The Strange God-Believer Relationship

The Bizarre Logic in How Believers Relate to God

First off, this post isn't intended to annoy believers. (Though odds are it will.) I'm not one of those atheists/agnostics/non-believers/heathens/whatevers who take the intellectual high ground over believers, then devise ways to piss them off from their lofty, "superior" heights. I used to be that way when I was much younger.

There is nothing superior about not believing, anyway. I envy (true) believers, for their ability to be irrational, and I'm not saying this sarcastically. I envy most fantasists. Whoever can suspend logic to the extent that they can believe in an omnipotent creator - and actually believe that he is represented truthfully by a non-profit/idealistic religious organization - might be blessed with more contentment than those who can't: very broadly, generally speaking, obviously. Even the most miserable believers might be even more miserable without this crutch.

Besides, atheism isn't all sugar and science-candy: it can lead impressionable, confused, unstable, dim, young, arrogant minds towards nihilism, communism, feminism and other idiotic, hip, quasi-intellectual, nonsensical isms. Some people turn away from religion only to find "truth" in laughable alien invasion theories. These UFOlogist nitwits then actually start feeling superior to believers - when in fact alien worship is almost as cretinous as any other.

Speaking of truth, nihilists, for example, may be (much) more right about certain things than Bible-thumpers and Quran-devotees, but what do they gain from it? Truth? What can they do with this truth?

Wipe their asses with it, that's what. Besides, probably nobody is even remotely close to "the truth", and non-believers are in all likelihood only slightly less distant from "the truth" than religious people.

Atheism is vastly overrated within "intellectual" circles: all it means is negation of all the bullshit that stems from religions. It isn't an explanatory ideology in and of itself. Just because you were able to connect two dots, i.e. you realized that something so obviously stupid is stupid, doesn't make you a brainiac, let alone an intellectual. All it means is that you're - maybe - somewhat more insightful than most religious people, more rational; it doesn't mean you've invented the wheel, which is how some pompous atheists behave, especially young people: the moment they join the atheist camp they start behaving as if they'd solved all the riddles of the universe! Youth is hilarious that way.

The reason I'm so cautious about describing atheists as more rational or intelligent than believers is due to what I'd already discussed in my Marxism: Guide for Gullible Westerners post: that the majority of atheists seem to be communists i.e. they'd merely switched religions, deciding to replace the conventional religion they were handed to at birth with a more politically-correct, modern, slightly less metaphysical one: this decision actually makes you worse than the typical Bible fan, because some Bible fans at least recognize and freely admit that they believe in magical worlds, whereas communists never do. (Except for ex-communists, those that came to their senses and landed back on planet Earth.) Commies perceive themselves as rational and scientific, which is ironically the polar opposite of where they stand intellectually. Give a monkey a brain and he'll swear he's the source of all knowledge and righteousness... Atheists are a bit like that monkey who can suddenly think: they immediately convince themselves that they're "the shit".

Atheistic arrogance, self-importance, stupidity, sense of superiority - and delusion - all rolled into one. Hemingway was a Marxist, so thanks, Ernie, for providing me with an ideal example of what I'm talking about. A stereotypical narcissistic virtue-signaling sociopath with no moral compass - BFFs with mass-murdering Fidel Castro - dishing out "wisdom".
Of course, Ernie didn't know that communists are believers too... (Sort of the way lunatics aren't aware of their own insanity.) In these posh left-wing circles fanatical Christian belief is considered idiotic, while fanatical belief in a totally flawed, almost metaphysical, political ideology is considered intellectual and lofty. Hilarious.

The fact that probably 99% of the world's population are either believers, alien worshipers or communists - i.e. religious - is no coincidence. It tells us something crucial about human nature. It tells us that we are genetically programmed to hope, to indulge in waves of unchecked, almost limitless optimism. Hope exists everywhere and in everyone who has despair, and there is plenty of despair all around us.

As long as there is despair there will be hope, and as long as there is hope there will be irrational beliefs. In plentiful supplies.

Hope is the cousin of a coping mechanism that protects us somewhat from the harshness of reality: denial is the one thing literally all humans practice, even I. But as so many useful things, it is a two-edged sword: it allows us to cope better with life, but it also leads us astray (especially the very dumb/naive segments of populations), for example into extremist hence self-destructive ideologies. Commie cretins are convinced that they are "above" the "religious plebs", when in fact the two demographics are in many ways carbon copies of each other, with their shared disease (extreme denial) merely manifesting itself somewhat differently, into different religious beliefs i.e. differing types of delusions.

Nevertheless, the topic I discuss here is not communists and why they are completely retarded. (I'd already done that on numerous occasions.) I am analyzing the relationship, or to be precise the perceived relationship, that believers have with this imaginary, non-existent uber-pope that they are convinced (?) completely dominates their lives - but perhaps even more importantly their afterlives. 

Believers accept the existence of this imaginary friend/boss/overlord/master/adviser/mentor/cosmic-guru, and then some of them create a rather fascinating illusion of actually having a personal relationship with this elusive being. (So shy that it never even bothers to physically show itself to its flock, because it "wants to test their faith" or some such far-fetched, self-serving, completely absurd rationalization.)

By actually creating a personal relationship with a non-entity, these believers essentially become voluntary schizophrenics. It's a conscious decision to accept "a voice", or at least a "vague presence", of an imaginary being. It's a sort of small (or large) step towards madness. That's partly why the most fervent believers are often termed as "religious nuts". Because many of these zealotards are literally nuts, or borderline insane.

Born-again Christians are one such demographic. Jehovah's Witnesses are another. (I'm not sure if most of them "speak to God" but they're definitely nuts enough to do so if they so choose.) Not to mention Islamic suicide-bombers who probably have at least 56 ridiculous if-only-I-could-be-a-fly-on-the-wall type of "conversations with Allah" during the last 48 hours of their pointless, useless, retarded lives...

And let's not omit rabid SJWs. They are the absolute same, probably even worse.

When a child has an imaginary friend, some parents might start worrying about his mental health. But when that same kid grows up to have a "personal relationship with God", no believer questions his sanity. A bit of a double standard there... Why not just assume that the kid's imaginary friend is God? An angel, at least? Does God not like children? Why wouldn't he speak directly to kids as well as adults? Are kids not human? After all, he looks a lot like Santa Claus, at least the Christian one does...

Yes, some hardcore believers actually claim to speak to God, regularly even, daily. He is their imaginary friend. Not through a priest via a typically dull sermon or chant, but directly. A monologue perceived by the believer to be a dialogue: quite a fascinating phenomenon. Self-hypnosis to some extent?

There is no question that only people with a mental dis-balance, or at least a potential for moderate or serious mental illness, can reach that level of self-deception - or drop to it, depending on how you choose to view this.

But regardless of whether a believer falls in the "softcore" or hardcore category, there are things that truly baffle me even more than schizo monologues. For example, all this incessant talk of "love for God".

How can a slave possibly love its master?

Let's get this straight. The believer never picked his master, i.e. God, and his happiness and existence fully depend on this (arrogant) all-powerful being, hence this must be the most clear-cut example of a master-slave relationship of all time.

The being that gives you floods, earthquakes, and/or starvation (and plenty of other nastiness you're all familiar with) is the same being that you are supposed to love: how does that even work? On a masochistic level this would make perfect sense.

"Oh my Lord, you torture me so, as you should, and am I ever glad to have thee piss on me and most of my efforts by giving me pointless obstacles that constantly test me despite my obvious slavish devotion. Oh Lord, thou arst so wonderful in your generous offerings of almost unbridled sadism due to your continual paranoia that I, your meek slave, am not quite as obedient and as full of love toward thee as you wish me to be. You basically don't trust me when I grovel, because clearly you are incapable of reading minds, which means you are not really omnipotent - which in turn means that you will now punish me yet again, this time for insulting thee, my Lord, for daring to question your superpowers. Please make the punishment at least as harsh as the last time. Make every bit of pain and torture count, for I so desire, oh merciful Lord."

This I'd understand, a masochist enjoying this sado-masochistic relationship between God and its faithful amoeba. It may be insane, but at least it's logical.

Yet the majority of people, believers and heathens alike, aren't masochists. So how could you possibly love a being that created such a devious, brutal, degenerate world? How can you even like this creature? How can you even be indifferent to it? It actually makes more sense for the polar opposite: to hate this supreme being, to curse it numerous times for all his random misdeeds.

The world is degenerate, literally; there's no denying that. A world in which survival - by definition - entails trapping, killing and pulverizing other living creatures, even imprisoning and killing members of your own species. Being alive entails physical suffering, deception, paranoia, hatred, confusion, anguish, terror, anxiety, and boredom: hellish rules of existence which only a sadistic monster could set in place.

If we were to connect Hell and Heaven with an imaginary line that represents the whole gamut of levels of quality, our world would be far closer to the Hell end of this happiness/misery spectrum. (Of course, this largely depends on the individual, the species, the era... Not everyone experiences equal amounts of life's innate hellishness. For example, nearly all of our medieval cousins suffered incomparably more than we did or are. They were almost literally all Hell's prisoners.)

So it can't be love. Not to non-masochists anyway. To idiots? Perhaps. Because you'd have to be a complete cretin to genuinely "love" the one who dumped your "soul" (or whatever you wanna call it) into a world as vile as this one - and then proceeded to torture you, to blackmail you into a set of rules that you must obey unless you want even more punishment and suffering. The Bible, the Quran and other similar "mammoth religious manifestos" are nothing but texts that serve as blackmail, a set of rules created to control the flock, to make them behave a certain way.

Lovely, isn't it? The Bible just fills you up with endless love, what with all its threats and coercion.

So if it isn't love, what is it then? What truly defines the god-believer relationship?

It's fear. Pure and simple. Sometimes you pretend to love or like those whom you fear. Nobody sane wants to annoy their jailers, nobody sane wants to needlessly annoy their badly-tempered school teacher who might have the power to fail them. Nobody wants to further aggravate someone who has (total) power of you.

Fear, mixed with a very generous dose of unavoidable sycophancy. Because brown-nosing is a frequent guest in the House of Fear.

Take a person who'd just lost his home in an earthquake:

"Oh Lord, please help us! My house is gone, all my belongings forever pummeled, I am now poor and homeless! We know you are merciful and wise and above all great... Please do something, give us a sign!"

I believe having your house crushed is a clear enough sign, or? As Slayer so blatantly put it, "God hates us all". (A great gimmick to have atheists buy your albums.) If there were a God, he'd certainly have to be a sadistic psychopath who hates us, or who at best is indifferent to our struggles.

This desperate little man is basically begging God. As in almost any master-slave relationship. Begging is a major part of it. A master whips his slave brutally, yet the slave responds with the utmost respect, begging and humouring the master - rather than cursing him viciously as one might logically (?) expect.

