Random Xpat Rantings

Contemplative dominance for the modern man

Women think emotionally, therefore can’t be trusted

Posted by xsplat on June 7, 2013

scorpion wrote RE: Do you trust women?
Once you understand how women think you’d have to be an absolute idiot to ever trust them. As the physically weaker sex, women evolved to rely on deception and manipulation as their weapons. It’s simply what they do. You can always count on a woman to lie to you under certain circumstances the same way you can count on a man to punch you in the face under certain circumstances.

A woman’s entire view of the world is seen through the lens of her emotions. This means that her perception of reality will shift based on her emotional swings. To be fair, this happens to men as well, but to a much smaller degree. With women, however, the shifts are extremely pronounced.

The result is that women have no firm grounding in reality. Everything in a woman’s life is built on a foundation of the shifting sands of her emotions. She can love you one minute and hate you the next. Women have no innate understanding of honor or justice, because to a woman these concepts do not exist independently of herself. In the female mind, “justice” is whatever is just to her. “Honor” is whatever makes her feel good about herself. Solipsism is inherent to their worldview.

This means that women have absolutely no moral qualms about lying, because to them lying is perfectly justified. Lying is a means of serving their feelings and emotions, which always take precedence. They honestly do not even view lying as being wrong, because they create justifications for it that excuse them. For example, a woman can rationalize cheating and lying to her boyfriend by telling herself that “he’s not meeting my emotional needs”. With this rationalization, she is able to self-justify and excuse the lying and cheating. In her mind, she has a RIGHT to lie and cheat if doing so makes her feel good.

You will also find that a woman is incapable of any sort of self-reflection or self-blame. Instead, women will invariably find some external cause (usually a man) to blame when anything goes wrong for them. By placing blame externally, the woman is also able to rationalize all sorts of anti-social behavior in order to help extricate her from the situation. So when a woman lies and cheats on her boyfriend, she literally does not see herself as doing anything wrong. She sees her boyfriend as the one who is wrong, and herself as the innocent victim.

Never treat anything with a woman as set in stone. Given their emotional instability, capacity for self-delusion and innate proclivity for dissimulation, truth and honor have no meaning to them.

iknowexactly wrote RE: White Chicks Surveyed About Guys Going to BKK!!
Your question illustrates the lack of logical processes in women.

In most women, what passes for logic or morality is applied after the emotion is felt. Emotion is the primary mediator in dealing with the world. So if a guy makes her feel good, he is good. “People just don’t understand him.” They can’t or won’t honestly debate the issue because they can’t, there’s no integrity in their logic.
They simply change the subject, or end the argument by declaring what they feel, as if that’s a valid conclusion.

Evidence: Women thinking about how the Boston Bomber must be innocent because he is cute.
Evidence: How women almost never apologize, because since they felt that way at the time they bit your head off, they were justified.

Unlike a worldly guy who fucks a 20 year old whore and knows the woman is probably sociopathic as hell and totally untrustworthy, even though it felt great to ream her ass.

About these ads

26 Responses to “Women think emotionally, therefore can’t be trusted”

  1. […] xsplat.wordpress.com […]

  2. UCB said

    While this is undoubtedly true, my response lately to also the negativity from these would-be PUAs is “so what?” Yes, women are untrustworthy and almost always put emotion before logic, but they are also eminently predictable. Once you’ve mastered a particular woman’s emotions, you can pretty much throw “game” (yours and everyone else’s) out the window.

    So many PUAs preach about having an “abundance mentality,” but you can see from forum posts how few of them actually believe it. Sure, it hurts to have a girl drop you for some more interesting proposition, but that’s as much a sign of your weakness as it hers. Yeah, I know… hypergamy and all that. But most women do have at least a semi-conscious recognition of when they’re about to top out. If you’re the most genuinely alpha guy within range, then her propensity towards jumping ship is irrelevant. Even if one particular girl misjudges and jumps ship away from her best option, invariably there will be a half-dozen others waiting to capitalize on her mistake. (I should note here that I tend to use “you/your” in a general sense… and not directed at you specifically, xsplat. I actually find your ideas on managing this inherent un-trustworthiness of women to be rather compelling, and I’m working towards adopting them into my own life as much as feasibly possible.)

