Women are Devilish Wh0res

[taiyuu_otoko]

This shall prove to be the downfall of society. Before mankind created agriculture, women would sleep with only the alpha males. Then when agriculture and society was created, they needed to invent the ten commandments and religion to create a "one man one woman policy."

Of course, as religions' stronghold over western society slowly crumbles, we will be left with men and women behaving just they did before the dawn of agriculture.

Only there is six billion people, and multiplying faster and faster. I shudder to think of the consequences.

Oh wait, no I don't. I don't give a rats fukking ass about the percieved morality, or lack thereof of women.

All I need is my criteria, my sorting, testing and qualifying skills (which I endeavor to always improve), my properly enforced boundries, and I'm good to go.

Of course you guys that are still concerned about miss right not falling in your lap, you might think about moving to a muslim country, where if she misbehaves you can kill her.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

One of the reasons I loathe hearing men tell me about concepts of Chivalry is that this is so often the first thing I get from desperate AFCs rationalizing as to why they're going to marry a single mommy with 3 kids from 2 fathers. Is he Cap'n-Save-A-Ho with no other options or a handsome prince riding in to rescue his "Quality Woman" by saving her from her conditions, "Manning up" and taking on the parental investment responsibilities that her former partner's would not? I have no doubt he'd see himself as being honorable, moral and resolute in accepting and forgiving her infidelity. I can't think of a more efficient psychological tool / social convention that would facilitate, once again, securing the best genetic potential and the best provisioning potential for a woman in one life span.

I'm actually a bit surprised that JOPHIL hasn't chimed in on this topic yet, but for the sake of discourse I'll offer another observation - and that's the point of honor and respect and a host of other esoteric qualities that separate men from women and chumps. I have a tough time with concept of honor, or even mutual respect amongst Men because the notion cuts both ways. The high-minded ideal of honor is often a rationalization for beliefs and behaviors that turn necessity into a virtue. Almost all of the men I know who cling to honor in certain situations do so selectively and because they really had no other choice of action and need a justification (and often a source of shaming other men also). As Men, the idea that we are the only gender with the integrity and perception to appreciate honor is very appealing.

And while we'd like to think were above women (and chumps) in this respect, more often than not the concept is used against Men. The ideal of honor is the perfect tool for shaming men into "doing the right thing" as it applies to women. Once the idea is couched in a man it's a short step to manipulating that ethic to serve their purpose. Moralism has been a more useful tool for women than it's ever been for men.

That said however, I do think that abandoning honor, integrity, respect, ethics, etc. wholesale is a mistake as well. I'm a firm believer in enlightened self-interest; I cannot help anyone until I've helped myself. The disconnect comes from those who don't help others once they do establish a position of being beneficial. There are higher aspects of our nature that we aspire to and are useful to us in the bigger scheme of things. I think it's far healthier to accept and live with both our base (primitive, biological, animal) nature and our higher nature (honor, ethics, integrity) than to deny one in favor of another. The absolutist will say they are mutually exclusive or that one cannot drive the other - it's all or nothing - but I feel this is in err. In fact, living exclusively in either manner is the source of a great deal of resulting social, psychological and cultural problems and issues. AFCs are some of the most moral and "honorable" guys you'd ever want to meet.

 

[Moon-Wolf]

Such golden quality on SS, am I glad that we have posters like these, it will aid me in my journey.

 

[Scaramouche]

Dear All,
I was particularly intrigued by The Tokyo Tigers take on this,it makes a lot of sense and I was surprised our learned Mentor did not address it.....I am very much Scots-Irish in my background,not to be confused with Celtic....Interesting,from my reading it would seem they lived in groups of about a dozen adults,and the Women were held in common,so Yeah the Alpha Male did most of the breeding,but as he couldn't be shagging two girls at once,we had a healthy spread of genes,I can observe in this Country that People of my genetic type are more inclined to promiscuity and broken marriages....not only do I think their behaviour genetic,but I also believe that their essentially soulful poetic natures come from a breeding where the Druid elite schooled in an essentially unwritten Culture predominated....As for Dear Old Jophil,have you not heard the old Maxim?Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

 

[Jeffst1980]

I would say the main distinction we need to make between "morality" of men and women is that since women are the weaker sex, they MUST be the more cunning and manipulative. They have to be the most capable of breaking societal mores and rationalizing them after.

This would make sense if you view the history of men and women as a power struggle, as the feminists do.

My question for you is: Are women more "cunning and manipulative" than men or are they just more socially intelligent? Similarly, are AFC traits inborn or socially conditioned?

I think that you have the perception that men act with more integrity than women because we live in a society that expects it from men and not from women; indeed, women are forgiven for most transgressions solely on the basis of their gender. Some even advocate this one-sided leniency in the name of gender equality!

Furthermore, evolution does not imply a set of static conditions. This fact makes uncovering the "true nature" of any human subset an exercise in futility.

Here's an interesting read on morality in the animal kingdom as a side note: http://bioblog.biotunes.org/bioblog/2007/03/26/morality-is-not-a-human-construct/

I do agree with you that men ultimately choose how women treat them. I don't think you need to "condition" a woman, though; that's reactive behavior. You simply have to become a high valued male. High valued males get all the girls should really be the point of this post.

Women aren't "devilish wh0res" any more than men are "idiot savages." Neither label will help us understand either gender; it is simply more complex than that. Human beings aren't inherently good or evil, either; they are simply human beings.

 

[Luthor Rex]

The simple answer is you are coming to the same conclusion that men came to thousands of years ago and upheld until recently. That women aren't truely soverign adults.

Part of me is fighting this conclusion. Part of me would like to think there is evidence out there I haven't seen which would make me think some women aren't children inside... but realistically this is just wishful thinking.

I don't see how men are going to win in the bargain but I guess you got to make the best of it.

The only way to 'win' is to re-assert a culture of male dominance.

 

[Colossus]

Women aren't "devilish wh0res" any more than men are "idiot savages." Neither label will help us understand either gender; it is simply more complex than that. Human beings aren't inherently good or evil, either; they are simply human beings.

I agree, and I think that is the error in this type of absolute thinking. I know "absolute" is thrown around here a lot latley, but that's what it is. I've read Roissy's blog, and I've read the OP and some of the responses here. While I agree with many aspects and observations, I dont subscribe to this over-arching theme that that nature of woman is evil. And that's essentially what the philosophy of Roissy, Str8up, et al. is distilled to, no matter how verbose and eloquent the delivery.

What is left out of these seething diatribes is a similarly critical view of the nature of MEN, or more aptly, human nature. It's almost like you are viewing women as a different species entirely. I dont think the nature of woman is evil any more so than is the nature of man. Seeing it as the former is a defensive and reactive way to go through life.

In regards to the adjectives cunning and manipulative, the case could easily be made that men are equally so in their pursuit of sex. We just reframe it here as strategy.

I'm not trying to sh!t on men here, I just want to dispell this notion that we constitutionally superior to women in terms of our motives and judgments. I personally think women are much more socially perceptive than men, at least naturally speaking, and this is where we get the "cunning and manipulative" labels. Men manipulate in our own ways---in business negotiations, in the workplace, and in seduction--yet we dont call it manipulation; we just see it as a strategically necessary path to the desired end.

For a long time I have lived with this "Us vs Them" mentality (though I would never admit it as such), and I am finally starting to move away from that. Life is not an endless battle of wits and leverage with women...that is reactionary and rooted in victimhood. Some men have been had repeatedly, and now suddenly they see how women "really are" and begin operating under their own brand of Machiavellian strategy and bullsh!t alpha posturing.

I absolutely think that men should guard their hearts and never distribute trust freely. I'm not here to downplay what women are capable of, because I believe they can and do commit the acts described here on a daily basis. But I think it's a mistake to label them all as innately evil creatures and adopt this post-hoc mindset that everyone is truly, deeply, and consummately out for themselves. You might as well just kill yourself right now.

 

[ketostix]

There are higher aspects of our nature that we aspire to and are useful to us in the bigger scheme of things. I think it's far healthier to accept and live with both our base (primitive, biological, animal) nature and our higher nature (honor, ethics, integrity) than to deny one in favor of another. The absolutist will say they are mutually exclusive or that one cannot drive the other - it's all or nothing - but I feel this is in err. In fact, living exclusively in either manner is the source of a great deal of resulting social, psychological and cultural problems and issues. AFCs are some of the most moral and "honorable" guys you'd ever want to meet.

Well said. That's how I see it and I take the middle ground position. Neither absolute or extreme is correct in my view. I see human nature and female nature to naturally contain both dynamics, for example to be both monogamous and promiscuois. Human nature is dynamic and adaptable to the enviroment and conditions.

This is all really a big theoretical discussion. To me attraction is key and men can use their exclusitivity card as a big bargaining chip a lot like women use their sex. Basically, you don't have to either be an AFC or an alpha King with a harem. There's a middle ground.

 

[mrRuckus]

This is the sort of stuff I think, but never say because it makes you come off as a hateful wacko.

What we are saying is that although the system may be "flawed" or "skewed" or that women are inherently "amoral", you can use ALL OF THIS to your advantage to guide the interaction to your benefit.

This is nice and all but what sorts of actual applications are you talking about?

I always seem to understand things or figure them out for myself, but then have a hard time getting started in putting that knowledge to use.

 

[SXS]

As usual, it went right over your head.
The point is that there is little inherent difference between women at their core.

Well, I did not read the entire post, just the part you quoted, and it sounded that way.
While I am always in a different page than you are when it comes to what is womens nature or anyones nature for that matter, I agree that is very pragmatic to consider all of them as devilish wh@res, but not that I would consider all of them or even most of them as such, but simply speaking, that would be the best way to protect myself from the inumerous possibilities of burning myself with women. I learned that long ago on my first girlfriend(if I could call her such).

You would like to separate women into two categories but it doesn't work that way. You have about 5% that are mostly great, 5% that are fairly rotten to their core, and the rest are on the remaining 90% in a sliding scale where they move freely based upon the situation that is in front of them.

You said I would like to separate women into 2 categories but you just did so. You just separated all of them in 3 categories. And you are bringing numbers to it.

Originally Posted by Jeffst1980
Women aren't "devilish wh0res" any more than men are "idiot savages." Neither label will help us understand either gender; it is simply more complex than that. Human beings aren't inherently good or evil, either; they are simply human beings.

Agreed! Culture determines what we are. For a Nazi in German in the 30's, shoot you in the head would be the most normal thing in the world. But, for a Budist, even harming an animal would be considered a horrific act.
Part of the reason why things are like they are is that today, people can't hold any kind value that does not involves taking advantage for themselves in all circunstances.

 

[jophil28]

Agreed! Culture determines what we are. For a Nazi in German in the 30's, shoot you in the head would be the most normal thing in the world. But, for a Budist, even harming an animal would be considered a horrific act.
Part of the reason why things are like they are is that today, people can't hold any kind value that does not involves taking advantage for themselves in all circunstances.

Exactly right.
Trying to predict a woman's behavior by reference to evol psych is as useful as reading her horoscope.

Women replicate their mother's lives and will treat men like mom treated her father . IF her mom was a tryrant ,your girl will be a controlling,domineering bytche. IF dad was a couch dwelling pvssy, she will seek another of the same type for a husband. IF her father was a benevolent leader who loved his family, then that kind of man feels just like home to her.

The Greeks knew all this 2500 years ago when they advised young men to look at a woman's mother to see who he was about to marry.

THe Nurture approach is currently out of fashion in favor of the more exciting Evol Psych buzz and some of you guys are caught up in the fad.

 

[RedPill]

THe Nurture approach is currently out of fashion in favor of the more exciting Evol Psych buzz and some of you guys are caught up in the fad.