(There is little logic in tempting your fate even further by showing disrespect to a sadist so much more powerful than you are, hence the slave's reaction is logical, at least in the pragmatic sense, if not in the idealistic sense. But who has the courage to be idealistic when faced with an all-powerful menace?)

Basically, the man who'd just lost his house is kissing God's ass, pretending he doesn't know who the culprit is, then meekly and without any shame asking for better treatment - from the same divine being who clearly displayed the opposite of love and mercy toward him by crushing his house just hours ago!

Begging for betterment, like a meek, undignified worm. Because that's what slaves do. They have no other choice.

Essentially, that's what the entire God-believer relationship boils down to: ass-kissing. A plankton knows it cannot tame the ocean so it appeals to its mercy. The believer praises the Lord, regardless of whether this meek human just struck a goldmine in Alaska or lost an arm in an accident through no fault of his own. He admits and accepts that God is completely in charge so he'd decided not to anger this deity further by moaning about his master's awful, unfair actions. Essentially, that's all the believer can do.

Unless of course the believer is assuming that all bad things are the devil's work - despite that old contradiction/paradox of the all-knowing, all-powerful God not preventing Satan from having his sadistic fun by simply destroying the Horned One. (I.e. how can God be both good/merciful and all-powerful yet allow for evil not only to exist - but to prevail and dominate? Believers detest this age-old question: it makes them angry like few other logical inquiries.)

I am, of course, talking about this... A staple from the Atheist Bible.

But even believers who pin all the blame squarely on Satan must on some level also be begging obsequiously whenever addressing God meekly. Do you constantly beg someone you love? Do you even really need to beg a person you love? If God loved his slaves then they wouldn't even have the need to beg: God would be nice of his own volition.

So at best the God-believer relationship is based on one-sided love. Is begging really proof of a "loving" relationship? Or is it proof rather that the "slave" i.e. the driven-by-fear believer is merely seeking to appease God with what he considers to be the best way to soften God: ass-kissing?

Seems like it.

Maybe some people reject religion primarily because they are repulsed by having to behave like a meek slave? Maybe they actually want to believe and can believe but can't bring themselves to be put into such a humiliating, subservient position. People with some measure of dignity. Some deists might perhaps fit the bill.

There are certain people willing to believe in a supreme being, but only provided there is no pressure on them to slavishly worship this deity, having to humiliate themselves over and over by begging and cowering. Self-described "spiritual" people, for example, who were/are a fast-growing demographic since the 20th century, reject the classic master-slave relationship of conventional religion for a variety of reasons, one of them being that they reject the notion of a supreme being that tortures/tests humans constantly and/or a rejection that God is even interested in humans, just as they reject the absurd notion that there has to be a middle-man between God and his subjects/creations i.e. the Church.

These "spiritualists", or whatever you want to call them, don't "speak to god"; instead, they blather on about "feeling a divine presence" all around them. (Perhaps they are Star Wars fans.) These are the sort of hippies (for example) who claim that going camping is a "spiritual experience" to them, and that being surrounded by raw nature and beautiful landscapes makes them "feel God".

(Personally, when I find myself in nature, I just enjoy the silence and the animals, and especially the fact that there are very few or no humanoids around. It doesn't make me any more or less heathenish. It doesn't have any bearing on my religious (non-)beliefs. In fact, when outside of civilization I get even more confused, if anything; I don't get any "answers", I just get even more questions. But that's just me...) Spiritualists feel a vague connection to God that doesn't require direct dialogue i.e. a monologue.

What spiritualists seem to ignore though is how utterly different their camping experience would be if they suddenly found themselves in the middle of nowhere, far from civilization, with no food, water, shelter, mobile phone or vehicle. In that scenario I guarantee you that 99% of them would not experience a "blissful closeness with God" but sheer terror, dejection, panic, extreme anxiety and depression. Because that is reality. It's easy to glorify nature from the cozy comfort of having civilization's advanced survival-kit along with you: like a car and a backpack, not to mention a mobile phone for emergencies. It's one thing to have civilization to fall back on should the smallest problem arise, and a completely different matter to go back to how our ancestors lived hundreds and thousands of years ago: (almost) completely self-reliant and often with nobody and nothing to fall back on. Those poor bastards didn't have the benefit of a secured existence to be able to pontificate on the beauty of nature. No emergency helicopters for them. Some of them must have noticed the aesthetic qualities of nature, but I presume they were a tiny minority: the vast majority was too busy surviving on a daily basis to have the time and energy to focus on "higher" issues. When you're starving, and a lot of them were perpetually hungry, the last thing you give a shit about is how cute an animal is or how beautiful the landscape appears... That's why I consider most spiritualists to be Disney-bubble naivelings. These are the types that usually lean to the Left.

Speaking of the spiritualist/church-goer divide, it isn't really so much belief in a mega-creator that is laughable and naive, as it is to actually pick a religion then obey its idiotic laws/rules/theories and their leaders sheepishly. At least spiritualists have the sense to reject organized religion. Why the hell would an all-powerful deity even require an institution to act as "translator"/mediator between himself and his puny creations? There is no logical, theological purpose behind the necessity of organized religion, none whatsoever. There is only the very obvious practical/Machiavellian purpose which I need not elaborate on... a purpose that purely serves the middle-man i.e. the priesthood, not the imaginary God who (allegedly) wants to have a relationship with his puny subjects rather than the self-proclaimed "God's servants" that insist on representing his flock.

But how did humans even get to the crazy idea, in the first place, that an all-powerful being would even want to have direct contact with them? Even if we assume that it's true that God exists, and that he created humans, and that he has some measure of interest in their lives, why would he want to concern himself with each and every one of us?

This (seemingly) illogical compulsion, to believe that God would actually bother with each and every case individually, stems from the very subjective nature of each person's existence. It's "I think therefore I am", not "we think therefore we are": a crucial distinction. Humanity isn't some large collective brain, as in some sci-fi novels, that thinks and acts as one, like a swarm. Each person is their own universe, which is a really important fact to consider in not just this, but many other topics. Being this way, each of us alone basically in their own separate worlds, it is completely natural that each of us experiences the world as centering around each of us, individually, rather than feeling that our existence is insignificant, that we are just one unit in an ocean of humans and other creatures. I speak about this also in my Infinity Misconception post, where this idea is crucial to that topic...

As a result of each human life going through an entirely subjective experience, people are far more easily lead to the notion that they are relevant enough that God would actually spend his time talking to them and worrying about their puny little problems and hopes. There is a metal album called Give a Monkey A Brain and He Will Think He Is the Center of the Universe. That pretty much sums it up.

Sure, we can choose to laugh at the monkey (i.e. ourselves, or at least certain believers) for being so naive, but we can hardly blame any individual for placing greater value on themselves than is even remotely realistic.

Besides, who knows? Maybe the fact that I live in my own universe means that my universe is the only true universe? But that's too philosophical a question, and it isn't directly related to this subject, so I won't go into that... It's a fairly paranoid concept but not one that one can ever shake off with total success - if we even want to shake it off.

Generally speaking, not many humans are particularly proud, or especially dignified. Hence why a master-slave relationship with a deity or even a dictator doesn't seem to bother many humans.

For example, I had always considered it beneath me to worship a politician, a leader. I can respect a leader, and can agree with him on most issues, but idolatry just isn't in my nature. It's not that I am anti-authority, i.e. some kind of a narcissistic quasi-rebel; it's more of a pride thing, plus the fact that I am grounded enough in reality to recognize that those bastards are just puny little humans who got very lucky. (If reigning an entire country can even be considered luck: to me personally it isn't. My only power fantasy is to rule the entire world as a supreme all-powerful indestructible being, i.e. I am far more megalomaniacal than "just" needing to rule one country as a mere human, be it even a superpower, but devoid of the essential "magical" tools necessary to completely rule.)

However, most people are like not this. Most people even cope reasonably well with having their boss at work order them around like a semi-slave, treating them less than properly, so why would such a meek, cowardly, undignified person struggle with obeying an infinitely more powerful being than their boss at the office?

One gender stands out in this though...

Statistics/studies show that women - the more "submissive sex" - go to church (far) more often, become religious zealots more often, and are more likely to "talk to God" than men. Women, being less confident hence less proud than men (mostly a result of lower testosterone levels), are more likely to enter willingly and even happily into this sado-masochistic master-slave relationship with their imaginary friend/creator. Women are also generally more prone to mental illness, as studies show, hence more likely to go schizo with this. I discuss some of this in more detail in my Female Masochism post...

For some stupid reason, and quite ironically, believers created God in their own image, not the other way round. How else do we explain God's constant need of being flattered? Hence why people flatter this imaginary friend/master whenever they beg him for something. Flattery, and especially receptiveness to it, is a very human trait; I can't imagine that an immortal all-powerful creator of an entire universe would give three shits about such trifles. Such a being would have to be way too intellectually superior to allow itself to fall into this cheesy trap. As if a deity would have an ego so frail that it could be so easily manipulated by a puny little human and his barrage of useless compliments!

People naively project their own motives and logic on God by imagining that God would create humans in his own image - just because we humans are likely to create creatures in our own image. (For example human-like androids.) But where is it written that a supreme being would create something even remotely similar to itself? Hence why God is portrayed as Santa Claus, in Christianity. Believers need to give their gods a little more credit than that...

Just as God would (most probably) have zero interest in flattery, this supreme being also wouldn't be very interested in listening to the separate voices of millions of Toms, Dicks and Harrys as they incessantly harass him with their constant need for attention, asking for mercy and help. Begging for them.

The nerve believers have to actually address god directly, expecting this grandiose cosmos-ruling thing to find time for them and their comparatively insignificant problems. Humans project a lot, because most of them are too dumb or primitive to realize that not every sentient being is going to behave or reason like a human, hence why they'd invented a supreme being that's so naive that it actually falls prey to cheap-skate tactics such as flattery, which is often just a cheap-ass attempt at manipulation. A god that falls for flattery - and even rewards it - would be a rather laughable supreme being hence wouldn't actually be particularly supreme to begin with. It would be supreme in its powers to physically mold the universe as it wishes, but in terms of personality and self-awareness wouldn't such a needy, flattery-dependent being be rather pathetic and underdeveloped? Kind of like an overgrown teenager bigger and more powerful than all his peers yet mentally just another dumb adolescent.

Going back to love, a person can love a partner or can like a friend, because those types of relationships are equal, or more-or-less equal, whereas a master-slave relationship between the sycophantic believer and his imaginary deity is completely lopsided, absurdly so.

Besides, loving something or someone you'd never even met before? We only have that as of recently, on Facebook and various dating sites, but at least the Facebook "believer" has photos of his femme fatale to latch on to - i.e. something tangible, hence his optimism is much more justified.

