Random Xpat Rantings

Contemplative dominance for the modern man

How feminists remove themselves from their own happiness

Posted by xsplat on June 13, 2013

lonely dominatrix

lonely dominatrix

Premise: Being happy is a basic human good. It is valuable and to be promoted.

Premise: We can not be happier on a relatively sustained timescale in ways that are healthy for the body than by being in mutual love.

Conclusion: feminists can’t be happy.

Feminists can’t be happy, because a womans passions for her man are augmented when the man is giving her value. If a woman has diminished every avenue for a man to give her value, she can not love him as much, and therefore can not be as happy.

Lazily quoting again about a few ways men are more obviously known for giving value, and commenting in bold:

People have positive emotions to you in relation to the value that you add to their life. So with a girl her emotions will be swayed in a positive direction the more you add value in any domain, such as;

1) Financial – if she is financially dependent on you that hand over her quality of life will translate into her loving you more. Feminists prefer that they can support themselves in good lifestyle and are not reliant on men financially.

2) Social – if you and your social circle are a main part of her social life that hand over her quality of life will translate into her loving you more.Feminists like to have like minded female friends, and sometimes even ritualize their gatherings to form strong bonds that foster group think. The analogue for men is bros before hos. The woman’s group will give them social support through emotionally difficult times.

3) Sexual – if you fuck her the way no man ever has and likely no man ever will ever again, bringing her to emotional and sexual depths and heights beyond compare regularly, then that hand over her quality of life will translate into her loving you more. This one you can provide a feminist. Unless her hot female friends host the best dildo parties, you can get a good snare around a feminist’s ankle with good fucking.

4) Your status – if your status is well above all her other suitors, because you exhibit many status markers, such as wealth, fitness, social circle leadership, business leadership, community connections, and so on, then you will have hand over her future quality of life, because if she lost you she would lose her close connection and even self-identity with your status position. Feminists seek personal status, especially through their career. She will not need to borrow your status entirely.

5) Romantic – if you manipulate the moods in your shared space, injecting some dramas but keeping the general tone warm, positive and sexual, then she will associate all positive emotions with you. This will give you hand over her, as she will fear losing you, the focus of her good life. This is more difficult for the man to do in a feminist environment, as it means taking charge. It means demanding the remote for the TV, for the direction of the conversation, for the restaurant chosen, for the mood and tone of the room. Feminists don’t like to follow.

We can quickly see how a well structured feminist lifestyle would make loving a man more difficult, and therefore being as happy as possible far less likely.

Feminism is the anhedonic life choice. If you value happiness, then feminism is at odds with that fundamental value.

Remember that the premise is that we are at our happiest when in mutual love, and so we must consider whether feminists offer more of what a man values and so are more loved. Another post will show they give less value, and so are less lovable.

About these ads

25 Responses to “How feminists remove themselves from their own happiness”

  1. Ashley said

    That just describes a woman with not much going on for her own life. She probably has low self esteem and because she has no money, no friends, no resources, she is only hanging on to the man because she feels she has to in order to survive or feel like she has someone. This does not mean she loves him. It means she’s using him. I’d think that a man would rather want a woman around who wants to be with him because she enjoys being around him…not because she fears being alone and on her own.

    • xsplat said

      Ya, that’s all very sweet. Like a Disney movie.

      Oh, wait, in the Disney movie Cinderella is a poor servant and her loved one is the man with the highest value in the land. And she’s smoking hot, hyper-feminine, young and virginal.

      She didn’t elope with the blacksmith’s son, now, did she? As for the Prince it wasn’t Cinderella’s career that was giving him wood all throughout the ball.

      So if your version of reality is not from Disney, and it’s clearly not from real life, where are you getting your universe from?

      Humans have emotions that were evolved to perform functions that are beneficial for adaptation and survival. We love and have positive feelings for reasons – we are being benefited.

      If someone is making you feel warm and comfortable, you are being benefited. If someone gives you money and resources you are being benefited. Both can condition you to seek out that benefit. Positive emotions naturally lead you to seek out benefit, as they are evolved to do.

      So it’s not that women love money and use men for it, it’s that women love men who have money more than men who don’t have money.

      My world view is created out of decades of detailed personal experience, long consultations with peers of varied backgrounds, and fitting all scientific studies I’ve read together into a cohesive big picture that fits perfectly with my views.

      Yours feel good in your gut, like snuggling a pink stuffed bunny when you were a little girl.

      • Ashley said

        They might love the idea of more money. It has nothing to do with the man himself.

        So what if the guy loses his job? No income comes in because the woman doesn’t work either. They struggle to keep their living space. He becomes stressed and their social life and sex life is negatively affected. Is she then justified by loving him less under the new conditions?

      • xsplat said

        Justified in loving him less?

        What on earth are you talking about?

        What does love have to do with justification?

        Is someone on trial here?

        Love is an emotion, not a legal contract.

        In the real world we live in it is a well recognized and documented fact that under such circumstances the woman indeed does love the man less, and women leave their men more when the guy is financially stressed.

      • Ashley said

        No, I’m trying to translate what you’re saying. You were the one saying a woman supposedly loves a man more if he has more money than other men. So if he loses his money, then what? She loves him less than she did before?

      • Ashley said

        If a woman leaves her man under financial stress, there was no love to begin with. A loving woman will stand by his side and help him through tough times.

      • ___ said

        Ashley, darling, you’ve been reading but you haven’t been comprehending. There are five “domains” listed in the post, financial is only one of them. If the primary attractant was mostly financial, they are almost guaranteed to leave when that attractant is gone. A “loving woman (who) will stand by his side” clearly was attracted through one (or more) of the other four domains.

        It seems to me that you’re critical of the idea that a woman could be attracted to money at all. Maybe you, personally, aren’t all that attracted to money. Do you have a job of your own? Can you provide for yourself if your man loses his job? If so, then of course you won’t be attracted to money unless he makes more than you, which is statistically unlikely these days.

        But, on the other hand, are you happy? The evidence says no. Happy people don’t go out of their way to spit bile on the internet, especially when you’ve made it clear you have contempt for the entire manosphere.

      • Swithinus said

        “Love is an emotion, not a legal contract.”

        Spoken like a man, we’re a little prone to optimism and idealism. That’s why we built the world.

        We don’t regard love and marriage (the contract) as synonymous, like the weasel sex tends to.

        Just an opinion

  2. The Outlier said

    You obviously don’t know any feminists. Your portrayal of them is a caricature because it assumes “all or nothing” is the name of the game.

    • Ashley said

      Welcome to the mrm.

    • xsplat said

      You’re right. There are no groups, only individuals. If a group is loosely identified by various common traits, then such an identification is prejudiced because it is not universally applicable. It’s a harmful generalization. And if it’s harmful, it’s wrong. And if it’s wrong it’s incorrect.

      There are no feminists, because each would be feminist has her own unique constellation of beliefs.

      Well, that was easy. No more feminists! Hurray!

      • The Outlier said

        I’m not saying it’s merely not “not universally applicable” — I’m saying it’s a complete caricature, even on a generalized level.

        You are saying any amount of self actualization, lack of dependence on a man, and independent identity is antithetical to having love in your life. I’m saying you are completely wrong.

  3. Ashley said

    I only have contempt for the manosphere members that have contempt for women in general. Some are not so bad, but others I just cannot agree on several subjects, but why does that have to mean I am not happy?

    I am pretty happy with my life. It’s not what people would call perfect, but I don’t want perfect. I’ve been in a relationship with the the “great on paper” guy. He was only 23 but he had it made and if I stayed with him, I’d never have to work. It didn’t work out for a couple of reasons…he was a workaholic, and he wanted to go back to school for degree #2 and I didn’t want to uproot my goings on to follow him. Not only that, while everything he was about impressed me, something was lacking. I noticed he was critical of certain things about me. He didn’t understand me. Although we had passion, connection on a deeper level started to become an issue. I came from a more modest background while his parents were wealthy overachievers so we couldn’t relate to each other when the surface was peeled back. I knew he would try to change me and I knew our background differences would get in the way.

    Besides, I’m a Leo, a first born child, and a type 3 of the enneagram. I like to dance to the beat of my own drum. I have many passions of my own that don’t involve a relationship and I have always had such a desire to fulfill those. I like being able to share expenses with a guy who makes about the same as me, knowing that if something happened to us, I wouldn’t be screwed. That’s just me. If a woman is really happy with a man who wants to take care of her then that is great for her and them.

    • ___ said

      I’ve taken the liberty to sift through your site a little and I discovered you’re an introvert. This is a bit like finding out you’re a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The contempt and combativeness makes more sense to me, now.

      I can see why you would have difficulty believing most women could fall in and out of love with a man solely based on external factors (ie: money). Introverts are genetically predisposed for strong pair bonding. As a result, there is a chemical dependency that provides the motivation for an introverted woman to “stand by her man”.

      That same chemical dependency has to be created in most extroverted women. In xsplat’s 5 domains, financial, social and status don’t create sexual arousal, they create “comfort” or pair bonding. When that’s gone, so are the pair bonding chemicals, so is the bond. At that point, the sex had better be mind blowing, or she’s going to walk.

      Apropos of nothing, have you read Tex Arcane’s blog (vault-co.blogspot.com)? Don’t let his penchant for predicting WW3 or the next ice age throw you off. His anthropological knowledge is astounding and especially enlightening if you’re an introvert.

    • xsplat said

      I noticed he was critical of certain things about me…I came from a more modest background… I knew he would try to change me…

      In other words you figured the guy was too high value for you and you realized you didn’t have much chance to keep him around.

      It was too painful to you to appear to have shortcomings compared to his background, and self improvement to match up to his standards was out of the question, so you bailed before he could bail on you.

      • Ashley said

        I’ve done the same for men who were less value than myself too. There are certain compromises and critiques I feel are ok in a relationship and some that are just out of my boundary lines.

        If it makes you and the other guy better to jump to such a bold conclusion (since you were there and all) to think I bailed because I knew he was too good for me or out of fear he would leave me anyway, then whatever floats your boat.

      • E.J. said

        He didn’t jump to a bold conclusion. He quoted you verbatim and translated hamster to English. What you said has been described by thousands of women before you, and though women want to believe they’re all unique, very few of you actually are.

      • Ashley said

        E.J, what proof do you have of this?

      • E.J. said

        What proof do I have that very few women are unique, or that xsplat correctly translated your rationalization?

  4. xsplat said

    You girls are funny, trying to nit pick at some little perceived chink in my arguments armor, as if that would win the persuasion contest. You haven’t even come to grips with the main premise, let alone the conclusions that follow.

    People feel love MORE towards those who give more of various types of value.

    Accept that premise and it follows that if feminists are making moves to be more independent and need men less, they are therefore by doing so also making moves to lessen their inclination to love their men.

    Ok girls, your turn. Dissimulate away.

    • Ashley said

      If there is a contest here, you are in it alone. I knew this would end up being just another attempt to slam “feminism” from yet another angle…I actually thought for a second we’d be having a legit discussion about something with a little more depth. Foolish me.

  5. The Exterminator said

    I’m surprised at how much patience you have with these braindead nitwits. I’ll give em a piece of their own emotional medicine since I’m a generous fellow.

    If Outlier ever pulled that stuff to me, I’d look her straight in the eye and say the following
    “You imbecilic three year old fukking nitwit. Ten thousand times have I heard the same old derivation of “not all women are like that” or “don’t generalize” philosophy and ten thousand and one times I’ve retorted that the scientific method is based on generalizations and we’re using a theoretical example to ilustrate a concept;nothing less nothing more. Shut the fuk up you pathetic try-hard wannabe unique snowflake, even if you live a life of complete independence and deviation from feminine norms, it does not make up for the uncannily accurate observations posted on here previously., For fukks sake find a way to get out of your narcissistic head and realize that you’re one out of 3*10^9 so please leave your worthless personal anecdotes out of here, leave your denial, and understand that this is a place for exchanging ideas and truths.”

    And if it was Ashley I’d tell her “Look imbecile, no matter what Bullsh!t your bullshting lying conniving rationalizing hamster has you convinced of saying nothing you say adds up. There’s nothing remotely complex about you and telling someone they didn’t understand you is a copout and a direct fault of your inability to convey your personality in a language your ex can comprehend. Your bonehead reactionary dislike for manospherians who dislike women is another testament to what an utter child you are pinging off of negative emotions on an environment. A true intellectual would use the art of reframe instead of simply fighting hate iwth hate. And yes, you’re not good enough for him and that elaborate paragraph at the end is a perfectly constructed bullshit-fueled Cosmopolitan-taken exemplar of retarded excuse.. But if you’re happy hats off. You are dismissed.”

    Anywho, enough of that.

    Chi-kung practices that boost libido and love? What are they?

  6. Piglet said

    Ashley if you are indeed an introvert, as suggested by another reader, then maybe you should read books about introversion such Quiet by Susan Cain to better understand yourself. Introverts are in the minority. They think completely differently to other people. They are also very much into equality. Where as most of the world does not operate in pure equality. If they are truly introvert then they should also be into seeking the truth as that is a characteristic of introversion.
    The things written about here are into seeking the truth however strange and fucked they might sound to those who don’t seek the truth.

  7. avd said

    [X, Placing this in your thread’s comments for lack of a better location; feel free to relocate, or slice/dice as you see fit.]

    Until yesterday, I’d been unplugged for a while. Tonight I caught up on some MS posts. One thing that struck me is the seeming emergence of an attitude among young/inexperienced men that the various aspects of one’s life don’t matter, so long as one is successful in pulling the poon.

    There exists a certain time in a man’s life when, despite everything that society would implore you to the contrary, ALL that should matter is developing the ability to bed females, no doubt—put all of one’s focus on that task until a minimal proficiency is internalized. But, that’s a brief window, whether one begins at 18 years old, or 48 years old. A year of dedicated effort is all it should take to develop proficiency, tops. Mastery, as with most things worthwhile, is a lifelong endeavor. For anyone who’s achieved the first 2 or 3 milestones in this whole “pulling puss” fight club, this is self-evident.

    Now, here’s what prompted me to post this: The “leaders” and “proprietors” of the MS allow young bucks to come onto THEIR comment sections and proselytize the above rubbish that poon is all that matters, to the detriment of all their young/inexperienced readers, without even so much as a wise nudge from the sites’ elders. Men: black, white, red, yellow, this is not the manner in which our species has evolved. At its root, this is my beef with the MS: historically, men are brought up in clans of their extended family, with lessons of life being passed down from the leading generation to the upcoming generation. For all of the positive qualities of the MS, its glaring deficiency is its lack of familial and physical proximity. The disrespect exhibited by the young/inexperienced men in the community toward those more experienced would NEVER be tolerated in a world of physical proximity. That disrespect would be, literally, BEAT DOWN, ON THE SPOT. This is not to say that those elders would necessarily be correct in the delivery of their beat down, but merely to point out that the inexperienced glibness of youngsters would not be tolerated, without proof, AND that there would be very REAL PHYSICAL consequences suffered for disrespecting one’s elders. For what it’s worth, I consider myself to be half way along that spectrum: I feel young, but as the years go by, experience accumulates.

    What’s my point in all this? The point is that pushing a nihilistic view upon a larger audience is a very heady thing, indeed. Perhaps that nihilism is truth, and should be regarded as such. Who am I to say? Who I am to say is this: the men running MS sites have a fucking responsibility to serve as the elders of the MS. Period, full stop. I know, it’s a pain in the ass, and who says that just because you run a blog, you should have to carry some water? But, here’s the thing: by virtue of running a blog that ostensibly furthers the cause of the MS, you have accepted the role of carrying water. There’s no getting around that fact, if you are serious about you mission in the MS.

    So, what does this mean for you? It means that you must serve the role of elder in your respective community. When young bucks come crashing in with their testosterone and vigor, you must support them as the future, but also see to it that they respect the community into which they crash. To allow them to run roughshod over your community is lazy and a gross dereliction of your duty to the community at large.

    To allow otherwise is to allow female tactics (shaming, framing, solipsism, straw men) to overrun what we all would rather hope is a genuine conversation among men, walls down. I’m confident that if we were all nakedly honest about what we hope to gather from our time here, that it would, at the very least, be truth, no games. Merely countenancing truth serves no one but the community’s detractors.

    Please, proprietors, a little more leadership. Live your truths through the manner in which you moderate your communities. Thanks in advance, avd

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 133 other followers

%d bloggers like this: