Women want fried ice

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

So it is fortunate that they do not act in a rational or goal directed manner to get what they think they want.

Everyone longs for and seeks the ancestral environment of survival and successful reproduction, the environment of evolutionary adaptation.

It is the intention of nature and the will of nature’s God that resources shall be transferred from men to women, for women have the hardest and most important job in the world, and resources transferred from parents to children, for it is all about survival and reproduction.

And no one will plant trees or build on land he does not own, so for the necessary transfer of resources to take place, women must be the property of men, and children must be the property of their mothers and fathers, the boys till they are old enough to become independent, the girls till they are old enough to become the property of their husbands.

For a strongly K selected species, male ownership of women has to be part of the system.

Without this arrangement, if women go unowned, fertility will drop below replacement.

Youtube channels like “based camp” and “psycore” produces a lot of interesting and entertaining stuff about restoring fertility that dances around close to forbidden truths, but, being namefags, can never tell the plain truth. Women want to be property, the property of a strong, and dangerous, man. Women and dogs are only happy if they have an owner.

For women, successful reproduction was accomplished when they were owned by a man, and used as his instrument of reproduction. In the ancestral environment, before agriculture, the stable isotope ratios in the bones indicate that humans lived primarily on meat, including the meat of other predators. We were the apex predator — we not only ate deer, sheep, goats, and cattle, we also ate significant amounts of wolf and lion. And when I say “humans” were the apex predator, I mean of course, men. Men were the apex predator, and they fed women and children that securely belonged to them. And women and children that did not securely belong to some man starved or were eaten by the lions.

Then we switched to agriculture. And when we were switching to agriculture, the sex disparity in reproduction went right up — with far fewer Y chromosome lineages being part of the reproduction pool than mitochondrial lineages. Which indicates that women lived off land that belonged to some man or to the men of a patrilineal clan — that to have land to garden, they needed to marry a male heir, who likely obtained it or kept it by the sword.

And female behavior and emotional responsiveness is adaptive for that environment. It is maladadaptive for emancipation. And even if female behavior was adaptive for emancipation, the necessary transfer of resources is inconsistent with emancipation, irrespective of female nature. The shepherd takes care of his own sheep, but hunts the wild deer. If women appear to be crazy, it hardly matters, for in an environment of emancipation, sanity just is not going to work for women. You necessarily get defect/defect equilibrium, the game of players and bitches, in which game everyone loses. And in the ancestral environment of successful reproduction female sanity hardly matters either, for if she does the crazy thing, she will just get smacked and told to do the sensible thing. Women have not been under selective pressure to make sensible decisions about sex, family, and reproduction for at least four million years.

If women responded rationally to the incentives of female emancipation, we would probably be in even worse shape than we are, because it is female irrationality that makes it possible to personally unemancipate women by will and force of character, even without support from tribe, church, and state. The incentive of emancipation is for men to defect on women, and women to defect on men. Love, faith, and fidelity is irrational. So if you are rational, your lineage will vanish. The game of prisoner’s dilemma with a limited number of iterations has no rational solution, and yet we have no alternative but to solve it.

If women are emancipated, then the behavior demanded by nature and commanded by God is difficult, dangerous, and deeply irrational. If, however, men have secure property rights in female sexual, reproductive, and domestic services, then the behavior demanded by nature and commanded by God is rational self interested behavior, enforced by family, religion, and the state.

The Damsel in Distress trope

The female audience objects, strongly, to the Damsel in distress trope. Always has, always will.

But when they the talk about why the don’t like it they lie, and their lies are gross and infuriating in their obviously untruth, and gross and infuriating in that women entirely believe their own lies.
Movie makers listening to those lies produce female characters that no one wants to watch, women even less than men. Hence the strange phenomenon that the “””modern audience””” never shows up.

I have personal experience of rescuing women in real life, and in real life women do not want to be rescued.

And it is not hard to understand why. In the ancestral environment, being abducted by the powerful and somewhat cruel bad guy is to hit the reproductive jackpot, to be transferred from a weak hand to a strong hand. To be rescued is to be stolen, thus to be transferred from the strong hand to the weak hand.

In female porn (“romance literature”) the main female character is never rescued. Sometimes alpha male A defeats alpha male B, usually by killing B, and as a result, alpha male A acquires the main female character. But the female audience does not want Alpha male A to acquire the main female character before he finally and decisively defeats alpha male B, as this looks like the main female character being stolen, thus being transferred from the strong hand to the weak hand. And in female porn, wish fulfillment never rests on the female coming into the possession of a classic hero, coming into the possession of someone with the classic heroic virtues of prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance. It is always all about coming into the possession of a strong owner.