One can use love to manipulate a man, or a woman; within a real relationship, between two people. But in order to manipulate the masses, a tyrant (who is like a cheap imitation of a deity) always uses fear instead. If a population is particularly dumb, they can be brainwashed into actually loving the leader (or thereabouts), at least a part of the ultra-daft populace can. But even a powerful, charismatic tyrant is just a human hence relatable to his slavish subjects as a person made of flesh who pisses and shits like everyone else. (Except Gretchen Mol; I am convinced she never does these filthy things.) God, if he existed, would be a million rungs above a human tyrant though - and would not even be human. No puny little human can emotionally relate to an invisible non-human non-entity though. If the quality of your entire afterlife existence depends on the whims and rules of a vague divine presence, then the immediate reactions are likely to be awe, fear and respect, certainly not love.

What about animals?

Organized religion is so narrow-minded in its "human-centric" approach that it never seriously occurred to any of these pompous priests and their self-centered flock that animals might too deserve to speak to God directly. Nevermind the fact that nearly all religions don't even acknowledge the possibility that critters may have souls. Since the three major monotheistic religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) completely ignore the "spiritual needs" of animals (don't laugh), then the implications are crystal clear: God is an elitist snob who places "reason" and intelligence above all other considerations. Animals must by definition be considered "too stupid" by God to deserve the special attention reserved for the bipedal morons.

Humans get preferential treatment just because they can talk and think? Several problems with this:

1. Using this logic, dead infants don't have access to the afterlife because they're just as mindless as animals, in fact even more so, considering that chimps and dolphins, for example, are on the level of a 5 year-old human.

 

2. Many animal species do use language, and some are intelligent enough to display limited reasoning skills.

3. Do very mentally-challenged people not get God's attention? They don't get the after-life? Which begs a further question: since they are of extremely low intelligence are they at an advantage vis-a-vis their chances of reaching Heaven rather than Hell? After all, the complete lack of Free Will eliminates any guilt. Of course, we could say the same of animals.

4. The implication is that the more intelligent a human, the more God likes him. Which would beg the question: how is it the dumb person's fault that he/she was born stupid? And if that stupidity leads a person do wicked/immoral things, then it's really God's fault. Of course, this opens a whole other can of worms: Free Will i.e. accountability, which I won't go into.

5. Animals were created for the sole purpose of being butchered by humans and for their amusement i.e. as pets or to be sport-hunted. Only an extremely psychopathic supreme being would create trillions upon trillions of critters who experience pain and suffering - just in order to serve as mere toys to be used by human as they please. Even Nazi Germany had more compassion...

Certainly there is no other reason, aside from intelligence, for God to deny ants and otters access to Heaven, while focusing only on humans.

Of course, animals don't ask to speak to God. They are innocent "robots" going about their business, completely subject to their God-given instincts, 100% slaves to what they were assigned, to what they are. If anything, animals not having any needs to fill a "spiritual void" in a sense makes them superior to humans. Just one of numerous ironies. Animals never experience anxiety, fear of the future, experience boredom only if locked up, and don't have the capacity for self-pity. Just some of the big advantages they have over humans.

Maybe that's where the explanation lies though: God considers humans inferior to animals hence why they are his favourites?

What about Islamic worship?

If anything, it drives my point home even more. Falling on your knees five times a day - while muezzins holler repetitive ass-kissing slogans over loud-speakers - elicits many reactions and opinions from the objective observer (none of them positive), but the most striking thing here is the utter, unabashed slavishness and devotion of the believer. Kneeling in front of your imaginary deity is tantamount to suicidal devotion i.e...

"I shall kill for you - and have myself killed if need be for your love, Allah".

Love? Not really. The Moslem and his deity have an even more clearly defined relationship than the Christian one. Theirs is even more master-slave and even more openly based on barter:

"I kneel like a subservient, meek sheep to you, my Master, and I do everything else you order me to do, and in return you shall give me 777 virgins when I enter your holy Kingdom, which - from what you claim - seems to be practically a buffet of willing whores".

Despite all this empty talk of love, what Allah and his meek slave really have is an agreement, a contract. A kind of pact. A deal. Their relationship isn't based on love by any means, not even remotely, because Islamic laws and rules are so stringent. (Love cannot flourish within an Orwellian system.) You can't possibly love a being that essentially ties your hands behind your back, handing you a lengthy list of things you cannot do (most of which you'd love to do). It's not in human nature to return such military stringency with love and affection. It's neither logical nor natural.

The believer is the customer, the imaginary being is the merchant. The believer is coerced into buying the product - eternal bliss - because the deity has a monopoly on the afterlife. So the luckless customer spends his entire life begging i.e. making sure he remains obsequious enough to keep his end of the bargain. Fear of eternal Hell/punishment - effectively blackmail - keeps the believer subdued and pathetic, undignified, obedient. It's as simple as that. Allah literally refers to his followers as "righteous slaves" in the Quran!

This submission to the Church hence to its imams/cardinals/bishops/god's-generals is precisely why religion has been the "reigning style of choice" for hundreds of tyrants, throughout thousands of years. Organized religion: an efficient means of controlling a dumb, primitive population - and keeping them dumb and primitive through extreme brainwashing which involves numerous rules of what not to do, because by forbidding so many enticing activities you are automatically instilling fear into your meek subjects, putting them on the defensive, making them fear you. Fear brings with it respect rather than plans of rebellion, at least when it comes to an invincible potential enemy.

But this stuff is nothing new, hence not what I want to discuss here...

Except to mention briefly how cultural Marxism is used these days instead of religion to achieve the same goal: subservience to tyrannical authority. There is no deity involved in political correctness, but the underlining principles are identical: fear and unquestioning submission. There is a tangible fear among masses of successfully brainwashed westerners to openly/publicly voice their true opinions, their opposition to: unchecked Third World immigration, to generous welfare spending for these illegal immigrants, to degenerate/manipulative/dishonest organizations such as LGBTQP and Antifa, to blatantly aggressive/racist anti-white attitudes in popular culture, and to many other key issues - as opposed to merely sneakily speaking out against PC-ness behind the "safety" of their computers. We speak out on the internet because we feel much more protected there, precisely because we are put on the defensive by the maniacal, zealous, Fascist-like Antifa/SJW/Anti-Racism sociopath crusaders. This is why the internet's status as a the last bastion of freedom of speech is being undermined, why internet freedoms are under such relentless attack from freedom-hating uni-opinion/unigender leftists.

The Islamic God-believer relationship is based on pure fear, the sheer terror of not getting those 777 (blonde) virgins i.e. to miss out on an eternity of f**king whores - and ending up being tortured for an eternity instead. An "all or nothing" kind of choice. A choice between pure bliss and pure horror. Guess which option the fearful herd will rush towards...

These virgins have to be whores, by definition, since their duty is only to please horny Arabs. Heaven as one large, eternal bordello? Well, I've heard of dumber things... almost. I have no clue though which specific rewards female believers are promised, since Islam almost solely focuses on rewards for the men... (Unsurprisingly, since horny, hypocritical men wrote the Quran.) Perhaps all women go to Gehenna? Who knows. I've never read the Quran, but I do know it hates women.

All joking aside, Islamic women are promised heavenly rewards too. However, they don't get 777 male studs/stallions (which would be only fair). Why not though? Presumably because Islam assumes that women hate sex or are indifferent to it? If so, then those 777 virgins must be getting tortured (or at least very bored) by the horny men constantly ravaging them. Women who enter Islamic Heaven have to remain loyal to their husbands/mates - while tolerating/allowing their former/current partners to f**k all those 777 virginal whores! (I know: virginal whore sounds like an oxymoron. More on that later...)

A win-win situation for the men, a miserable situation for the women. Or does the notion of 777 studs lined up to shtoop just one woman conjure too much similarity to a common gang-bang?

Besides, work out the math: if each man gets 777 virgins (or 72... same thing) then this begs the question: where do all these virgins come from? Either the same virgins have to please millions of horny dead Arab men, or different sets of 777 virgins are assigned to each horny dead Arab. Crazy!

If it's the former, then these must be the most hard-working prostitutes in the entire multiverse! They must have vaginas made out of stainless elastic plastic.

If it's the latter, then that begs another question: how come there are a lot more women in Heaven than men? If each man gets so many virgins all just for himself, then men make up a tiny portion of Heaven's entire population! This numerical female supremacy in Heaven, in turn, implies that women are the better Moslems than men! Pretty weird and ironic for a religion that is so openly hostile toward women.

Or are we to believe that Allah manufactures all these virgins especially for the purpose of pleasing men in Heaven? If so, can they truly be considered human?

In fact, (some?) imams claim that Heaven's virgins are not of Earth i.e. they are literally created by Allah for the sole purpose of being sexual objects for Moslem men! This in turn means that Allah must consider his flock to be cold-hearted sex-starved maniacs.

What a glorious belief system! So idealistic, humane, and profoundly spiritual...

"This religion seems to be all about the old in-out! I like it!"

Millions of virgins being mass-produced by Allah brings with it other uneasy issues. If they are "not of Earth" then they were never born hence cannot be human by definition. So are dead Moslem men screwing androids in Heaven? If these heavenly virginal sex-workers are neither human nor android then what the hell (or heaven) are they?! I want some answers!

There's more (weird stuff) I need to address...

If each man is promised 777 virgins, then surely they cease being virgins as soon as he deflowers them... So does he keep having sex with them even after they're no longer virgins, or does Allah provide fresh new supplies of proper virgins as soon as the man is done deflowering the previous batch? If so, what does Allah do with the ex-virgins? Does he throw them on a distant "virgin pile" - or does he miraculously reset their vaginas to be "pure" again? If so, would that mean that Allah is cheating by using his magic? Do the dead male believers not mind deflowering the same virgins/ex-virgins over and over? Don't they feel cheated? Don't they get a little bored? Eternity is a long time...

"Hey, Allah, my homey... I know you gave me 777 of these sexy blood-letting sluts, and I am thankful for them, really I am, but I distinctly recall already having had broken this one's hymen. I recognize her. Am I crazy or do you keep sending me the same virgins over and over?"

Yes... "my homey". I wrote that intentionally. Because where is it written that the believer has to maintain his slavish obsequiousness to Allah (or the Christian God) in Heaven? We don't really have much info from scriptures about how/if the God-believer relationship changes after the believer's demise and ensuing resurrection. Dead humans resurrecting then suddenly becoming immortal surely must change their status, at least somewhat? They are no longer puny little suffering mortals. They are now equal to God/Allah, at least in terms of mortality hence infinity.

But back to the android virgins...

If the horny male complains to Allah that he is tired of deflowering the same virgins/ex-virgins over and over, does Allah merely brush off the complaint saying he's "got better things to do than worry about your virgins", or does he prevent this issue from even arising by getting these virgins plastic surgery (or completely new faces) in order to deceive the believer?

To deceive them for their own good, of course... Far be it for me to imply that Allah is a deceiver, cheater and a liar.

