What women want

Women want what they do not want, and love what they hate.

Men understand what they want in love, sex, and romance, and act to attain it in a way that seems to them realistically likely to attain it. There is a straightforward connection between desire, intent, and action.

Women are not like that, and consent culture has imposed upon them an insoluble task to which they were not exposed to in the ancestral environment of evolutionary adaptation. They face a problem that lacks a rational solution, and their response to it is, unsurprisingly, deeply irrational.

Miss Average wants to be loved and cared for my mister one in thirty, by the six foot six billionaire athlete vampire King, and proceeds to act in ways that make it unlikely that anyone will ever love her except her cats, that no one will ever care for her, and that she will die alone and be eaten by her cats.

Some of them panic at age thirty or forty, and proceed to condescend to reluctantly marry mister average, who is fifty years old and involuntarily celibate up till now, but by that time, her eggs and her womb have probably dried up.

And when parents and uncles tell their rapidly ageing daughters and nieces that they should get their act together, it is totally and completely ineffective. They get really really angry on being advised.

Women complain men are not willing to commit, not even willing to approach. Meaning mister one in thirty is not willing to commit to miss average, and mister average is not going to approach miss average, because he will probably be charged with sexual harassment, rape and assault. Women just do not like low status males around, any more than they want rats and cockroaches around.

Obviously women are happiest staying at home cooking, cleaning, serving and obeying their husband. But, in the event that the six foot six billionaire vampire King should fall madly in love with him, have absolutely no intention of cooking, cleaning, serving, and obeying him. They will, off the bat, make entirely unreasonable demands.

Of course these demands are merely a shit test, what they actually hope for is to be smacked and handed a mop. But they are unaware of hoping for this.

Of course we all know that in matters of love and sex, what females intend, and what they believe that they want, have little connection to actual female conduct. “It just happened”. It is all a shit test. But this shit test is preventing successful family formation and reproduction.

There are a number of obstacles to reproduction.

1. Defect/Defect equilibrium. It is in both party’s interest to defect on their partner before they get defected on. It is a woman’s reproductive interest to be in a situation where she cannot defect, thus human females reproduce most successfully as property, men least successfully as property. Notice the tendency of female romances to be set in magical worlds where the main female character is excused from the inconvenience of consent. We all, male and female, long for the ancestral environment of successful reproduction.

2. Women have an absurdly inflated idea of the their value as a wife or a long term partner, because it is easy for them to get semen from a high value man.

3. Women have absurdly inflated idea of their value as a relationship partner, because they delude themselves that they are in a relationship, when they are merely somewhere near the bottom of a long booty call list.

4. Even if a woman has an accurate idea of her value as a relationship partner, it is still female nature to avoid being with low value men, meaning men of value similar to herself, and try to be with high value men. If a women does this, despite having an accurate idea of her value as a relationship partner, then she is a filthy trash slut, as women tend to be unless forcefully restrained by a man with a stick, and since she does not want to think of herself as a filthy trash slut, she cultivates an inflated view of her own value to protect herself from the knowledge that she is a filthy trash slut.

5. Women don’t think they have to bring anything to a relationship except themselves, because they don’t have to bring anything to a booty call except themselves. If they hope to be loved, cared for, and looked after, they need to start by cleaning the man’s house, picking up his clothes, doing the laundry, and cooking a nice meal. Of course a chick is, in practice, never going to do that on her own initiative, because she subconsciously hopes to be made to do that. But because we men tend to be oblivious, we tend not to command until the amount of trash on the floor makes it difficult to move around, we have no clothes left that do not stink, and strange fungi are growing on the unwashed dishes. If a man is looking for a relationship, he needs to command service. If a woman is looking for a relationship, not much she can do except inject herself into situations where service is likely to be commanded, or else somehow overcome the natural female propensity to shit test by cooking, cleaning, and tidying up on her own initiative. There have been a few occasions, not often, where women have just shown up on my doorstep and just got on with sex, cooking, cleaning, and tidying up. Worked on me because I am just lazy and most men are just lazy. But it is much more in accordance with female nature and the mating dance for the man to drag her to his lair and put her to work, and women much prefer this to having to arrive under their own power. In the ancestral environment of successful reproduction, being dragged to the man’s lair and compelled to serve looks a lot more like permanent security suitable for raising children than just showing up under her own power. If the man dragged her there, he probably will not let her go.

24 comments What women want

Karl says:

“And when parents and uncles tell their rapidly ageing daughters and nieces that they should get their act together, it is totally and completely ineffective.”

Indeed, but is there anything that could be said to daughters and nieces that would be effective?

Jehu says:

Arrange meetings where she gets to dance with men you’ve preapproved as suitable future husbands.

