting to be taken is not consistent with my experience as a woman or my understanding of the world. Think about it, most women nowadays are still dating and falling in love. They’re definitely not being taken by force, so there is some instinctive drive there.
First, we don't need to have a first-person perspective on something to understand it. In fact, understanding human nature requires adopting a detached perspective on it. We must view ourselves "from the outside" to really understand ourselves.
I didn't claim that women are asexual. Women are sexual in their own way. For example, they put a lot of effort into being attractive. But then they reject men who are attracted to them, or make themselves unapproachable. When women display their beauty, they are flexing their sexual power, but this does not translate into relationships or even sex, because men don't have an equal amount of power in the modern mating game. Women advertise their wares, but men can't pay the price.
Yes, of course women have crushes and fall in love (although this is mostly around the age of puberty). But women have a lower level of sexual desire, and a much higher level of sexual repulsion. A woman might desire a very attractive man, but be mildly repulsed by average men. You can see this in the stats from dating sites, or just by observing people.
The difference in sexual desire is analogous to the difference in physical strength. Yes, women have muscles and can pick up objects. Yes, some women are stronger than some men. But overall, men are much stronger than women. The same applies to sexual desire.
You can really see the difference in music. Men write almost all of the love songs. Women write songs about wanting to be wanted, not about wanting. There are a few exceptions, but they are rare.
Yes, women signal sexual interest. They signal/attract and wait to be approached. But this is low-risk and often insincere. Men learn to be skeptical of these signals from experience. If a signal is low-cost and low-risk, it has very little value. E.g. a woman might make eye contact with a man in a public place. How can he respond to this? "Hey, I saw you looking at me, and I thought...uh..."
Yes, women love romance, because romance is a female fantasy genre, designed to appeal to women. But romance isn't reality. Women fantasize about being swept off their feet by a tall, rich, handsome, mysterious stranger, while they ignore the real men around them.
Are most women dating and falling in love? Yes, to some extent, but there has been a big decline in relationships, marriage, fertility, etc. since the sexual revolution. Many women are not dating and falling in love, or they take 10 years to get into a serious relationship.
This is not the fault of women (or men). It's a consequence of changing the environment. That's the point of the essay. Our instincts are adapted to the ancestral condition, not the modern condition.
when was the last time you had a conversation with a women? I’m guessing.. never?
You are a terrible guesser -- probably bad at most other things that require intelligence.
My advice: find something that you are good at, and focus your efforts on that.
lol bros mad cus he can only talk to women when he’s “dominating” them instead of out of mutual respect (women dont respect him)
lol, yeah, I'm super mad and I "dominate" women
I know you're not capable of abstract thought, but some people are. This essay is for them, not you.
okay! have fun spreading esoteric knowledge with your abstract and hyper intelligent friends who also take pleasure in dominating women. you sound incredibly intelligent yourself! im sorry i dared to criticize your massive brain and even massiver penis.. hopefully you dont start dominating men too, lest i become a victim of your sheer power!
just stay in your safe space, and you'll be okay
and you stay in yours.. the place where nobody ever criticizes you because those people are clearly always wrong and evil!
I read the essay throughly cause i very much like to assess and remind people like you of your position on moral grounds, who reduce women's status to "a thing to be ownned" . And i am happy my " performative outrage" successfully shattered your fragile male ego. Before i go and play my little game somewhere else i'd like to say sorry to the woman in your life (if you have any) and your mother, whom you see as objects, on behalf of entire women community.
Just what the world needed: the opinion of someone who can't even figure out how to reply to a thread on substack.
Hahahahahahahahahah lol. I was posting from phone and connectivity issues make the app crash again n again so i posted it multiple times not sure if it got posted or not. But dude! I am really enjoying your broken male ego that makes you come to this post again after saying bye. Well sleep tight soldier with your broken armour
I was responding to someone else, and then I saw that you had posted the same thing 3 times, lol. Have a good night. It's not my bedtime, but I think it's past yours.
Cant help but assume how misogynistic of a man who thought about this topic and collected all the evidences that weights not more than pile of rubbish and compose them to show how sexual freedom is only for men and how women who opposed it and questioned it and later adopted it as age progressed now this sexual freedom is making women miserable because apparently according to author this privilege should only be reserved for men because they are so called protectors and women are mere objects to be owned and exploited. Never seen such pervert thoughts before, AMAZING must say.
lol
Yes, you can't help but assume. That sounds about right. Thinking is not your style.
Still i thank god i am not brainless pervert like you who consider his misogynistic thoughts as philosophy.