While I'm all in favor of the Mom Rule (especially here in corn-fed fat fvck Midwestern America), I'm more in favor of behavioral psych. Evolutionary psych gives us insight into biological motivators, but behavioral psych gives us the ability to piece together motives and conditions to consider a range of probable outcomes. Living up to a parental expectation (i.e. becoming a carbon copy of her mother) is just one such motivator.

 

[DMSR76]

I think it's far healthier to accept and live with both our base (primitive, biological, animal) nature and our higher nature (honor, ethics, integrity) than to deny one in favor of another. The absolutist will say they are mutually exclusive or that one cannot drive the other - it's all or nothing - but I feel this is in err. In fact, living exclusively in either manner is the source of a great deal of resulting social, psychological and cultural problems and issues. AFCs are some of the most moral and "honorable" guys you'd ever want to meet.

Great point.

 

[Nutz]

I'm not sure why, but I thought of this thread when I was reading this:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/personal/07/06/tf.marrying.for.money/index.html?eref=rss_us

http://digg.com/people/Why_Marrying_For_Money_Isn_t_A_Bad_Idea

 

[jophil28]

. I think it's far healthier to accept and live with both our base (primitive, biological, animal) nature and our higher nature (honor, ethics, integrity) than to deny one in favor of another. The absolutist will say they are mutually exclusive or that one cannot drive the other - it's all or nothing - but I feel this is in err.

It depends what you means by "accept and live with..."
IF you mean that we should be accepting to the extent that we willingly integrate our baseness because is 'natural' then I would strongy disagree.
Curiously, I do agree with a lot of the Jungian position. We all do have a "dark side " or a "shadow". However that does not mean that we have permission or a license to allow it to lead our actions.
There are great sources of personal energy and motivation rooted and available in our shadow side, but there are also the drives to misuse them to do evil.

We frequently read here of men's frustation with woman's "emotional natures".
Emotions per se rarely causes problems. The drama starts when women ACT on their emotions and embark on a course of action which is driven by an internal emotional experience rather than rational thought.

Our shadow side needs to be tempered and regulated in a way that achieves productive outcomes .

Nathaniel Brandon writes brilliantly on this topic.

 

[Hooligan Harry]

Exactly right.
Trying to predict a woman's behavior by reference to evol psych is as useful as reading her horoscope.

Women replicate their mother's lives and will treat men like mom treated her father . IF her mom was a tryrant ,your girl will be a controlling,domineering bytche. IF dad was a couch dwelling pvssy, she will seek another of the same type for a husband. IF her father was a benevolent leader who loved his family, then that kind of man feels just like home to her.

The Greeks knew all this 2500 years ago when they advised young men to look at a woman's mother to see who he was about to marry.

THe Nurture approach is currently out of fashion in favor of the more exciting Evol Psych buzz and some of you guys are caught up in the fad.

The greeks were also ****ing each other up the ass and some city states never saw their men married before 30.

That "evol psych buzz" comes with some level scientific study, not theory alone. Studies showing everything from how certain body types are more attractive (Im sure though you believe women can adore an obese man if he displays confidence and character) to how women seek out the best provider. Seeing that in your own life tends to reinforce those views.

Amazing that you can label evolutionary psych a fad, yet you live daily with your sex drive. Hell, a womans emotions are affected when pregnant or on her period leading to actions contrary to her typical behaviour. If that is not evidence of primal drivers affecting behaviour, I really dont know what is.

You are not one of these lunatic creationists are you?

 

[Luthor Rex]

There are great sources of personal energy and motivation rooted and available in our shadow side, but there are also the drives to misuse them to do evil.

I think people who say you need to "let your dark side out" have dark sides that are puss!es. Seriously, you want me to let my dark side out? Well let me hit up the store for some plastic sheets and duct tape because my dark side looks a whole lot like Dexter.

No, when most people say "dark side" they mean "getting drunk and having fun", so what they really mean is "child side". It's like the posturing kids do before a fight in high school. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

 

[STR8UP]

Too much to comment on.....

I'm all for making due with what you are given to deal with, but I just get the sense that you are of the belief that it's the natural order for women to be XYZ and you have to deal with it women on their terms. That might be the reality of the situation now, but I don't call that the natural order of women. I call that a matriachial society where women hold all the cards.

You have to deal with both. Nature, nurture, doesn't really matter. What matters is that you are aware of the underlying nature of women and the direction and extent of which modern society influences their behavior.

You and jophil seem to think that men are too accepting of today's feminized culture. My take is that you CAN'T change it. You can't do anything as one person, and there isn't going to be a revolution anytime soon. You can try to put one together, but things like this have to turn the tide slowly. These second wave feminists are just now getting to the "16 cats" stage where they are realizing they were sold a raw deal. Or rather, they sold themselves a raw deal. It won't last forever, but beyond walking away from outright disrespect you have no recourse as an American man in 2009. Your words don't mean sh!t. When even most MEN will fight you tooth and nail to hold onto their precious beliefs, you have to know when to put down your gun and start fighting the war the way women do- covertly.

The whole point of this post is that most guys make the mistake of viewing women as moral animals who make mistakes. The only thing we are saying is that it is to your benefit to look at them as amoral creatures who under the right guidance, have the capability to walk the right path, and as long as the right conditions are met (many of which you as a man can control) she will follow the right path.

Why would it be in a high value woman's mating strategy to be a cheating hor?

Because her value affords her even MORE leeway than a low value woman.

My question for you is: Are women more "cunning and manipulative" than men or are they just more socially intelligent? Similarly, are AFC traits inborn or socially conditioned?

Both and both.

I do agree with you that men ultimately choose how women treat them. I don't think you need to "condition" a woman, though; that's reactive behavior. You simply have to become a high valued male. High valued males get all the girls should really be the point of this post.

The problem is, unless you are the HIGHEST value male (or you are mating below your potential), there is always someone higher up the food chain that's right around the corner.

Part of the OP was about OWNING a woman's emotions. We all know that you don't HAVE to be the highest value male, you just have to make her think you are in the area of her psyche that it counts. You should ALWAYS strive to be a high value male, but at the end of the day any added insurance (understanding how to create, inflate, and maintain value) might mean the difference between success and failure.

And you have to adopt a reactive strategy, like it or not. Actually BOTH proactive and reactive. Aim for the highest value woman you can get and do whatever in your power to maintain the frame.

Women aren't "devilish wh0res" any more than men are "idiot savages." Neither label will help us understand either gender; it is simply more complex than that. Human beings aren't inherently good or evil, either; they are simply human beings.

I'm going to address this one more time so everyone understands, because guys get sensitive about this (not talking about you).

When we refer to them as "devilish wh0res" it is simply a way to help bring equilibrium to an otherwise one-sided culture.

The problem is that men ARE labeled as "idiot savages". And society says that's OK. You and I both know that's not the case, but that is how men are thought of and how we are portrayed in the media.

Calling women "devilish wh0res" provides some balance. It wakes people up. Or at least makes them think about things a little.

What is left out of these seething diatribes is a similarly critical view of the nature of MEN, or more aptly, human nature.

I could tell you horror stories about men an "people" in general, but we aren't on THAT message board.

It's almost like you are viewing women as a different species entirely. I dont think the nature of woman is evil any more so than is the nature of man. Seeing it as the former is a defensive and reactive way to go through life.

The "devilish wh0re" thing really strikes a chord. Mission accomplished.

If you understood the true meaning of the message it is not that women or people are inherently "evil", it is that they are inherently "selfish. Big diff.

And yea, you SHOULD be defensive and reactive, as well as proactive. You would rather not think of it this way, but it is indeed a battle. A woman forms a union with you for HER OWN benefit, as do you. It's a biological business transaction, and if you rely on your perception of "love" as your contract and assurance, you are asking to get taken to the cleaners.