Humungus says:

Greetings,

This essay carries the essence of what it means to be reactionary. It starts at home. Control of self, wife, family… it is God’s will. Consider it a test.

Once you’ve mastered your household, then you will be confident to go on to greater things.

Mossadnik says:

Yeah, there’s no galactic expansion before things down here on this blue ball are in Order.

alf says:

So it is.

Sher Singh says:

Women ♥️ attention.

“If he doesn’t hit you he doesn’t 💘 you”

Banning domestic violence creates loveless households, divorce, and the collapse of society.

Stand up against government mandated emotional abuse.

ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕਾਖਾਲਸਾਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕੀਫਤਿਹ
https://blog.reaction.la/economics/fertility-and-corporal-punishment/

JustAnotherGuy says:

https://x.com/RWApodcast/status/1984296786027069476

Youtube going back to the usual clamping. Another victory for nothing ever happens bros?

JustAnotherGuy says:

I’m being farcical of course, but its looking like everyone is thinking the temporary government is going to be very temporary and someone is going to do the needful to them soon, so they are trying to get in the good graces of the proggies again. I’m honestly hoping I am wrong about this though.

Jim says:

There has been a startling escalation in censorship on the Ukraine. Supposedly Russia is suffering a bazillion casualties, the Ukraine is winning, winning, winning, and Putin is falling, falling, falling.

This escalation of censorship happened immediately after a large proportion of the Ukrainian Nazis got trapped in the Pokrovsk agglomeration, which represents a major reduction in the Global American Empire’s capability to terrorise and murder Ukrainians.

As RWA said immediately before being banned from Youtube “We are reaching previously unseen levels of copium”

alf says:

Supposedly Russia is suffering a bazillion casualties

This is the number one point I’ve come across. Yes, well, OK, maybe the Ukraine is very slowly losing, but they’re killing 5 Russians for every dead Ukranian!

The copium of ‘Ukraine is losing on literally every front but we’re still slaughtering Russians’ is palpable. Good.

Jim says:

Given that Russians are still volunteering in considerable numbers, while the Ukraine is running horribly short of conscripts, casualty ratios have to be at least ten to one in Russia’s favor, probably thirty to one. Another indicator is that brigades are three to five hundred men when formed, and yet we see areas with many brigades but only a thousand or so troops, indicating that most Ukrainian brigades have very few men left.

Karl says:

That “brigades” are formed with just three to five hundred men is an indicator all by itself. The usual word for a newly formed unit of that size is “battalion”.

Jim says:

My error, I mixed up battalions and brigades.

Mossadnik says:

The troll got his way. Now, having finally switched from Racist Jesus to Anti-Racist Jesus, I’m still trying to figure out how America will actually solve its vastly disproportionate black violent crime problem. Seriously, what is the Realistic plan to properly manage the less-than-perfectly-civilized black population? Look, the root cause of the mismatch is primarily genetic. You can fit some races neatly into modern civilization; others much less so. Let’s we convert the elite to Jimianity. Now what?

Mossadnik says:

I do really like some blacks, and for the most part get along with them just fine. It’s not like I wake up in the afternoon “morning” all enraged about those damn niggers. But obviously their presence, at least under the current conditions, does tend to bring about civilizational disorder. The term “bio-weapons” accurately describes a vastly disproportionate percentage of blacks. This needs to be solved if we are to advance to higher stages, doesn’t it?

Or should crime be dealt with simply as crime, without a special, explicit race-specific policy?

Jim says:

> Or should crime be dealt with simply as crime, without a special, explicit race-specific policy?

Explicit race specific policies always turn out to be necessary, and progressives always wind up reluctantly sneaking those policies in through the back door.

Thus, for example, feather indians need, and generally get, different rules on alcohol to white people. Blacks need simpler and harsher rules, and swifter enforcement. Also many drugs that whites can generally handle OK are just devastating to blacks, so black communities demanded special rules on drugs popular among blacks.

Mossadnik says:

Yes, that makes sense – different rules for different people, under the principle of “salus populi suprema lex.”

Mossadnik says:

Let’s say Christian fundies get into power and ban all abortions, and birth control while we’re at it. Okay, then in a few generations you’ll have many more blacks, and particularly from dysfunctional backgrounds. Is this not a problem for civilizational advancement that the New Ruling Class will need to solve?

Jim says:

Not necessarily.

Successful reproduction requires cooperation between the sexes. Cooperate/cooperate equilibrium requires enforcement.

Hard to have enforcement on sex and all that, except religiously based, a state religion. If a non state religion can get away with enforcing reproductive cooperation that the state religion is disinclined to enforce, soon enough it will become the state religion — old type Mohammedans are betting on this.

OK, assume we have a state and state religion that supplies enforcement preferentially for high status people, preferentially for those who subscribe to the official faith, and preferentially for those who work hard, pay taxes, and play by the rules. Obviously inferior races will fail to reproduce as successfully as higher races.

Obviously you have to take away women’s inalienable right to fornication, adultery and single motherhood. Abortion problem then largely solved. The abortion problem is basically that booty calls are apt to come in quite infrequently, once every few weeks, so women are reluctant to go on the pill, and when they answer a booty call, are in no position to demand that a condom be used.

Once abortion is rare, no one will demand that it be safe and legal.

Mossadnik says:

Christianity is facing an existential threat in Nigeria. Thousands of Christians are being killed. Radical Islamists are responsible for this mass slaughter. I am hereby making Nigeria a “COUNTRY OF PARTICULAR CONCERN” — But that is the least of it. When Christians, or any such group, is slaughtered like is happening in Nigeria (3,100 versus 4,476 Worldwide), something must be done! I am asking Congressman Riley Moore, together with Chairman Tom Cole and the House Appropriations Committee, to immediately look into this matter, and report back to me. The United States cannot stand by while such atrocities are happening in Nigeria, and numerous other Countries. We stand ready, willing, and able to save our Great Christian population around the World!

DONALD J. TRUMP,
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/115470116607441456

I see some on Right Twitter being against any intervention here.

What is the Jimian Christian position?

Hesiod says:
Mossadnik says:

Looks to me like the non-interventionists on Right Twitter have a point. Assistance to the Christians should be provided, but the US should probably avoid going to war in Nigeria.

S says:

The United States shouldn’t intervene, but Christian charity should be directed to Nigerian Christians to aid them and if necessary arm them.

While military support for co-religionists is a Christian option, Nigeria has a population of about 220 million people (35-45% Christian) so 3,100 Christians murdered, while a problem does not call for the blunt force of American intervention.

Daddy Scarebucks says:

It’s got that “strongly worded letter” vibe, so probably amounts to nothing substantial.

Importing a horde of Nigerian migrants would be a total disaster; Christian or not, Nigerians are among the worst (if not the worst) blacks, quickly assimilating to the obsolete farm equipment’s racial resentment but being ten times as industrious with the grift, even more so than the dot-Indians. The only reason they aren’t a bigger problem is that they number relatively few.

Military intervention would also be a disaster, for all the reasons we’ve become accustomed to. We’ve more or less retained the ability to blow stuff up when facing a vastly inferior opponent, but long ago forgot the art of effective rebuilding or vassalage. There’s no more reason to expend blood and treasure there than there is in the middle east.

Resettlement to other parts of Africa is possible in theory, but always seems to be a shitshow in practice, I think in large part because the various “regions” of Africa that we in the west tend to think of as analogous to European nation-states just aren’t that at all; most don’t have clearly-defined borders or even functional governments, and the ones that do, usually aren’t agreement-capable. So intra-African resettlement tends to be confusing and unproductive.

Whenever I read on-the-ground reports about (de)colonized Africa, it seems clear that the old European Colonizers were far more effective than Team America World Police. More effective at creating zones of stability and productivity in general, and more effective at converting Christians and keeping them alive in particular. That system just worked, probably because the colonizers had very literal skin in the game; they were there for the long haul.

We will see what happens with Trump’s idea of commercial development in Gaza. Conceptually it seems to share many of the same elements, but with a much more secular flavor and far less emphasis on the Church, which may turn out to be a non-issue in the modern world or may (more likely) prove to be its principal failing.

In any case, a return to some form of that is probably the only viable solution. America sympathizes with our Christian neighbors and yadda yadda, but we are not going to commit our military and are definitely not going to commit our own soil. Rather, the USG grants official license and development rights to any network of missionaries and PMCs who care enough about the issue (or see enough potential profit in it) to establish some outposts there, build them up, defend them ruthlessly, and become a haven for all those oppressed Nigerian brothers in Christ. The nominal goal of the “Nigeria Corporation” will be to generate profit, but it will inevitably have a heavy contingent of missionary types who are more interested in spreading and preserving the faith.

This will probably not happen; Cruz wants sanctions and other BS, as if any country in Africa would or could be weakened by such things. Economic sanctions work when there is a well-established regime whose productivity depends heavily on trade, or alternatively, when there are belligerent/rival neighbors who could use the sanctions as a pretext to move in for the kill. Is any of that true about Nigeria? Honestly, I don’t know much about the country’s inner workings, but somehow, I doubt it. So Cruz is just playing politics, wants to do some cheap and ineffective virtue-signaling to appeal to his Christian voter base, and Trump is throwing him a bone with some Royal Proclamations, as the king often does to mollify his feistier lords. Beyond that, hot air.

Leave a Reply to Jim Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *