Wednesday, 9 April 2014

The Polygamous Sex (Father Syndrome)

 
This is based on a recommendation by ROK writer and blogger runsonmagic.

So, toos bring a lad up to speed, sometimes a cunt, yous or I, read a piece of writing that makes yous go mmmmmnnnnnnn, surprises you, holy fuck lads, what is this, challenges you change your outlook on things, scratch the surface and tunnel tunnel deep down! Press on lads, press on! Sometimes yous read a work, a theory, a treatise that makes all the blinkers in the world fall from the cunts eyes and makes him rework and retweak his map, see those new lines of code, the end of The Matrix, be the new cunt on the block, Franco 2.0 en aw. The Polygamous Sex is such a book; mainly because it addresses a question that maybe isn't addressed in any great depth, among a lot of the people in the sphere.

An age back, I did a post on all that Koanic Soul Neanderthal crazy shite, and wrote up something about being drawn to a lassie or lassies. Why is it, that you could have, say, three lassies who are as good looking as each other, yet there is one yous like more than the others, that there is one that yous might be drawn to? It was love at first sight, or so they said. The Polygamous Sex, the second book by Esther Vilar (Her first book, The Manipulated Man, is an older classic alongside Fedders, The Book of Pook, which every cunt out there should read), might answer that for a lad. Now, bear in mind this could be completely hairbrained shite, really weird or just bent out of sausage material, but at least in this cunts head, it explains a bit of what the hell has been going on with him in the past while.

But first, let's look at two pictures.


And:

Both women are beautiful pieces of lassiebum, and are about the same level in terms of looks, both 9s or even 10s I'd say right? But, woman number two I really like, am more drawn to, far more than number one anyhoo. Lassie one is hot for sure, none of that 2/10 wheelchair moustache wnb shite. Lassie two is beautiful though, special for the Franco en aw, you want to protect this lassie. Why exactly is that the case? Well, The Polygamous Sex might explain that.

First, let's quote de Vilar. According to her, polygamy does not just come from wanting new lassie bum. It comes from man's desire to nurture/protect the lassie and be drawn towards the young acting, even puerile qualities of the lassie:
"Male polygamy arises from the fact that men need women to satisfy both their nurturing instinct and their reproductive instinct. This suggests that they can love more than one woman at a time: in reality, however, they love only one as a woman — the other as their child. Women are unlikely to suffer from such confusion, since they satisfy their two disparate instincts with two clearly demarcated classes of persons: they have their children to nurture, their men for sex. And so women are considered monogamous by nature, while men are polygamous. A man, they say, needs many women; a woman can be content with one man for life. Most men are not aware for the underlying reason for their 'instability'. Since they have sex with their protégé and with their sex partner — though far more frequently with the latter — they assume that having more than one woman is in the nature of male sexuality as such.

The signal for the beginning of the man's polygamous phase in the conventional adoptive marriage is the birth of the first child. At this point even the most fatherly of men will find that his nurturing instinct is fulfilled — and the relatively unfulfilled sex drive begins to clamor for attention. One fine day his longing for unadulterated — or is it uninfantilized — sex becomes so powerful that he dismisses his scruples (of course he has scruples, since he has no wish to 'hurt' his protégé) and takes a mistress. He now turns from the 'woman to marry' to the one who is 'good in bed'.
 This step is usually made all the easier for him by his wife who, after the birth of her child, no longer feels compelled to play her role of sex partner with any more than minimal involvement. To do so is an effort for her because even a woman with a normal sex drive seldom sees a desirable lover in the man she has chosen for his usefulness as a provider. Many women even feel a positive revulsion against having sex with their father-substitute (see the Swedish statistics above). They play the role of sex partner as long as it serves as bait, to trap the man into adopting them and siring children with them. Once this has been achieved, they increasingly stress their role as protégés, the easiest role to play and the line of least resistance. After this point, such a woman will revert to the role of sex partner only in an emergency; when a rival appears who threatens to take away her provider, for example. A mother no longer needs even to play the role of protégé — her children will do it for her, more convincingly than she ever could. Their father will go on protecting her in any case, because she is needed by their children. 'Of course I love my wife and my children,' says the paterfamilias, as though it were the same kind of 'love'. Yet for him, it is the same love."
Mentioned earlier:
Men who are strongly motivated in their choice of a partner by their nurturing instinct, and turn to predominately childlike women who are considerably younger, less intelligent, smaller and weaker than they —; necessarily have to satisfy their sex instinct with their protégé. To have sex with someone you regard as your child is incest.
Not that they are aware of it as incest. It is not easy to realize that a man is drawn to a woman by his nurturing instinct — the sex factor is what catches the eye. But all those altruistic feelings he has for her, like wanting to take care of her, defend her, work for her, fight for her, these are the feelings of a father for his child, not really those of a lover for his woman.
This is eerily true for me, what with liking hyperfeminine, childlike, girly lassies with the pink dresses and the Disney movies and all that shite, over their more "mature" or less childlike but equally feminine counterparts. Is it a pattern of certain men to be drawn to a lassie mainly because yous want her to submit to you in a fatherly way? But more than that, is it even healthy for a relationship?