    Besides, unless you’re serious about having children with said girl, then why even bother considering sexual fidelity as a meaningful metric anyway? I have no doubt that most of my girls will eventually step out on me on occasion. I think women’s need for sexual variety is at least as great as men’s, if not moreso. But since I’m generally one of the best options available to them, they invariably circle back around… usually for the long-haul once they figure out I have no real desire to temper their sexual flame. I think most of the guys on roosh’s forum are just butt-hurt because they know that despite years invested in learning game, they’ve created very little of tangible value for a girl to attach herself to. Once again the Red Queen rules, and the average women has managed to stay one step ahead of the average guy in the dating game. Rather than continue to blame women for their woes, these guys would be much better off figuring out how to break out of that “average guy” mindset. Short of that, they and their particular brand of “game” is as much a part of the problem as it is a solution.

    • yousowould said

      I’ve never once worried about girls I’m involved with finding a better option, because I genuinely (perhaps delusionally) don’t believe they’ll find one. Due to my attitude, they never stray. Self-fulfilling prophecy.

      • xsplat said

        Now that you mention it, I’m the same way. I honestly think it’s a fair and accurate self assessment to say I’m way the best they’ll ever get. I usually think they know it too and that they’ll always feel that way. And some girls tell me years later that they still feel that way. My girls feel very strong emotions. Because I do with them, in a guiding way.

      • UCB said

        I’m with you guys. The biggest current hole in my game is a too obvious take-it-or-leave-it attitude and lack of interest in long-term commitment. Though for every one who bail because of this, there are two who see it for what it is and learn to love me anyway. I accept that a big part of that is on me. Every new level feels a bit strange and uncomfortable… like I often find myself thinking, “Man, I really shouldn’t be getting away with this.” But then that becomes the new norm and it’s off to the next challenge. It’s the only remaining interesting challenge of “game” at this point… the only time I feel like I’ve solidified my frame at one level is when I’ve already made my jump to the next. My frame just shaky occasionally… not because I don’t think that I’m better than the competition, but because the only competition worth consideration anymore is myself… and I’m still far from the best possible version of myself that I could be.

        Yousowould… you and Xsplat consistently turn out some of the best posts and comments in this little sphere of ours. I can’t imagine what it’d be like to have a couple of guys like you around IRL to pick your brain for a bit and see how in all goes down in real-time.

      • xsplat said

        Well, you could always fly out to Indonesia.

  3. Benjamin Honestlin said

    You could’ve simply said they don’t possess a sense of honor.

    Point blank period.

  4. The Outlier said

    It is true. Men never lie, or are deluded, or justify themselves while blaming others for their problems, or think irrationally, or lack self awareness or ANYTHING.

    Just women. Because they’re not human, they’re “women.” A different species.

    I work with a dozen women lawyers every day. Trust me, we can reason just as well, and often better, than the male lawyers because everything we do isn’t clouded by emotion and ego.

    • xsplat said

      You may discount the aggregated anecdotes of countless men who gather in communities to share their experiences of women, and of countless great minds who have written their insights down throughout the ages.

      It’s easy to dismiss anecdotes as nothing but an aggregation of stories about bad apples.

      But there is science that you also dismiss. As one small example there are brain imaging studies that show that women think more emotionally than men do, and that this is a very large difference. Another example are the epigenetic effects on brain development of sex hormones in the womb. I have no inclination to discuss male female differences with someone who refuses to accept the scientific data. It’s a pointless waste of time for both of us.

      • The Outlier said

        There is no such overwhelming scientific data though.

      • The Outlier said

        What is more interesting to me is why it’s so important for some men to insist that women are inferior or even hardly human. It’s very strange. Why are you so threatened?

      • xsplat said

        Why do some people insist that children are inferior, or hardly even human? They MUST feel threatened by children, yes?

    • “Trust me”…..however; being a woman in the legal profession, just secures your own belief that every pearl of wisdom you choose to share is true. You are not only amusing, but proving the point exactly!

      I have never held the belief that women are inferior. I do feel they cannot be trusted. You see *trust* exists individually and does not require your support to be valid or invoked by others. Being as you work in an environment where manipulation and deceit (within flexible boundaries depending upon the audience) is an acceptable norm, it would appear that you have found your calling.
      Try that “trust me” approach in the military when given instructions by a superior officer and see how far you can ride that bus before you are reduced to tears.

