Hotlips

Nothing Makes a ‘Gina Tingle Like a Killa

Authors note: I have to offer a public thank you to Tom Golden, LCSW, whose regular, sterling insights helps to shape a good bit of the work I do. Had he not provided me with the research information in this article, I would not have obsessed on writing it over the past 24 hours. Also, Tom will be using some of this information in his next Youtube video, due out soon, and it will be featured here as well. Thanks, Tom.

“That’s not opinion, it’s science.
And science is one cold hearted bitch with a 14 inch strap on.”
-From the television show, “Dexter”

On July 24th of this year, I posted “Patriarchy for Dummies,” on this site. In it, I proffered that there was an element to the normal female psyche that gravitated toward violent, dangerous- murderous men. I used Scott Peterson and Joran van der Sloot, and the numbers of women sending them marriage proposals in prison as prima facie evidence that supported my contentions. I also pointed to the fact that van der Sloot went on a sexual rampage, attracting scores of attractive young women after he skated on the Holloway murder.

It turned out to be one of the more read and commented on pieces on this site. And not just here. One of the other places was over at reddit.com/mensrights, which has a few actual MRA’s, including a couple of really insightful ones, and a slew of feminist trolls that down vote anything pro male or that hints of fairly criticizing females or feminism. Let me digress further to add that most of them down vote MRA articles without commenting, which I suppose is their version of drive-by-activism, but some actually speak up, reminding us of why we oppose feminism- and why we see its practitioners as such insufferable dullards.

At reddit, even the most thoughtful comments dissenting from the ideas I suggested boiled down to a regurgitated load of NAWALT vomitus.

Oh, noooooo, women can’t be like that! Women choose men based on qualities like sensitivity and whether they like Teddy Bears and snuggling up on the couch to watch The Bachelorette. Those other women who are like that? They are just sicko’s, sad exceptions to the rule And they probably got that way because of some abusive, violent man.

Of course, that’s the PC line, and we all know that women are only what the political correctness police tell us they are, which is basically sugar and spice and all things superior. There is no way that women in general get the ‘gina tingle for gangsters, thugs and killers.

Just ask any feminist over at reddit.

But just in case you are interested in answers that aren’t screened by gender ideologues, there is some actual research available to consider.

From a study done on the Yanomamö, a large Amerindian hunter-gatherer people that reside in the Amazon Basin, some very telling observations were made regarding sexual competition and violence among men by Chagnon (1988, 1997).

First, in Yanomamö culture, like most all hunter-gatherer (and agricultural and pastoral) societies, violence occurs either continuously or frequently. It is the men who are more aggressive and violent. And it is the most violent men that are successful at being selected for sex.

Yanomamö who are fierce warriors, and “fierce warrior” is defined by those who have participated in the killing of at least one member of a rival village, have 2.5 times as many wives and 3 times as many children as men who don’t kill.

It is also noted that the status of material wealth was not connected at all to being a fierce warrior. Indeed, there was no other difference identified between killers and non killers except that the former were much higher up on the ladder of sexual selection.

The same elevated status, and lack of other corollaries, also held true for men who were politically powerful. (It should be noted that political power frequently translates to power over life and death, though the killing is often done by decree, and executed by men who specialize in violence.)

So it can be legitimately deduced that in hunter-gatherer societies, those with the power -and the tendency- to kill are at a sexual premium with women in those cultures.

Now, it must be asked, from which type of society did our modern, post agrarian life emerge?

Ah, yes, that would be hunter-gatherer, the base template for all of modern human existence- and the mode in which most human evolutionary development occurred.

Now, I am sure that the average PC ideologue would insist that since the invention of internal combustion engines, non fat latte’s and women’s studies programs that we have unwritten three million years of sexual selection programming and now women really prefer those soft little puppy dog guys; that the women who go for thugs and killers are just freaks; rare, unenlightened throw backs to the African Savanna.

But of course, like with most everything else, they are dead wrong.

While it is true that women’s selections have shifted somewhat in keeping with modern realities, it only demonstrates that growing numbers of them will select the guy who controls, and sometimes kills, other men, than settle for the guy of lesser status. How many people is President Obama getting killed right now? How much trouble would he have getting laid? How many women would jump his bones if Michelle herself were in the same room screaming bloody murder?

Plenty. And you have to being in complete denial of human nature to blind yourself to that reality.

Politicians have the favorable characteristics of political savvy and the power to kill, even if with just the simple stroke of a pen. Is it any wonder why for most all of them that a quick blow job is just a snap of the fingers away?

This is the power that most, if not all, women respond to. From Al Capone to John Dillinger, Genghis and Kublai Khan, Scott Peterson and Joran van der Sloot, Adolph Hitler and Alexander, and Ronald Regan to Barack Obama, men who kill, and men who have the power to have men killed cause a ‘gina tingle in many, many women that would register on the Richter Scale.

And there is one more bit of information in basic biology to help us understand this.

For a half century now we have made a half assed study of men’s violent tendencies as though they happen in a vacuum. We have mostly put that study in the hands of women with so many neurotic self image and Daddy Issues, and a political agenda to act them out, that anyone with two brain cells to rub together could see that their efforts were not headed for a scientific end.

As a result, their conclusions about men’s violence falters after they demonstrate the obvious, that men are naturally more violent than women.

They reach conclusions that are something like this:

“Men are violent because, well, let’s see, yeah, it’s because they are fucking pigs, that‘s why! Now where’s my Nobel?”

What these Einsteinettes, and their supportive male sycophants have failed to notice -as do many people who allow a degree in women’s studies pass for an education- is that throughout the animal kingdom, two things are universal.

Whichever sex, male or female, that is in the position to compete for sexual selection, develops more aggressive and violent traits, among other things.

AND

Whichever sex, male or female, that is in the position to choose among those competing for sexual selection, chooses those that are the biggest, strongest, most aggressive and violent.

It doesn’t matter if we are talking about human beings, hedgehogs or house cats, it has nothing to do with what sex the animal is, and everything to do with whether or not the animal is competing to be selected for sex, or doing the selecting.

With seahorses and sandpipers, whose males gestate and tend to the young, we find -you guessed it- females that are more aggressive. Interestingly enough, we also find in those species that the females are larger, slower to develop, and die younger.

Sound familiar? It should. It is the same across the animal kingdom.

And this is where feminists, with their myopic and ideologically twisted use of research have done little more than reduce understanding of human behavior to “Man Bad-Woman Good.”

I suppose that is far as you need to go when staying locked in a cyclical pattern of man hating is your primary goal in life. But for people who want to understand this sometimes crazy, mixed up thing we call the human condition, a little more perspective is in order.

Men are violent largely because being violent, or having the capacity for it, gets them a few significant rungs up on that sexual selection ladder- because those are the men that women select. Those are the men that turn them on.

This isn’t going to change any time soon. Maybe never- it took millions of years to get where we are, although that should not stop people who claim enlightenment on the sexes from viewing it objectively and understanding where it comes from.

But since our culture still recognizes feminists as the authority on that subject, that isn’t going to change any time soon, either.

About Paul Elam

Paul Elam is the founder and publisher of A Voice for Men, the founder of A Voice for Men Radio, the AVfM YouTube Channel, and appears weekly on AVFM Intelligence Report, Going Mental with Dr. Tara Palmatier and monthly on MANstream Media with Warren Farrell and Tom Golden.

Main Website
View All Posts
  • Bernard Chapin

    Great point about the Yanomamö. I had not thought of referencing them before. Also, I did not know that Tom G–whose excellent online piece on men i’ve read twice–was the guy who put out those videos which i subscribe to. Not surprised though. They’re excellent.

  • The Man On The Street

    Indeed Uncle Bern! Tom is a great guy.

    TMOTS

  • j

    Interesting, well written and yes, scientifically backed.

    Yet, scientific evidence also suggests that humans are the only species who adapt to their environment. Given this is proven through brain development study, it would also be fair to suggest humans don’t have to be like animals.

    Which raises the question IMO, “Does the majority of women really have their ginas tingle by gruesome acts?” (If so, I think horror movies might be worth investing in, lol). Or is it that most women want safety i.e protectors and their environment determines what constitutes protection? And that a few of the many are attracted to violence itself?

    I reckon if the Yanomamö culture was challenged and their children were raised in a much less violent society, the choices their women make would also change. In fact, I think it would also be fairer on the Yanomamö men.

  • http://menaregood.com Tom

    Dang Paul! I don’t ever think I have seen a cowboy’s fan be so kind to a Redskin’s fan. Ever. lol Probably best it’s not a week from tomorrow…. Thanks for your kind comments. Much appreciated and glad to see you are getting the word out on this issue. Thanks too to Bernard and TMOS. Good to see you both.

    The info comes from a book titled “Male, Female: The Evolution of Human Sex Differences” and it is a blockbuster for any serious MRA. Dr Geary has done a huge amount of research and put out a well referenced (100+ pages of references) that nails our differences from a scientific, evolutionary perspective. It is very well written and surprisingly readable. One thing Paul left out or maybe I missed it was that in the Yanomama over 30% of males died as a result of raids from other surrounding tribes. Some tribes the figure is more like 60%. Huge numbers of males died in what some are thinking are “peaceful” hunter/gatherer cultures that were far from peaceful for men. For a long, long time.

    An interesting aside is that there are some who think that a man’s reluctance to ask for directions is related to this mortality figure. Men knew not to ask strangers for directions since asking a stranger put him in extreme jeopardy. Men had to find their way home on their own, their lives depended on it.

  • http://avoiceformen.com Paul Elam

    @ J

    Yet, scientific evidence also suggests that humans are the only species who adapt to their environment. Given this is proven through brain development study, it would also be fair to suggest humans don’t have to be like animals.

    Well, humans certainly aren’t the only animals that adapt to their environment. And while human beings don’t have to be like “animals,” we are animals. Our consciousness may set us aside in some ways, but we still live with the same instincts.

    I reckon if the Yanomamö culture was challenged and their children were raised in a much less violent society, the choices their women make would also change. In fact, I think it would also be fairer on the Yanomamö men.

    Per Tom above:

    “…in the Yanomama over 30% of males died as a result of raids from other surrounding tribes. Some tribes the figure is more like 60%. Huge numbers of males died in what some are thinking are “peaceful” hunter/gatherer cultures that were far from peaceful for men. For a long, long time.”

    So yes, it would be easier on the Yanomamö men for their culture change, but the point really reflects something else that is instructive.

    THE PROCESS OF SEXUAL SELECTION IS DEADLY ON THOSE THAT MUST COMPETE FOR IT, AND LIFE PROTECTING FOR THOSE THAT DO THE CHOOSING.