I've noticed two things reading blogs in this side of the sphere. The first, is that there seem to be a lot more introverted people here than extroverts. The second, is that yous see more guys going for that quiet, introverted girly kind of lassie than say the Megan Fox type of one.

The second part is true too. When I've been in a relationship with that kind of lassie, childlike lassie, I've started looking at other lassies, but more of the slutty headwrecking kind, clubs, parties, happy pills, Franco being a mega tit, all of that mad stuff. This always confused me, so maybe there is something to what Vilar is saying here. That polygamy is not just getting as many lassies as possible, that it is simultaneously, to fulfill the getting your hole side, and the nurturing, wanting to love and protect a lassie part as well.

In the next few pages, Vilar discusses the most compatible relationships between men and women. All of this is standard sphere stuff, masculine men like feminine women, women like men who don't like My Little Pony blah blah blah. But then:
What is a suitable sex partner? Remember the two basic requirements for love between a man and a woman:
  • the greatest possible physical polarity
  • the greatest possible intellectual similarity
The outward polarity is usually present in most unions: the laws of biology tend towards producing an optimal mix of the extreme hereditary factors within the same species (see WHAT IS A SEX PARTNER?). We instinctively choose a sex partner who is unambiguously different from ourselves physically. But the intellectual likeness is usually lacking. It is a necessity, however, for the following reasons:
  1. When the sex partner is mentally inferior, the tendency is to feel protective towards her-him. When one tries to satisfy one's sexual needs with an inferior, one feels that one is taking advantage of one's sex partner. Sex with inferiors means sexual misconduct (incest, polygamy) and causes conscience trouble (prudery).
  2. The lover who is not his sex partner's intellectual equal cannot define the partner. If he is mentally inferior, he cannot provide the other's optimal definition; if mentally superior, the other cannot understand him.
In other words, if love between a man and a woman is to last, the partners must be equals in every respect except those areas they regard as sex-specific, in which they must be opposites as far as possible. Depending on the degree to which both conditions are fulfilled, such a love will be more or less long-lasting.
Sex specific. Provider to and minder of children. Masculine and feminine. Leader and follower. The man in charge, Lassie on the side. Feminization of the west has led to men and women becoming less dimorphic. Thus, that nurturing instinct of the lad turns inwards, what with all the man tittied you go girl basketball playing bullshit yous see around you, and with no healthy way to channel it, metamorphoses into putting lassies on a pedestal, making them out to be de wonderful special little snowflakes, or worse, with some of the Big Bang Theory fuckos in de university, now THEM cunts, they to be the children, the looked after, the ones who want to give up their nuts to the lassie. All is lost if that is the case. It would also explain why men are investing less in society. How can you use that nurturing lassie instinct when every lass out there is a Sex and the City wrinkled piece of manny prune?

Would also explain all them fucken hipster cunts with the beards en aw no?

Long story short, what The Polygamous Sex suggests is that being drawn to certain women over others comes from a parental, nurturing aspect, which in itself can lead to polygamy for certain lads, to have the mistress side. This also answers the question of actually wondering if you are polygamous or not. Because I am drawn to this, does that mean men like me would be better in a more polygamous setup? Or maybe it's the few pints of stout talking,

The book is bloody excellent though, even if more needs to be discussed on it. You can read the whole thing for free here.

4 comments:

  1. Well, several things come to mind:

    1) All those guys talking about how much sex they get in their marriage, this squarely puts a lie to it.

    1)(a) all the churches that don't straight up tell women they have to follow through and give themselves to their husbands, are co-conspirators with the women that bait and switch men into marriage and withhold sex and if there is a God, they all belong south. (her writing dovetails in a way with what Rollo has been saying recently at rational male.)

    2) If you take what she says about intelligence being similar to be important to romantic or true passionate love, then most men are screwed since the distribution of intelligence is 3 men to one woman at one deviation from average on either side, and 15 to 1 at two standards, unless they are average intelligence. (as an aside, I don't think intelligence is merely social and opportunity, women as a groupo are clumped around average because they don't need to be more, but in terms of being anything other than a navel gazer with an ear for social moods and trends, she's right)

    3) Don't get married. Don't buy them anything. Youre straight up accepting the altrustic love road (ie I will love you unconditionally which they will in fact see as a green light for cheating)

    3)(a) Which explains why so many married women betray their husbands and think they'll still be friends (ie mentor and protege)

    4)This also explains the pattern of women: Lovers, providers in thirties (and children) and divorce and pursuing lovers again (or cats).

    4)(a) anyone that wants to being back marriage for men is advocating trapping their brothers in a sexless hell.

    5) Acting helpless and child like is straight up manipulation. So is crying or any other thing women do to get men to be their beasts of burden.

    6) I'm actually pondering if it is in fact better for men to straight up have children without a woman (by surrogate or whatever) if they have these protector instincts so they are actually devoted to those that need them and not some harpy.

    7) I prefer Megan Fox, and instinctively I would think she is more likely to cheat, but this would seem to indicate the more waif like and child like, and even sweet and innocent appearing are the worst cheaters because they are the worst manipulators.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It makes an enormous amount of sense. Apparently she wrote a third novel on how to fix marriage for men, though its only in French. That one would be interesting, cause how can society work on what it is working now? Marriage is pretty integral to how civilization functions.

      Whats also interesting is that if you are attracted to this childlike lassie (such as myself) are you to some extent, stuck with more off balance relationships, or are yous suited more to polygamy?

      As for the intelligence one, the translation is not the best in places. You can interpret intellectual similarity as "both being conservative" say, though it's probably due to raw intelligence, in which yeah, the narrower tails mean less dumb lassies, but less smart ones as well. Matt Forney had a good post on this, if yous haven't read it.

      Delete
    2. Oh, it makes sense, I don't think she has the full nature of it, but its like another piece of the puzzle fitting in place, making the truth a little clearer and for when it is written, frankly every boy should read her work as a teenager.

      That being said, I'm not sure it is a simple as she wants it to be that there is protege and romantic love and the two are seperate. Men have to a certain extent selected women for their childlike nature (You can see this in the more patriarchal societies, the women are small, finer featured, more childlike versus the more matriarchal where the women are more masculine and bigger).

      Polygamy is in her mind unsatisfactory for the man because he is searching for the unattainable (though it is far better than a man trapped in typical monogamy which is being unsatsified without searching).

      True romantic love may be like perfect peace, or any number of things a man can imagine, yet be unable to obtain in this broken world.

      I don't know if marriage, as important as it is, can be fixed at this point without a collapse.

      If you accept her premise that romantic love can only be achieved by the meeting of polar opposites that are equal then you are left with a very dark conclusion if you take it logically:

      1) True love can only be achieved with an equal partner.
      2) Men have always been slaves to civilization and society.
      3) You must either raise men up to equals, or lower women to man's level
      4) You can't really raise men up, so the only other solution is making women slaves.

      Delete
  2. Dịch vụ Kiem tra ten mien miễn phí từ iNET
    Tao web mien phi trên nền tảng web tin một cách nhanh chóng, chuyên nghiệp
    Chuyên trang Mẹo vặt cuộc sống cung cấp mẹo vặt hay trong cuộc sống hằng ngày
    Đăng ký nhận Ten mien mien phi từ inET
    Tin tức về Manchester united cập nhật hằng ngày hàng giờ
    Chuyên trang về Du lịch cung cấp thông tin về các tour du lịch, kinh nghiệm đi du lịch
    Học viện iNET dạy hoc seo từ cơ bản đến nâng cao giúp các bạn có cái nhìn rõ nét nhất về seo. Chúng tôi là trung tâm dạy hoc seo hàng đầu cả nước với nhiều năm kinh nghiệm

    ReplyDelete