  5. The Outlier said

    Who feels the need to insist children are inferior or not human? Point me to websites devoted to that concept, comparable to websites devoted to proving women’s inferiority. Who are these weirdos who say such things about children?

    • xsplat said

      In the manosphere and on my blog women are often described of as being similar to children, and to be treated like a good parent would a child. Or as a substitute teacher would treat a class.

      I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that arises in my mind about your sincerity of reply. I’ll trust that you missed the analogy, and really did think that I was suggesting that people are saying children are inferior and subhuman.

      Because on the face of it it would seem that you are being deliberately obtuse for rhetorical effect.

      I don’t see women being described of as non human. Certainly not on my blog. They are described as child like. The immaturity in some areas is a type of inferiority, if you like maturity.

      • The Outlier said

        Well, duh. Of course I “missed” the “analogy” if I disagree with the premise. It also isn’t an analogy if it doesn’t stand on its own merits at all. That is what an analogy is — a truth complete in itself that compares favorably to a different situation to prove that situation’s truth.

        Since no one’s trying to prove the inferiority of kids, and many people are trying to prove the inferiority of women, there is no analogy. Multiple religious dogmas attempt to cast women as children in order to divest them of rights. But multiple advanced societies have treated them like adults. So what have you proved?

        What I’m trying to do here is challenge you because you are better than this. You are not actually threatened by women, so why act like you are? This stuff is beneath your intellectual level. People are people, and women, like men, stand and fall on their own individual merits. It is demeaning to all humans to act like any one group of them is reducible to a set of characteristics that is near-universal. Enough women have written books, done science, won cases, advanced human history, thought original thoughts, sought spiritual development, that you can’t deny they are as varied as any other type of human, and all of those individual women who have done these things are neither anecdotes nor outliers. They are just people, and at the rate at which human history has witnessed them performing as humans, they are statistical evidence of humanity.

        Not that you should need even that. An insightful person — especially one whose compassionate heart and mind centers are open — sees *people.* Women are *people.*

        The manosphere is kind of ridiculous. I think you know that somewhere in you, or what, oh what, did I love? This shell of a person who wants so hard to deny the humanity of half of humankind? To what end?

        (By the way, don’t you think the Asian males you live amongst are often on a lower level of development than Western men? Don’t you think there’s something more going on in those countries than, “women are dumb” if the Asian women you come across are developmentally behind their peers in the west?)

        I would never, ever comment here or bother with you if I hadn’t known you and fucked you and loved you. I never visit any other such stupid sites.

      • ___ said

        A temper tantrum, like the kind my 2 year old nephew throws, is not a great way to prove that the analogy “doesn’t stand on its own merits at all”.

  6. The Outlier said

    You used to be kind of a lovely person. This stuff you say now makes me sort of sad. I have never wasted my time with other MRA websites — they seem so pathetic to me, and their influence in the world is so paltry, so who cares if they want to sit in their corner and beat their chests and feel good about their masculinity? I’m still better at everything that they are – heh.

    But you. You make me sad because I knew your worth once. You taught me things that you yourself no longer remember or practice.

    I’ll happily leave you alone if you say the word. Say the word.

    • xsplat said

      This is a difficult medium in which to communicate. I’m sure we’d do much better face to face.

      I doubt you’d have a negative impression in person or feel that there was such a loss.

      The ideas expressed here obviously don’t fit in with your view on good attitude, treatment, and behavior. And yet I’m confident that in person you’d feel good attitude, good treatment, and good behavior.

      In order to use words to understand my ideas I’d have to tailor them to you, and you are a very different audience. It’s a lot of work for an uncertain reward. So if you want to see what is left of the old me and what new magic powers I’ve acquired you’d have to travel. We aren’t going to have a meeting of minds on a blog.

      We could fit in a Kalimantan jungle river cruise with my buddies and their dates. They’re top level guys; good energy and I think you’d find they could keep up with your conversation and humor.

      I suppose I must be out of practice in some things – a tennis player can’t be at the top of his game playing against beginners.

      Although it dispirits you to read what appears as needless and wrong headed negativity coming from me, know that I’m content and those around me are envigorated and happy. We are doing good things, having fun, and enjoying a very good life. Oh, and I’m starting to do some chi-kung mentoring, as well as mentoring in other areas. Life is good.

      • The Outlier said

        That’s all well and good, and I’m glad you are happy, but why do you have so much invested in generalizing about and diminishing women? I’m genuinely curious.

      • xsplat said

        Uh huh, like I said, we’d have to talk in person.

  7. The White Phillip Show said

    Why even bother replying to that female? She just wants attention, and to be told she’s special. For fuck’s sake, she even calls herself “The Outlier”.

    Look how she’s trying to manipulate you into satisfying her ego.

    Of *course* she’s a *lawyer*. *Of course.*

    Completely unaware of how people can compartmentalize, and refuse to apply any of their logic in one area to situations in another.

    I guess she’s aging out of her window of physical attractiveness, and of course the “solution” that pops into her head is to attack people for not being attracted to her, under the guise of some kind of humanitarian campaign of recognizing everyone’s individuality.

    *She’s* the one denying women’s humanity. Not recognizing that foibles are *also* human. Women are emotional; that doesn’t make them non-human any more than being totally logical makes computers human. But that’s HER assessment!

    She’s desperate and in denial. Talking about how she never reads other sites in the “Manosphere”, yet supposedly being an expert on their content. Translation: She reads them, realizes that she doesn’t want what they say to be true, and dismisses it.

    “I’m better than they are!”

    Look how much of what she says is just arguing from emotion.

    It’s “sad” you aren’t “lovely” any more. MRA sites are “pathetic” and their influence is “paltry”. (Argument from popularity?)

    “Women are *people*” — dammit! So is Soylent Green!

    Except no they ain’t neither!, because she’s made it clear that anyone acting the way you describe doesn’t have “humanity”.

    “Why are you so threatened?” <— more projection; translation: "*I* am threatened by men realizing how superfluous I am, because I am about to hit the wall!"

    Boo hoo, you used to love me! Translation: "I had you pegged as one of my back-up options, and now they are disappearing one by one! Not you too! I was keeping tabs because it's looking more and more like I'm not going to be able to marry a partner in the firm :'("

    My favorite part might have been when she was trying to list the accomplishments of women. You could almost see the backspace key working overtime:

    "…Went to the Moon!" Wait, that was men. Dammit. ^H^H^H^H

    "…Invented the light bulb!" Wait, that was men. Dammit. ^H^H^H^H

    "…Airplanes, the internal combustion engine, electric turbines, antibiotics, air conditioners, bridges, cars, trains, computers, cell phones, the Internet…." Wait, that was all men. Gosh-friggin'-darnit! ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    Even pantyhose and vibrators were invented by men.

    So what have women done?

    1. "written books"… That nobody needed to read. Is that really an accomplishment? We already knew women could yap on for ages about nothing, so just combine that with typewriters (invented by men), and voila.

    2. "done science". Yeah, all those "doers" of science. Bravo. Doing science hard. Doing science *so* hard. You don't even need an entire hand to count the notable women in science; you can count them on the fingers of one penis and two testicles. And they were all working with men, so you don't even know how much the WOMAN actually did.

    Here's a good example, from a headline you might've seen recently:

    "Saratoga, Calif. resident Eesha Khare made the breakthrough by creating a small supercapacitor that can fit inside a cell phone battery and enable ultra-fast electricity transfer and storage, delivering a full charge in 20-30 seconds instead of several hours.

    “I’m in a daze,” Khare told CBS San Francisco after being honored among the three winners at the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair in Phoenix over the weekend. “I can’t believe this happened.”

    Actual situation:

    "If you search around you can find her complete project description. She worked at a lab at UC Santa Cruz under Dr. Yat Li. (http://li.chemistry.ucsc.edu/?page_id=23). Looking over the research publications of that lab it seems as though the student got a lot more help than just using lab equipment. The project is almost identical to this paper published earlier this year http://research.pbsci.ucsc.edu/chemistry/li/publications/2013_AM_25_267_272.pdf in which she is not even an author. The student seems to have been a summer intern in the lab. So much for inventing anything; she basically is getting credit for the work of an entire university lab. Sorry to burst the sensationalist media bubble."

    3. "won cases" — of course the LAWYER would think this has something to do with "humanity". Lying scumbag lawyers have "won cases" too. But if they lie or don't have honor then they AREN'T human, according to her criticism of what the post was saying about females. Besides, nobody ever said women weren't good at arguing, just that they weren't good at making a point, which is what happens when you go by emotions instead of logic. If you're letting women on the jury, of course this is gonna work. "Duh", as she says, in one of her more compelling arguments.

    4. "advanced human history" — by managing to carry a fetus to term, who became a great man. Great Men advanced history. Yeah, thanks for the temporary use of your vagina, but that's not special — any female animal can queef out offspring.

    5. "thought original thoughts" — like what? That the world revolves around them? Sorry, princess, it's not original when every other woman on the planet thinks the same shit. Original like "brainstorm, these shoes totally go with that dress!"? Speaking of, women are a distant second even in the world of fashion. The top designers are gay men, while the top position for a woman is to be a supermodel, those talentless airheads who sincerely believe that a valid organizing principle for their life is to aspire to be a glorified clotheshanger.

    6. "sought spiritual development" — by cavorting with MALE spiritual leaders. Jesus had male followers, and a female groupie, Mary Magdalene. Who was a well-known harlot.

    The Abrahamic religions are all male-centric, invented by males.

    Then you get the Eastern philosophies, which were all thought up by men, including Jainism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and so on.

    Women only tend to get into these in earnest once they are old and ugly. Buddhism is a good example of the contrast — Buddha was a rich man in his prime who had everything, and he gave it all up when motivated by *compassion* for people suffering. He was a prince. IN HIS PRIME. Not some old lady who nobody wanted any more and had nothing to lose.

    Young females only dip their pedicured toe in the stream of self-transcendence, get a tattoo of something in an Eastern language they can't read, and use Buddhism as a hip cover and excuse for their shitty pre-existing behavior without changing anything. The *last* thing they would do is strive to understand deeply, losing themselves and their ego. Screw that!

    The "spiritual development" most of them crave is being a groupie of a high-status spiritual leader. "Maybe MY CHILD will save the world!" How about YOU do it instead of putting YOUR issues on your kid? Cunt.

    She's so obtuse, she wouldn't even understand that the reason you might say this post is being too hard on her is because *she has the mentality of a child*.

    Every man who stands up for a woman in a battle of wits AUTOMATICALLY condescends. This isn't a boxing ring, where the average man would completely obliterate the average woman; this is the domain of the intellect, you know, the place females keep claiming they are equal or better!

    But they're not. They are clustered around the median. The majority of geniuses are male. I will shred that daffy cunt on standardized tests of abstract reasoning, with one standard deviation tied behind my back.

    All that book-larnin', and what's she good for? What does she want to be now? A breed sow, churning out twatlets that she'll raise to be as superficial and vapid as she is, after which she'll demand her old job back with promotions to make her equal to the men who DIDN'T take 15 years off the job to increase overpopulation and prolapsed uteri.

    This is why it's such a waste to push women into STEM fields. They don't have the dedication to spend the years and decades it takes to advance the frontiers of human understanding; they just jump through hoops to repeat the same things men have already done, get their degree, and then they want to get a rich husband and then they want to fuck right off.

    Why even bother teaching women language? They don't have coherent thoughts that require linguistic expression in the first place. Just keep her in a cage, or on a clothesline, so she doesn't trash the bachelor pad, with mittens and a veterinary lampshade around her head so she isn't a danger to herself. All she wants is to put things in her holes, either food and/or cock, so this works out better for everyone.

    • doesitreallymatter said

      spot on my friend,bravo

    • Skjor said

      Most serial killers are men don’t forget that but the best ones end up usually bring female the white phillip show but almost everything used in the world on a day to day basis was invented by a man the only thing that was not invented by man was the disposable diaper and really it is gotten so bad most good guys don’t want anything to do with the female gender because we are so fed up with having to dress up like a fucken peacock to attract a probable mate the only guys that do end up having kids are deadbeats and idiots I am sick and tired of the shit we have to do.USRIA

  8. rivsdiary said

    not enough is made of how women — so many women — fall in love with male mass murderers.

  9. rivsdiary said

    women are not interested in wikipedia. women have extremely limited intellectual curiosity — about anything. women have limited artistic ability or interest in creating something timeless.

    and why would they? women give birth to children. and when women are young, they are beautiful. at least some of them. what more could we ever want from them?

    it’s like that quote, the male writer tells the 14 year old girl, “you’re trying to write poetry? you *are* poetry.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 127 other followers

%d bloggers like this: