2668. Superior vs. Dominant Gender — 01

I sense a rant coming on. When sex is everything, no room exists for recovery. Example, what does relationship recovery look like for women today? We are six or seven sub-generations* deep into Feminism. Is it paying off for women in their relationships with men?

Modern women don’t know jack about Jack and not enough about Jill. The sexes are born very different, yet cultural and political trending add constant pressure for them to be more alike. Unisex is no longer a popular term, but the pressure to achieve it is certainly common. (Toilets according to personal preference?)

Women routinely let a man’s sexual pleasure—and perhaps some claimed by her—to substitute for what they can no longer get reliably out of one man. Examples: brighter future for her, permanent relationship, mutual respect, mutual love, likeability based on persona rather than sexual compatibility, sexual fidelity, his duty to stay following a surprise pregnancy, fulfilled moral obligations, dependence on him, two-parent home, fathering their children, he provides and protects, family leadership, lifetime marriage. Oh, she might get a few of those, but her nature craves all of those benefits to be available with one man in her life.

Women can’t get what they want out of players and modern men, unless they agree that sex is everything or at least enough. Men don’t have much more to offer, because they don’t have too. Women are too liberal with their expectations about men. They can’t get their way except temporarily by yielding, can’t get what they expect to get except as they play the man’s game of cheap and easy sex. They rationalize that it’s enough in order to have their own man or avoid being dumped. They also swallow their pride, self-respect, and ability to negotiate for a better life for her and her kids.

Women themselves destroy the worth of their natural superiority at virtually no cost to men. No negotiations about obligations; just give aways that enable men to always win in the present but women lose for their future. Men by nature manage the present but ignore the future; they can handle whatever comes, which in itself—if not influenced by a well-loved woman—is enough to ruin a woman’s future.

Both sexes are born to get their way associating with other people. Jill straddles the wave of sexual freedom with legs spread, while Jack enjoys the greatest unobligated pleasures. Jack keeps promoting endless sex by endorsing political propaganda, media culture, and masculine habits of dealing with conquered females as disposables. Women fall for it, and men and women become enemies pretty much as planned by radical feminists and political revolutionaries more than half a century ago.

Women destroy their superior ability by favoring male dominance. They lower themselves to the level of men for the pleasure of sex and thereby lift responsibility from men to help care for their offspring. Men will keep forever the lid on that jar of life.

Only the crossing of female legs outside of marriage can restore a woman-governed society as once existed in America. Only marriage-obligated sex can recover manly respect of females, enable femininity to overpower feminist thought, enable men to appreciate ruling the marriage and family while wife runs both, and make it happen by utilizing the natural superiority of the female sex.

We are all born to get our way with others, which means that competition is the lifeblood of human interaction. Calm and peaceful competition depends on mutual respect, each gender for the other. Those days are long past; single men have virtually no respect for females, as evidenced by both the habits and growing popularity of players. Other men may have some respect left. Of course, if men are blamed, they claim that women are respected, but it’s a dumbed-down version caused by women not standing up for themselves.

Men get their way by out-competing other men, but they rely on the threat of—men have little else—physicality to dominate females. Women get their way by competing with women. They are well-born to outwit, outsmart, and outmaneuver men. But they are highly restricted, if they don’t use their physicality of crossed legs to capture and win sincere obligations by one man who chooses her as his.

Women have sexual assets that men will pay to access. If men don’t have to pay much, they can orbit through and around the female neighborhood satisfying manly urges with freedom. Hit and miss but never left out in the cold of female disapproval for not trying hard enough, for not meeting female values, standards, and expectations.

Unattractive women have less hope of capturing a man; their female sisters keep most of the men occupied and satisfied. With sex on his mind all the time, such as with players, only attractive dolls fit the bill. Gals with more than sex to offer don’t come into view, aren’t noticed, and are not observed long enough for their qualities to be admired, virtues uncovered, and for men to learn that sex isn’t everything.

Women are superior except when they forego or forget their strengths in order to have temporary boyfriend, husband, lover, ex, or just be popular. It enables men to exploit their dominance without competition. Women no longer get their way, unless its by endorsing the man’s game of sexual freedom.


*I count a sub-generation as six or seven years, because that’s how often boys and girls separate themselves from the previous generation with their choices in toys, music, apparel, habits, taste, chit-chat, preference to associate with peers, and adolescent openness with their unique personal bias. As adults, each sub-generation has its own hard-to-distinguish identity, but the latest is deeper into Feminism than previous ones.


Filed under boobs, courtship, Culture & Politics, Dear daughter, feminine, Feminism: OOPS!, Her glory, How she loses, marriage, old school, sex differences, The mind

5 responses to “2668. Superior vs. Dominant Gender — 01

  1. Sir Guy, when you described the 2 year itch, 7 year glitch, 20 year ditch – does the two year countdown start from the time they first met / started dating or the from the time they got married?

    Of the 2, 7, and 20 which time period would you say was the most likely time a man considers leaving?

    Your Highness Mary Wumths,

    Regret I passed over your original question. Thanks for the reminder.

    Roughly two years after conquest or marriage, whichever comes first. The itch doesn’t mean separation as much as the end of romantic love and not morphing into the enduring love that lasts.

    If conquest comes before marriage, two years is most likely. If it comes after marriage, seven year glitch is most likely.

    The 20-year ditch comes most likely after marriage dulls from his losing interest in her, after she becomes boring from lack of personal interest in him.


  2. Femme

    Sir Guy,
    this is as much a very accurate picture as it is alarming.
    Were I 18 today and a reader of your blog, I would have some hope for myself.
    But with 2 children and on the wrong side of 40, I have none.
    I figure if I didn’t manage to find a decent bloke when I was in my 20s and a babe, what chance do I have now.
    I have pretty much resigned myself to my fate, and at least I have children so I don’t feel completely unfulfilled. But I AM angry at the state of affairs and the fact that men these days get away with virtually anything, and nobody seems to mind… not even the women who get left high and dry.
    What would your advice be to someone in my position – what mind frame should I try to adopt to avoid becoming bitter and overcome by anger?

    Your Highness Femme,
    Quit looking so much at yourself. Find gratitude everywhere else in your life to the extent that you pay almost no attention to yourself except pretty time at the mirror and making yourself look absolutely great to yourself.

    • Femme

      Sir Guy,
      I shall try.
      Thank you.
      One more thing: women get their way by competing with other women?
      I have always thought it was cooperation we are after.

      Your Highness Femme,
      Have you never seen two women trying to cooperate but one or both insist on their way? Even between women, competition is natural and cooperation is a lesson learned.

  3. sunshine

    IMO.. its more like 4 generations deep–AND now, if we don’t protect the little children from nonsense.. they could get GENDER CONFUSED

    although the ‘sub generations’ are in 7’s
    if you notice.. back in the day, most music styles car chassis, and women styles changed at the ‘5’ of the decade.. from the late 30 until around 1991

    Your Highness Sunshine,
    I don’t argue the numbers; they only identify trends. Children are self-developers too. The less they are protected from nonsense and shaped into certain developments preferred by parents, the freer they are and quicker they change from their older siblings.

  4. You are quite right, Sir Guy. There are some pockets of hope however, so take heart. In spite of feminism and the harm we are doing ourselves, biology still insists on being stubbornly uncooperative.

    Your Highness Insantitybytes22,
    Nice phrasing, “biology still insists on being stubbornly uncooperative.”

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s