Or does Allah/God kill or at least punish severely any impudent human? In other words, are believers safe from suffering and punishment in Heaven or can they actually suffer the consequences of - for example - arrogance, greed or whatever other vice is punishable in Heaven?

Or are we to believe that sin is impossible in Heaven? This would imply that dead people change as soon as they enter Heaven: they become more chaste, perhaps even perfect. How do they become perfect? Does this involve a lobotomy, or just a threatening welcome-to-Heaven speech from Allah? In that case no punishment is either needed nor possible.

Yet what if there was punishment in Heaven? After all, didn't Lucifer and a few other angel rebels get banished from Christian Heaven? Sure, they were never human to begin with, but still...

Back to the android virgins, once again...

Does Allah reset their vaginas in a special heavenly clinic? This clinic would have to be enormous; I picture thousands and thousands of rows of ex-virgins, like on an enormous conveyor-belt, with their legs spread apart, having special angels reactivate their virginity through some magic trick. They then get sent back to their "jailers"... I mean the "righteous" horny men who can't get enough of bloodied vaginas - because having sex with a virgin is clearly the height of manhood. Or does Allah at least have the decency to send these long-suffering sex-slaves to a spa beforehand, to let them recoup a bit before being sent back to their sexual master and rapist? Either these tireless "rewind-vagina" prostitutes are ultra-nymphomaniacs, in which case they too experience pure bliss, or they suffer the suffering of the damned - in Heaven! That would be so ironic, not to mention unfair...

In fact, Islamic scholars claim that unmarried Islamic women are promised to have their pick of husband in Heaven. But even this presents logic problems: what if her chosen man doesn't want her? I mean, why should he? He's got 777 virgins! And even if he does accept her, where's the guarantee he will ever sexually engage with her - considering how busy he must be shtooping 777 virgins. So this poor woman, who never married hence might be a virgin herself, might wait an eternity to finally get laid.

I kid you not, but the only concrete "reward" that Islam promises women is that they are guaranteed "great beauty", meaning that Islam considers women a bunch of zombies only concerned with their appearance - just as it seems to consider men to be ever-horny sex-maniacs fixated primarily on screwing (young) virgins... 

Speaking of which, I have to assume that these 777 virgins aren't 85 year-old women... In fact, considering the very "liberal" intercourse laws that reign in Islamic countries, many (or maybe even most) women lose their virginity very early, as early as 11 or 12. So are we to understand that Islamic Heaven is full of grown-ass men (who died in their 60s and 70s) molesting 12 year-old girls??? This is more akin to President Biden going for a visit to Epstein's pedo-island than it is some heavenly, righteous place of goodness and high morals... 

Nor do I even understand how come so many young girls end up in Heaven... Do Arab countries have such exorbitant death-rates among adolescents? Unless of course, as I mentioned, all these (very young) virgins are created by Allah for the sole purpose of serving as sex-slaves to the "righteous slaves". Which imams claim they are. But then again, what the hell do imams know...

Either way, what a "Heaven", huh...?

A gift from Pinhead?

This brings me to another (very) troubling question. If some Moslem cultures allow for very early sex (and marriage) with women (i.e. girls), then the typical Moslem man does not necessarily picture an 18 year-old woman as a typical ideal virgin but a 12 year-old girl. If so, does this mean that Allah's sex-androids are all created in the image of little girls? Again, Epstein's secret perverted island seems to be closer to Islamic Heaven than anyone could have possibly ever guessed!

And anyway, just to side-track briefly, if afterlife is so similar to earthly existence (sex, marriage, lust...) then why do we even have the earthly-existence stage in the first place?! Why not just skip it?

This is the biggest question religions have failed to answer: why even have the brief earthly life stage when you can send all souls straight to Heaven (and/or Hell)? Why put everyone through all that misery? To test them? Test them for what? And why? Why not just give them a written test, like a school exam, instead? So much quicker and less torturous...

In fact, hardly anyone - if anyone at all - had ever posed these crucial questions. If Heaven and Hell are eternal then this brief thing we call "life" is entirely meaningless hence easily skippable. And if Heaven and Hell are types of existence too, then they can be considered as life as well, hence life can't be limited to just the Earthly segment. Hence what's so damn special about life on Earth!

The Quran is basically a big fat male fantasy. It is as chauvinist as chauvinism can possibly get. (And yet, western feminists rarely get offended by it... but that's a whole other story... This is discussed elsewhere on the blog.)

What all this boils down to is that Islamic women get a far rougher deal than their male counterparts. Islamic women should form their own "heavenly union", placing pressure on Allah to give them better conditions i.e. more glorious rewards in the afterlife. Islamic women are expected to be even more obsequious to Allah by having far less freedom than men - and yet they receive less rewards than the men. This is extremely absurd and unfair. In fact, this only stops a little short of openly declaring women to be far inferior to men. And not just inferior, but far less important.

So much for Allah loving all his "righteous slaves" equally...

But I discuss (the follies of) equality elsewhere.

 

The hell paradox: 

https://morepoliticalrants.blogspot.com/2020/10/the-hell-paradox.html

About moderation: 

https://morepoliticalrants.blogspot.com/2021/03/moderation-lost-art.html

About infinity: 

https://morepoliticalrants.blogspot.com/2020/11/a-crucial-misconception-about-infinity_30.html

Equality & Racism:

https://morepoliticalrants.blogspot.com/2020/09/equality-racism-honest-analysis.html

Female masochism: 

https://morepoliticalrants.blogspot.com/2021/01/female-masochism.html

Reincarnation: 

https://morepoliticalrants.blogspot.com/2020/11/why-reincarnation-makes-zero-sense.html

Female Masochism

Updated: 15.1.23.

This text will be viewed by many left-wingers as "chauvinist". Not because it's chauvinist (it isn't), but because leftists are so brainwashed: after decades of being served an idealized image of women in the media and in popular culture - the romanticized image of a self-sacrificing, loving being that is usually the victim of a selfish male brute - the typical leftist considers even the slightest honest analysis of women to be an expression of pathological hatred, political extremism or however else they choose to falsely define it. They are so used to putting women on a pedestal (while using (white) men as scapegoats for pretty much everything), that any kind of "criticism" (i.e. objective appraisal of the "victimized sex") strikes them as blasphemy, heresy, as misogynistic or whatever.

What you'll read here, however, isn't criticism but merely an analysis of a rarely-discussed topic, hopefully in an objective way. I am neither for nor against women, just as I'm neither for nor against men. It's childish to "take sides" in these heated "gender wars". Besides, the genders were never created with the purpose of fighting each other but to compliment each other while working toward a common goal (which is survival): a crucial principle which leftists are completely oblivious to. Marxists want a struggle, a war, in everything: be it class, race or gender. They seek to cause division, intolerance and hatred (how ironic) in every segment of society, always seeking for an angle that they can exploit to turn one "side" against the other. The reason, obviously, for this sociopathic approach is the destabilization of society, which is sought in order to weaken it enough for eventual takeover - or, if they already are in charge, in order to use the always reliable "divide and conquer" strategy. Deflect from the true problems by creating fake ones. To better rule the population. Make them hate each other...

We've been bombarded for decades with the false image of the woman as an innocent, selfless, gullible, perpetual victim of the conniving, deceptive, animal-driven man: a typical fabrication of the "elites" who promote Political Correctness. If you have fallen for this fallacy then certainly you will barely understand any of what I have to say, because your built-in "hate mechanisms" will be instantly triggered, preventing you from allowing new information in. Different information i.e. an opposing view. Left-wingers essentially are less adept at processing new/opposing information than non-leftists. One of the cleverest and most dangerous aspects of cultural Marxism is for its victims to become immune to all views that go against left-wing indoctrination. "Whoever disagrees with us is our instant enemy." Commies are really no better than 15th-century clergy.

It's not the women that are the victims, it's all of us: victims of left-wing extremism. The sooner dumbed-down, downward-spiraling western civilization realizes this, the sooner it has a chance to perhaps recover, reverse (some of) the damage, hence maybe not go down the way of Ancient Rome or pre-Christian Pedophile Greece.

I tried (not very successfully) to avoid straying too much from the topic, i.e. delving into the vast array of differences between men and women. This post has the potential to be endless. It still ended up lengthy, because the fact is that every sub-topic leads like a spider-web into several others - which I can't resist not touching upon - so it's very difficult to talk about any narrowly defined aspect of the genders, staying focused on it with the necessary writing discipline.

I'd decided not to do any research whatsoever on this subject (which I anyway do very little of), but to make conclusions (or at least theories) based purely on personal observations and what I already know as fact. This would have been a real obstacle if I were only 18, when I knew pretty much zero about female mentality let alone the existence of masochistic women. But since I'm a lot older than that, I believe I've accumulated enough info over the decades to be arrogant enough to post something like this.

How can I be so confident though?

Some gender questions may be complex but they're hardly rocket science: if you have common sense (a rare commodity in this century) and you're not zombified by current political/social fads then you're bound to reach some decent, accurate conclusions which some "experts" may have already reached before... or not. Because men and women are all around us; rockets aren't. And because all of us are either one or the other (except hipsters, they're unigender wussies), whereas none of us are rockets.

I hope this amazing analogy between genders and rocket engineering gets you excited for what you are about to read.

Get ready for a rather messy text though. I stray from the topic frequently then jump back, or skip to the next idea. It's a bit chaotic, but I am not seeking out a prize for "best-written essay". Thank God, I am not in school anymore...

Speaking of schools... I'd never taken piano lessons. Not from this woman anyway. (A scene from "Piano Teacher".)

I've noticed many years ago that women are far more likely to be masochistic than men. Why is this?

Women & Masochism

First the basics.

The sexual act is between a pitcher and a catcher. Who is the active one in this? The man. He is the doer. The woman is the receiver i.e. the passive non-doer. (Or not-much-doer.) Certainly the intercourse itself takes place between an active organ and a passive one, between an organ that balloons up like a puffer fish and a lazy cave-like organ that just sits there, preferably a little more moist than usual. Even the act of flirtation is traditionally a male domain, whereby a man approaches a female and then aggressively pursues his goal of "getting it in", while trying to convince the female that he has "nobler goals" than just sexual gratification: again, it's the man who is active, or more active. (Young millennial skanks may have changed this somewhat, but among animals the male is the pursuer in 99.9% of all species.) By their very nature sadists are active, masochists are passive. So are men and women a ying-yangy sado-masochistic match made in Heaven? Hell?

To some extent, perhaps. An over-simplification maybe, but there is truth to this. I mean, there is truth to the fact that they may be good as a sado-masochistic combo. Generally speaking though, men and women are a relatively poor match, certainly personality-wise, due to the variety of differences in mentality, some of which I'll touch on.