Life is not an endless battle of wits and leverage with women...that is reactionary and rooted in victimhood.

So the plan is to find a good woman who will accept you unconditionally, one who understands that when you commit to each other "the game is over"?

The game NEVER ends. When you say "I do" you hand over a good chunk of your leverage and the game JUST BEGINS. It WILL be a battle until her sexual value has been significantly depleted.

Some men have been had repeatedly, and now suddenly they see how women "really are" and begin operating under their own brand of Machiavellian strategy and bullsh!t alpha posturing

Once again, we have the male shaming the male. Who needs women to do the dirty work!?

Bottom line- you view my breed as a burned, bitter, pessimistic defeatist, which couldn't be further from the truth.

BOTTOM BOTTOM line- alpha's enjoy the king's ransom, betas foot the bill.

The good news for YOU is that you can (to an extent) choose whether you want to be an alpha or a beta. The good news for ME is that you and many others will probably choose the beta route.

No offense, I just think you are looking at yourself as a person who fits into a certain mold so that's the territory you defend, rather than realizing that you can mold your form.

Posturing? It is what it is man. You can be the guy at home wondering where your girlfriend is at, or you can be the guy WITH the girlfriend (or wife or sister or mother...whatever).

But I think it's a mistake to label them all as innately evil creatures and adopt this post-hoc mindset that everyone is truly, deeply, and consummately out for themselves. You might as well just kill yourself right now.

Speak for yourself man. It's not about evil, it's about survival. If you cannot reconcile the fact that people are playing the game for themselves, I suppose you can continue to view things through rose colored glasses, or kill yourself. To me it's not that big of a deal. I can find the silver lining in anything.

I see human nature and female nature to naturally contain both dynamics, for example to be both monogamous and promiscuous. Human nature is dynamic and adaptable to the enviroment and conditions.

If human nature is BOTH promiscuous and monogamous (which I believe is true, BTW) then one should naturally adopt a cautious mindset. This is why for the life of me I can't understand why so many men still want to cling to the "ideal".

Trying to predict a woman's behavior by reference to evol psych is as useful as reading her horoscope.

Because we all know that their behavior is completely random....

Listen man, I've been studying this stuff for so long I feel like I have psychic powers. Women are almost as predictable as the sun if you know how to read them. And I can read them like a book.

That "evol psych buzz" comes with some level scientific study, not theory alone. Studies showing everything from how certain body types are more attractive (Im sure though you believe women can adore an obese man if he displays confidence and character) to how women seek out the best provider. Seeing that in your own life tends to reinforce those views.

Which makes me wonder how many people on this board actually leave their house on a regular basis....

These evolutionary psychology detractors would like to ignore the fact that studies have shown women to prefer more masculine men and dress "slvttier" while they are ovulating, or how women prefer the natural "odor" of more masculine men, or any other countless studies that prove my point, and they will point to these crazy abnormal psych disorders as "proof" that it is all about upbringing.

Amazing that you can label evolutionary psych a fad, yet you live daily with your sex drive. Hell, a womans emotions are affected when pregnant or on her period leading to actions contrary to her typical behaviour. If that is not evidence of primal drivers affecting behaviour, I really dont know what is.

Convenient to ignore these sorts of things, eh?

Agreed! Culture determines what we are. For a Nazi in German in the 30's, shoot you in the head would be the most normal thing in the world. But, for a Budist, even harming an animal would be considered a horrific act.

Put the Nazi and the Buddhist on a deserted island, give the hungry Buddhist a gun and see if he doesn't shoot the Nazi in the head for the last scrap of life giving food.

Base conditions change, core motivations do not.

You better come with a better argument than that to try to prove your point homie.

 

[ketostix]

You have to deal with both. Nature, nurture, doesn't really matter. What matters is that you are aware of the underlying nature of women and the direction and extent of which modern society influences their behavior.