    Feminists always bemoan the effects of violence on women. It is clear, in any form of human society, however, that they have the easier, more life affirming role.

  • David K. Meller

    Steve Wilkos is a man who (often very self-righteously) hosts a TV show where he is given the chance to publicly berate “abusive” men, who behave in the violent, contemptuous, and sometimes even vicious way that the women in the relationship tolerate, if not welcome and insist upon (before coming on the show and crying about the “domestic violence” they allegedly suffer under). Needless to say Steve Wilkos makes much of playing Sir Galahad, rescuing the “lady in distress” and having the audience booing the supposed “rapist” or “abuser”.

    One wonders when Steve Wilkos–and other men like him–will finally conclude that most, if not all, abusive relationships, are probably CONSENSUAL on the woman’s part, and return these to the realm of private home life where they belong!

    At the very least, he (and other such men) on TV should start examining the extent to which women are instigating and provoking the male behavior condemned on the show!

    I’m going to suggest this to him at his station. How about you?

    PS–his reading this and other men’s advocacy blogs and websites, getting a different–and sounder–point of view, should also be helpful!! DKM

  • danny

    hey paul, are you not going to do anymore videos, i really enjoyed them.

  • http://avoiceformen.com Paul Elam

    Hey Danny. Yes I am and it should not be too long before the next one is out. Thanks for asking.

    Paul

  • j

    *Well, humans certainly aren’t the only animals that adapt to their environment. And while human beings don’t have to be like “animals,” we are animals. Our consciousness may set us aside in some ways, but we still live with the same instincts.*

    True about animals adjust to their environment. That is part of evolution’s connection between animals and their survival.

    I should have been more clear and written about brain development study. A humans brain develops over the 1st 3 years of a child’s life from conception. OTHER animals don’t do that. (I recently attended a seminar where this information was given). ‘Tis interesting and I shared this because the opportunity arose. ;)
    http://www.brainwave.org.nz/

    I wonder if it’s bringing ‘nature’ and ‘nurture’ together from a scientific point of view.

  • j

    The above comment is to Paul.

    To David K. Meller,

    **…..and return these to the realm of private home life where they belong! **

    Can you elaborate on this? I think technology brought the family life from one home into another home via radio, TV, the now the internet (that’s a biggie because everyone’s the star). I’m thinking midwives, doctors, nurses, teachers, shop keepers etc are all involved in the private home.

    How does one keep the outside world out?

  • Theodore Labadie

    “Yet, scientific evidence also suggests that humans are the only species who adapt to their environment.”

    “A humans brain develops over the 1st 3 years of a child’s life from conception. OTHER animals don’t do that.”

    Chimps and bonobos don’t use tools? Elephants don’t strip forests bare and turn them into grassland? Puppies’ brains don’t develop into the brains of adult dogs?

    In my experience, there are two types of men that women prefer: violent types and snuggly, passive hubbies. Each for different uses. I’ve seen many a feminist fall hopelessly in love with ex-cons, such as one who did time for a speed-fueled murder. (Incidentally, the feminist who was into him ran up and announced, “I always get what I want,” meaning him. He showed the good taste to run away and prove that she was wrong.) I guess I’m saying that I’m in full agreement with the evolutionary derivation of hypergamy.

    As to women’s attraction to violence, people must have seen a woman cheer a man on in a fight, or even egg him on to begin one. Also, I know from personal experience that a lot of fans of horror flicks and lit are indeed women. There must be demographic studies out there to illustrate this.

    If feminism’s Utopian goal were to produce a violence-free society (arguably not a universal goal for them) they would have to rewrite the human genome. Human minds are simply not that plastic.

    Also, if they truly desired a better world they would begin by learning to modify or control their own desires and instincts insofar as the genome will allow.

  • Peter

    HAHAHA YOUR RIGHT!!!!!

  • Theodore Labadie

    Getting demographic figures on female horror fans looks like it will take a trip to the university database. For now, do vampires count as dangerous, violent men? If so, this Hollywood Reporter article claims that vampire chick-flicks and associated merchandising, especially the “Twilight” franchise, has pulled in about $7 billion since 2008.

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3iaea240932b26c233ce7281e3e4350d17

  • j

    To Theodore Labadie,

    **Chimps and bonobos don’t use tools? Elephants don’t strip forests bare and turn them into grassland? Puppies’ brains don’t develop into the brains of adult dogs?**

    Good question to put to the scientists IMO or at least someone more intelligent than I. I know feminists are not happy with the idea mothers and fathers are vital for the 1st 3 years of a baby’s life because there’s a lot of negative coming through about childcare and these years and good parents wont work if it puts their children at risk. (If they get the choice).

    **In my experience, there are two types of men that women prefer: violent types and snuggly, passive hubbies.**

    I can understand men thinking this way and I can understand me as a women thinking it’s complicated and feeling it’s unfair to put it this way.

    **Each for different uses.**

    And for different situations, different environments.

    **I’ve seen many a feminist fall hopelessly in love with ex-cons, such as one who did time for a speed-fueled murder. **

    I can understand the attraction because people who have been through long suffering are different than people who’ve had the easy life IMO and a long lag in prison is suffering IMO. Their senses are different IMO and they express things differently too IMO.

    **As to women’s attraction to violence, people must have seen a woman cheer a man on in a fight, or even egg him on to begin one. Also, I know from personal experience that a lot of fans of horror flicks and lit are indeed women. There must be demographic studies out there to illustrate this.**

    Gosh yes! There are lots of stories.

  • j

    Thanks for the link regarding horror movies Theodore Labadie. There’s a market alright. ;)

    I think I’ll site back and learn from here on in.

  • Jonathan Mann

    Fantastic Mr. Elam! I love it when an MRA uses science to lay waste to feminist B.S. Outstanding piece of work, and wish every woman in the western world was required by law to read it. :)

  • falsely accused soldier

    @j I believe you are misunderstanding Paul’s point.

    From a mans point of view, we just don’t understand women.

    Quoting you:
    **I’ve seen many a feminist fall hopelessly in love with ex-cons, such as one who did time for a speed-fueled murder. **

    I can understand the attraction because people who have been through long suffering are different than people who’ve had the easy life IMO and a long lag in prison is suffering IMO. Their senses are different IMO and they express things differently too IMO.
    End Quote

    No thats it, NO NO NO NO.

    I was in the army for 5 years and did two combat deployments to Iraq. I was a combat engineer, which means I spent most of my time blowing stuff up, kicking down doors or looking for bombs. So a little background on me I know what I am talking about regarding violence.

    So I think I know what I am talking about when I say NO.

    Those are violent, twisted human beings. They literally held a weapon looked their victim in the eye and took another life with no legal reason to be doing what they were.

    They might now have changed, however getting out of prison they are more likely than not to go back to crime. Statistics prove this, they will also not be able to get any kind of state license. That means they will never be a teacher, bar tender etc.

    They will also have to get a job, and since most of them are not college educated that usually means asking if you would like frys with that. However the Mcdonalds in my city don’t hire felons so good luck.

    So grown men often wonder why a woman would be interested in such a man. Why is a grown woman interested in a thug. A man who once he gets out of prison will take forever to get on his feet again, if he even does/trys.

    Thats what I as a man don’t get and what alot of other men don’t get.

    In my personal experience a woman doesn’t get her head out of her ass regarding men until she’s a single mom. Now alot of men she wouldn’t deal with when she was banging Alpha A seem very attractive.

    Men are hardwired too want attractive women. Attractive women in a biological sense means the best genes.

    Women are hardwired to go for the Alpha male. Alpha can be alot of different things. Alpha in her mind could be that gang who run third street, that highschool/college/pro football star or the current boxing/ufc heavyweight champion or that serial killer in prison for ritualistically murdering 17 prositutes.

    The difference is I know whats wrong with me biologically. A beautiful woman will get a glance from me if anything else. I know from experience that regarding someones beauty as a factor in there worth as a future partner/co worker/instructor is one of the stupidest things I could do. Beauty/Attractiveness has nothing to do with what they could bring me personally besides pleasure.

    So what men don’t understand is why women like these men beyond pleasure.

    Knowing that a convict makes your panties wet has nothing to do with what that man is going to bring into your life. So what we don’t get is why these women let these men into their lives.

    Let me put it another way:

    I on occasion watch porn. Pornstar A is HOT(!) and I want to have sex with her and I get an erection. However I know that if I did in real life have sex with that woman I could get a disease. If I decided to have a long-term relationship with her I would have to deal with the fact that she is a porn star. That she wouldn’t have sex with me sometimes when she came home because she was getting banged by penis A,B and C for 9 hours. That she could possibly bring home a disease and give it to me. That even if she quit pornography there would be men who would still chase after her, so possible infidelity because she is a highly sexual person.

    Knowing all this I watch the porn and think nothing at all of ever seeing this woman in person.

    So we as men don’t understand why a woman will see convict A on the news or on third street and want a long term relationship or even entertain the idea of sex with that man.

  • http://denisspaceeh.spaces.live.com Denis

    A lot more examples of women attracted to killers
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jan/13/gender.uk

    An interesting article on salon.com about romance novels and violence against women.

    http://www.salon.com/books/feature/1999/06/17/romancemurder

    “the article quoted a family friend as saying that Richards-Akers had included elements of her intense and volatile husband’s character in the warrior heroes of her books Worse yet, Richards-Akers was purported to have found her husband’s aggressive nature appealing, at least in the earlier years of their marriage, and one friend of her husband’s indicated that Richards-Akers had only grown “tired” of him when she “didn’t need him financially” any more.
    It’s true that romance novels in the ’70s and ’80s often featured men much like Jeremy as testosterone-powered, tortured outlaws or warrior kings who all too often actively abused their heroines, earning the genre the contemptuous sobriquet of “bodice-rippers.” In today’s romances, however, the male characters’ aggressive impulses tend to be more controlled, and most of the violence that remains is only undertaken in order to protect women and children.”

    The vampire popularity is mostly driven by women. When I first saw twilight, I worried that it was teaching young girls a dangerous perspective of romantic love. The hero is protective and not sexually aggressive, yet also exhibits controlling, abusive and violent behavior. Although these books/movies are marketed to teens, they also have a lot of popularity with middle aged women (masochistic pedos?).

    It’s not just killers that women are attracted to, it is men who are willing to risk their own safety and showoff their ability to kill and/or protect. This shows up in young men doing stupid stunts and even aggressive sports like football and hockey. This shows up in men doing dangerous jobs as protectors such as police, firefighters and soldiers. These are all highly prized men and everybody knows it, yet the computer nerds, scientists, mathletes, ping pong champions and chess masters get no respect from women (unless they’re rich).