But there's hormones and other bio-chemistry going on too, not just the different twixt-the-legs tools. Men's higher levels of testosterone make them more physically aggressive than women, or certainly potentially more dangerous once violence is initiated. Aggression is (in)directly related to sadism; it is as if sadism is a pathological by-product of the "wrong" kind of influence of testosterone or excessive testosterone. Or perhaps sadism is a very natural side-effect of it. (After all, even psychopathy has to be considered natural since it exists and it's been proven to be purely genetic. It may not be an aberration, but it's natural. It wasn't created in a lab by Nazis or Commies.) Physical aggression, I mean. Certainly there can be no sadism without an excess of aggression - some sort of extra-aggressive inclinations.

Additionally, testosterone makes men more confident, which is why they are generally much less indecisive, hence much more suitable to be leaders and politicians, bosses. An alpha male is far more efficient in leading a society, or a clan, than an alpha female. Decisiveness and confidence are traits more commonly found in sadists than masochists, so there is a certain correlation there too perhaps: not necessarily a very strong connection, but reliable enough to serve as a hint, if nothing. Which is perhaps why women are logically/naturally drawn toward sadistic men - just as they are attracted to confident, brash men. The so-called "bad boys". (The fact that very few women admit to preferring violent assholes to meek, sensitive nerds is an entirely different matter though...)

Is this how a humanist, a do-gooder celebrates a (dumb) award?
Nah. This is the celebration of a narcissist egomaniac. I.e. a typical left-winger. So in love with himself, yet so keen to convince the world that his love is reserved primarily for humanity. Or in this case, only for femaleinity.

James Cameron, billionaire "Marxist" and director of garbage such as "Titanic" and the two retarded "Avatard" movies, is on record for claiming that, and I'm paraphrasing, "testosterone is a toxin and needs to be eradicated from men".

Hollywood is well-known for being a viper den of deviant neo-Marxists, but even by Hollywood's far-Left standards Cameron is one of the biggest extremists in that deranged world.

The great irony in this is that Cameron's best friends - man-hating feminists - are on average more inundated with testosterone than average women! Feminist aggression and anger are often a result of excessive testosterone, i.e. the very things they are fighting against - men and testosterone - are the things that bring them much further away from other women! Hilarious stuff.

The stupidity of Hollywood's degenerate "elites" has always been nothing short of legendary, but it's a special kind of stupidity that is additionally toxic because it entails so much arrogance as well.

Toxic Cameron? Yet more irony...

Programmed to Desire Bad-Boys

The likelihood of a "bad boy" being sadistic is far higher than a meek nerd enjoying dishing out punishment. Sure, there's that phenomenon too - meek sadistic nerds - but most likely sadism is more prevalent among "tougher" males. I am not aware of any studies that prove this (which doesn't mean they don't exist), but it makes sense, because a meek male has less testosterone hence is less violent and confident hence is less likely to develop sadistic tendencies - or at least less likely to put them into practice.

Besides, this isn't particularly relevant, whether alphas or nerds are more sadistic. Perhaps some alphas turn to sadism simply because they can, to exercise more blatantly the power they possess (or believe they possess), while some nerds may turn to sadism as an expression of sexual frustration stemming from their biological and/or social inferiority.

(A very politically-incorrect theory exists that incompetent/nerdy males and ugly women - i.e. "low-quality" men and women - are more likely to exhibit anti-social behaviour. In fact, I may have just invented this theory, I don't know. I certainly believe that "low" males/females are more likely to have nasty/nastier personality traits than the "high" males/females. This goes counter to popular belief, i.e. we have been brainwashed through virtue-signaling popular left-wing culture to accept the absurd, idealistic myth that ugly people are victims, are kind, and should be pitied. Even a dumb, irrelevant movie such as "Revenge of the Nerds" can be offered as very obvious evidence of this cultural romantization of the physically weak males, just as there is plenty of similar evidence of the idealization of the allegedly "kind nature" of homely (and fat) women. Another example is the completely false myth that obese people are "jolly". They most certainly aren't; some of them may laugh more, but they do this in order to hide their frustrations, hence outward behaviour such as laughter is not a sure-fire method of ruling out nastiness and/or depression and/or frustration.

It is completely natural for people whose appearance is "below par" (which leads often to a lower social status hence much less or zero mating opportunities with desired "high" males/females) to be jealous and resentful of "higher-quality" humans - which in turn leads to anti-social behaviour or at least negative attitudes and personality traits. Negativity leads to corruption of the character, that much should be obvious.

Again, all of this is very un-PC because in left-wing ideology anyone who is considered to be struggling, has less, or is at the bottom of the social chain is automatically branded as a "better person", or a vastly underestimated, undiscovered gem.

Idiotic stereotypes surround us, and left-wing Disney-bubble morons are more susceptible to them, to these cheesy traps.

Of course, this is all just generally speaking i.e. there are plenty of evil beautiful women and abhorrent alpha males on one hand and decent "low-quality" humans on the other. I am referring to averages.

Bad-boy alphas (or alpha wannabes) being more likely to be sadistic is just a very general rule; as we know, there is that somewhat true cliche of the powerful CEO who goes to a dominatrix once a week to have his ass spanked while crawling on all fours. I am not saying this is the rule, that a lot of them behave this way, but this does exist i.e. high-tier individuals whose entire lives revolve around power yet who secretly live out fantasies in which they are submissive. (Nevertheless, this is a cliche perpetuated and exaggerated by popular culture.)

So yeah, human psychology can be rather complex. Which is why I am not assigning neat, exact boxes for all men and all women, but am generalizing.

Yes: generalizing. That thing politically-correct morons consider a vice. Because they don't understand what the word entails. (But I discussed this already in my racism & equality post.)

Female Sadism

 Physical aggression is one thing though, very much a male domain. Mental aggression i.e. psychological sadism, however, is the expert field of women. They engage in sometimes elaborate shenanigans, when they target a competing female or a man who left them or who they feel wronged them in some ways.

Women are more vengeful than men. Vengeance is generally speaking irrational (it's debatable to what extent) and by definition has no practical purpose (except to please the hurt ego - which shrinks might argue is a valid motive), which is why the less rational gender engages in it more. Vengeance however entails risks with it, risks of retribution and legal repercussions (for more extreme forms of vengeance), which is why women go into revenge mode a lot less than they otherwise would. Sure, men too would take up revenge more if there were no repercussions, but then men are far bigger risk-takers (as a result of testosterone hence confidence) so fear of consequences is less of a deterrence for men than the more fearful, more cautious female sex.

Vengeance is the primary way in which women expose their sadistic side. After all, I never said women can't be sadists... They very well can. It's just that their sadism is far more likely to be displayed through nagging, nasty gossip, lies, conspiracy and slander.

Women are the less rational gender. (Averages. I am not lumping everyone into one category.) This should be fairly obvious to anyone whose three brain-cells aren't polluted by political correctness. They are less logical, less adept at mathematics, less capable of solving abstract puzzles, less able to properly analyze the big picture, much more susceptible to becoming religious fanatics, much more likely to believe in the horoscope, less adept at playing chess. This is to some extent a result of their more developed emotionalism which in turn is a result of their different hormonal picture.

That this a highly un-PC stance doesn't interest me in the slightest. I am here to discuss facts, not (left-wing) fiction. I can just as easily make "'sweeping negative statements" about men, which I might do in some other post.

Who is more likely to experience pain during sex? The woman; for example, if she's a virgin, or if she has a small vagina, or the man has a large penis (not to mention the entanglement of a large penis and a small vagina), or simply because the vadge is so anatomically complex that a large number of complications/annoyances could occur, making sex unpleasant or boring for women rather than fun.

From all this we start to understand why women may be programmed to seek out pain, or at least to accept it as a given. Any guy experiencing pain or discomfort during sex would most likely stop having it until he fixes the problem, or waits for it to go away. In the case of women, not only are they more likely to tolerate pain, but they may actually unconsciously seek it. The thrill of a large penis pounding away at them: a cliche? Not really. Certainly many women have expressed their preference for large penises. I can't imagine that pain has absolutely nothing to do with this choice. Sure it does.

Rape Fantasies

A barely known fact is that a significant number of women have rape fantasies. There is a feeling of shame connected to sexual fantasies - let alone ones as "perverted" as this one - hence generally only shrinks are acquainted with this bizarre phenomenon. This doesn't necessarily mean that every one of these women would want to be raped in real life; far from it, but this is a very telling bit of information which only supports the masochistic theory. The vast majority of women, whether they admit it or not, i.e. whether they are even aware of it or not, like being overpowered by a man, being under his control during sex, being submissive: all of this has clear and undeniable masochistic undercurrents.

The rape fantasy also tells us just how detached from reality women can get: most of them are quite unaware of just what a violent, ugly act it must be, and this naivety allows them to actually take that leap into such a strange fantasy, in which they idealize/romanticize the act of rape itself, picturing it in a way that is most likely quite unrealistic (and probably not nearly as violent as the real deal). It depends on the woman though; some women perhaps have very brutal rape fantasies, some may prefer rape lite. For more details, talk to your local psychiatrist.

Love and Truth

Love.

What is love really - to a woman?

No, don't ask women that! They are notoriously unreliable and self-contradictory. (Both sexes use denial plentifully, but women excel at this.) They tend to lie to themselves first, hence to others as well.

Having less confidence and being more indecisive means being more susceptible to the Establishment's politically-correct brainwashing than men, and this in turn results in women being less able or less willing to reach realistic conclusions about themselves and their environment - which is nowadays nearly always the result of left-wing indoctrination.

Translation: because women are more obedient toward authority they prefer to go with the flow rather than against the grain, and even this is a vast understatement; very few women stray from this kind of behaviour. A woman from Nazi Germany was highly likely to become a Nazi and to wholeheartedly support this psycho ideology, more so than a German man. This same woman, transported to the present, for example if she's a wealthy or middle-class resident of 21st-century New York, is very likely to be a liberal, to sing praises about racial and class equality. Yes, women are ideological pushovers. Their beliefs can be molded with much more ease than men's.

Nearly all female pop stars of this era are involved in one way or another with what they proudly refer to as "activism". Not any type of activism mind you, nothing that could be described as very useful or genuinely beneficial to society or the environment. They are only interested in movements and topics that are currently fashionable and pro-Establishment. In other words, LGBT , "feminism" and "climate change", for example. None of these sexually overactive couch-casting pinheads are interested in workers' rights in India, or in saving the rhino, or fighting for stricter prison sentences for pedophiles, or anything like that. (A lot of their friends are pedos, so why would they want to get on their bad side...) They only pick "causes" that can endear them even more to the Establishment and to all their airhead brainwashed fans.

It is a cynical PR decision based usually on profit - but also on obsequiousness toward authority (as long as that authority isn't Republican or Tory). Besides, it is fashionable in and of itself to have a cause to virtue-signal about on social media. Pop stars, especially women, never tire of it. Anyway, all it takes is a minute to post a politically-correct statement shorter than 140 characters... Even a chimp can do it. And you get 100s or 1000s of likes, the left-wing Establishment media loves you for it, AND your ego bloats even more. A win-win-win situation for these floozies.