You and jophil seem to think that men are too accepting of today's feminized culture. My take is that you CAN'T change it. You can't do anything as one person, and there isn't going to be a revolution anytime soon. You can try to put one together, but things like this have to turn the tide slowly. These second wave feminists are just now getting to the "16 cats" stage where they are realizing they were sold a raw deal. Or rather, they sold themselves a raw deal. It won't last forever, but beyond walking away from outright disrespect you have no recourse as an American man in 2009. Your words don't mean sh!t. When even most MEN will fight you tooth and nail to hold onto their precious beliefs, you have to know when to put down your gun and start fighting the war the way women do- covertly.

The whole point of this post is that most guys make the mistake of viewing women as moral animals who make mistakes. The only thing we are saying is that it is to your benefit to look at them as amoral creatures who under the right guidance, have the capability to walk the right path, and as long as the right conditions are met (many of which you as a man can control) she will follow the right path.

When you put it like that, I can't disagree and it seems we are basically saying the same thing.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

I do agree with a lot of the Jungian position. We all do have a "dark side " or a "shadow". However that does not mean that we have permission or a license to allow it to lead our actions.
There are great sources of personal energy and motivation rooted and available in our shadow side, but there are also the drives to misuse them to do evil.

As odd as it will sound coming from me, I detest Jung. There has never been a more potent advocate for AFCism in the history of psychology than Carl Jung. Feminist wallowed in his theories like pigs in sh!t in the late 60s and early 70s, and still do today. In fact every romantic comedy ever produced finds it's roots in Jungian ideology. He's personally responsible for the anima / animus "theory" that popular culture swallowed wholesale in order to uniquely identify better with the feminine (which of course got him laid by his patients quite a bit back in the day).

That said, I don't subscribe to the 'shadow self' notion of Jung. I do however see a primal, instinctive nature in humans that is counterbalanced by aspirations to a higher sense of self. What Jung would melodramatically call the evil side or shadow self is really a mischaracterization of our biological impulses and our reactions to their prompts. Every sin we can commit finds its root in exactly this conflict, and not just in the behavior, but in the desire to act out that behavior. This was my point in the Desire Dynamic thread.

In my previous post I stated that I believe it's healthier to understand this conflict, recognize it, accept it and maintain a balance rather than unrealistically leaning to either extreme. There are equal dangers in leaning too far to the animalistic, instinctive hedonism, carelessly as there are in rigidly clinging to an untenable, guilt-wracked moralism. The one leads to excusing personal accountability for behavior as unavoidable (the devil made me do it) and the other leads to self-righteous, ultimately hypocritical self-loathing.

However, the classic social convention is such that we're expected to deny and repress that primal side and strive for the heady moral side. I'm not saying that doesn't have merit, but it makes that primal side "evil" or "shallow", and by that, it's just this aspiration to be honorable (and avoid seeming 'shallow') that's turned to the uses of manipulative persons to accomplish their very same primal agendas (i.e. "If you weren't so 'shallow' it wouldn't matter how fat I am and you'd do the right thing and marry me and adopt my illegitimate children") . It also casts the primal nature as something evil or twisted when in fact this part of our humanity is very useful and can be positive when channeled productively. A fireman running into a burning building to save a child may do so from a sense of duty and dedication, but he's still got to tap into that primal energy and say "ƒuck it, here we go!" before he goes in.

As an aside here, I've always found it really contradictory that on one hand we'll say "never base your estimates of a woman on her words, but rather her behavior" and in the same paragraph type that evolutionary psychology is pseudoscience. Behavioral and Evolutionary psychology are cut from the same cloth, they both look for answers based on the behavioral characteristics of their subject (in this case the genders). Attaching the word 'evolution' to anything is going to stir the sh!t pot as it is, but the principle of it is applying what we do know about behavior, biology, and the their past interconnections historically, and then postulating how they apply now. Of the various schools of psychology Behavioral and Evolutionary are easily the most scientifically grounded, yet they get lumped into the same distrust that cognitive, psychoanalytic and humanistic have earned.