  • recluse

    As more and males are are raised in single mother households expect them to manifest more aggression and violence.
    This is the main factor behind the devolving of our society.
    When I see a woman involved in a violent situation I must realize she not only chose it,but instigated it.
    The days of white knighting are over.
    Perhaps the day will come when 1 in 4 women really are raped.
    They will still deny they have any part in what they sought and created.
    As a ‘gentleman’ all I can do is retreat from this female selected non civil society.

  • recluse

    I must correct myself.
    This has already happened in post apartheid South Africa.
    Look for that to be the future model for the rest of the world.
    This is what happens when you disenfranchise responsible men from governance and replace it with feminist governance

  • Theodore Labadie

    “So grown men often wonder why a woman would be interested in such a man. Why is a grown woman interested in a thug. A man who once he gets out of prison will take forever to get on his feet again, if he even does/trys.”

    Why? Because Nature is not interested in human happiness, only its continuance. It’s up to us to figure out how to have both and we have to do it within evolutionary constraints. But, if I understand Elam and others, feminism is not going to do it because it has “freed” women to select mates for brutality. That’s not a recipe for human happiness.

  • falsely accused soldier

    @Theodore Labadie I already know that, the “why” in this case was intended as a question to another poster, a woman.

  • Theodore Labadie

    If it’s “what alot of other men don’t get” I thought I’d try and explain it in my words. That’s all. Was not supposing that I was educating you.

  • j

    To Falsely Accused Soldier,

    I think there are men/women reading this thread that can answer you better than I, but I’ll give it a go. BTW, women don’t understand you – men either IMO.

    **In my personal experience a woman doesn’t get her head out of her ass regarding men until she’s a single mom. Now alot of men she wouldn’t deal with when she was banging Alpha A seem very attractive.**

    This makes sense. “Your values change as you grow, your wants and needs change too” and “Women think differently when mothers”.

    Young women WILL be open to men for who they are rather than what they provide because 1) they don’t think wide – they’re dealing with their immediate environment and growing up, 2) they don’t care too far ahead – enjoying their best years and thinking there’s plenty of time to make adult decisions 3) they are dealing with a lot of men wanting sex from them *** apologise upfront for generalising.

    Thugs 1) don’t have long term goals – are in the moment dealing with growing up (hoping they get to grow up)…. 2) are all about having a good time – steal money, deal drugs, spend money as easy comes, easy goes 3) can protect young women from other men wanting sex.

    Women, like men IMO, get fussier as they get older because their wants and needs change.

    **I was in the army for 5 years and did two combat deployments to Iraq. I was a combat engineer, which means I spent most of my time blowing stuff up, kicking down doors or looking for bombs. So a little background on me I know what I am talking about regarding violence.**

    WoW! OMG, I should say thank-you for sacrificing your lives for others.

    **Those are violent, twisted human beings. They literally held a weapon looked their victim in the eye and took another life with no legal reason to be doing what they were.**

    These men are scary, I’m glad this isn’t happening in my environment.

    ***They might now have changed, however getting out of prison they are more likely than not to go back to crime. Statistics prove this, they will also not be able to get any kind of state license. That means they will never be a teacher, bar tender etc. They will also have to get a job, and since most of them are not college educated that usually means asking if you would like frys with that. However the Mcdonalds in my city don’t hire felons so good luck.***

    That’s actually sad. Good for cougars with homes, good for Christian girls who are looking for someone to save, good for insecure young women who relate to a sad story, good for young women who want a protector, good for women who want a one night stand, good for…….. feminists whose desire is to meet men who open up and share their feelings.

    **So grown men often wonder why a woman would be interested in such a man. Why is a grown woman interested in a thug. A man who once he gets out of prison will take forever to get on his feet again, if he even does/trys.**

    Why are men going out with women who need help? I see lots of fussing over a damsel in distress.

    **The difference is I know whats wrong with me biologically. A beautiful woman will get a glance from me if anything else. I know from experience that regarding someones beauty as a factor in there worth as a future partner/co worker/instructor is one of the stupidest things I could do. Beauty/Attractiveness has nothing to do with what they could bring me personally besides pleasure.**

    Do you approach attractive women to see if they’re all shallow, or do you just assume this? Or do you mean something else?

  • j

    To Falsely Accused Soldier, I shouldn’t have written “These men sound scary …..” to your comment, “Those are violent, twisted human beings”, because you didn’t say they were men only.

    It must be difficult facing women this way and then try and see one as a special intimate lover.

  • Peter

    @J IT IS!!!

  • Peter

    I haven’t met a woman yet who isn’t constantly bitchy and naggy I live in Australia women don’t want to knw men here they look the other way or run away from you here and you don’t have to do anything?

  • Peter

    Finally the other day I got a weak smile from a woman!

  • Peter

    Gad damnit I seem to ONLY be able to attract 14 year olds GRRRRRR… I’m 27 and have a DAMN KIDDIE FACE

  • Gunn

    Not to piss on your parade, but this is a poor article that rehashes material thats already been discussed in various other places, and even worse, fails to draw the appropriate conclusion.

    Namely: there has been one institution that has spread ‘non-violence’ through cultures, and its called monogamous patriarchy. If one reviews crime statistics over time in western european countries for example, one sees violent crime and murder rates in particular generally fall as we became more ‘civilised’ (America doesn’t have a long enough history to do this full justice yet, but even there one will see a similar trend).

    What would therefore be interesting in this context is to look at the short term trend for violent crime, and test the hypothesis that womens’ empowerment / feminism correlates with an uptick in violence. This is certainly plausible based on the facts outlined in your blog article here, and would (if found to be statistically significant) provide ammunition to the idea that one of the prices of feminism and full sexual liberation for women is the reversion to a pre-civilisational environment of violence.

    It would also send the harpies into screeching fits of rage as they tried to paint themselves out of the corner that laid blame for societal violence at the door of the poor sexual choices unrestrained women seem fond of making.

  • Gunn

    @J

    I can see your hamster is spinning furiously to place reasonable rationales on why young women behave as they do with thugs and then look for ‘nice’ men to bring up the bastardspawn.

    However, what it boils down to is that women are not being held accountable for their choices, and in many western societies are actually rewarded for their behaviour (e.g. access to government sponsored housing because of having children). In tandem with this, men are being unfairly held to account for womens’ choices, i.e. they don’t have the right to insist on the woman getting an abortion, they are required via child support agencies to pay large proportions of their income to the mother (who is not held accountable for what the money is spent on), and in the most egregious cases they are forced to pay for other mens’ children.

    If the laws were changed such that it fell entirely on women to bear the financial cost of their sexual choices, the number of women chasing thugs and bearing their bastardspawn would decrease. However, because women can both have their cake and eat it too, they have no incentive to behave in a civilised fashion and in fact are reverting to the pre-civilised behaviour this article talks about.

  • keith

    I always like to throw this into the violence conversation.

    Women choose violent men because they themselves are violent. It makes for good camouflage. With a violent partner it is easier for these woman to subordinate the people around them. To be controlling by aggression that’s the tingle. The feminist and the murderer mentioned above, no doubt the aggressive behavior intensified towards others by the feminist. Feminism itself is an aggressive ideology that condones and justifies violence toward men.
    Personally I believe, aggression is a much more profound indicator of the effects of violence. I believe women to be much more socially aggressive than men.

    What is really great about direct violence is it draws attention away from the instigators, which in my opinion are usually women. Violence is great camouflage for aggressive and covertly violent hypergamous women.

  • keith

    @ Gunn………bang……….on!!!!!

    I would have to find the link again, may be the FBI statistics for violent crime in 2008-2009.

    Across the board male violence is in decline, female violence is on the rise.

  • keith

    @ FAS

    “I think there are men/women reading this thread that can answer you better than I, but I’ll give it a go. BTW, women don’t understand you – men either IMO.”

    I completely understand your point. I believe that many and most men don’t embrace the concept that women only reject violence when it is directed at them personally. Violence is rarely spontaneous, it requires a stirring process. That’s where women come in. I personally believe that women are the primary instigators of violence. Men are reactionary.

  • j

    So much for my sitting back and learning…. but, I did learn through the conversation, so thank-you.

    To Gunn,
    **I can see your hamster is spinning furiously to place reasonable rationales on why young women behave as they do with thugs and then look for ‘nice’ men to bring up the bastardspawn.**

    I don’t get the hamster bit but for sure my head has been thinking about all this especially when attempting to REASON/answer. I would add some more reasons today like: lack of education, lack of knowing they have other choices, lack of confidence, lack of good parental guidance and cultural background.

    And I say this for both the thugs and the men/women who choose to be with them (consciously or subconsciously). NOTE: I think it’s important to add females are thugs too.

    ****However, what it boils down to is that women are not being held accountable for their choices, ….**

    Depends where you look for the answers. If it’s MOB rule (i.e justice lovers including feminists) you want, then for sure women aren’t receiving as tough sentences as men get, but if you look to other areas where men/women go because their life and/or happiness depends on them taking responsibility, you’ll see strong accountability. Also, in their own circle accountability comes from each other doing life. (not as much as it used to but growing up has it’s lessons)

    To Keith,

    You definitely bring forward food for thought when it comes to violence in some/many dysfunctional relationships. I think some more.

  • knuckledragger

    There’s a lot of discussion here on the attractiveness of “violent” men but not much discussion on the cognitive mechanisms that generate it. So here:
    Attraction for women centers around:
    1)Access to resources (wealth)
    2)Status
    and lastly, 3)Reproductive viability (youth, health, intelligence)

    The strategy of “agression” in males sits as a polar opposite to a more cooperative strategy by which a man may accumulate resources and develop status through networking, hard work, etc. Through an agressive strategy, a man who may not otherwise have to opportunity to reproduce may now have a chance to attract mates by:
    1)intimidating competitors, thereby increasing his status and resources,
    2)vanquishing or killing competitors, thereby increasing his own holdings and decreasing the status and resources of those allied with the the vanquished
    3)form coalitions with others and employ aggressive strategies for increased efficiency. (gangs, etc.)
    Studies of sexual access among gang-members suggest that the inherent risks to a woman’s safety that go hand in hand with association with aggressive men is apparently offset by the high status and availablity of resources associated with such men. In short, thug-f*cking has it’s downside, but it appears to be worth it to many women.
    Obviously men in prison are in no position to provide anything to women who are attracted to them, but you can’t argue with instinct in the same way that you know the porn-girl on the screen is never “really” going to be in the room with you, but many a young man will tune in anyway.
    In short, just as with the “Hollywood image” of skinny chicks, until it stops selling, it’s always going to be there; and as long as the “thug” lifestyle is promoted through media and subsidized through programs for the “underpriveleged”, where resources are taken from those who produce and given to those who complain, the Aggressive strategy will continue to pay off and continue to proliferate.