Pick a random million-selling pop starlet, go to their Wikipedia page, and chances are very high you will find "political activist" or "social activist" (which is the same shit really) among the tags. Most of them are tagged "feminists" or refer to themselves that way, regardless of their pet cause. This is doubly hilarious because most of these self-appointed "feminists" sold their bodies to men to forge careers, and rely solely on men to write/produce/perform their music, they rely mostly on male managers, and are financed by male executives. They never address that though, very conveniently.

It has become such a laughable cliche, these decadent/narcissist female starlets and their "activism". Yes, please convince me how much you care for the planet and for other women...

This behaviour is no coincidence. You will find less phony-baloney "activism" on the Wikipedia pages of male pop stars (or actors). If nothing else, you are at least likely to find a wider variety of "causes" that male celebs are involved with. Because men care more than women? No, nearly all celebs of this type are abhorrent narcissistic egomaniacs, gender has nothing to do with it. But fact is that men are less sycophantic, less obedient, bigger individualists (even pop stars, ha ha), less predictable - hence less likely to pick LGBT and climate change as their pet causes. Some male pop stars may even secretly harbor right-wing sentiments, but hide them. Whereas practically 100% of female celebs (pop stars, actresses) believe in everything the left-wing media writes.

Women being political pushovers who go with the flow is a phenomenon that is extremely obvious, and evidence for it can be found in abundance among women of all types and ages and geographic locations.

Women, lacking confidence and having less common sense, are easier prey for political extremism - which appeals to emotions instead of the intellect - which is why they vote more stupidly than men in nearly all democratic countries. In America, without the female vote, it's not unlikely that nearly all close elections lost by Republican presidential/senatorial candidates would have been won by them. Women are born virtue-signalers, liars, self-deceivers and are fairly gullible. Hence why their opinions on hot political and social topics are often completely unreliable and fairly dishonest. Generally speaking, women show less interest in politics hence know about it less than men. It is fairly common for women to vote for the better-looking candidate: this is a huge elephant-in-the-room truth/secret which is very rarely discussed in the media. Because we must keep up the image of the "underestimated, intelligent, decent" female, mustn't we. That means keeping the truth under wraps...

Women are far more concerned with their social status than the truth: they are fantasists and compliment-seekers, first and foremost. Men are more down-to-Earth and less reliant on positive feedback. (Please note that I am using the comparative form here, i.e. I am not saying men are down-to-Earth and reasonable, because most of them aren't.) Facebook and Instagram are great examples of how women require constant flattery in order to maintain some semblance of self-respect and confidence.

Women thrive on "likes" (that ridiculous, entirely useless internet "currency") much more than men, and there are two types of likes they seek out:

1) likes of the photos in which they try to represent themselves as sexy or pretty, and 

2) likes regarding their social and political beliefs (on Twitter, for example); women opt to believe in and support Marxist lies primarily because being Establishment sycophants results in getting far more likes and acceptance on social media, because it is "what the majority believes in" - or so they delusionally believe is the case. Women are bigger sheep than men. Sheep are passive. Sheep are far more likely to get beaten than to beat down others. Once again submission hence masochism is implied somewhere underneath all this.

Women and Children First...

Another reason you shouldn't ask a woman what she wants and needs, or ask of her just a general appraisal of her former men, is that women are more like children than like adults. Sure, men are being teased about being "childish" because they lose themselves in sports and because they get fanatical about playing computer games, but it's women that are essentially more child-like, (in some ways) less mature. The very deceptive cliche that women mature quicker is misleading and only a half-truth: girls mature quicker than boys - but only until the age of 15-16 which is when boys i.e. men start overtaking women in terms of intellect, and to a lesser extent maturity.

On a side-note, women mature physically earlier because they need to be ready earlier to produce offspring, because their fertility span is far shorter than men's, and also because men generally pick females younger than themselves.

Besides, there are different types of maturity: there is social maturity i.e. the ability and need to act responsibly, and there is intellectual maturity which is self-explanatory. Women are stronger than men in social maturity, men excel more in intellectual maturity. This ties in neatly with men being more adept at handling abstract concepts, and with women having higher emotional intelligence.

This is perfectly logical: men are programmed to hunt and fight i.e. problem-solve (which requires higher levels of logic), whereas women are programmed to take care of the management of kids, food and shelter - the domestic chores (which requires higher emotional and social intelligence i.e. higher social maturity). Extremist feminists flip their lids over this; they bang their empty heads against the wall upon hearing these self-evident facts, but it's their ostrich-head-in-the-sand mentality that leads them to ignore nearly all self-evident facts about genders, hence get angry at people who have the courage and the sense to accept these facts. It is natural for feminists to resent realists, because feminists are so used to running away from reality - just so they can pursue their elusive male-hating fantasies.

"Women and children first!" says a lot more about human society than might appear to be the case at first. Why "women and children first"? Are men's lives worth less? Well, yeah: if you ask Oprah, Hillary or Jon Stewart. But no, it's simply that women and children are considered physically and mentally weaker hence require urgent help in emergency situations, while men are counted upon to use their greater physical strength, greater confidence and greater resourcefulness to get out of trouble on their own, with less reliance on others, to be helped only after the safety of kids and women are ensured. As the stronger sex (in almost every sense), men are expected to be protectors hence take risks and even sacrifice their lives for their offspring - which automatically includes women as well, because women are the primary caretakers of this offspring.

Nature is mostly logical. Failure by extremist feminists to recognize and accept this blatant logic makes them illogical, stupid even. Pure and simple.

Accountability

One particularly nasty childish trait is to negate personal responsibility i.e. to pin the blame for one's own misdeeds always on others: this is what women are experts at. A woman is far less likely to apologize to a man for a mistake she'd made than vice versa. I know this from personal experience as well as from observation of other people's interaction. (Only morons make broad conclusions based only from personal experience.) Accountability is one of the key signs of maturity, yet it is here where women fail often. Ask a woman about her relationship history and she is likely to label all her previous relationships as failures, essentially claiming "it was all his fault" for each case. Such unashamedly subjective (and self-centered) mentality doesn't provide a good basis for women to serve as reliable witnesses, or even as interview partners in sexual studies.

One shouldn't take at face value what women say; one needs to learn to interpret what they actually mean to say, not because they necessarily intentionally deceive but because they are so confused and insecure. Women's tendency to completely avoid self-criticism makes them very poor objective analysts of their own situations. Or rather, women do exercise self-criticism but it's limited almost exclusively to their physical appearance, something they are obsessed with - especially the recent generations of women, the skanky "post-moral" millennial women. (Hipsters should get excited I used their favourite prefix.) Women totally exaggerate their own physical inadequacies (sometimes even inventing them), while rarely criticizing their own behavior! This is a rather odd paradox, and it is far more common among women.

Men are more direct and to the point, whereas women are more about beating around the bush (no pun intended); indecisive, and lying to themselves hence indirectly to others too.

Both genders tend to be sheep, tend to go with the majority flow, but women are much worse in this. Women have a far greater conflict with truth i.e. with reality than men do. (Having been cave-dwellers as opposed to hunters may have something to do with this. Being in a cave means you're more cut off from reality, whereas hunting prey means you are in the thick of it.) Especially regarding gender relations it's best not to rely on female testimony which sometimes not only doesn't reflect a woman's real feeling/opinion on the subject, but which may actually lead you to believe the opposite of that which she secretly (and unknowingly?) believes is the case. For reasons I listed earlier.

Hence why a woman can't even easily define her priorities: does she prefer a large penis or a large wallet?

The typical woman is liable to answer that it's neither, that she is most drawn to... drum roll... "sensitive men with a sense of humour", which is the kind of PC bullshit answer they'd been trained since their teenhood to parrot like zombies. They do this because they not only fish for compliments far more than men, but they are far bigger virtue-signalers too - because they are more obedient to authority. Insecurity makes one more reliant on compliments, and more likely to conform.

Arrange a hilarious stand-up comedian as a date for a high-quality woman and she will have great fun. But if he is bald, short and fat, and turns out to be too sensitive, soft, a pushover - then chances are he doesn't stand any chance whatsoever: even some lower-tier women might flat-out reject him. She may at best place him as a "friend zone" companion, which is a zone reserved for "beta cucks" who don't mind being a woman's reserve option, their stand-by potential partners; men with no dignity and low-self-esteem i.e. low-tier males. (We are so similar to our close relatives the chimps, it's hilarious. They too have betas trying to kiss ass, waiting patiently and sycophantically for a brief opportunity at sex with a female.)

In fact, studies show that even some (high-quality) women in stable and lasting relationships have one or two betas standing around obsequiously, waiting/hoping for a chance at a relationship, or at least that one-off sex. The myth of women being far less promiscuous and more sexually loyal is laughable; extensive studies show that nowadays young western women have more sexual partners than young western men. (The math still works out, because it is a small alpha-male minority that has numerous partners, while the beta majority gets less sexual partners than most women, or even none at all.)

A somewhat older genetic study shows that 10% of all children born in the UK are "cuckoo's eggs", which proves that either English women are sluts - or far more likely that women in general have a strong impulse to marry a reliable beta but to secretly get impregnated by an alpha lover, in order to obtain better genes for her children. This type of deceptive behaviour is biologically sound i.e. clever from an evolutionary standpoint, because it takes the best from both worlds: the best genes (from alphas) and the best financial security (from betas) - but it does imply the need for a certain level of deviousness and underhandedness in the female sex. In order to achieve this "cuckoo ideal", a woman is forced to be a liar and an actress, a master-manipulator in the emotional sense. Their higher emotional intelligence gives them an edge over men, hence increases the likelihood that the male raises someone else's child.

Women are naturally and sexually drawn toward men with power, authority and confidence, and are actually repulsed by men who exhibit meekness and pussiness. A sense of humour is merely a nice bonus, an icing on the cake: it's not the cake itself. After all, a woman can get her "entertainment" elsewhere: namely, from her beta hangers-on, her friend-zone buddies who try so hard to keep her laughing, hoping she'll eventually relent and let them get one in. They are there to make her laugh, while her alpha partner is there for her sexual and social-status needs. (Her partner may not be an alpha, but this doesn't change the disbalance of power between the higher-quality beta and the lower-quality beta friendzoners.) Besides, any man with even a mediocre sense of humour will have noticed how easy-peasy it is to make a woman laugh. Most women will laugh at anything. (The stern, frigid, sexually frustrated, quasi-intellectual librarian types won't laugh at the best gag, on the other hand. Stay away from those...) I am constantly amazed at the kind of pathetic, cringe-worthy jokes women fall for. Yet, they will rarely admit that an amusing partner is far less relevant to them than one that has lots of money, status or penis-action, or they might reluctantly admit to it only after intense probing. In fact, many women aren't even aware that they possess these compulsions, tendencies and preferences, because they lie to themselves which is why they are mired in self-contradiction and swim in a sea of confusion.

