Disclaimer:

It is obvious that any differences between males and females are subtle and a matter of degree not of substance.
Even sexual organs find their corresponding parts expressed in different manners in each of the sexes; a male penis
can be found in women as a clitoris, a woman’s ovaries found in males as testicles and so on. Whatever differences
there are between males and females they are slight when compared to the vast similarities shared by belonging to
the same species.
Despite this, the alterations in character and psychology caused by hormonal and genetic phenomena, which
differentiate males from females, are enough to become discernable even to the fiercest advocate of human
equality. A male nipple may be worthless to a man but a matter of grave importance to a woman.
Those of us acquainted with ‘Chaos Theory’ are aware that even slight effects can have huge consequences when
projected in time and space.
Furthermore the terms ‘female’ and ‘male’ are not restricted to strictly gender descriptions but will be used, here,
as a state of being or becoming that may be used to describe both men and women. So it will be clear that there are
men with female dispositions and women with male ones, even though the majority of us will express the
characteristics and psychological leanings of our own gender more often than not. [I am not only referring to
homosexuality here but to a state of mind and a psychological type]
Many will accuse me of generalizing, for this is the favourite defence of those seeking to find an escape from
insulting or hurtful premises they cannot contradict directly, but I will remind them that any exception to the rule
only serves to prove the existence of a rule.
If it were not so then science itself would be impossible and specific studies would have to be conducted for each
and every individual alive on any given time. There would have to be a science focused entirely on me, one on you,
and every category and label would be absurd and meaningless.
Yet general patterns and characteristics are what man uses to create knowledge and understanding. Through the
general assessment of phenomena, and by keeping into consideration that they do not fully express the subtle
degrees by which each diverges from the general rule and the overtly exceptional circumstances that sometimes
lead to a complete non-adherence to a general law, man creates comprehension that benefits him by allowing him to
construct strategies. Even exceptions to rules follow their own rules of exception and chaos and randomness may
only be human prejudices caused by the incomprehensibility or complexity of the rules themselves.
But more than all this, the following critical analysis of man and woman in social contexts are based on my personal
observations and deductions and will not be defended using popular beliefs, political-correctness, scientific studies,
or any third-party sources, even if this is also is possible.
It is clear that one can find a study defending most perspectives making the studies themselves and the way they
are conducted questionable.
Those dependants on the assessment of others, to create personal beliefs, inadvertently expose their weaknesses
and limitations.
In areas where direct observation is impossible a reliance on second-hand accounts is understandable, but in areas
where personal experience is possible and sensual awareness is feasible a personal assessment, is often, more
preferable and constructive.
Philosophy isn’t a mere repetition of past hypothesis or a reassessment of previous theories; it is an exchange of
critical thoughts and personal analysis. It is normal to be guided and influenced by the work of others but to
completely become dependant on them and to mimic or imitate them only reveals our own quality in comparison.
What follows is my perspective, based on my personal experiences and observations, using my senses and mental
faculties.
Any similarities with those of others are coincidental or the effect of influence not of plagiarism.
Any contradiction of popular scientific or other common beliefs is understandable and irrelevant.
You cannot judge the accuracy of an idea by its popularity but by the strength of its argument, the supporting
evidence and the ordered reasonable manner by which it is presented.
I will expect nobody to take my word for anything or to simply agree with me - I actually expect scepticism and
personal supporting or contradicting observations to prove or disprove the precision of my opinions.
This entire following text is meant to promote free-thinking and personal intellectual effort and to encourage
debate and individual awareness that may promote choices and free-will.
It is normal that the subject of males and females and of sex in general, is going to raise some controversy given the
central role sexuality plays in human existence and given the popular sentiments of our western, ‘modern’ world.
But my intent is to insight thought and debate, not anger and self-hate.
When and if it does result in insecurity, fear, resentment and feelings of inadequacy it is unfortunate but natural
when considering the pitiful state of the human condition and our modern world of delusion and illusion.
To dismiss me as being a sexist, a male chauvinist or one suffering from some mental or psychological ailment or
sexual dysfunction is to not deal with the subject at hand but on my apparent human imperfections upon which
much speculation can be dedicated. But I remind you that by using this easy strategy of slander and insult any and
every human idea can be dismissed since all human ideas are the products of imperfect human minds with imperfect
psychologies and imperfect senses.
The only way to fight an idea is with another idea and before one deals with the human imperfections that lead to a
supposed imperfect idea, the idea itself must first be shown to be wanting.
One must also keep in mind the constantly changing moral standards and popular beliefs that may make some ideas
shocking in one time and in one cultural context and a matter of common sense in another time and cultural
context.
One must also keep in mind that ‘modern’ or ‘recent’ or ‘future’ or ‘popular’ does not always mean better or
superior. Evolution Theory has shown us that genetic alterations often answer to changing environments and make
some mutations into advantages while making others disadvantages. The label of superior or inferior is dictated by
the environmental demands of a specific time and place. Nevertheless man still searches for transcending truths and
superiorities to deal with the constant flux.
It is my hope that my own attempts to uncover myths and ailing ideologies should help in this search for power and
purpose in a universe where man has neither.

Prologue
The levelling of man continues.

Centuries of social engineering and ‘civilization’ have led to a type of human

being unlike our ancestor and, still to this day, socialization persists to filter
out all the ‘unwanted’ human characteristics, altering, in this way, human
nature and degenerating, in my opinion, the human spirit into indistinct
oblivion.

There is no conspiracy here, no invisible entity directing things from the

shadows. We might even say that the process is ‘natural’ and the consequence
of a normal social progression that started in the tribal unit and has resulted in
the emergence of a huge socioeconomic machine, with its own logic and
interest, assimilating, conforming, levelling and eradicating everything in its
path. We might also say that this ‘natural’ process has its roots in human
physical disadvantage causing psychological insecurity that makes the
cooperation of individual beings a forced necessity.

But this degradation of man, besides being a typical consequence of

interdependence and socialization that demands a certain sacrificing of
individuality for the sake of survival, has been exacerbated by the infiltration
of slavish moral systems into a human psyche that has already been
demoralized and undermined by extreme scepticism and mental fatigue, in the
intellectual elites, and by interbreeding between a growing intellectual
subclass and a continuously diluted intellectual upper-class that finds itself
incapable to resist social and religious pressures and socioeconomic
prerequisites.

A fundamental characteristic of weakness, as a concept, is its willingness to

sacrifice a part of itself to save its entirety. Weakness is furthermore
characterized by its inconspicuousness, its ability to blend and vanish into the
multitude, its non-confrontational incorporation into more powerful entities,
its expendability, its commonness, its malleability, its reliability and willingness
[when conscious] to conform and adapt. The ‘If you can’t beat them join them’
strategy is one most often practiced in nature and in our universe; what
cannot survive on its own inevitably either perishes or winds up as a part of
something bigger and stronger, by means of consumption, via having its parts
absorbed, or assimilation, via having its parts conformed. It is this transcending
fundamental principle that is primarily responsible for the constant state of
flux and fluidity, we experience as change and time, and which characterizes
our state of being and our perspective of reality.

Man, as an isolated individual being outside any group, is certainly a weak

creature when compared with other beasts, making his cooperation with others
of his kind a requirement and his participation within unions of need, a matter
of survival. But despite mans physical weaknesses he possesses the gift of
intelligence, self-awareness and abstract thought that can lead to an alteration
of environmental conditions and the revolutionary redefinition of what is weak
and what is strong within them. This human ‘gift’ that can take advantage of
external resources, through the application of the imagination and the
utilization of mans providential opposing thumbs, has produced the need for
social units of vast scale and intricacy and has resulted in the added need for
an adaptation to human environments that have replaced or surpassed the
importance of natural ones. In addition to this, human psychological insecurity
and physical frailty has imposed the need to armour mans feebleness with
technological artifices that place a wall between man and his true spirit and
distances man from himself and from nature entirely, by means of self-
contained artificial systems.

This artificial ‘wall’ is the source of mans current sense of separation and
feeling of uneasiness that is expressed through the arts and through politics as
the Demonization of technology and the machines we’ve created but that now
we’ve come to serve. Machines and the machinery of modern social existence,
in fact, function as our surrogate targets of hate, anxiety and fear in place of
the real culprit of human enslavement: modern society, religion and culture,
that engulf us in this unconscious, invisible matrix of artificiality and
superficiality in order that we may serve its requirements by undermining our
individuality, our personality and our uniqueness while, in true Orwellian
newspeak, they claim to do the opposite. As this civilization engine grows its
parts lose value by becoming expendable, disposable and reproducible and man
becomes an insignificant wheel in a huge engine.

Like with all closed systems, a social system has its own methods and
mechanisms by which it meets its needs and creates environments and
participants that ensure its continuance and health. In doing so each system
replaces or mutates past systems and refocuses and redefines their premises.

In human culture and civilization the struggle between the present and the
past environmental demands upon the individual result in great psychological
strain and in sometimes contradictory behaviours which is contained by the
usage of intimidation tactics, such as religious dogma and the rule of law, or
diverted and defused through educational institutions, the entertainment
industry and political or theological ideologies.
By trying to replace or restrict the influence of past natural environmental
affects upon man, by promoting human characteristics that are desirable and
restricting those that are detrimental to the social or cultural group’s premises,
each system reshapes its parts into particular types, ideal for the given group’s
fitness.

We can witness this affect on human behaviour by studying the specific types
created by different cultures throughout history and in how each utilizes, or
utilized, sexuality, human nature and psychology through institutions and moral
codes in similar manners but with distinctly different orientations and
dissimilar results. All human cultures may use familiar methods for parallel
reasons but each has a noticeably different motivation leading to diverging
human ideals, guided by each cultures ethical standards and value systems
inherited, through time, from ancestral backgrounds, historical experiences
and philosophical/ideological pasts.

In cultures where paternalistic dominance is still prevalent, such as in the

Middle-East and India [And only until recently in the west], social engineering is
still controlled by males that are governed by their particular cultural
perspectives and it is facilitated by the supremacy of religious dogma, by
existing totalitarian political systems and by the subjugation of females to the
cultures demands.
In the west, where centuries of world domination and due to its contamination
by Judeo-Christian ethical systems and altruistic ideologies that were the
product of a slavish resentment of all things superior and because of a general
decadence caused by attrition and complacency, the paternalistic system has
eroded enough to make equalitarian impoverishment and spiritual degradation
possible.

Democracy is the result of weariness, caused by the constant conflict and

uncertainty of previous political systems, and the natural consequence of
population explosions that enabled individuals, of questionable quality, to unite
and achieve political relevance through the strength of numbers; it is also the
expected result of increasing demands for resources, caused by a prospering
civilization, shrinking spaces and a human psychological predisposition for
peace and stability.

This social circumstance, caused paradoxically by the very natural tendencies

that eventually become dangerous and unwanted {survival, dominance,
control, violence, selfishness, arrogance, procreation, power; all sexual male
drives} unleashed upon the world by the unburdening of the human mind from
matters of immediate survival through prosperity and from primitive religious
myths and superstitions through intellectual enlightenment, lead to a western
world dominion that exponentially increased populations and the accompanying
need for resources and made it necessary to then suppress these very same
instinctive drives in order to maintain stability and social harmony.

This trend towards larger and more malleable populations, existing within
smaller spaces and dwindling resources, has made equalitarian, servile
moralities essential and vital.

The more complacent, unaware and gullible a population is the more

governable and controllable it becomes. It is therefore understandable why
unsettling ideas must be quarantined and eradicated, why free thought must
be restricted and why defiance and uniqueness must be controlled and
punished as an example to be avoided before it becomes one to be emulated.
In our modern western world this dummying-down of the masses has resulted in
populations that, despite their relative affluence, information access and
general prosperity, display the apathy, ignorance and naïveté of the less
fortunate in third-world countries.

The complete indoctrination of man into artificial [manmade] environments,

sometimes demanding behaviours contrary to more primitive natural ones, has
moreover been facilitated by the gradual diminution of man through unnatural
sexual selection, re-education and the slow eradication of the, before
mentioned, human characteristics that made man a natural dominator and a
survivor in a threatening universe.

It is derisive that the very intellectual superiority that resulted in human

dominion is also contemporary society’s greatest foe, that must be controlled
and even narrowed, and the very male spiritual attitude that knelt to no
natural demand and accepted no holy authority is now to be atrophied and
warped.

In the west socialization/institutionalization/domestication, population control

and mind manipulation has taken a distinguishing subtle, subliminal and
indirect approach, to maintain the illusion of free-will and individuality, upon
which all of western culture is based.

Unlike the more direct and obvious controlling practices in other cultures, it is
more difficult to always perceive where and how we have been manipulated
into thinking and behaving in certain ways. For many the current state of
affairs, in the western world, is taken to be the epitome of human
achievement, the height of human development and the worthy successor of a
cultural revolution that began on the rocky Aegean shores of ancient Greece
and has reached for the distant Martian plateaus in our time, but they neglect
to consider the true spirit of this ancient stance towards life and only judge it
from its superficial constructs and external facades. The Hellenic spiritual
revolution, which we now call western civilization, was not an external one
where great monuments are built in the Egyptian style or where man is judged
by his external creations [Although even this is a part of it, it is not the goal] or
his discipline to greater forces, the true spirit of western thought was in how it
perceived the individual, mans place in the universe and in how it judged mans
value and potential.
Evidence of how western ideals have been mutated and subverted through time
is in how we at present perceive the world around us and from where we
accept our own self-worth and meaning.

For instance, many of us in the west, influenced by marketing practices from

an early age, find it obvious that certain product name-brands are associated
with a particular ideal and that the acquisition of certain material products and
the image constructed to go along with them, is of the utmost importance and
relevance and the means by which we advertise and express our own self-worth
and quality to the world. Owning a BMW or a Mercedes or a Versace or a Rolex,
is how we exhibit our social status, as capable consumers, and attract others,
especially females, to our genetic potency dictated, in this case, not by natural
symbolism but by a socioeconomic one, we have been sold on, and guided by
an ideal, we have accepted as our highest. The quality of the products we own
and consume must supposedly symbolize our personal quality, whether it is
present or not.

But why these particular products of human ingenuity, no different than many
others, are associated with a specific image and why, is for most of us
unrecognizable and just a matter of ‘common sense’ that is mostly undisputed.
Yet here we can find evidence of how we have been manipulated into believing
that mercantile quality is equal or a fair substitute for substantive quality and
external objects can fill in for an inner void.

The current popularity of spirituality and the rediscovery of past spiritualism,

particularly amongst urban populations where the distance between man and
nature is the greatest and where the fruits of mans labour are mostly of an
impersonal nature, is a symptom of this systematic, capitalistic redefinition
through abstraction of value and self-worth that serves the socioeconomic
system by forcing a continuing striving for materialistic acquisitions. This, in-
turn, drives modern economies, and maintains a constant state of tentative
hopefulness for material wealth, that is supposed to be the ultimate answer to
boredom, meaninglessness and misery, and keeps the masses working and
dreaming despite the odds being stacked against them by the overall interests
of the system itself which seeks to preserve the status quo of class disparity
and hopeful need.

Most of us do not question the ideals of our chosen value system but only
discipline ourselves to its premises and, in true female fashion, we become
simple mirrors of the world around us.
Material wealth, that was meant to symbolize the quality of an individual by his
access to resources in a natural system, has now come to symbolize, not only
the physical or mental excellence that leads to abundance but the total
obedience and compliance of said individual to a larger whole that is rewarded
with superficial riches for his/her submission.

In a system where materialism prevails, consumerism reigns and where the

preservation of already acquired status is desired, wealth is most often
inherited than earned and when earned it is frequently at the price of an entire
lifetimes toil making the enjoyment of the consequent privileges, once again, a
matter of heritage for later generations that can never fully appreciate what
they themselves have not earned and therefore do not deserve.

Here we can also find the causes for the current generational gap and the roots
of this recent pampered undisciplined naiveté and unmerited over-expectation
of western urban youths that has resulted in them not respecting or valuing
anything, including their very selves.

This obsession with materialism, particularly in the west, has come at the
expense of all other human endeavours and, serving the demands of a
particular system, has resulted in a loss of human identity, spirituality and
natural interconnectedness. We no longer relate to each other as thinking,
feeling human beings connected with all of creation intimately but we relate to
each other as consuming owners, protective maintainers of that which we own
and covet and egotistical misers that take the things that they buy to be what
defines them as individual human beings.

The very concept of possession, that results in affluence and privilege and
through which all modern civilization is made possible, is based upon a myth,
the myth of ownership. In nature there is no real ownership, not even life is
truly owned by an individual but is only ‘leased’, metaphorically speaking, and
temporarily enjoyed. In the end all must be returned to the primordial ‘soup’
from which new creations will spring forth and new unions will take place.
Reality is a work in progress with no final destination making the very idea of
ownership a ridiculous farce.

Like all manmade concepts it, ownership, suffers from the desire to usurp
natural rules, for practical and psychological reasons, and so requires a
remoulding of human nature.
Man is forced to redefine his place in the universe in order to overcome his
physical and mental weaknesses by taking advantage of the power of numbers,
and in so doing loses the intimacy and interconnectedness of existing according
to his true individual spirit.
Modern man has lost his/her pride in himself and in his/her true nature and,
now, substitutes the cavernous emptiness in his/her soul with matter of
dubious certainty, titles and affairs of outer origin and thusly forever detaches
personal value from the self. Even the personal names man associates himself
with become a generic stamp shared by many that possess no intimate relation
to personal becoming; Tom, Dick and Harry just non-specific labels of non-
distinctness that can be easily replaced by a simple number representing a
statistic; Mary, Susan and Helen names saying nothing about the individual
besides her participation within a particular cultural and religious group.
[Family names although more unique and specific suffer from the same
impersonality since they merely reveal an individuals cultural, religious,
national heritage, never chosen but imposed, and a genetic bloodline but say
little more about the actual person they supposedly label]

Modern man is more likely to find self-worth and self-importance in external

(material) sources than internal (spiritual) ones as he desperately seeks for a
connection with his real nature and searches for evidence of his real identity.
This, in my view, is due to the steady decline of man as an individual
personality, which makes it obligatory to substitute personal quality with an
adopted external façade of quality that can be shared by multiple individuals
who inevitably begin thinking and behaving in imitation of each other. We call
this pop-culture in the west.

The methods by which man is shaped and sculpted in social environments

contain natural instinctive drives and manmade imaginative institutional
inventions that either take advantage of aforesaid drives or totally subvert and
suppress them.
One of these human inclinations, that are blatantly manipulated, is the sexual
instinct.

The fundamental human compulsion is to mate and to procreate. This

biological standard of personal success is still in man, despite his self-asserted
evolution beyond primitiveness, the major source of acquiring his self-meaning.
It is also the means by which the natural system, the original system of human
emergence, has controlled and shaped our behaviours in the past and still
maintains a dominant grip on our psyche in the present.

Because of this, sexuality is the major motivating factor behind all human
actions and creations. We may say that mankind is obsessed with sex and
procreation because mankind is constantly preoccupied by his own mortality,
making life merely a constant struggle against death.

Sex is the central focus of all individual thought, whether we know it or not,
and it plays an important part in how man is guided and moulded, not only by
nature, but by culture and civilization that now uses and mutates it to its
advantage.
In this game of sexuality, played by mortal beings, the basic participants of
male and female archetypes [Keeping in mind that there might be other gender
types in our universe] are elemental and worth analysing further, for it is
through this interrelation and ‘dance’ of sexuality that man comes to be and
his quality and nature is determined.

Female Archetype

To say that women are the weaker sex is to not do justice to their entire
natural role and it ignores the true power women possess within social groups
where, like all individual weakness, it procures strength through numbers and
finds safety in groups.
In fact a woman’s place within a social group is a privileged one, as we will see
further on, and it has been mans intervention and imposition of authoritarian,
paternalistic socio-political systems that has stripped women of the full extent
of their power, as expressed through female sexual choice and the feminine
unobtrusive mirroring of cultural norms, by subjugating them to cultural and
religious dogmas that inhibit natural mechanisms and corrupts human instincts.

Left to her natural devises, a woman plays the part of genetic ‘gatekeeper’ and
social ‘filter’ that propagates the ideals and values of a group and weeds out
unwanted physical, mental, social, cultural, religious or psychological traits.
In natural environments women’s sexual choices are guided by natural
motivations, in social/economic/cultural/religious environments a woman’s
sexual choice is further complicated by other considerations that battle with
the pre-existing natural ones for domination.
Through a woman’s choice, and how this choice is focused and determined by
natural inclinations and social upbringings, a woman acts as an instrument of
selectivity that dictates the future of mankind and his destiny.

This ‘gatekeeper, ‘filter’ role is made possible by the female’s two basic
characteristics:

Social Dependence

A woman is nothing outside a group. Her entire self-worth and value is derived
through her participation and her position within a group; her entire self-worth
is derived by how desirable and appealing she becomes to the opposite sex
and, as a consequence, in how she becomes a willing and capable social and
cultural tool. She finds purpose in how effectively she can be used as an
instrument and a means to an end.

As such her power is achieved in how well she understands, manipulates, is

assimilated, conforms and reflects the morals, values and virtues of the group
she participates in and in how close to a physical aesthetic ideal she reaches
that exposes her fertility and genetic history.
A woman, in essence, has no real individuality but plays any part she deems is
attractive and necessary to achieve her goal of belonging and reproducing.

It is noteworthy that in marital unions it is mostly the woman that is asked to

change families, adopt a new clan and the name that goes along with it or is
forced to change her religious and cultural life and rarely is it the man that is
expected to do so unless he has been sufficiently emasculated and deprived of
his unique identity and personality.

Unlike a man, a woman does not fully carry the tag of her genetic history but
can be traded and swapped between different clans or tribes or cultures like a
valuable commodity; a practice she submits to, willingly and easily due to her
temperament.
A man, reversely, is forever associated with his original national, racial, tribal
or cultural identity and is forever a representative of his creed since he can
only function as a reproducer of his own kind.

A female is a social chameleon that mirrors the colors of her surroundings and
blends into the background with little or no distinctive quality. In fact, her
success is determined by how thoroughly she takes on the characteristics of the
ideal female role of her immediate environment and in how successfully she
reproduces the ideals and ideas of her group.
In this willingness to accept unquestioningly and completely any dominant
power and finding in her ‘belonging’ her highest achievement, women become
the tools of indoctrination and genetic engineering.

Sexual Selection

A woman possesses the most valuable and desirable part of an ephemeral

human existence; she produces and controls the human ovum which ensures
and directs the propagation of the species and decides its destiny.

Where men can produce billions of sperm in a lifetime and impregnate

thousands of women, women produce, in comparison, a scant amount of eggs
and can only gestate a minimal amount of offspring in the course of a lifetime.

Through her sexual selectivity she ensures the continuance of specific traits
and characteristics while it condemns others to eventual extinction. In her
mind a woman believes she is making a logical, free-willed choice based on
well thought out reasons and/or personal tastes, when she chooses a mate; in
fact she is merely following her genetic drive, her instinctive motivations and
her cultures prejudiced virtues.

It is this female ovum that males fight to control and to inseminate and through
this control to ensure their own continuance. This is one of the fundamental
principles of evolutionary mechanics.
It is therefore a woman’s aesthetic appeal that reveals her physical health, her
fertility and her mental faculties to bear and raise capable, fit offspring. It is
this physical appeal that men find irresistible and makes their devotion and
sacrifices towards women possible, it is also through this physical appeal and
the ends to which men will go to acquire access to a healthy ovum, that women
achieve their highest power through and the means by which they manage to
control men of often higher metal and physical strength than themselves.

These two female ‘powers’, if left unhindered by male intervention elevate

women to a privileged position of social strength as a valuable ‘asset’.

The female propensity to willingly and completely adopt the value systems she
finds herself in and in her overall control over who she will be impregnated by
makes her a ‘custodian’ of social conformity and a tool of genetic
manipulation.

But a woman’s choice isn’t as easy as it first may appear. If she isn’t a part of a
culture where her choice is taken away or restricted by male dominance, she is
further troubled by two forces battling over her attentions:

1}Intellectually, and if sufficiently indoctrinated within a cultural framework,

she is pulled to the socially acceptable and upwardly mobile male who, like
her, has adopted and completely conformed to the social/cultural/religious
norm and by doing this has ensured his social success giving him access to
resources restricted to the lawful and socially disciplined.
These resources are essential for women that are forced to live through a long
gestation period, making them more helpless than they would normally be, and
a following infant maturation process that takes decades and capital to be
considered a success.

2}Physically and instinctually she is still bound to her genetic predispositions

and still instinctually attracted to the archetypical male ideal, who through his
natural inclinations may appear violent, vulgar, arrogant, proud,
confrontational, and unyielding when judged according to our ‘modern’
standards but valuable within smaller groups where individual traits become
more decisive, when compared to the more effeminate, docile, socially
indoctrinated, tolerant and passive ‘modern’ male, that is most valued within
larger populations where individual traits and talents are less decisive.

In many species the male has been completely eradicated from the social group
and only plays a provisional role of inseminator; then being destroyed to
preserve the more controllable, submissive, female, maternal, socially stable
environment [Ants, bees, termites, wasps etc.]. Interesting also that where
female dominance reigns, such as in the before mentioned species, an absence
of individual personality and instinctive mindlessness is the prevailing
characteristic.
The previously mentioned two female sexual considerations are what play a
part in the misunderstanding and incomprehensibility of women to the average
male that cannot reconcile what women say and what they often do in
contradiction to what they say. It is the cause of this supposed female
‘mystique’ caused also by a general male indifference, as to the inner workings
of a female mind that gives women an advantage considering their insatiable
appetite for the inner workings of a males mind.
A woman’s superiority can be found in how she establishes and maintains
relationships and in her practical application of knowledge and experiences.

It isn’t, so much, that women are smarter than men when it comes to
psychology and social relationships but that they devote more of their
brainpower and time to these concerns. It is for this reason that females
develop faster and acquire better communication skills early on. The quickness
by which she reaches child-bearing maturity makes her relevant and her skill in
linguistic expression and understanding allows her to evaluate the underlying
social mechanics and her methods of adapting to them which establishes her
position and social value.

But the total devotion of a female mind to the immediately perceptible and
practical gives them an added advantage in social matters. A woman is
subconsciously adept in understanding body language and in interpreting
psychological states through the perception of external details and subliminal
messages. They call this: ‘woman’s intuition’.
She is always a step ahead of males in picking up and interpreting the minutiae
of physical information, freely given off by all of us, that are needed by her to
read personalities, qualities and interpersonal relationships and power
struggles. Her total commitment to appearances also makes her superficial and
completely uninterested or unaware of abstract concepts or underlying
realities.

Male Archetype

A man’s role within a social group is a more precarious one.

He is both expendable and an intrinsic part of the health of the whole; he can
be a definer of what it means to be human or be a mere failed attempt at it;
he can be the determiner of greatness or a symbol of degradation; he can be a
leader and guider of a group or relegated to a peripheral role; he can be the
goal or the error.

The demands upon the male intellect, because of the afore mentioned, are
greater than in females; he must be flexible and stringent, disciplined and
free-willed, strong and compassionate, proud and humble in a balance dictated
by the form of the group he wishes to become a successful, respected leader of
and the environment he is forced to exist within.

A mans mind is divided between the necessary perception of appearances and

the need to find advantage by evaluating and perceiving the non-perceptible,
through the abstract.
If a woman is the buyer of genetic potential then a man is inevitably the seller
and as such possesses the creativity, imagination, mental flexibility and
abstract thinking of one that must consistently prove his value to the whole in
order to ensure his relevance and importance.

But these necessary characteristics of a successful male are also the source of
his natural domination and lead to the eventual control over the forces of
nature that resulted in the restriction of female sexual power and made women
servants to male reason.
For males women are only a means to an end and hold no interest to them
beyond this, a fact many women use to their advantage, if they recognize it as
such.

A man’s natural inclination is to inseminate as many females as he possibly can

and then guide them and his offspring with his strength and power into copies
of himself; modern day practices of man as caretaker and homemaker is the
direct result of mans feminization where he has submitted to authorities more
powerful than himself and accepted a certain mode of behaviour that is
expected from him while contradictory to his inclinations.

The male type is governed by his need to control, to possess, and to be

independent and self-reliant; he is a natural sceptic and adversary of all that
binds him, restricts him or attempts to dominate him. It is this unyielding,
courageous male attitude that has lead to human dominion over nature and to
mankind’s unquestionable success and has opened up frontiers for human
exploitation. Ironically it is also this success that has made maleness
expendable and unwanted within growing social systems where a more
disciplinable, humble, demure, malleable type is more desirable.

Where there is uncertainty and fear, males become intrinsic, where there is
safety and predictability males become detrimental to harmony and uniformity.
Where there are un-chartered frontiers and unconquered worlds, men become
vital, where there is un-inquisitiveness and limitations imposed upon human
action and thought, men become dangerous and obtrusive.

Unlike women, men are not just born into value and importance by just being a
member of their gender but must earn any respect and privilege or perish in
the effort. It is this that drives men to higher and higher levels of mental and
physical perfection and has stretched human existence to such an extent that
it now threatens to separate him from his roots and through this stretching has
thinned out his spirit.

It is this creativity that is harnessed by ‘modern’ societies by making all men

investors in them by allowing them to procreate. An accomplishment achieved,
by the way, by the subjugation of women.
Man himself is responsible for the condition of his species, since women will go
along with any moral or spiritual decision that dominates the minds of men,
and because of this he becomes the creator of his own demise.

Is the male archetype a primitive expression of the human condition destined

to become extinct or marginalized? That remains to be seen, but one thing is
for certain, where maleness is extinguished so is the spark of individuality,
creativity, personality and un-harnessed potentiality.

Sexual Attraction

The game of sexual attraction is an intricate dance of flirtation and insinuation

that hides a deeper practical motivation.

Steven W. Gangstad PhD said on the matter:

“Flirting is a negotiation process that takes place after there has been initial
attraction.”

For women the ‘game’ of sexual attraction has additional complications and
considerations; for her the implications and consequences of a sexual
relationship will have far reaching results for her and her progeny that makes
her decision making a more complicated one.
Her natural instinctive inclinations, as I’ve already stated, attract her to the
archetypical male. The physical and mental strength that will be inherited,
through her, by her offspring, makes these natural attributes precious and
irresistible to her. But the further consideration of being impregnated by a
male with access to material resources, that will make her long gestation
comfortable and the following years of infant rearing successful, is essential to
a female’s choice.

In natural environments the physical and mental prowess of a male went hand-
in-hand with his resourcefulness and his access to the essentials whereas in our
modern world this is rarely the case.

In a ‘modern’ social environment access to resources and material wealth is

mostly accessible to males of a conforming predisposition that have been
assimilated within the cultural frameworks and adopted the ideals and values
of their environment. This ‘female’ predisposition has enabled most males to
pay the precious price [time and effort] of social ascension to reach goals given
to them by external sources without question or hesitation and has facilitated
their assimilation and subjugation to a stronger entity [that of society] as
women do. This is more evident in crucial position of social status such as
political posts or positions through which information and therefore
indoctrination is disseminated, such as the media. Here we can see the
promotion of individuals that more closely mirror the ideology of the governing
elite or the morality and value systems of the power centers acquiring quick
access to positions of power and influence and rewarded with affluence and
privilege as a consequence, whereas those diverging from the status quo or
exhibiting any free-thought are conspicuously left behind, eradicated or
ignored.

Furthermore, the demands of social progression exact such a high price on the
individual male as to make any dedication to physical and mental development,
impossible or rare. Men and women are so stressed and occupied with daily
concerns of economic survival, consumerism and economic ascension that the
‘self’, the only thing that truly matters, is neglected.

In modern social environments where physicality and intellectual power is not

as relevant to survival and where, inversely, it is a female psychology and easy
indoctrination that enables success, the sexual choice demanded from women
is made even more difficult.
Her femaleness is still fascinated by maleness and all the attributes that go
along with it but from a practical point of view, she must take into
consideration her mates social status, wealth and conventionality as to ensure
the well-being of her future offspring.
A further aspect of the sexual attraction game that sheds some light on how
female choice is made and what romantic love is many times based on, is, what
I call, the ‘bad-boy’ factor.

The ‘Bad-Boy’ Factor

It is well known that confidence is a very attractive attribute, especially for

males, but few really comprehend why this is so.
The founding principle of confidence is indifference to specific particulars and
a poise derived by the certainty that eventual success is attainable in the
general.

For example, when attempting to find a job confidence is derived by the self-
assurance that a job will be found eventually despite any particular, specific
failures, whereas non-confidence is based on the desperation of being
dependant on the acquisition of a single, particular job position which becomes
exaggerated in significance. This confidence, in turn, gets translated to
physical composure, mental focus and efficiency of movement which
desperation, through panic and anxiety, lacks.
That confidence rests on a foundation of indifference may be a difficult
concept to accept, especially in matters of sexual intimacy where ‘love’,
‘compassion’, ‘trust’ ‘respect’ and ‘dependence’ are considered to be the
romantic ideal, but nevertheless I believe evidence abounds as to its veracity.
The ‘bad-boy’ factor is a case in point.

It is evident, to all that understand the characteristics of the ‘bad-boy’, that

the brash, swaggering and often abusive confidence, that makes them
irresistible to females, is rooted in a general indifference caused by an
overabundance of sexual options. For certain men, that can have their pick of
women, the specific individual woman becomes irrelevant, making them
confident and arrogant enough to display their true male character and
individual personality with little regard as to the consequences.

Confidence and independence also expresses an abundance of choice caused by

access to superfluous resources that makes a specific supply of marginal
importance.

For females, that are genetically predisposed to seek out resources and genetic
health, this aspect of maleness becomes attractive because it also reveals a
males marketability and desirability. When a male has multiple sexual options
then he must be an asset worth considering, when he has limited choices then
his obsession with a particular female, far from remaining flattering, becomes
unattractive and even repulsive.

This will also explain the phenomenon of adultery where males that are
married or attached somehow become more attractive to females just because
they are taken by other females and it sheds some light into the phenomenon
where women remain in often abusive relationships.

It is ironic that women find men attractive that are relatively indifferent to
them specifically and find men unappealing that are infatuated with them
specifically [The ‘nice’ guy they want to remain friends with].

It is also noteworthy, that in a more general application of the indifference

rule, that we become more successful in the things we do not really need,
desire or obsess over and less so in the things we badly yearn for. Life itself,
when the matter of death is overcome and a general indifference to mortality
is achieved, becomes more enjoyable and rewarding but when we frantically
deny death and find clever ways to ensure immortality through religion, we
display the desperation and anxious strain that restricts life and limits our
existence.

To ‘not care’ does not mean to ‘not value’ but it does mean to be ‘independent
from’. This independence displays itself in confidence, pride, self-reliance and
contentment that others will perceive intuitively, and wishing to share in it,
will be inevitably attracted to.

Epilogue

Given, the before mentioned gender archetypes, it is relatively clear that the
‘perfect’ type for social participation is the feminine one. The female, with her
instinctual need to belong and to maintain cohesion and harmony, with her
complete reliance on external reflections for self-realization and her willing
and total adaptation to shared ideals and ideas, makes her the ideal type for
large social environments such as found in modern civilizations and nation-
states.

The male, on the other hand, with his independent, uncompromising

individuality, rebelliousness, imaginative creativity and prideful psychology
makes him more ideal for smaller social groups where individual personality
and distinctiveness plays a more important role in group survival.

It is therefore not surprising that distinctly female traits are idolized and the
human mind is inseminated with the female ideal in our present day world of
mounting populations and diminishing resources.
Where peace and stability are of the utmost importance, being female or
‘feminine’ is an obvious advantage.

But beyond this social influence and cultural prejudiced leanings, women as
sexually selective powers become the guarantors that the socially acceptable
human characteristics that are rewarded with privileged positions of social
status, will also be rewarded by their reproduction in future generations by
selecting males that exhibit the right mixture of female and male
predispositions, even if instinctively and physically they are still more attracted
to the more ‘primitive’ male archetype.

The gradual extinction of the male started in the human species when human
physical weakness forced man to evolve social sensitivities in order to improve
survival odds. It was later speeded up through genetic degradation which
resulted in fatigue and a psychological ineptness to accept nature, and her
cruel ways, as the order of things, leading to a general disillusionment with life
and existence, as expressed through nihilistic religions in the east and in
philosophical nihilism in the west.

Socrates was the first, well known, victim of this trend and the culminating
focal point of Hellenic degradation. The final blow was struck when the
western body, weakened by centuries of decadence and comfort [due to
unforeseen success] was eventually infected with the moral/ethical systems of
a people condemned, by history and chance, to be outcasts and the slaves of
more powerful civilizations. The attraction to this slavish moral system to the
unfortunate growing masses of the underprivileged, multiplying consistently
due to mans survival superiority, domination over nature and past spiritual
nobility, is understandable. Along with it came equalitarianism, complacency
and uniformity caused by the numerical superiority of the weak and the
intellectual and spiritual fatigue of the strong caused, in turn, by the unceasing
struggle and the stifling effects of exaggerated intellectual scepticism.

In more recent times, in the west, with the emancipation of women, the role
of maleness and manhood has been further diminished. We see signs of a
western hermaphroditization in the changing aesthetic male ideal physical form
as promoted by popular culture. The slim build and the adolescent, almost
girlish, look, the hairless torso all reveal the feminization of manhood; the
emergence of homosexuality, once a source of social stigmatization, as a viable
life choice alternative, a cute, amusing quirk of nature awaiting its own
emancipation also reveals the feminization of man and the drift to his eventual
extinction. In nature any display of homosexuality is one of dominance and not
of affection or sexual attraction. Many have taken this natural display of
authority as evidence for the ‘normalcy’ of homoeroticism.

We must remember that nature is efficient and nothing exists without a

purpose, or else it atrophies and disappears like the human appendix or a
muscle that is never used. It is then perplexing why homosexuality would exist
in nature, since it has no purpose and the act of sexual interaction, existing to
facilitate propagation, would be practiced between members of the same
gender.

In truth homosexuality is a distinctly human mutation and an extreme result of

human male degradation.
Female emancipation that resulted in the flattening of gender differences is
now followed by a drive towards homosexual emancipation, where
male/female distinction will be further eroded making gender roles and gender
divisions of no relevance.
Mankind is on the road to a hermaphroditic existence where procreation will be
conducted in test-tubes and sex will become a matter of entertainment with
little spiritual or procreative significance.

The levelling of man continues.

October, 2003-10-20