  • http://avoiceformen.com Paul Elam

    There’s a lot of discussion here on the attractiveness of “violent” men but not much discussion on the cognitive mechanisms that generate it.

    Great post, but I think that is the point. These drives are not cognitively generated, at least in my opinion. And I think you nailed it here:

    Obviously men in prison are in no position to provide anything to women who are attracted to them, but you can’t argue with instinct in the same way that you know the porn-girl on the screen is never “really” going to be in the room with you, but many a young man will tune in anyway.

    But I don’t think media is behind that. I think the media is a result of it.

  • knuckledragger

    @Paul :
    So in a way, that aspect of the question may become a chicken-or-the-egg question; are women more attracted to thugs because of media saturation? Or is the media saturated with thug-types because women like it?
    Of the course the question has to be “if women like it”; left to our devices, I think men would weed out the more useless and disagreeable among us in very short order.

  • http://avoiceformen.com Paul Elam

    Well yeah, of sorts, but I think the question actually is, “Which came first, media saturation or human psychobiology?”

    And I suppose my line of thinking is that we have pretty much answered the “if women like it,” question consistently throughout history.

    Still, I can’t deny that the media and politics both combine to form a really thick wall around solutions.

  • knuckledragger

    Definitely. It’s really nice to see a community that’s actually willing to arrive at conclusions based on facts and observations rather than the same old program of bending the facts to fit an agenda.

  • Gunn

    J – “but if you look to other areas where men/women go because their life and/or happiness depends on them taking responsibility, you’ll see strong accountability. Also, in their own circle accountability comes from each other doing life. (not as much as it used to but growing up has it’s lessons)”

    I disagree; women today accept no personal responsibility for their life choices and the consequences, and instead tend to find some way to blame others (men). In the past, the concept of consequences for actions was hammered home to young women by the ‘matriarchs’ of the family unit, e.g. grandmothers. Today, with the breakdown of family, and the city lifestyle that takes young people away from where they were born and people they know, there is very little inter-generational advice that is enforced on young women.

    Knuckledragger –
    “1)Access to resources (wealth)
    2)Status
    and lastly, 3)Reproductive viability (youth, health, intelligence)”

    Its difficult to say that wealth and status are different in a hunter-gatherer or other primitive setting (i.e. pre-money societies). Status itself is probably the indicator for access to resources in primitive societies, with wealth in the modern world taken as a first approximation for status. This is probably strengthend by the fact that in the absence of signals such as a man’s haircut, clothing, accessories, and shoes, it would be impossible to know how ‘wealthy’ he is.

    Reproductive viability doesn’t apply to men in the same way as women; men of all ages can reproduce (in fact scientists postulate that the reason humans are so long lived is because of the influence on the gene pool of older men reproducing with young women). Health is a factor for sure, expressed via symmetry and complementary body odor (apparently there is subconscious preference for immune systems that complement one’s own) as well as height (which is a proxy for access to nutrition and susceptibility to disease as a child). Intelligence is questionable in its own right as well, and is better wrapped up in the context of status (i.e. intelligence expresses itself through better ability to navigate social hierarchies).

    Boiling this down, we get the two factors of attraction for women:
    – status
    – health (height, symmetry, pherenomic compatibility)

    Men who are successfully violent are more likely to have good health in this context, and its also entirely plausible that promotion through a primitive hierarchy is also helped by such traits (particularly if we consider that the major part of primitive violence is inter- rather than intra- tribal and therefore the high status men are the ones who lead the others in tribal warfare).

    The modern preference for violence is then readily seen as crossed wires – evolutionarily, the preference evolved amongst the tribes successful at intertribal warfare (and in consequence more successful genetically as they were able to commandeer the best resources), but today such traits are more often found in the armed forces or in the dregs of society as civilisation has tended to segregate violence to the soldiers and to the criminals whilst other men are civilised to behave more peaceably.

    The attraction women have for men in uniform (i.e. soldiers) is probably a similar type of signalling as for thugs, albeit a far more socially acceptable one. Furthermore, soldiers may or may not be successfully violent, but a criminal on death row for murder clearly was (successful here meaning he didn’t die in his attack rather than that he got away with it).

  • http://strike-the-root.com/user/188 B.R. Merrick

    Paul, this has been a thought-provoking article for me, as I previously concluded that violence stems from early childhood experiences, coupled with the quite natural fear of death. What you say makes sense in a general way, that violent behavior is a display of a man’s physical prowess, which translates to protection for the young. Very interesting.

    There is still a lot for me to digest, but I was wondering about one female I know, who I consider to be a bit of a misandrist. She’s heterosexual, married, two kids, fairly demanding (but she does indeed pull her own weight with expert housekeeping, bill-paying, and general financial expertise), etc. I think the way she was raised by her father, also the way she was molested by two aggressive boys on the playground in elementary school, have turned her off to certain traits normally associated with manhood.