Your emotional reactions (based on assumptions) are not philosophy, are they? No. It's just performative outrage. You're obviously not interested in the ideas, and you probably didn't even read the essay (did you?). So, go play your little game somewhere else.
I read the essay throughly cause i very much like to assess and remind people like you of your position on moral grounds. Who reduce women's status to ‘a thing to be owned’. And i am happy that my “performative outrage “ successfully shattered your fragile male ego. Before i go and plag my little game somewhere else i'd like to say sorry to the woman in your life (if you have any) and your mother whom you see as objects that are owned, on behalf of entire women community.
lol, okay, bye bye
What the reality deniers in the comments don't understand or accept is that women continue to be owned by men.
They are the collective property of the MEN who run the State.
And the alleged sexual freedom and independence from family was a way to transform them into loyal servants of those same men.
Imagining that a state bureaucrat has more love and compassion for these women than their parents is simply ridiculous.
Surely these same bureaucrats who are importing immigrants that have developed what are true RAPE CULTURES are doing this out of love for these women.
And not because these immigrants are more useful to their purposes than the women.
Yeah, the daddy state replaced the husband as protector and provider. But the daddy state has no reproductive interest in the woman, unlike the father or the husband.
A better question is: Did humans evolve to own anything?
We didn't evolve to be communists, if that's your idea. So yes, we did evolve to own things: to be possessive of land, objects and mates. Property/ownership is a social construct, but it also has a biological basis.
From where are you getting these ideas? You are making lot of claims without providing evidence.
The ideas in the essay are based on the theory of evolution and its application to human nature. There is plenty of evidence out there, but I'm not making an empirical argument. I'm explaining how things work.
I've noticed that "Where's the evidence?" is a typical cliched "criticism" used by people like you, people who like to pose as "the critic".
If you think an idea is wrong, then make an actual argument. You think evidence is required for a certain claim? Then tell me what claim and what evidence.
But that would require effort, and (even worse) it would expose your lack of knowledge and intelligence.
You claimed we evolved to be possessive of land. I think nomads might disagree with you.
lol, I said that you would expose your lack of knowledge and intelligence.
Show me the nomads who don't fight over territory and mates.
The Mongols were nomads, weren't they? Hmm.....
Fighting over territory is not the same as owning land.
I would say that most of this is correct, but not enough research and background investigation has been done just yet to give anyone a truly in depth understanding of the problems you're seeking to correct. JD Unwin, r/K theory, cannot just be ignored. Like any field, becoming familiar with prior work and prior art is essential before you can make headway on any problem.
Afterall, The first step in curing an ill is a proper diagnosis before any prescription for action is even possible. Tinkering in the cockpit while flying at 40k feet is not a great way to learn how to fly. Experience is the best teacher, but some lessons are not survivable. That is why I AM a traditionalist. It's 'traditional' to follow the flight manual. Its 'Traditional' to understand the mechanics of flight before attempting a barrel roll with 8 billion people on board modern society. Attempting to re-invent everything is sheer laziness and hubris. Lazy because many 'yungin's' don't want to invest the deep time and focus required to truly understand the issues before attempting to 'fix' things. Hubris to believe you don't need to invest that time and focus before you're qualified to pilot anything.
R/K theory is bogus. I've debunked it here:
https://thewaywardaxolotl.blogspot.com/2017/01/rk-selection-theory-is-bogus.html
If you can make an argument against something that I have said, go ahead and make it. Saying "You haven't done enough research" is not substantive criticism. It's just a lazy attempt to diminish or dismiss something.
https://thewaywardaxolotl.blogspot.com/2025/03/critics-and-criticism.html
Traditionalism is useless. To extend your analogy, it's like thinking you can fly a plane in the same way that you ride a horse.
I can guarantee that I have thought about these things far more than you. I see no evidence that you have thought at all. From what I see, you have adopted an off-the-shelf ideology (traditionalism) without thought, and are trying to use it to claim superiority, by spitting out cliched takes.
Make a real argument, or go do your posing somewhere else.
Chip, meet shoulder. I will leave you to your self-masturbatory 'debunking'.
lol! Of course you won't fight. You'll crawl away, like the worm that you are.
Bye, Conan the worm.
https://substack.com/@thegoodcitizen/note/c-217445545?r=41tfd
lol, you came back more than 2 months later to retort
that is hilarious!
you are truly the wormiest of worms
thanks for the laugh
They evolved to manipulate you
Clever post. I think this is true.
Of course you would, you are a nazi.