I'd like to thank @builderofcastles and @valued-customer for their responses to the last post, Sex and The Single Steve. Their comments have led me to put this commentary up a bit quicker than I would have otherwise.

Still working on the Mueller Team Bias research, btw

The personal side of this

Looking over my last post with a fresh eye, I can see the appearance of humblebragging. I apologize. What I had been hoping for was a funny commentary on why marriage is important to a stable society.

I'm just going to bring up two points regarding my own sex life before moving onto the general concepts:

• I am anti-social, and possibly shy. I have never had a consistent level of aggressiveness towards women, varying between a fear of approach to taking the hand of a woman I was on a first date with and putting her hand on my junk. Yes, drunkenness has it's effect on these levels, but that hasn't been consistent either.
• I have never been happy with my romantic life, knowing that I should have, at some point, settled down. So I've been torn between lack of a "perfect woman", the "need" for additional women, and my own lack of a social ability to make better choices and stick with them.

Sex is extremely personal . It has a major impact on self judgment and personal satisfaction with life.

Empirical observations.

Men and women are different. Period.

We have some commonalities with each other, and where we overlap? Joy.

But anyone who wants to pretend there is NO difference is either a loon or a liar.

Look past the past the physical differences (vive le differance!) These differences require different brain programming, and different biochemicals to operate. I'll get to the main point, sexual strategy differences and how they affect these other differences in a moment.

Braaaaaaiiiiins!

There are more smart men than there are smart women. Does this mean that men are smarter than women? Nope. look at the first graph. There are so many smarter women than dumb men. Women's intelligence tends to cluster at the average point. Men vary in IQ (as in other characteristics) because biology is constantly rolling the dice for men...so that women can choose the BEST men to seed their children. In biology, this is called natural selection.

OK then, why do women cluster at "average"? Aha, wait for Sexual Strategies..

A very important point

Because we are discussing differences, there is a natural logical fallacy people can fall into. That one sex is "better" than the other overall, because they are better in ONE area. Men and women complement each other.

The concept that people get caught up in usually comes back to female "submission". Keep that in mind as we move on, but remember that discussing differences does not logically make one sex superior to the other.

@valued-customer brings up sexual dimorphisms, which is a good way to describe these yin-yang interactions.

Sexual Strategies

At the very basic biological level, women want to be impregnated with the very finest of genetic material. This doesn't necessarily mean ONLY the best guy as far as muscles goes, but in every "best of" combination you can think of...intelligence, social success, aggressiveness...oh yes, aggressiveness FTW ;>. We'll come back to aggressiveness downpage. Whatever possibility leads to greater chances that her children survive and prosper.

However, because humans are social animals, biological urges are tempered by social realities. A woman needs a socially stable partner to help protect and raise her munchkins. This leads to a dichotomy in what she finds attractive in males. An oversimplification here is in "alpha" and "beta" behaviors in males. The common saying is that "Alpha fucks, beta bucks" ( an oversimplification in itself). Look up "hypergamy" as a female sexual strategy for more info.

So a female's BEST sexual strategy is to find an alpha to seed her, a beta to pairbond with, and preferably, that they are the same guy. I'm going to suggest that biology and society reinforce each other here after millennium of human development. Women tend to have the strongest pairbonds, and consequential life satisfaction patterns, when they are limited in the number of sexual partners they have.

However, in order for women to be comfortable in a pairbond, they have to KNOW that their man is capable of protecting her. This does not mean that he has to be capable of dominating other men (although this is the preferable scenario), but that he does have to be capable of dominating her.

Again, this isn't necessarily bonking her on the head with a club and dragging her off to a cave, but he has to be able to put up with her. He has to beat her "games", aka "shit-testing", and not to get flustered by her mood shifts, etc. On a fun note, this why why women generally like getting spanked ;>

On the other hand, a man's greatest chance of successful child spawning is to dump a load into as many women as possible. Well, at least on the biological level. Again, this is tempered by our social development over 10s of thousands of years.

Doesn't mean that the naturally "superior" men don't take advantage of biological urges to "pump and dump" as many females that are willing to take him.

Another way of looking at these competing strategies:
Women are the gatekeepers of sex; men are the gatekeepers of relationships

Society and Biological Urges

Let's take a quick look at how biology and society have developed in tandem over the years.

In the second chart, we see a claim that there was a "one man per woman" marriage relationship; this isn't true, but we can use the overall image as an illustration of the concept. Having a lot of unhappy men in a society is not a good thing, as we'll see una momento.

The point is that men who were not superior have HISTORICALLY not bred. In a primitive society, inferior men who fought this status quo got beat down. As societies advanced in tech, the danger of one unhappy man became exponentially greater; in addition, technology made the labor of one man exponentially greater, as well. And whether by plan or by societal reaction to this, society made monogamous relationships even more important.

And then we had the Sexual Revolution...

Let's face it, some women weren't going to like getting stuck with an inferior man (the fact that the particular man probably wasn't happy with the harpy he got stuck with doesn't come into play in feminist/leftist thought:huge digression -leftist strategy means creating AS MANY unhappy people as possible)

The Sexual Revolution returned the incel man to a societal reality again, as "superior" men (sometimes just based on looks in a society where success has been replaced with the welfare state and personal honor is subverted by the state as much as possible) began to get the attention of of women again.

A "beta" male might get married to a woman with many prior partners, and perhaps sticking him with the caring for of another man's seed. This would meet the woman's happiness requirements, but not true bonding or sexual compatibility for the male.

The "secondary beta" may just as well be an incel.

The danger of male incels

You know, there is so much to go on here, that I'm going to do a third post on the subject. Check the comments on the first post for a good discussion in the meantime!

Feminism, or the Female Incel

By many objective measures the lives of women in the United States have improved over the past 35 years, yet we show that measures of subjective well‐being indicate that women’s happiness has declined both absolutely and relative to men
The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness

Yaaaaay feminism!!

Let's let biological urges and the realities of multiple partners clash for a bit. Sex is addictive folks ;> I didn't know women liked sex! ROFL

You mean letting a different Chad (the archtypical "suprior" man) have me every night might conflict with other sociological consequences? Happiness in pairbonding OVER happiness from sex?

Oops

I'm going to throw out the possibility that a feminist is simply the female version of an incel - unhappy with her sexual life in it's dual requirements for alpha AND beta

Of course an attractive feminist can get purely physical satisfaction while she is engaging in sex. For a hilarious contrast in what feminists say versus what they do, look at the above chick's face...getting handcuffed by a dominant male and creaming on the spot ROFL

On the other side of attractiveness, you find the female who is ugly both on the outside and the inside, the true feminist counterpart of the incel:

I truly feel pity for this woman. She had a problem with physical attractiveness which she let get away from her, and increased her overall level of not touching that by making excuses for that based on feminist lies.

Not that feminism has any internal contractions LOL. Read the following caption, and see if you can see anything ROFL cringeworthy...

The points that Steve forgot to make

...or just ran out of time for ;>

• male incels
• Microchimerism
• @builderofcastles

Women, unlike men, live in emotions

• Aggression as a sexual trait
• why women don't fight
• stable marriages are still the norm
• the "flexibility" of women
• how homosexuality plays into this

I think this is going on past 3 posts ;>

For some strange reason, sex and politics just seem to stretch out as subjects

So let's end today on a sarcastic note ;>