The reason that women do not like the Damsel in Distress trope is that men fantasize about winning righteously and virtuously, while women fantasize about the winners getting hold of them. Women are the weaker vessel. But they cannot say this, or even think this, so they say outrageously false nonsense. And when movie makers and game designers listen to this nonsense, no audience shows up. Instead of listening to what women say about the Damsel in Distress trope, the movie makers should have tried reading female porn to see what happens when the supervillain seizes the main female character and puts her on a leash in his lair. The part of a woman that operates her mouth does not seem to be in communication with the part that spreads her legs.

17 comments Women want fried ice

anon says:

I wonder if you could make the Damsel in Distress trope work if rescuing the damsel from something that clearly wasn’t going to reproduce with her anyway.

I’ve never liked the argument-from-porn though; certainly I’ve had fantasies I wouldn’t want to actually enact.

FrankNorman says:

I wonder if you could make the Damsel in Distress trope work if rescuing the damsel from something that clearly wasn’t going to reproduce with her anyway.

Such as, say, a large wild bear?
I get the impression that some Western woman have been so coddled by their upbringing that they simply do not understand that there are dangerous beings out there that would not want to mate with them, just kill them.

Jim says:

Consider Yona of the Dawn.

The main male character, the primary love interest, always wants to kill her, since he is the usurper, and she is the last survivor of the Royal family (the usurper has killed her entire family in front of her.) She is always being rescued by the secondary male character, the alternate love interest, and always unrescuing herself.

So in this case the Damsel in Distress trope works fine — what irritates the female audience is the Damsel being distressed. Willie in Temple of Doom is very upset that she is being lowered into a whirlpool of molten lava and screams continually for Indiana Jones to rescue her, which totally pisses off the female audience. Yona, on the other hand, is strangely compliant and pleasant to the usurper who is always about to kill her, and rather unhelpful to the loyal royalist who always rescues her. It is Willie’s screaming for Indiana Jones that pisses off the female audience.

Rescuing seems to go down fine so long as the female is passive about it, rather than enthusiastically favoring one alpha male over the other. Similarly Andromeda does not show any marked preference for Perseus over the Dragon or for Perseus over Phineus. The female audience complains that the Damsel in Distress is passive, but this is just their mouths being disconnected from their pussies. The Damsels in Distress that they actually like are way more passive. Typically she strolls into the evil overlord’s secret base under her own power, makes no effort to resist the leash, and no effort to escape should the leash be temporarily removed.

Willie in “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom” screams non stop for Indiana Jones to rescue her, and the female audience cannot stand it. Yona of the Dawn has to rescued like a sack of potatoes, and the female audience laps it up. The royalist grabs her as if he is grabbing a metal crown, rather than the crown embodied as a human being.

Obviously the sane thing for both the usurper and the Royalist to do is to marry her at swordpoint, and keep her chained to the bed when she is not chained to throne, thus bringing ten thousand pages of romantic tension to a sudden end, but strangely, the Usurper is always about to kill her, and Royalist always turns her loose to get into trouble all over again after he rescues her.

Jim says:

When the female audience complains that the Damsel in distress is a passive object, a trophy, a prize, not a character, what is really bothering them is that she not passive enough, they complain because she is a prize, but they are plainly lying. They love the main female character being a prize. The real cause of their discontent is that she is a prize that displays a clear preference between alpha male contestants. They want her to keep the romantic tension up.

Jim says:

> I’ve never liked the argument-from-porn though;

I only appeal to porn because we can both see that evidence, while you cannot know, and probably would not believe, my real life adventures. Under another identity, I have had some interesting times, some of which bear rather directly on the behavior of Damsels in Distress.

The way the male brain processes this trope is “which alpha male is the good guy — exhibits the classic heroic virtues?”

Females, unfortunately, are blind and deaf to the classic heroic virtues. The way they process this trope is “Which alpha male passes the shit test”. They are pissed at Willie and Indiana Jones because Willie does not give Indiana a brutal shit test.

Observe how disastrous it has been for Hollywood and Video Games to pay attention to what comes out of women’s mouths. I never paid any attention to that part of their anatomy;

> I’ve had fantasies I wouldn’t want to actually enact.

Women want what they do not want.

What does everyone actually want? They want their true telos, and they want the ancestral environment of survival and successful reproduction.

The modern environment of emancipation, the strong empowered woman who don’t need no man, is enormously stressful and distressing for women, because it matches the environment that led to their ancestors starving and being eaten by lions.

A fairly popular Isekai romance is that the main female character lives in the modern world, has no family, no boyfriend, and no job, and gets magically soul transmigrated or portaled or something into a magical world where all this inconvenient freedom is taken away from her and she simply becomes the property, or the captive, or the wife, or something like that, of the main male character without having any say in it. Which is how in the ancestral environment they would in fact get out of the mess that they are now in in real life today. The strong man would just grab her, solving the problem, and all she had to do was make it difficult, so that she would be grabbed by the strong man, rather than a weak man.

And women today are going crazy waiting for the strong man to show up and grab her.

This porn trope, where the strong independent empowered woman just has all that independence and empowerment snatched away from her, and just gets stuck with the main male character, corresponds directly to how ancestral women got out of the mess that modern women find themselves in.

If she has freedom, she can defect on him. If she can defect on him, he will probably defect on her first. So female fantasies tend to mostly be about this freedom being taken away somehow. Which is how the female line leading up to her successfully reproduced for four million years.

Fidelis says:

The West has created an utterly evil state religion […]

https://xcancel.com/elonmusk/status/2062062058376663408

I noticed the word choice of “state religion” and found it odd. Exactly how the phenomenon is described here.

https://trends.google.com/explore?q=%2522state%2520religion%2522&date=today%205-y&geo=Worldwide

There is also a massive uptick in interest for the phrase starting in late summer of last year. I always feel like I’m grasping at straws when I see these patterns, “can it be true, do the guys in line for the guillotine have a plan to stop this once and for all?” Lets hope this isn’t some optimistic projection unto a man lost in the deep sea of normalcy bias.

someDude says:

Women have the most important Job, I get that. But hardest? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L-gbacsUKpc&pp=ygUbYmlsbCBidXJyIHdvbWVuIGhhcmRlc3Qgam9i

Jim says:

Depends on what measure of hard. Obviously men do the really dirty, strenuous, and dangerous jobs, as this comedian correctly points out. But nonetheless, being a mother his very hard, and giving birth is far from safe.

Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

I think it is probably safe to leave it at most important job. We do not need to inflate their already inflated sense of status. A cog might be vital, but it is replaceable. I also would not say that being a mother is hard. Being a mother is what they do. Like that pet beaver that stacks stuffed animals when it hears running water, women turn everywhere they go into a daycare if they are allowed. Women being mothers is their telos. Man’s telos is to cooperate. Women’s telos is to accompany Man and raise his children. If denied this, they replicate the form no matter the context in which they find themselves.

cobblestones says:

Man’s telos is to comply, not to cooperate. How else to explain our cucked modern reality? Is there a single example in the current zeitgeist where men’s interests are preserved against female opposition?

Men comply with women’s demands against their own interests while pretending females have no agency. That’s how we got here. Women’s lack of agency is the central pillar of the female disinformation war/psyop. As long as men believe that, women will rule. As they always have and will.

Jim says:

Nuts

Jim says:

Nuts

Not what I see in front of my face.

cobblestones says:

I know you don’t agree, but look at reality.
The courting/love racket: men pay, buy flowers, pursue.
The marriage racket: men get on their knees, beg, buy diamonds.
The domestic violence racket: Women are at least as violent as men (and possible more so), but the Duluth model and VAWA ensure women win, evidence not required.
The sexual assault racket: if a Karen decides you raped her after she consented to sex, you’re guilty.
The sexual assault racket: if you pat a chick on the ass, you’re a rapist.
The sexual assault racket: if you jerk off to a picture of a chick who appears to be underage (as assessed by a Karen), you’re a rapist.
The family court racket: if you’re male, you get a monthly bill, mom gets everything else.
The family court racket: if you’re male, your kids will be kidnaped, your assets seized, your income garnisheed, solely by affidavit you didn’t even know had been filed.
I could go on and on and on, as you know. But to accept that this is all somehow accidental, somehow non-agentic, is to participate in and perpetuate the female psyop.

Cjwalker says:

Jim, you have mentioned a few times about the environment that women really want and how you give it to them (paraphrased of course) can you write a blog post or two on how to do that? like from acquiring a woman to keeping her. I would like to emulate this without getting thrown in jail

Jim says:

You are not going to keep a woman if unduly worried about being thrown into jail.

I have written few posts on game

cobblestones says:

“and yet we have no alternative but to solve it”
Ain’t gonna happen (solving it, that is). Civ dies when women and women’s imperatives dominate.

Jim says:

The problem is individually soluble — the lucky and the strong can solve it for themselves. But the nature of women, hypergamy, means most men will fail.

Leave a Reply

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