Yes, women tend to be rather confused. They don't usually lie on purpose, they lie because they don't understand themselves. They don't understand themselves for the same reason they don't understand reality: because they fear and dislike the (harsh) truth. By running away from truth and reality they lock themselves into a fantasy world - which inevitably must lead to confusion.

A Misunderstanding Over Empathy

The phrase "women are so understanding" is a semantic misunderstanding. They are more likely to express their empathy than men. This doesn't have anything to do with better "understanding" or having more empathy. Ironically, women have the least empathy toward other women, which is partly why cheesy feminist slogans such as "sisters unite" are such a farce... Because the very idea of female solidarity is rather dubious and unrealistic.

It's a widespread myth, or rather a misunderstanding. Women are simply more emotional which leads often to the very misleading conclusion that women are the softer, kinder sex. They are not. Or to be more precise, they are kind only toward (their) children and to a lesser extent cute animals. Their empathy is mostly reserved for their offspring and kittens. Women can be very cold toward men, including their partners, and when (young) men experience that (for the first time) from women close to them they are quite shocked, because they'd been mislead their whole lives to believe the opposite. 

Young women with no kids yet are in fact the least empathetic, the most selfish and self-centered demographic, right after little children. Only once they give birth do most women discover their compassion and empathy, because hormonal changes alter their brain chemistry substantially. (There are always exceptions, of course.) But this empathy is literally focused only on the infant (and cats), rarely their husbands and boyfriends. Studies show that men have more empathy and emotional devotion (call it love if you will) toward women than the other way round. This is especially noticeable among young women from this modern, "emancipated", skank-bang era. The typical young, pre-marriage western woman in her 20s is totally self-centered and quite uninterested in the needs of her boyfriend. The ME-ME-ME generation. The Tik-Tok Degeneration. The great irony to be concluded from this is that young men are greater romantics than young women! This especially goes for the current era.

Both sexes, while in love, tend to idealize their partner, to romanticize i.e. exaggerate their worth. However, there's a crucial difference: while men tend to idealize the women's personality and physical appearance, women tend to idealize the man's abilities and social status: his potential to protect her and financially support her. Women's devotion is inherently more selfish than men's. Hence it is less genuine, in a way. Many women are barely aware of this about themselves (the ones this applies to), precisely because of denial and a lack of honesty toward themselves.

And yet we are lead to believe the cultural Marxist dogma that women are victims, more morally pure, more humane... 

Political correctness idealizes women and exaggerates their "goodness" and abilities - while intentionally vilifying men as self-centered, violent, dominant, overrated brutes. (Certainly overly jealous/insecure beta cucks such as James Cameron have happily fallen into this trap.) We are inundated by these kinds of fallacies, lies and myths, to the extend where they have come to be accepted as self-evident knowledge and fact. A very dangerous development which ultimately harms both genders equally.

When women speak of "love" what they actually speak of is material/financial security, social status and physical protection - first and foremost. They would never say or admit this, obviously, because they usually aren't even aware of it. 99% of them would vehemently deny what I just said (probably get a little bitchy too or even outright hysterical in their righteous feminist fury - which is encouraged by left-wingers), but that is in fact how it is. Women seek security and protection, which is understandable given their biological "inferiority", and they confuse these very selfish impulses with love - at least the way we understand this word from romantic literature and other sources that over-idealize human existence. As soon as a young woman meets a better protector, a stronger man, and a richer suitor than the one they currently have, they tend to easily and instantly fall out of love. They then slowly start devising their "escape plan": they want this other, "better" guy instead to replace the previous one, and they do this in a way that is very calculated and devoid of emotion, usually devoid of empathy for the cheated partner. Some men carry out break-ups of their own initiation with the same amount of coldness, for the same reason, no doubt about that. But they transfer their more genuine love to this new partner, whereas women transfer their self-centered type of love to theirs. I.e. these women weren't "in love" with the former guy to begin with, at least not in the romantic sense of the word. He was just the "best option around for that time period".

Women tend to idealize more too; they are idealists, more prone to worship. Men are more pragmatic. Though this depends largely on the area: women are often better at controlling household finances than men, which shows a certain practicality that men lack. Men being risk-takers means that many of them might quickly spend their money on nonsense, such as gambling or a foolish business venture.

Appearances can be very deceptive, especially when it comes to genders. Women in fact have far less empathy toward men than vice versa. Women's true love is reserved almost purely for their offspring (and their Facebook accounts), while men don't experience love toward their children quite as strongly.

This could be because:

a) men can always make new kids, can have many kids, hundreds potentially (if they are mega-alphas like Genghis Khan), whereas women can "only" have 10-15 at the very most hence women "value" each child more i.e. love him more than men do, and

b) men were programmed to love women primarily, in order to be forced to stay with them and protect them, hence ensuring the continuation of this retarded bipedal species. Because if men were biologically programmed to only impregnate a woman and then bugger off, like some mammal species do, humans as a species would never have survived for so long. Hence a woman's natural manipulation talents, stemming from her superior emotional intelligence, which are there to deceive/convince the male to stay with her despite his strong urge to move on to the next (possibly better) females. This is how a homely woman gets to keep a good-looking guy, in case you ever wondered. She panders to his ego. A foolish guy will fall for these "ego traps". A homely women compliments her (better-looking) partner far more than a great-looking woman compliments hers. If you ever notice a couple - good-looking guy with a homely woman - pay attention to how she is physically all over him, all smiles. Likewise, if you notice a great-looking woman with a homely guy with no money, notice...

No, wait. That never happens. Great-looking women will extremely rarely partner up with a homely or average guy with average or low social status. Or if they do it, by some miracle, it lasts only until she realizes she can have someone better. These are brief relationships, and very rare.

In other words, "love" in a man serves primarily the function of keeping him loyal to his woman so she and his offspring remain protected, whereas in a woman love serves primarily the function of ensuring she is completely committed to the children who first and foremost require her urgent, direct attention. This is why so many marriages fall apart as soon as the woman gives birth: her top priority, which is the child, becomes so obviously skewed/biased/extreme that many of men's egos can't deal with becoming second fiddle to the child, and interpret her change of focus (in)correctly as proof that she never loved him in the first place. The man simply fails to understand that he is there first-and-foremost as a semen/money provider and protector, not as an object of her limitless affection. Hence the joke about men seeking for a woman that will mother them, because a man's mother truly loves him, whereas his sexual partner doesn't, or not nearly as much. Most men will only experience true love from their mothers, not their wives/girlfriends.

This, in turn, might explain part of the reason why mothers hate their daughters-in-law. Several reasons in fact. The mothers know from their own experience how little they care(d) for their partners compared to how much they love their children, so they detest the fact that their sons are going to be victims of this female deception - the same way these mothers had done this decades earlier when they were themselves young. Karma. Poetic Justice. What goes around comes around.

Men primarily love women. And women primarily love their children. (And money: but that's just a means to an end, which is to finance their kids, at least ideally i.e. generally speaking this is how it is or how it is biologically meant to be.)

This means that the genders have a different set of priorities hence different strengths/weaknesses, different motives, different goals. Or rather, the goal is the same, but the means and methods used to achieve that goal (survival of the species) are different. This is where most of the problems between a male and a female arise, due to these different approaches which stem from very different mentalities.

Pain Threshold

Pregnancy is another major clue. I've always felt that it forces women to be more masochistic. The old feminist cliche that "women can tolerate pain better" which results in the trite joke that "if men had to bear children we'd go extinct" is mostly false. Studies have shown that men have a higher tolerance for pain than women, which is logical since they are more often confronted with it: skirmishes with male rivals, wars, doing sports... It is just that women are programmed to enjoy pain more, simply because of child-birth and even more so playing the passive role in sex. Sure, child-birth used to be as deadly and dangerous as war or a fist-fight, but its pain is different: it is predictable. In a battle a man never knows which part of his body might be injured, whereas during child-birth there is no such uncertainty. I sense that this might be a crucial distinction. I may be wrong though. This is more speculative.

However, the "we'd go extinct if men gave birth" cliche may be true in the sense that if a man gave birth he'd find it so intolerable that his logic would force him to never repeat the ordeal again. Women, being less logical and bigger masochists, are less likely to reach this decision, hence make the decision to have additional children.

This physical masochism seems to invariably overlap into mental masochism i.e. relationship pain. This would explain why women are far more likely to remain in a mentally abusive relationship than abused men, in addition to being more likely to withstand physical torture from a man than vice versa. Women are physically weaker, which means that the abuser by definition is more likely to be the man, hence why women are perhaps assigned the masochistic role by nature, to better cope with innate male aggression.

It is however very important to mention a U.S. statistic that states that in domestic violence in roughly 60% of all cases men initiated the violence. Most people assume that this figure must be 90% or even higher - which is yet another result of politically-correct culture telling us to view the female as the perpetual victim, much as they instruct us that we must accept black people as continual victims of white people and racism, never as victims of their own bad behaviour. By taking responsibility away from women, left-wing western society is telling them to feel more entitled than men, and to treat men as scapegoats for a variety of problems they encounter. This partially explains why women have never been more selfish and self-centered than now. It is not emancipation, but the complete opposite: a destruction of both sexes, a successful attempt to destroy society from within by re-writing the rule-book from scratch (i.e. from nonsensical Marxist theories based on anti-science and fictional biology).

When a woman can't get out of an "abusive" relationship, she very often chooses to remain in it because she is still financially secure with the man and because he physically protects her. As ironic and contradictory as this may sound: the man acting as abuser as well as protector. Nature is often absurd, at least on a philosophical level.

Which might explain why we have the Stockholm Syndrome? It happens predominantly to women. It is a strange phenomenon by which a captive woman eventually ends up being emotionally attached to her kidnapper. Throughout history, women were generally captured far more by invading tribes than men, who were immediately slayed instead, or sold as slaves. In order to survive, these women had to adapt, which is to say they had to quickly re-program themselves to focus on sexually pleasing their invading captors, perhaps even the same man who killed her husband and maybe even her kids! Once again, a certain level of acceptance of suffering as a normal state is implied here, which in turn connects us again to female masochism. Not to mention that the Stockholm Syndrome has some very unflattering implications regarding lack of female loyalty. Which in turn serves as more proof that there was no real love their toward her man to begin with.

 This notion that a woman stays in an abusive relationship just "because we have children together" is not necessarily true. As long as the kids are financially and physically safe, a woman will not leave the abusive man. Women who refuse to leave a man who sexually or extremely physically abuses their kids is an abnormal, dysfunctional woman, not the type of typical woman I am discussing. A normal, functional woman would never leave her kids at such a risk - because they are her priority not the man - hence she would leave such a dangerous man in order to protect the kids who are her no 1 concern. (A reminder: a man's no 1 concern is to mate with the best possible female - or females, plural. Raising kids isn't nearly as high a priority as sex. Especially alphas struggle to be "tamed" this way, to become responsible men who won't cheat. Betas are bigger pushovers, hence more suitable for a woman long-term.) A woman always balances just how much violence against kids is too much violence. As she should.

Abuse = Power?

Also, some women stay with their abusers because they equate abuse with power - and to women power is very sexy. Some women simply adore alpha males who beat up other men, they are turned on by it. (The low-quality women, usually, the rabble and the chavs.) Some women literally get horny watching their man beat up another man, especially if that man was a real or potential threat to them, and especially to her personally. (Before having children, women are by far the more egotistical, self-centered sex. They seek a man to please her needs, while largely ignoring the man's own needs or she just gives into his needs because she has to, not because she wants to.)

Some women go so far as to intentionally provoke a physical conflict between two suitors to check which one is stronger, hence the better protector. (NatGeoWild...) Some women actually initiate fights between her own partner and a potential suitor (or even just a random guy), just to be able to enjoy the spectacle. These kinds of low-quality women get off on having two guys fight over her. Guys who marry such women are invariably low-quality too, i.e. complete morons.

This is why women are notoriously drawn towards so-called "bad boys". They are drawn toward successful displays of strength and violence. It excites them to witness a raw display of power, violence, confidence, arrogance, because all these equate to strength i.e. manliness. And strength/manliness means protection hence survival.

Pretty simple. (Though not simple enough for feminists to understand.)

To illustrate just how extreme female attraction to male violence can get, consider the existence of hybristophilia. The word applies to women who are sexually attracted to men which they know committed (heavy-duty) crimes. Some of these women even get orgasms based on this pathological attraction. This is why notorious serial-killers receive hundreds of fan mail from women attracted to such degenerates. I have personally met such a woman; she collected books and documentaries on Jeffrey Dahmer, despite the fact that he was a serial-killer, a homosexual and a cannibal. She wasn't just fascinated by him, she was sexually crazy for him.

These kinds of phenomena underscore the increasingly obvious fact that women are the more irrational sex, more enslaved by their age-old impulses and instincts than men are, hence are logically (?) more prone to be masochistic. The cliche that only the penis has such power over a person is only half the truth: women are slaves to their own peculiar genetic foibles; it's just that theirs are less obvious. And it's less PC to discuss women this way, hence most males don't know.

Insanity

Nor is it PC to discuss gender differences regarding mental illness: a very taboo subject. It is near-impossible to find reliable, honest, non-biased texts on this subject in the left-wing-dominated mainstream media and on major internet sites (which are predominantly in the hands of the Cultural Marxism Brigade). So it is important to learn to read between the lines.

One way I managed to find evidence of a disparity between the rates of male and female insanity was to circumvent the articles that discussed mental illness directly, as a whole. Instead, I came across something very interesting while reading the Wikipedia page on 2D:4D ratio differences (finger lengths), where I found a very useful table that divided the effects of estrogen as compared to the effects of testosterone and androgen. In other words, a table that unintentionally serves as a more-or-less precise division of male and female traits and tendencies! This article, based on numerous studies (some of them admittedly shit), confirmed what I'd long suspected: that women were more prone to schizophrenia, anxiety and depression. (Even the mainstream media admits to depression being more common among women, but that's only because that way women can be made out to be even bigger victims, and besides which depression doesn't have the kind of "loony" negative stigma of schizophrenia.)

In all likelihood, this list can be extended to other basic categories/ailments such as manic-depression, psychosis and catatonia. Men are far more likely to become alcoholics and drug addicts, but those are choices as opposed to hereditary and hormonal factors (despite the fact that people are thought to be allegedly born with the tendency for addiction). Men are far more likely to be psychopaths (1 in 100 among white Europeans, 2 out of 100 in the US of A), but it is questionable if this can even be considered a mental disease since the psychopath is perfectly aware of all of his actions and because this anomaly in no way impedes a person's success or functionality; quite to the contrary, an intelligent psychopath is far more likely to climb up very high on the status/society ladder than an empathetic person. Most politicians are psychopaths, sociopaths or borderline i.e. narcissists. Ditto CEOs.

Why was my suspicion of the mainstream media legitimate in this particular case?

Because it would have been normal hence expected to discuss differing gender rates, for example for schizophrenia, in texts that dealt with mental illness. Demographics always vary; sometimes insignificantly, sometimes moderately, sometimes drastically. But since the subject of gender differences was being avoided everywhere, or just brushed off as irrelevant, I made the logical assumption that it's women who have higher rates of mental disease.

Why did I assume this? Simple: because if men had higher rates then all of the mainstream media would be talking about it, incessantly. Because men are treated as scapegoats for everything. It was hence a matter of logical deduction.

The fact that generally speaking men are sadists and women are masochists fits in neatly with the idea that women are more prone to mental illness. The fact that menstruation and menopause have such a huge effect on their lives only bolster this fact, plus the fact that there is no hormonal equivalent for men, at least none with such hard-hitting negative effects. Or the fact that less testosterone makes women less confident hence more easily overcome by mental afflictions.

After all, if you had to choose which of the two - a sadist or a masochist - was "more abnormal", you'd have to pick the masochist. Being sadistic unfortunately suits nature's cruel "survival game" i.e. life in general, whereas masochism is contrary to survival, at least in most ways.

The Western Left doesn't want you to know how much less stable women are than men, simply because of their equality agenda. They downplay everything that doesn't suit their false anti-scientific worldview, and because most truths/realities/facts go against their idiotic Marxist ideology we find so many lies, half-truths and deceptions in their media - not to mention many truths being routinely circumvented by being totally ignored and pushed aside. Such as insanity, i.e. its higher frequency in women.

Marxism vs Nature

In modern Germany, which is completely immersed in PC bullshit and totally brainwashed by cultural Marxism (almost more than any other country), any open and obvious display of classic machismo is publicly decried by women (and society) - yet secretly worshiped by women! Their biological impulses tell them to support this macho behaviour, while their left-wing upbringing instructs them to be virtue-signaling compliant liars and condemn machismo. Thus an inner conflict arises, resulting in outer confusion/self-contradiction and havoc in the (brainwashed) woman. It's kind of similar to Hal-3000 going bonkers, short-circuiting in Space Odyssey 2001, as a result of receiving contradictory orders.

Marxism and biology/nature are in constant conflict, because Marx refused to accept most of the basic rules of nature. He ignored natural laws because he disliked them, because they wouldn't in any way shape or form fit into his stupid theories. Communism is based on anti-science, on wishful thinking, not on facts. It idealizes nature and man, unlike capitalism which deals with reality in a pragmatic way - what commies would refer to as "cynical". Ironical, the world's bigget cynics are disgruntled commietards, incapable of dealing with the failure of communism.

Power is the ultimate opiate, the ultimate aphrodisiac to a woman. Not the penis. (Whereas to a man, a woman's vagina, ass, and boobs are the ultimate aphrodisiac. To men, sex is almost purely about the physical act, whereas to women it's psychological more than physical.) That is why a hot young woman can hook up with a decrepit old fart, even marry him. It's not entirely just pretense and fakery though. A young woman marrying a much older guy for money isn't entirely materialistic, egotistical calculation; on some level she must find him appealing, even attractive, because his high social status gives him an edge which his physical appearance can't. For some young women a rich, ugly, short, fat, bald man is more appealing as a partner than a young, tall, poor, confident stud. Because women prioritize the well-being of their offspring over their sex-life - and that means being a "material girl", finding a guy who can secure the survival of the kids rather than just a guy who can give her instant orgasms but be a failure (or not good enough) in providing for their kids' most basic needs, let alone for example a higher education later on.

Women are hence naturally, biologically, genetically the more greedy sex. Men exhibit greed far more in terms of means to an end i.e. they might develop ambitiousness in order to become wealthy - just so they can have the best-looking female and get the best sex that they can. While women exhibit greed as a goal in and of itself: as security for their kids' survival.

Women are indeed far more materialistic than men. After all, which gender has shopping as their favourite hobby? But that's because they are obsessed with securing their offspring's survival whereas a man is more interested in instant physical gratification: the penis is very simple to please hence, whereas a vagina isn't. Nearly every man can enjoy sex, while up to half of all women hate it or are indifferent to it because statistically speaking at least a third of all women are either frigid or rarely experience sexual ecstasy, hence "good sex" is far lower on their list of priorities than it is for men, because many women don't even believe in or know about good sex. It is only with the recent degeneracy brought about by radical feminism that women are portrayed in popular culture to be just as sex-mad as men are. They aren't. Women want and need "love" far more than good sex and they use sex far more as a tool to ensnare a man who can financially support her and the future offspring. Which is why drunken young whores falling about in night-clubs, seeking to find one-off lays, are deeply unhappy with their lives, despite trying to convince themselves that "this is the right thing to do because men do it too." They proudly wave the flag of emancipation, stupidly/naively believing that this "new way" will lead to a better quality of life than their great-grandmothers had.

What these braindead skanks don't understand is that:

a) their biological clock is far shorter than men's, so men can afford to be promiscuous for much longer periods,

b) a man can impregnate a woman and then bugger off forever, while a woman is the one stuck with the child made during the one-night stand,

c) a man's social status/power grows with age, whereas her's declines with her gradual decline in appearance and rapid decline in fertility.

Hence why it is biologically - hence also socially - far more normal/acceptable for men to screw around than it is for women. It is wiser for women to be selective about whom they'll have sex with, precisely because the consequences of this choice (pregnancy) are far greater for the woman than for the man. Hence why promiscuous women are considered as "whores" i.e. "dumb whores" i.e. low-quality females, because they are showing a lack of wisdom and caution; they are displaying random non-selectiveness as opposed to caution and intelligence. They are acting as horny animals in heat, which isn't exactly a smart state to allow oneself to be in, especially when engaging in activities with potentially damaging results. 

Nothing is accidental when it comes to the genders. There is a reason for everything. An explanation for every stereotype, for every cliche, for every aspect of male-female interaction. Hence there is no sense in men feeling ill will toward women or women toward men. The more you find about the opposite sex the better you will learn to cope with all of their idiosyncrasies.

Other Rants...

Reincarnation:

https://morepoliticalrants.blogspot.com/2020/11/why-reincarnation-makes-zero-sense.html

Infinity:

https://morepoliticalrants.blogspot.com/2020/11/a-crucial-misconception-about-infinity_30.html

Marxism:

https://morepoliticalrants.blogspot.com/2013/08/marxism-basic-guide-for-gullible_24.html

Hell Paradox:

https://morepoliticalrants.blogspot.com/2020/10/the-hell-paradox.html

Racism & Equality:

https://morepoliticalrants.blogspot.com/2020/09/equality-racism-honest-analysis.html