Why Women Choose Thugs

[Today's Guest Post submitted by Codebuster]

Let’s be clear about two things:

• The New York Times poses the question, What do women want? It is well documented that women have rape fantasies;

• Feminists do not want you to know this (duh!). Indeed, at this early stage, evidence seems to suggest that not only do they not want you to know this, but they will implement measures in direct contravention of their cherished free speech traditions to ensure that you are denied the right to know this. We should expect the topic of women’s rape fantasies to become the new taboo. But I digress.

We’ve covered the topic of rape fantasies before on Welmer’s website, so we really don’t need to revisit it in detail. Suffice it to say that I and the rest of us at The Spearhead abhor and reject the idea of rape. It is true to say that just because a woman fantasizes about being raped does not mean that she wants to be raped. Most of us will have no problem with respecting such basic rights and we would not wish to deny any woman the freedom to walk the streets unhindered. However, we must face the likelihood that women’s inclinations to fantasize about rape must surely predispose them to making certain kinds of choices, whether it’s the way that they dress or the men that they choose. Women’s rape fantasies speak to the way that women actualize their realities.

What word should we use to describe this dimension of female sexuality? In her Diary II, Anais Nin made the comment, “To be violated is perhaps a need in a woman, a secret erotic need.” It would seem appropriate to nominate “violation” as the word that best encapsulates this dimension.

It is nothing new or controversial to suggest that violation features in pornography – for example Frontline hosted a program called American Porn, where the violation to which one star was subjected was not entirely scripted, nor against her will. What is perhaps more controversial was her willing complicity.

Violation, then, is integral to female sexuality, and it manifests itself along a continuum. A woman fantasizes about having her prissy, crystalline niceness violated. Of course there are different contexts, but in terms of primal drives, violation is its essence.

The practical implications of women’s rape fantasies

At one end of the scale is the rough stuff. It’s why women have rape fantasies. At the other end of the scale is intimacy. It’s why women fall in love and why they long to share their sexuality with someone to whom they are loyal. Female sexuality applies to all women, and they make their choices along this violation continuum. There are several implications:

• Every woman has within her the potential to betray and to like the rough stuff. Every woman has within her the potential to be loyal and to like the intimacy. Clearly it dishonours a man to betray loyalty – but it also dishonours him to harm even those who willingly so submit;

• I’ve seen fine, loyal women who’ve had everything going for them become sluts and I’ve seen sluts become loyal and loving partners. I’ve seen women who have had everything going for them partner up with idiots, only become the trash that they chose, and I’ve seen women with nothing going for them hit the jackpot by way of a wealthy fool to become entitlement princesses. Of course men also change with the choices they make – but by and large, men seem to be more in control of their destinies than women do. My point? There’s complicated stuff going on, quite profound actually (perhaps I’ll do a follow-up blog). The only thing that I can assert with any amount of certainty is that women don’t understand either women or men anywhere near to the same depth that men do. What women interpret as “empathy” has nothing whatsoever to do with understanding people and everything to do with diplomacy and social engagement;

• Important to understanding women is their reliance on superficial labels. Women don’t apprehend depth. They don’t have to – it’s one of the costs of living lives of entitlement. Contrast this with men who, like our Game specialists, expend considerable effort in understanding what makes people tick. No such demands are placed on women;

• I’m thinking of a friend’s daughter as I write this, 17 years old, and her boyfriend. Why do girls from solid backgrounds choose annoying, characterless twerps to impact on their destinies? Think “label”. Adolescent males with adolescent priorities, leaving school early to enter the workforce, have their labels sorted out. Of course their labels are short-term and transient, but young, impressionable girls relying on peer acceptance don’t see this. What do I mean by “label”? It’s the badge, what they stand for, lifestyle – drugs, adolescent fashion statements, maybe as leader of a pack, or maybe as belonging to the “right” pack or peer group. It all comes down to label. This is the stuff of impulse;

• Men typically get their thrills from risk – for example, extreme sports, exciting business transactions, and so on. Women also get their thrills from risk. But where sports or business negotiations are of little interest to them, women get their thrills from risky sex. It’s the thrill of the forbidden.

• Nice guys don’t do the rough stuff, and raunchy sex with a nice-guy is a contradiction in terms. That’s why casual sex with a nice guy doesn’t do it for women. That’s why a woman being pumped by a nice-guy is much more likely to want to get it over with, and she has to restrain herself from blurting out “aren’t you done yet?”

• Only thugs or bad-boys can deliver on the rape fantasy. The most successful PUAs are the ones that can manage that fine line between thrill and fear. If a man spooks a woman and fails to appease her fears, she’ll jump to conclusions and dump him without having the faintest notion of what he stands for or what he is. But if he comes across as too safe, if she cannot respect (fear) him, he’ll become invisible to her as just another nice-guy. He’ll become just another piece of that vague, amorphous mass of beta-hood, another piece of the furniture. This interface between thrill and fear presents to the seasoned PUA a fine balancing-act that calls upon all his skills in psychology, deception, confidence and charm;

• Bad-boys are more likely to initiate, and this simple fact swings the statistical outcome in their favour. Most men learn fairly early on in life that if you hesitate, opportunities will pass you by. Women don’t have to confront the ramifications of this basic dynamic and it is another manifestation of their lives of entitlement that precludes them from having to take responsibility for their dumb choices;

• Game theorist David DeAngelo observes that “Most men fail miserably when it comes to online dating.” I disagree with David on this. It’s women that fail miserably when it comes to online dating. They don’t have a clue, they jump to conclusions on the basis of limited information. In one sense, we can’t blame women because they have to somehow sort through the large numbers of men that are available. But in another important sense, women are essentially incapable of making astute judgements in the way that men can. And they multiply their ineptitude with their vacuous shopping-lists of requirements that bear no relationship to the Game techniques that can ultimately snare a date – on this latter point, we can definitely agree with David. You can virtually ignore what a woman states in her profile, and you will have much better luck, instead, snaring her with a bit of Game;

• Women realize, at some fundamental level, that they cannot compete with men on an intellectual basis, try as they might to deny it. Women have serious esteem issues that are very different from men’s. Where men typically test themselves against reality’s slings and arrows, women test themselves against the opinions of others (recommended keyword search – “relational aggression” “social proof”). One of the consequences of women’s fragile self-esteem is the Groucho Marx syndrome “I don’t want to belong to any club that would have me as a member”. That’s why many women are inclined to submit to the thugs that assert themselves. If he doesn’t respect her, it is clear to her that he has the superior status that she values in a man;

• Within the context of male-female interactions, a nice-guy can make an ideal marriage partner, whose provider status can ensure a steady income for the rest of a woman’s life. Nice-guys don’t make demands, they pedestalize their wives, and they embrace their provider roles without complaining. But a nice-guy beta is never ever sexy, he never stirs the violation instincts of anyone. He is only ever “useful” as an agent of materialism;

• Women are more inclined to assume things than to question them. They are more likely to jump to conclusions about things, such as people’s intentions. It’s an extension of the mindset that relies on labels. Women don’t have their delusions tested. Reality changes things and a bit of rough stuff can have the effect either of awakening a thrill that a woman never knew existed, or compelling her to retreat into a shell of frigid denial;

• How can we know this stuff? You can’t ask a woman directly, not so much because she’ll lie about it (though yes, they will lie), but more because she won’t understand your reference point, she has no way of expressing her experience from a perspective that means something to you. You have to pretty much infer this stuff from a lot of observation, listening to women talk, and reading between the lines. You have to imagine how you yourself would alter your thinking if you were limited to a life of provided-for entitlement. Reading novels by women helps, because it can shed light on what they value and fantasize about. Reading philosophy by men helps, because philosophy concerns itself with probing analysis, and how it is that reality is perceived the way it is. Probing analysis is just not what women do.

The bottom line? The reason that women choose thugs is not a mirage. It’s not a product of arbitrary statistical processes. There are very specific reasons why women choose thugs. Of course within the violation continuum, there are shades of gray and complex reasons that are factored into why women choose the men they do. But the point that I make here is that casual sex, at one end of the continuum, receives its motivations from instincts that are alien to what most men assume. Men have to come to terms with the nature of female sexuality and its relationship to violation and the forbidden. There is a direct relationship between violation, rape, female arousal and love. There is no such thing as “nice” violation. The rough stuff, at its most primal level, requires a thug. By contrast, love requires an archetype that is discouraged within the Anglosphere, wherein alphas – or at least paper alphas – go some way to filling the void. Nice-guys might make reliable providers, but they cannot be associated with respect, and they don’t fall into either camp. They are just “useful” drones, as expendable as cannon-fodder in the battles instigated and headed by alphas.

It is perhaps valuable to conclude this post with a quote from another era, to take note of the timeless parallels that seem to be implied:

Very deep-seated differences are linked with what I have been describing. The mother-woman craves for respectability in the man, not because she grasps its value as an idea, but because it is the supporter of the life of the world. She herself works, and is not idle like the prostitute; she is filled with care for the future, and so requires from the man a corresponding practical responsibility, and will not seduce him to pleasure. The prostitute, on the other hand, is most attracted by a careless, idle, dissipated man. A man that has lost self- restraint repels the mother-woman, is attractive to the prostitute. There are women who are dissatisfied with a son that is idle at school; there are others who encourage him. The diligent boy pleases the mother-woman, the idle and careless boy wins approval from the prostitute type. This distinction reaches high up amongst the respectable classes of society, but a salient example of it is seen in the fact that the ‘bullies’ loved by women of the streets are usually criminals. The souteneur is always a criminal, a thief, a fraudulent person, or sometimes even a murderer.

I am almost on the point of saying that, however little woman is to be regarded as immoral (she is only non-moral), prostitution stands in some deep relation with crime, whilst motherhood is equally bound with the opposite tendency. We must avoid regarding the prostitute as the female analogue of the criminal; women, as I have already pointed out, are not criminals; they are too low in the moral scale for that designation. None the less, there is a constant connection between the prostitute type and crime. The great courtesan is comparable with that great criminal, the conqueror, and readily enters into actual relations with him; the petty courtesan entertains the thief and the pickpocket. The mother type is in fact the guardian of the life of the world, the prostitute type is its enemy. But just as the mother is in harmony, not with the soul but with the body, so the prostitute is no diabolic destroyer of the idea, but only a corrupter of empirical phenomena. Physical life and physical death, both of which are in intimate connection with the sexual act, are displayed by the woman in her two capacities of mother and prostitute. (1906: 233-234)

Weininger, O. (1906) Sex and Character. Translated from the 6th German edition. London: William Heinemann. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons.