Ray Peat On Sex And Relationships

[Sucrates]

Using the behaviour of the noble bonobos in captivity as a standard for human behaviour is akin to saying we should build society around the rodent behaviours of Calhoun's "Mouse Utopia".

https://www.skepticink.com/incredulous/2014/12/29/questioning-sexy-bonobo-hype-part-2-primatologist-responds-christopher-ryan/

 

[Amazoniac]

Resistance, as with compliance, was seen as confirmation of the masters assertions.

"The seduction stories that provide the empirical basis of the Oedipal complex were a construction by Freud, who then interpreted his patients’ distress on hearing his constructions as proof of the theory. Freud then engaged in deception to obscure the fact that his patients’ stories were reconstructions and interpretations based on an a priori theory. Freud also retroactively changed the identity of the fancied seducers from non-family members (such as servants) because the Oedipal story required fathers. Esterson provides numerous other examples of deception (and self-deception) and notes that they were typically couched in Freud’s brilliant and highly convincing rhetorical style. Both Esterson (1992) and Lakoff and Coyne (1993, 83-86) show that Freud’s famous analysis of the teenage Dora (in which her rejection of the pedophilic sexual advances of an older married man is attributed to hysteria and sexual repression) was based entirely on preconceived ideas and circular reasoning in which the patient’s negative emotional response to the psychoanalytic hypothesis is construed as evidence for the hypothesis. Freud engaged in similar deceptive reconstructions in an earlier phase of his theory construction when he believed that seductions had actually occurred (Powell & Boer 1994). It was a methodology that could produce any desired result.

A particularly egregious tendency is to interpret patient resistance and distress as an indication of the truth of psychoanalytic claims. Of course, patients were not the only ones who resisted psychoanalysis, and all other forms of resistance were similarly an indication of the truth of psychoanalysis. As Freud himself noted, “I am met with hostility and live in such isolation that one must suppose I had discovered the greatest truths” (in Bonaparte, Freud & Kris 1957, 163). As we shall see, resistance to psychoanalytic “truth” on the part of patients, deviating psychoanalysts, and even entire cultures was viewed as a sure sign of the truth of psychoanalysis and the pathology of those who resisted.

Because of this reconstructive, interpretive manner of theory construction, the authority of the psychoanalyst became the only criterion of the truth of psychoanalytic claims—a situation that leads quite naturally to the expectation that the movement, in order to be successful, would necessarily be highly authoritarian."

If people rigidify to avoid vulnerability, psychoanalysts can be exploitive if they are able to loosen those layers and gain people's trusts. This usually involves setting up clear roles of overpowering superiority and submissive inferiority. Alice Miller used to warn on her books that professionals need to be careful to avoid this common mistake. They must be pissed off if they cannot access people, and if it's a renowed professional, you know the story: the patient is insane or a lost case.

 

[managing]

Plenty to see there, plus lots of effeminate or gayish men. Virtually every commercial including a married couple shows some form of a high-T wife bullying or mocking her low-T dumb-a*s husband.

You know, if you cherry pick the evidence you can prove anything. Or are you calling Cullen Bohannon, Ned Stark, Don Draper, etc, feminine?

 

[DaveFoster]

Ned Stark

He died early on. Loyalty leads to death in Hollywood.

 

[managing]

He died early on. Loyalty leads to death in Hollywood.

He just didn't want to become a source of PUFA for whitewalkers . . .

 

[DaveFoster]

He just didn't want to become a source of PUFA for whitewalkers . . .

Assuredly they must be hypothyroid already; their temps rarely rise above 98 F.

 

[Badger]

You know, if you cherry pick the evidence you can prove anything. Or are you calling Cullen Bohannon, Ned Stark, Don Draper, etc, feminine?

There's always some exceptions that prove the rule, a rule of thumb that can be applied to anything that has been known for a long time. Ironic unintentionally, on your part, to name Draper as an example, since there were many more masculine men in the 1960s era the TV series is based was on than now. Using a femmy guy in that role would have been, as they say, historically inaccurate.

Plus I have not named other examples of point I'm trying to make to make a better case. Another example is these days (look at pictures of women prior to say 1975), there are far more 20s and 30s women now who are hipless, in my experience of noticing, having no curves in hip area. They may even look great facially, but their lack of noticeable female hips makes them look like boys from belly-button down. Another indication of increasing masculinzing of females.

Manjaw + no hips + no curves + small breasts + routine aggressive hyper-careerist attitude + sluttin' around = 2nd rate male.

 

[kyle]

It's almost like Hollywood, Marxism, pornography and psychoanalysis are all part of a larger conspiracy...nah, can't be.

 

[managing]

There's always some exceptions that prove the rule, a rule of thumb that can be applied to anything that has been known for a long time. Ironic unintentionally, on your part, to name Draper as an example, since there were many more masculine men in the 1960s era the TV series is based was on than now. Using a femmy guy in that role would have been, as they say, historically inaccurate.

Plus I have not named other examples of point I'm trying to make to make a better case. Another example is these days (look at pictures of women prior to say 1975), there are far more 20s and 30s women now who are hipless, in my experience of noticing, having no curves in hip area. They may even look great facially, but their lack of noticeable female hips makes them look like boys from belly-button down. Another indication of increasing masculinzing of females.

Manjaw + no hips + no curves + small breasts + routine aggressive hyper-careerist attitude + sluttin' around = 2nd rate male.

Really, I think you are telling us a lot more about yourself than you mean to, LOL.

 

[Badger]

You know nothing about me, so laugh all you want. Your unreasoning rejection of this actually says much about you instead.

Really, I think you are telling us a lot more about yourself than you mean to, LOL.

 

[Badger]

Facial Structure Of Men And Women Has Become More Similar Over Time
Facial Structure Of Men And Women Has Become More Similar Over Time | NC State News | NC State University
"Researchers found that craniofacial differences between contemporary men and women are less pronounced than they were in the 16th century. The researchers also found that, while craniofacial features for both sexes in Spain have changed over time, the changes have been particularly significant in females. For example, the facial structure of modern Spanish females is much larger than the structure of 16th century females. This difference may stem from improved nutrition or other environmental factors." [Comment: I would add that nutrition and environmental factors include greater economic independence from men, thanks to feminism and its influence, plus greater prosperity means more fatties.]

The Masculinization Of The Western White Female
The Masculinization Of The Western White Female
For understanding commentary below, check out link above:
"The pictures above are computer generated composites of, on the left, eight hot babes from Askmen.com’s Top 99 Women of 2008, and on the right, seven Best Actress Oscar winners from the 1940s. If you go to the Dienekes link, you’ll see photos of the individual women used to make the composites.

A couple thoughts…Both women are attractive. This isn’t a comparison between beautiful and not beautiful; it’s a comparison between two beauties of nuanced facial differences. The 2008 composite hot babe is more masculine than the 1940s composite hottie. 2008 woman has smaller eyes, slightly thinner lips, more angular jawline, and a heavier brow ridge overhang — all indicators of masculinization. She has a smaller nose, which is more feminine, but with nose jobs being standard operating procedure for modern women in the looks-based industries (actresses included) it’s not revealing to compare the natural noses of past beauties with the manufactured noses of present beauties. I bet if I could feel the cheeks of each woman the cheek of the 2008 composite would have a soft layer of vellous peach fuzz, while the cheek of the 1940s composite would be nearly free of vestigial ape fur. I’d also bet that the 2008 composite is sluttier than the 1940s composite...

I found these composites fascinating for what it potentially reveals about American mating preferences of the last 60 years. Is it simply an example of marketers, agents, and producers in 2008 choosing women who look masculinized based on the whims of personal (read: gay) preference? Or is the genetic pool of beauties becoming more masculinized such that there aren’t many ultrafeminine women available to rise up the ranks of the looks-based industries? If the latter, is it possible for the genetic substrate of OBJECTIVELY DEFINABLE beauty to change so rapidly? Within a few generations? My belief is that it is equally likely that genetic change drives cultural change as the other way around, and this includes the average change in women’s facial bone morphology."

You know, if you cherry pick the evidence you can prove anything. Or are you calling Cullen Bohannon, Ned Stark, Don Draper, etc, feminine?

 

[Badger]

One question that I never see defenders of feminist doctrinal pillars ever answer along the lines discussed here is why do modern, feminist, educated and "smart" women, so very quick to point out the innumerable sins of the patriarchy comprised of hetero (usually white) men, are the first to openly embrace immigration of Muslims (most of whom are Salafis and Wahabis in varying degrees), whose own views on women and feminism are extremely retrograde, primitive and vulgar in the extreme, to put it very nicely, from a feminist POV. Makes no sense, right? But it does, as I found recently from this un-PC blog post:

"PA (his blog here) delivers a swift uppercut to the triple chin of America’s gender blender equalists. The difference between man and woman: the lion fights to the death for his cubs. The lioness goes into heat when an interloper kills her cubs. The analogy that PA draws explains why women are more amenable than men to voting for politicians who will open the borders to mass quantities of alien races. It’s just a simple fact of sex differences that women come pre-installed with a submission algorithm that executes with a supine ferocity at the exact moment a stronger, more self-confident tribe of men overruns their own men wracked with doubt and enfeeblement.

Islam...is the ultraviolent tribe currently laying waste to the West’s shibboleths, if not the West’s lands, but give it time…if enough shibboleths fall, the spiritually impoverished people of the West will cede their lands with barely a fight (and more likely than not with an excuse for why ceding territory is a moral imperative). And if the estrogenized transom is any indication, too many women are rushing to defend Muslim interlopers from whitemalepatriarchychristianbigotsgunlovingredneckbiblebeltthumpers. Western women are figuratively, and in some cases literally, going into heat for the marauding morlocks."
Comment Of The Week: The Lion And The Lioness
Comment Of The Week: The Lion And The Lioness

Yeah, I know, the dude writing words above expresses himself a little crudely, a little too rough (especially in the rest of the post), and its NOT TRUE about all women, I know, I know, but I suggest for anyone taking offense, try to get past that, look for the truth, merit and validity in it. I think there is some. Have at it if you have a better answer to the question posed.

 

[managing]

Facial Structure Of Men And Women Has Become More Similar Over Time
Facial Structure Of Men And Women Has Become More Similar Over Time | NC State News | NC State University
"Researchers found that craniofacial differences between contemporary men and women are less pronounced than they were in the 16th century. The researchers also found that, while craniofacial features for both sexes in Spain have changed over time, the changes have been particularly significant in females. For example, the facial structure of modern Spanish females is much larger than the structure of 16th century females. This difference may stem from improved nutrition or other environmental factors." [Comment: I would add that nutrition and environmental factors include greater economic independence from men, thanks to feminism and its influence, plus greater prosperity means more fatties.]

The Masculinization Of The Western White Female
The Masculinization Of The Western White Female
For understanding commentary below, check out link above:
"The pictures above are computer generated composites of, on the left, eight hot babes from Askmen.com’s Top 99 Women of 2008, and on the right, seven Best Actress Oscar winners from the 1940s. If you go to the Dienekes link, you’ll see photos of the individual women used to make the composites.

A couple thoughts…Both women are attractive. This isn’t a comparison between beautiful and not beautiful; it’s a comparison between two beauties of nuanced facial differences. The 2008 composite hot babe is more masculine than the 1940s composite hottie. 2008 woman has smaller eyes, slightly thinner lips, more angular jawline, and a heavier brow ridge overhang — all indicators of masculinization. She has a smaller nose, which is more feminine, but with nose jobs being standard operating procedure for modern women in the looks-based industries (actresses included) it’s not revealing to compare the natural noses of past beauties with the manufactured noses of present beauties. I bet if I could feel the cheeks of each woman the cheek of the 2008 composite would have a soft layer of vellous peach fuzz, while the cheek of the 1940s composite would be nearly free of vestigial ape fur. I’d also bet that the 2008 composite is sluttier than the 1940s composite...

I found these composites fascinating for what it potentially reveals about American mating preferences of the last 60 years. Is it simply an example of marketers, agents, and producers in 2008 choosing women who look masculinized based on the whims of personal (read: gay) preference? Or is the genetic pool of beauties becoming more masculinized such that there aren’t many ultrafeminine women available to rise up the ranks of the looks-based industries? If the latter, is it possible for the genetic substrate of OBJECTIVELY DEFINABLE beauty to change so rapidly? Within a few generations? My belief is that it is equally likely that genetic change drives cultural change as the other way around, and this includes the average change in women’s facial bone morphology."

You know that Cullen Bohannon, Ned Stark and Don Draper are not real, don't you? Is there a nurse Ratched in your past?

 

[Badger]

You know that Cullen Bohannon, Ned Stark and Don Draper are not real, don't you? Is there a nurse Ratched in your past?

I know Draper et al are fictional characters, I was talking about a type.

 

[Sucrates]

One question that I never see defenders of feminist doctrinal pillars ever answer along the lines discussed here is why do modern, feminist, educated and "smart" women, so very quick to point out the innumerable sins of the patriarchy comprised of hetero (usually white) men, are the first to openly embrace immigration of Muslims (most of whom are Salafis and Wahabis in varying degrees), whose own views on women and feminism are extremely retrograde, primitive and vulgar in the extreme, to put it very nicely, from a feminist POV. Makes no sense, right? But it does, as I found recently from this un-PC blog post:

"PA (his blog here) delivers a swift uppercut to the triple chin of America’s gender blender equalists. The difference between man and woman: the lion fights to the death for his cubs. The lioness goes into heat when an interloper kills her cubs. The analogy that PA draws explains why women are more amenable than men to voting for politicians who will open the borders to mass quantities of alien races. It’s just a simple fact of sex differences that women come pre-installed with a submission algorithm that executes with a supine ferocity at the exact moment a stronger, more self-confident tribe of men overruns their own men wracked with doubt and enfeeblement.

Islam...is the ultraviolent tribe currently laying waste to the West’s shibboleths, if not the West’s lands, but give it time…if enough shibboleths fall, the spiritually impoverished people of the West will cede their lands with barely a fight (and more likely than not with an excuse for why ceding territory is a moral imperative). And if the estrogenized transom is any indication, too many women are rushing to defend Muslim interlopers from whitemalepatriarchychristianbigotsgunlovingredneckbiblebeltthumpers. Western women are figuratively, and in some cases literally, going into heat for the marauding morlocks."
Comment Of The Week: The Lion And The Lioness
Comment Of The Week: The Lion And The Lioness

Yeah, I know, the dude writing words above expresses himself a little crudely, a little too rough (especially in the rest of the post), and its NOT TRUE about all women, I know, I know, but I suggest for anyone taking offense, try to get past that, look for the truth, merit and validity in it. I think there is some. Have at it if you have a better answer to the question posed.

This is based in a false conception of marxist feminism, that is it pro-women and/or anti-men. It is based on a hatred/fear of western culture, not a hatred of men in general. Any of the other neo-marxist and freudian sects makes sense in perspective too.

 

[Badger]

This is based in a false conception of marxist feminism, that is it pro-women and/or anti-men. It is based on a hatred/fear of western culture, not a hatred of men in general. Any of the other neo-marxist and freudian sects makes sense in perspective too.

Interesting, have to think about that.

 

[managing]

This is based in a false conception of marxist feminism, that is it pro-women and/or anti-men. It is based on a hatred/fear of western culture, not a hatred of men in general. Any of the other neo-marxist and freudian sects makes sense in perspective too.

I thought it was based on a false conception that lions and humans are the same, ethnologically speaking.

 

[Badger]

Upon reflection, I don't think your distinguishing what you think is their real object of hatred matters much. It's a distinction that makes little if any difference. Because what is "western culture"? The cultural Marxists relentlessly shriek it is comprised of a "patriarchy" of white, hetero men. The phrase "western culture" is an abstract code term for such. In other words, when cultural Marxists get down into the weeds of tactics and strategy, of specifics of how to fight the boogeyman of western culture, they are compelled to point their fingers at something real, not an abstraction, and that is men, of type mentioned. Name the enemy properly, hate ensues. Hate energizes - and we know all about "energy" in Peatland, don't we? Though it seems we are biased into thinking about it in more lovey-dovey terms. Energized hate leads to social change and revolution. Feminism is one of various conduits of energized hate, with men the primary target and instigator - symbolically as framed by the feminists - of that energized hate. Marxists have known about energized hate a long time, to their profit.

This is based in a false conception of marxist feminism, that is it pro-women and/or anti-men. It is based on a hatred/fear of western culture, not a hatred of men in general. Any of the other neo-marxist and freudian sects makes sense in perspective too.

 

[managing]

Name the enemy properly, hate ensues.

Is your enemy muslims or man-jawed feminists? Or is it man-jawed feminists who want to get knocked up by muslims?

 

[Drareg]

Pretty decent analysis I'd say. "Saharasia" by James Demeo is a research project based off the biological-psychological understanding of Reich's work and it echoes a lot of that but traces the historical and cultural development more rigorously.

Thanks will check this out