    She has expressed, in the past, an affinity for the type of male personified by — I’m not kidding — Pee-Wee Herman. She viewed him as smaller-framed but athletic, and also funny, which is important to her. She basically married this, although he is also an excellent provider, if a bit hen-pecked. So why or how would this particular woman have overcome the ‘gina tingle for violent men? Or is Pee-Wee’s alleged “athletic” body what’s left over from a woman’s natural tendency to violence?

  • http://avoiceformen.com Paul Elam

    @ B.R. Consider the following from the previous article, Hypergamy crossroads.

    By subjecting a man to an unfair or manipulative ploy, a woman measurers her ability to control him. If he reacts by acting like a trained seal, balancing a beach ball on his nose and clapping his flippers trying to please her out of a piece of fish, he is straight up beta material and good for a run at his wallet, even if she has to give up some sex, which she will also use control him.

    If he has Game, and slams down effectively on the shit test with a ploy of his own, he is alpha and therefore breeding material. Though of course she will go after his money, too.

    My guess is that your friend married a weak Beta whom she could control. Lot’s of women do this, settling for the fact he is easier to control than an alpha. Women often choose that over men that make them tingle for the purpose of marriage. But we have to remember that in its own strange way, marriage and selecting for sex are different matters to women.

    Look at the men who end up supporting a woman who cheats on them with more alpha material. Some men even eroticize this and live as cuckholds.

    Either way, your friend is choosing Pee Wee to work for her and make her laugh, but you can bet your ass that the minute any real alpha gets in her radar, she gets soaking wet.

  • http://menaregood.com Tom

    @B.R. – I agree that it is a thought provoking article. Rarely have we been led to think in these directions, I think mostly because it might hold women accountable for their choices and that is avoided as we can all see.

    Good to keep in mind that women’s mate choices from an evolutionary perspective are all about the potential for reproductive success. The article helps us see that some women will be likely to choose a violent man since they feel that his physical power may translate to reproductive success for her. She may feel that a powerful and violent man will be best to protect her and her offspring. Not unlike the mountain gorilla females needing a silverback. A woman like your friend who has been traumatized by males may feel that her reproductive success would be enhanced by a completely non-threatening mate. One that would not remind her of the old trauma…so PeeWee Herman would be a good choice for her if she felt that it would help her reproductive success. Good to keep in mind that these choices are often unconscious and she may not even be aware of her motive or what is behind her choices just as men may similarly not be aware of what is behind their seeking status.

  • Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: Diversity Edition (NSFW)

  • http://TheDocLove@gmail.com The Doc Love

    Here’s my take on Women who are attracted to violent men.

    a. Women Love a challenge. Now some women realize that there self worth is high enough that they would not date a truly “violent” man, but they enjoy the bad boy type due to the fact that he is very exciting.

    Sane women (believe it or not) enjoy mystery, that includes:
    When you will call them,
    When you will ask them out again,
    What you think about her,
    Why you didn’t call after you had sex with her,
    Will she see you again
    etc…

    In other words, she secretly loves when your playing the “game”. She might openly complain to her friends and co-workers, but she will become more and more interested in him, because he’s a challenge.

    Case in point, I was out with a female friend of mine in a bar, when she turned to me and commented on a guy. She said something towards the fact that this one particular guy was arrogant, and “thought he was all that”. Guess who she went home with that night…

    Sane women love a challenge from a semi-respectable man. Semi-respectable in the sense that he doesn’t abuse her physically or mentally, but he doesn’t bend to her every whim, nor does he kiss her ass! An example is that if he tells her that he will call, he will never be specific as to when.

    B. Women love/lust confident men.
    Confident can either be real or fake (but if your a great actor, she will be none the wiser). Take for example the following; I asked women if they found “Tony Soprano” to be attractive. The result is quite shocking. Some found him to be charming, sexy, hot, interesting and a couple of the women said “I’d do him”. Most said that there was something about him that was attractive. Now let’s be honest, the character is overweight, not all that good looking, impulsive, violent, egotistical and clearly has an issue with the women in his life. Despite all of this his character still generated interest.

    I believe that women would feel safe while in his presence, but if they were to analyze the situation a little further is sort of silly.
    If he is capable of great violence in order to protect her, then he is also capable of being violent towards a her if he feels wronged or attacked (physically or mentally) by her.

    Women tend not to think logically, especially when it comes to dating and sex.

    C. Some/most women love/lust a great fixer-uper.
    I sure we’ve all hear at one time or another “he has great potential”, which means to say that “I like him now, but I’ll like him alot better when I’m done fixing what ever I deem wrong”, type of attitude you often hear from women.

    This one I still need a little more research, suffice to say that women usually choose men, and hope to mold and mature them in a kinda “show him the light” deal. Why, to my best understanding is the “nice guy” is too boring, so a sacrifice is made in choosing a bad boy.

    I have found that younger women (16-25) tend to date the “bad boy” types, and through trial and error, decide that they are no longer worth it as they mature (25-35). For those women who decide to have children, the smart ones look for a good father and provider, even though they are less intriguing, they understand that they provide the most stable environment toward a family lifestyle. (these are the women who if they decide to get divorced, usually do it later on in life, after the kids have gone. They come to the realization, that they no longer share the same “values and interests” as their husbands)

    Those who decide to get pregnant with a bad boy soon grasp of their error!

    Hope this is helpful, love to hear some feedback

    The Doc

  • Pingback: Drawk Kwast | The Alpha Male Lifestyle | 7Wins.eu