What do women want? Freud never found a definitive answer to his famous question, but the blogger who calls himself Delusion Damage thinks he’s got it figured out: women want men who can kill people with their bare hands.
DD is a sort of compound MRA-PUA who argues for “Men’s Liberation Through ‘Game,’” as he put it in a Spearhead post some months ago. Apparently, if dudes learn how to get the hot babes to give them strings-free sexy times, through the magic of “game,” this will help to “reduce the unilateral enslavement of men through marriage.”
And what attracts the ladies more than the ability to kill? Not much, apparently. If you’ve got that magic killing touch, everyone around you will sense your manly power:
You are a man. A man is a survivor, a hunter, a protector of loved ones. The essence of manliness is controlled power. … That is what women love and what other men respect. Women, most of them anyway, are unable to use force and must rely on men where force is required. … If you lack the ability to kill other people with your bare hands, you will be perceived as if something is missing from your manliness. …
If you can kill, the ladies will pick up on this instantly:
[H]aving the ability substantially raises the value she instinctively perceives you to have. Which, as we know, leads to all manner of good things.
I believe he’s referring to blowjobs.
Oh, and other dudes will be impressed, too:
The respect of other men is also greatly influenced by your killing ability. Up until graduation from high school, the male social hierarchy has a great deal to do with “who can beat up whom”, and although the hierarchy among adult men is more dependent on social and professional status signals, men never stop instinctively evaluating you by what they perceive your killing ability to be, and respecting or disrespecting you accordingly.
And this will set you apart from all the wimpy emo hipsters of the world, who couldn’t even fight a girl:
If there is a “defining” degree of killing ability that makes you “manly”, it is defined by comparison with the female of the species. …
In these dismal times, men who fall short of this line are not terribly rare. Many of the emaciated hipsters and cubicle-dwellers of our generation would have trouble against a Juanita from a rougher neighborhood. These men, due to their lack of killing ability, are seen as unmanly by both men and women.
Meanwhile, your ability to kill will make others sit up and take notice:
The ability to kill makes your feelings relevant. If you lose your temper, someone dies.
This of course implies good things about you – the fact that you aren’t in jail right now means that you are a man in control of his emotions. A man who never loses his temper. Everyone around you subconsciously understands this and respects you for it. It lets people know they can trust you.
Yeah, nothing screams “trustworthy” more than a guy going on and on about how he could kill you with his bare hands.
Also, the ability to kill can help to prevent the ladies from blabbing endlessly about their stupid lady crap to you:
A woman who knows, without a shadow of a doubt, that she will have less than three seconds to live from the second she makes you lose your temper is not going to set out to intentionally poke and prod you past your breaking point.
Aw, yeah, it’s good to be a potential bare-hands killer:
[Y]ou will be afforded a completely unprecedented kind of respect. …
When you are The Man, everyone around takes note. It is a form of celebrity. Women gravitate to you, pulled by the invisible streams of attention, respect and deference which we all subconsciously sense in any social situation.
Given the sort of adoring attention DD must get from the ladies, it’s sort of amazing that he finds time to even keep up a blog at all.
Paniorpa is French and is writing a book, Ozy. Clearly he knows everything about everything, including evolution and how hot you are (without looking)!
If he didn’t already have a whole blog written in French I’d think he was Brandon – the coldness, the narcissism, the transactional view of heterosexual relationships. Though he hasn’t mentioned the gold standard yet.
That’s totally true. Because I want to see all my friends and family eaten by zombies. You only have to read my book collections.
Also too, I want to shoot lightning bolts out of my hands and lift X-wing fighters out of a swamp my the people I care about are tortured and frozen in carbonite!
QED!
Hahahaha! Teach us more evolutionary theory, trollboy!
Cut and Paste is HARD! You just have to trust me, I’m an expert!
The last noveI really enjoyed was The Great Stink, about a self-harming Victorian sewage engineer with PTSD from the Crimean war. I recommend it to those who, like me, harbour a secret desire to slash their wrists in an underground stream of typhoid-infested faeces.
Come now, Warrior Lovers must have been based on some actual peer reviewed research, make with the direct citations already.
Note: I don’t actually think it is, it sounds like a steaming pile of evopsych bullshit. But if it was, its flogger should have a chance to present the actual evidence.
Matthew Cline,
This is not as unreasonable as it sounds. One could make an argument that it is morally good to be continuously aware that ones immediate individual judgments are wrong, and that one therefore needs to be careful in reexamining one’s own thoughts and actions at all times. This introduces doubt, and thus lowers perceived confidence.
(on the other hand, of course, being able to admit that one may be wrong could be seen as its own form of confidence. I’d say the whole concept of “confidence” is semantically rather empty)
Only if that was the only motivation. For example, if immoral people have a greater chance of having offspring but moral people have greater chance of having their offspring survive, there might well be a point where the proportions are stable in the long-term.
I don’t believe in evpsych explanations, but they’re not quite that easily debunked.
American and proud,
On the other hand women are often socially pressured not to express obvious interest. The vast majority of (‘non-alpha’) men may well have a ‘couple hundred’ women interested in them[1] as well and never know. These women may well feel bad in similar ways that the men in your example do[2]. The market is warped alright, but the issues seem very complex to me.
[1] I’m allowed to dream, right? ^^
[2] one could propose though that they are more likely to be hit on by men using scattershot approaches or who just don’t care. This is a double-edged sword: on the one hand it’s presumably annoying, degrading and unlikely to lead to immediate positive experiences. On the other it affirms ones value as a sexual being at least somewhat, in contrast to those men (and certainly women too) who perceive themselves as invisible.
I love how American and Proud assumes I don’t hit on people whom I think are interested in me… my boys ARE too socially anxious to hit on people, that’s why I hit on them.
“Paniorpa is French and is writing a book, Ozy.”
MRA’s hate trees.
@ozymandias42
“Oh, and you know why most women won’t have sex with random strangers? Because they have to worry about them being:
Schrodinger’s Rapist
Schrodinger’s Stalker
Schrodinger’s Guy Who’ll Chop Up Your Body And Leave It In The Fridge
Schrodinger’s Dude Who Can’t Find Your Clit
Schrodinger’s Dude Who Hasn’t Heard of Foreplay
Schrodinger’s Slut-Shaming Asshole”
You don’t really have to “worry,” per se about those things. As with your first example of Schrodinger’s Rapist, we know there’s a rapist in the box. The term “rapist” denotes the fact of a rapist being in the box. Therefore, you can be certain that all men are rapists as well as all those other tasty morsels you’ve listed.
—————————-
@ozymandias42
“Well, there’s no point calling me ugly without evidence one way or the other. I must say, I would be reassured if you found me unattractive, since I would rather not be attractive to douchebags, but that’s neither here nor there.”
Sounds like you place a fairly high value on your beauty. Glad to see you’d prefer not to be attractive to those men you place in the low value, disposable category, while wanting to be attractive, (objectified) by those men you deem worthy.
——————————-
@cynickal
“Cut and Paste is HARD! You just have to trust me, I’m an expert!”
The manboobz gang are professionals at cut and paste, wiki-knowlege. Anything falling from a feminists mouth or site is gospel. Science news daily, RAINN, womens studies, ect. If it’s feminist, theres no need for peer reviewed, (except by other feminists) empirical studies, none of that stuff is needed. All ya need is a womans opinion to make a fact. And if actual numbers and facts get in the way, just fall back on the old tried and true method of, “you’re a misogynist.”
———————————
@MissPrism
“The average woman can’t get more heterosexual shags than the average man – if you’re talking about mean numbers, that is. It’s an arithmetical impossibility.”
True enough that the “average” works out to the same number. However, if you have 100 men and 100 women, and the 100 women each had sex once with the same 10 men, 1000 sex acts would’ve taken place. So 100% of the women would be sluts, 10% of the men would’ve have used women for sex, and 90% of the men would be without sex. This is the modern world where the majority of women in their prime have sex with the top 10% of men while the bottom 90% of men are left in the gutter, until of course when a womans prime years are behind her. That’s when she decides to “settle” for the guttermen, and treat him as such. Thus the saying, “if the kitten didn’t want me, I don’t want the cat.” I hope this explains the fallacy of your, “mean numbers theory.”
Definitely! It’s unthinkable that the authors already made assumptions about slash and women who write/read/draw slash, and then went on to just cherry-picking anything that supported their claims. I mean, why would you actually talk to slash-writers/artists, and get their insight? That would mean that women know what they do and what they want, and it would also mean that women are, like, individuals, with their own preferences and kinks and experiences! Now that is ridiculous
According to the quotes examined in the comments here, you are very correct.
Here is another post about its evopsych aspects.
What is the point of their research if they just cherry-pick stuff that supports their claims, instead of, I dunno, actual researching and presenting facts?
Arghlblargh! Sorry for my ranting.
I just don’t get why “outsiders” think they know better about certain issues than people who are actually involved in the issue. Like women being very involved in the whole being-a-woman thing.
*actually
awww, come on, brain 🙁
In general, what do reading preferences have to do with mating preferences? The connection would be tenuous at best. I love reading about the Middle Ages, for example; but I would never in a million years want to live during that period.
This is without even mentioning the fact that violent entertainment — which includes the reading of violent fiction — much more likely stems from the psychological need to confront one’s own mortality and, generally, horror, preferably in ways that are safe and that the individual controls. This is a much more plausible theory, though a less simplistic one, than concluding that if a woman likes reading books about brute warriors, that she wants to have a child with one, for realz.
Ozymandias, but you said that the people you are interested in are usually not the ones who are interested in you. I assume you don’t
Finally, as I said, there are probably hundreds of MEN who are interested but are scarred from the arrogance of countless women before that they do not approach. The majority of young MEN have been essentially shamed into pretending their sexuality doesn’t exist, or joking about it, or passing it off as nothing, because MEN’s sexuality is seen as creepy. “Creepy” has basically become a gendered slur not unlike the c-word or n-word. This is why MEN are the downtrodden gender, and feminism is a worthless sack of shit.
Kilo, there’s a huge difference between being emotionally scarred from hundreds of rejections and being too much of a pussy to speak up despite the media telling you that women can basically do whatever the fuck they want with no consequences.
You mean Evangelicals don’t really want to be randomly knocked up by a passing diety during a road trip?
That is a really good point, Amused!
I find it troubling that people like the authors of that drivel have such a hard time differentiating between real life and fiction.
I think your point about safety and individual control is a very important one, since those are things real life can’t really offer.
Also: hey, maybe the woman reading about brute warriors imagines herself in the role of the brute warrior. That’s the awesome thing about fiction and imagination.
So Paniorpa is writing a book.
I hope, for his sake, that he finds a reputable publisher.
I hope, for our sake, he finds an informed publisher.
It’ll probably be a free ebook.
Personally, I bet on self-published e-book.
And it’s probably more like a pamphlet
I mean, dudes, I absolutely love Stupid Big Misunderstanding fanfic, but that doesn’t mean that I want a relationship that consists of people who can’t communicate with each other. Rather the opposite, in fact. What makes for a good story is not what makes for a good real life.
Fucking Citations! How do they work!?
Also, too; you mis-spelled “manifesto”
Just an FYI (haven’t caught up with this discussion yet), American and Proud is almost certainly MRAL trying to get around the fact that his regular account is on moderation. So I’ve put American and Proud on moderation too.
That said, despite this little subterfuge, he’s more-or-less behaving, so I’m letting his comments through. You might want to scroll up to read a couple of them. Or not. It’s the same old stuff — women have it easy, feminism is shit, men are all scarred for life b/c they have to approach women, “creepy” is a horrible sexist slur.