Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Essential Sex Differences - The Female as Enemy

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    AlbionMP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 2nd, 2010 @ 05:54 PM
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    4 Posts

    Arrow Essential Sex Differences - The Female as Enemy

    Excerpts from Section 14 of The Tyranny of Ambiguity"

    "As far as the characteristics of males and females are concerned, we are not really talking about individuals at all, but only about male and female strategies. This is the basis on which the following analysis is made. Indubitably however, most males are male and most females are female.

    ESD 1. NATURAL DOMAINS: THINGS VERSUS RELATIONSHIPS. An essential component of the male character is his capacity to react at the level of the thing. A male may become excited or even obsessed by a clever piece of computer code or a tiny part or modification of an engine. These things can be utterly fascinating to a male but they mean nothing whatever to a female, because the female's basic level of interaction is the relationship. Things are absolutely meaningless to most females save for the functionality they provide. Indeed to some males this functionality is only an end-product, at which point the item becomes so mundane that it is no longer of challenging interest.

    This may be partly the reason for a certain female ruthlessness in manipulating relationships. Not only are their instinctive drives directed to a very great degree towards finding a mate, and most particularly an ideal or optimal one, but essentially they have no thing else. They are far less able to redirect their sexual energies, to sublimate them in other productive directions, as males can.

    The basic relational transaction between the sexes is that the female gives the male physical sex and the male gives the female a relationship.

    PROPOSITION 6. The primary sexual activity of the female is relationships.

    DISCUSSION. If I go to a male and talk to him about computers it is not sex, or if I go to a female and talk about computers it is not sex, but if I go to a female and talk to her because she is female it is sexual activity. For the purpose of this analysis, and fundamentally, all relationships which are not business are sexual. Relationships may be very pleasant but ultimately the only thing they produce is babies. The primary sexual activity of the female is personal relationships, particularly and especially with children. The male instinct is to have sex, the female instinct is to have babies. The male who is not interested in physical sex and the female who does not want babies became extinct long ago.

    There are feminist books which purport to be about sex but which say little or nothing about the sex act, the male perspective, but which talk almost exclusively about children. A large proportion of female art is concerned with childbirth and children. By nature females are very good at having and nurturing babies, and doing so can give them considerable pleasure. Reproduction is fundamental to the female 'reason for being,' and relationships and sex are an inseparable part of that, as we shall see from the nature and paucity of female sex substitutes.

    Females cannot give up sex in pursuit of an objective to the extent that males do. A male will surrender sex to achieve some goal but a female will never give up relationships, which is her expression of sex, because it is totally essential to her being. The question to a male "Why is sex so important to you?" is utterly ridiculous, coming from a female.

    For a male to make a major achievement or breakthrough he must often be obsessive to the point of craziness. To succeed he must be prepared to be hated while, I maintain, a female longs and desires above all else to be loved. For a male to succeed he must be prepared to be hated because his success will inevitably be to the envy and discomfort of others. Maybe he will be loved afterwards, too late or not at all, but he must shed his care to be loved to succeed.

    The natural domain of the female is relationships, the natural domain of the male is things. I concluded that females are something like 6-8 times better at reading signals and manipulation than males. Correspondingly males are 6-8 times better at manipulating things.

    SEXUAL-POLITICAL ANALOGIES. Some parallels can be drawn in male-female relationships between an expert chess player and a beginner. The female is expert while the male is severely handicapped. The male always loses, or is allowed to win once in a while just to maintain his interest. The female makes the male do as much work as possible as he attempts to get what he wants, but he always has to overcome his natural handicap. It is in the female's interest to make the male do as much work as possible, because by this tactic she learns the male's strategies even as he is learning them. Then if she sees what she wants she can immediately fall back on her natural skill and win immediately.

    A rather more forceful analogy is a man being trapped in a cage with a member of the cat family which is about the same weight as him, such as a jaguar or tiger. The cat is many times more aggressive and much better equipped; the man is at a severe disadvantage.

    Both of these analogies can be applied to the situation in which males attempt to compete in females' natural domain of relationships, although both fall down when applied more generally. In the first case the male ultimately refuses to play the game altogether and the female appears to become incompetent through laziness and lack of practice. In the second the man must not only fight and win the battle with the cat but also live with it.

    ESD 2. BONDING. I spent a considerable time at one point struggling to find the significance of a comment made by F25J about someone from her home town. He was presently living in Amsterdam and calling on her. F25J said "He didn't make any particular attempt to get to know me when we were in Tel Aviv." I had a strong sense that this somehow encapsulated the female perspective but could not pin it down precisely.

    The crux of it however is that males bond on shared experience, while females do so solely on the basis of who they like.

    The classical male grouping is the gang. Males will admit a member to the gang solely because he is useful, but females are only interested in who they like.
    ESD 3. POLYGAMY VERSUS MONOGAMY. The most successful male strategy for the furtherance of his genes is to impregnate as many reproductive females as possible. This is the pure masculine perspective, to finish one and go on to the next. This polygamous drive is also the most effective business and evolutionary strategy. The male instinct is to bring things to a head, finish and get on to the next. We can think of business, which is a masculine activity. The optimum strategy is to clinch a deal, make a profit and go on to the next transaction. In pursuit of this drive the male seeks resolvement.

    The male instinct is to act, because even if he makes a mistake he can finish, learn from his mistake and do it better next time. Contrarily, because of the high cost of sex and her desire for an optimum partner, the female instinct is to prevaricate and delay if it is at all possible. The female instinct is to drag things out and stall, so that she can gather information and obtain maximum advantage before committing herself to bearing a child.

    Certainly the results of Experiment 1 and subsequently were that females never initiate action. The female instinct is normally not to act: not to resolve matters, not to take risks, not to have sex, or at least until the conditions are perceived as ideal and if so, apparently often without taking precautions against pregnancy.3

    REFLECTION OF NEUROSIS. A direct proposal ('Come with me for a beer') may be a direct reflection of neurosis. Such a proposal certainly attempts to set the cost of sex low. In one circumstance, a female may really want to agree but is forced by the proposal to confront her inability to do so. Females cannot help but reject approaches. Then she is likely to wish at a later date 'If only I'd said yes.' As a very wide generalization, nonetheless carrying some truth, it seems that males usually say yes and regret it later, while females generally say no and regret it later."

    Source: Heretical Press:

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Thruthheim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Online
    Saturday, March 31st, 2007 @ 03:15 PM
    England England
    East of Pennines-South of Humber
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    17 Posts

    Re: Basic Sex Differences

    So true it's depressing. It's almost as if Men and Woman are more incompatible than not, but for the necessity of Reproduction.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    AlbionMP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 2nd, 2010 @ 05:54 PM
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    4 Posts

    Re: Basic Sex Differences

    Quote Originally Posted by Thruthheim View Post
    So true it's depressing. It's almost as if Men and Woman are more incompatible than not, but for the necessity of Reproduction.
    Speaking from my own Well of experience, I believe this.
    Last edited by AlbionMP; Tuesday, January 2nd, 2007 at 04:05 PM.

  4. #4
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    ladybright's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Last Online
    Saturday, July 31st, 2010 @ 07:14 PM
    Prolonged Absence
    Swedish Irish ?English?
    Don't know
    United States United States
    Michigan Michigan
    Married parent
    Classical liberal
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    10 Posts

    Re: Basic Sex Differences

    I am not impressed. I had originally found this site from a link about David Lane defending the 'taking' of women and polygamy in his novel K.D.Rebel. This is the site where I found a rape apologist article attributed to 'Angry Harry' which sounds alot like the c*** that was said by that Iman in Austrailia.

    I do not think that that article is by Sheppard so it is below Shappards. I had not read this Sheppard article but I did read this one.

    This is the first article that I had read by Sheppard and it sealed my opinion of anything else he has to say.

    The Female as Enemy

    Simon Sheppard details some of the essential dynamics of human behaviour. What sort of fool arms his enemies? Once during my university days an aspirant politician started his speech with a declaration that he was about to commit political suicide. Thereupon even the most naive politico present knew that it was time to go in for the kill, and what followed was a metaphorical bloodbath, even by the standards of student politics. History is replete with literal bloodbaths following attack by an enemy using weapons supplied by a former ally.

    These are instances of what I have termed the "Dynamical Laws" and it is proposed that males cannot help but arm some, at least, of their enemies. I claim that the Dynamical Laws describe the essential dynamic of male-female interaction.

    The Dynamical Laws

    1. The only power that females have is given to them by males;
    2. The only thing which females do with that power is use it against males.

    The Dynamical Laws are part of a new system of behaviour analysis called Procedural Analysis. Behaviours are regarded as masculine or feminine according to whether they are advantageous for male or female genes. For example, the optimal male policy for the furtherance of his genes is to impregnate as many reproductive females as possible, while the most advantageous female policy is to secure a single, long-term mate of exceptional fitness who will remain with her and provide for her while she rears children.

    Game of Opposites

    The male-female game is the game of opposites: the female policy is to raise the costs of sex, the male policy is to lower it; the male policy is to compete, the female one is to conspire, and so on. However, many males express female characteristics, probably due to females selecting males with traits which are advantageous for them (e.g. females preferring monogamous males as mates). Here we deal not with individuals particularly but with male and female policies.

    Psychology and perception

    An important consequence of looking at psychology from an evolutionary perspective is the realization that instincts, or traits, or tendencies, do not have to accord with reality to be advantageous. If, for example, a conviction of being "hard done by" is advantageous and heritable, that is sufficient. Human perception is extraordinarily susceptible to distortion. Being able to discard an established belief in the light of new evidence is a rare feature, even among males. Males are more analytical, due to differences in the corpus callosum which joins the two hemispheres of the brain: in the male it is narrow and in the female it is wide. This difference explains females' superior speech ability and males' more logical outlook. To properly comprehend human behaviour requires cold, dispassionate analysis.

    Can females be regarded as an enemy? Disregarding procreation they can, as can anyone else who employs the Dynamical Laws. Using more objective language, females are males' opponent. Neglecting the specific case of a couple cooperatively raising children, which is an expression of symbiosis, the male-female game is "zero-sum." For a zero-sum game, if one player wins x points, the other loses x points. In other words, if females win, males lose.
    Using this system, and mathematical game theory, human behaviour can be modelled and analysed rigorously. Suppositions may even be formally provable. To discount the Dynamical Laws however, all that is needed is a counter-example. A generalization such as "All swans are white" holds until someone produces a non-white one, and so in this case.

    No counter-example to the Dynamical Laws has been found. Detailing the best one yet to have been offered will serve as an illustration. This scenario, of a woman killing herself, arose from the offer among a group of friends of £10 for a successful challenge to the Laws.

    Ms. Thanatos

    Suppose that a woman commits suicide. How is her power to do this derived from men? Her ability to use will to over-ride her naturally strong self-preservation instincts involves logic and reason, and these are male characteristics. Darwin's theory is used to conclude that females' capacity in this regard is derived from males: 'With many closely-allied species, following nearly the same habits of life, the males have come to differ from each other chiefly through the action of sexual selection, whilst the females have come to differ chiefly from partaking more or less of the characters thus acquired by the males.'

    This is due to what Darwin called "the equal transmission of characters": 'It is, indeed, fortunate that the law of equal transmission of characters to both sexes prevails with mammals; otherwise it is probable that man would have become as superior in mental endowment to woman, as the peacock is in ornamental plumage to the peahen.'

    The prehistoric situation can readily be imagined of an elder male, with failing strength, struggling to maintain his position of dominance over a group of females (or equivalently, an area of territory), using his wits to resist attempts to depose him by younger, stronger males. Thus the male evolved the ability to suppress his immediate instinct to use brute force, instead applying logic and intelligence to prevail. By the equal transmission of characters females of subsequent generations inherited his power of will.

    If our Ms. Thanatos jumps off a cliff there is nothing more to add as far as the First Law is concerned; all that is involved is will; we are finished. If she uses a tool, e.g. a knife or a gun, this is a thing, which falls into the domain of males. Practically all things have been invented, discovered or designed by males.

    Life among cannibals

    Lest the suicidal female of our example be considered far-fetched we have the following account of behaviour among the Kuman tribe of New Guinea, in Jens Bjerre, The Last Cannibals (1956), p. 138: 'A woman badly treated by her husband has been known to hang or drown herself in revenge, thereby not only putting the man in jeopardy of evil spirits, but also requiring him to pay her family a substantial compensation.'

    A woman angered into breaking her own possessions in this society can require the person who infuriated her to pay her compensation, although in this case the local currency is tame pigs. In seeking, as seek we must, the evolutionary origin of the Dynamical Laws we should expect to find a more likely application of females' inherited will-power than jumping off the nearest cliff. The power of will has enabled the female to over-ride her involuntary sexual submission, allowing her to suppress what formerly had been an automatic response as in animal mating. Then the female demands more strenuous effort by the male before she accedes; she raises the cost of sex by withholding it.

    Fitness in lions

    Alternative strategies exist which achieve practically the same thing. The lioness requires her mate to copulate many times in a day before she ovulates, and by this means she demands fitness in the male, since the diseased or infirm male cannot maintain the necessary stamina. This is in contrast to the domestic cat, which ovulates automatically on copulation. By making the task of the male as difficult as she possibly can, increasing his load by any means available to her, the human female enhances the fitness of the male. Since by the equal transmission of characters the female shortly acquires his abilities, continuous resourcefulness is required by him, accelerating the evolutionary process and enhancing the fitness of the species as a whole. The dynamic of the Laws, combined with the equal transmission of characters, probably accounts for humans' rapid evolution.

    The equal transmission of characters involves the male, in the long term, effectively competing with a copy of himself. This is a subtle form of the celebrated Tit For Tat strategy (TFT) which has been the object of computer models and is a very common and robust strategy in nature.


    A basic expression of the Dynamical Laws relates to neurosis. Neurosis in this system is the condition which arises when one stimulus evokes two or more responses. Neurosis is readily induced in males by sexual signalling. Males are understandably sensitive to sexual signals emitted by females, and such signals are especially deserving of attention because unlike, say, putting a hand over one's mouth or raising the eyebrows, sexual signals are obviously stable evolutionarily. "Their eyes met across a crowded room and now they live in Surbiton with four kids" might be the stuff of romance but to the analyst, the female issued the Direct Look Signal, the male responded to her signal and progeny (offspring) resulted. Whether this took place in Surbiton recently or eons ago in a cave beneath where the M62 now is unimportant; the significant point is that the mechanism confers reproductive advantage and passes from generation to generation.

    Two obvious male responses to a female sexual signal are whether to approach or not. Increasing males' neurotic load is the function of the high degree of indiscriminate signalling (signals not directed at a particular individual, such as dress) in contemporary life. The neurotic male further empowers the female and thus a reinforcing cycle is established. When a male asks "You will turn up, won't you?" he informs his target that others have not, significantly increasing the likelihood that she will do likewise. Signalling or saying the opposite of what you mean is probably a symptom of acute neurosis. Neurosis likely accounts for sublimation of male effort to activities such as high art and science: the male seeks refuge from female illogicality and the neurotic conflicts thus induced, directing his energies instead to impressive displays and rational pursuits.

    Kiss and Tell

    Another example of the Dynamical Laws in contemporary life is "Kiss and Tell," whereby a female is empowered by her affair with a public figure then uses that power against him by selling her story to the press, or writing a book about it.
    The laws which allow women their freedom of dress, movement and action, and protection from violence, are the product of a male system of government, and these laws are sustained by masculine force. Then there is the panorama of Western – i.e. European male – technological achievements, such as the printing press, the transistor and television.

    Feminists who use male technology and an economic system of male creation to publish books denigrating men are employing the Dynamical Laws, as are "rap" artists who sing about "killing a cracker" or "popping a cop," since every stage of the reproduction chain being employed is the product of white male ingenuity. A country which copies a British invention, mass-produces it (again employing Western technology) and then floods the country with such products, destroying our indigenous manufacturing industry, is also applying the Dynamical Laws. Similarly a foreign nation may purchase Western military technology and then use that technology to threaten or attack the West.

    Bad Promis

    The events revealed in late 2002 concerning the Promis software (Prosecutor's Management Information System), involving Robert Maxwell and the Israeli Secret Service, are a marvellous instance of the Dynamical Laws. Having purloined a copy of the "meta database" software, written by the American Bill Hamilton, the Israelis disassembled it to obscure its origin. Then Maxwell was one of several to provide front organisations to sell the software to intelligence agencies, banks and telco's worldwide, except that now a "back door" had been added enabling the Israelis to download their own copy of much of the data the software had been assigned by its new owners to collect.

    Using technology he has himself supplied, the male is assailed by constant promotions of sex via print and television, raising its perceived value and hence the costs that can be imposed upon him. He faces an army of lawyers and other agencies eagerly awaiting reports of "abuse." He is practically emasculated by an intrusive government which, following an inexorable feminine trend, can prosecute him for expressing "racist" (i.e. true male) sentiments. In such manifestations the male is confronted with an opponent he has himself empowered and which, once armed, is doing its very best to disarm him. Power is accumulated for the sole purpose of achieving more power. Such is not the policy of a symbiont, to whom advantages accrue to mutual benefit, but of an adversary.

    Angry About Rape

    Angry Harry Replies to a Woman Correspondent

    K: If a man wanders alone into a dangerous area where gangs are known to operate, and is brutally beaten... should he be told it's his fault because he shouldn't have been acting so unsafely?

    AH: If a man knows that he is doing something that is likely to lead to an unhappy circumstance, then he deserves less sympathy should that unhappy circumstance arise. People must bear some responsibility for the outcomes of their actions. This is the only way in which the world can operate properly. Indeed, insurance companies will not insure your goods if you do not take proper care to secure them. And I imagine that if you kept going up to black men and tweaking them on the nose saying "Hi Nig###!" I doubt that a judge will be very sympathetic towards you over the occasional beatings you might receive. He will assume that you bear some responsibility for what has happened to you. And, in my view, the same should be true when it comes to matters of sex-assault. It is all a question of degree.

    Many women, however, seem to wish to take no responsibility for their behaviour. They seem to think that they should be able to flaunt their sexuality all over the place – in order to incite men – and then they think that they have the right to claim that they are victims when some men respond to them in a manner which is absolutely consistent with the message that they, themselves, have been sending out.
    In my view, women who set out to entice men sexually bear more responsibility for sexual assaults against them than do women who do not set out to entice men sexually. And this should be reflected in the law.

    K: Why should a woman NOT have the right to wear what she pleases?

    AH: For the same reason that men do not go to work with their dicks hanging out of their trousers. I tell you what; try wearing a Nazi helmet whenever you go out. See if other women agree with your right to wear what you want. Furthermore, since you are soooooooo concerned about rape, should you not be advising women to dress more carefully, rather than promoting the opposite?

    K: Are men such animals that if they see a woman dressed provocatively, they'll have no choice but to rape her?

    AH: That is a stupid question. And so... Are women such sluts that they think that they are entitled to foist their sexuality on to every passing member of the public? Are women so mind-boggling stupid that they cannot see that flagrantly enticing men sexually might bring about consequences? What makes women think that they have the right to overtly sexually stimulate men who happen to be in the vicinity whereas if men did a similar thing in response – perhaps with their hands – they could be prosecuted? When women stick out their sexual organs uninvited into men's vision then this is not much different from men sticking out their hands uninvited for a grope. After all, in both cases they are merely trying to elicit a sexual response in the other party in the best way that they know how. Let me put it this way. You do not have the right to wind me up sexually at your convenience – particularly so if I would get into trouble for responding even marginally to your enticement; i.e. to what I might see as your 'request'.

    K: Are men unable to merely look and enjoy the view without having to have sex with her?

    AH: Another stupid question. And so... Many men do not enjoy the view. They do not like being sexually harassed. And my guess – and it is only a guess – is that in some instances where strangers rape provocatively-dressed women, they are doing so in order to teach them a lesson of some sort. They are saying, "Stop fu#cking around with my private and personal emotions." They are saying, "I see. So you want to turn me on without my permission, eh? Then let's see how you like it." My guess is that they also do not like being taunted and provoked. They do not like 'sluts' continually dangling their juicy bits in front of them and saying, "But you can't have them," any more than you would like men dangling $10,000 bills in front of your nose wherever you go and saying, "Sorry, Honey, you aren't good looking enough for this kind of money."

    Indeed, many men that I know are angered by the way in which women purposely provoke them by their clothing. And they are not prudes. They are not anti-porn, or anti-wild sex, or what have you, but they do not want unattainable sexually-provocative women stuck in their faces uninvited. Others, like my good self, are more than happy to see women strutting their stuff. But I do not think that women should presume that all men must be made to feel the same way – by some feminist decree. And I also do not see why women should feel that men are not entitled to feel offended by uninvited sexual displays. Is it only women who can be offended in today's society?

    Are men not permitted to feel offended? Besides which, I know many women who do not appreciate the presence of sexually-provocative women in their midst. Furthermore, we all have to accept that in order to safeguard our liberties, we have to tolerate many dysfunctional and/or unstable beings in our society, as well as those who are temporarily 'unbalanced' – for one reason or another. The alternative, in practice, is truly horrible. And, of course, some 20% of males have very low IQs. As such, I think that women are – as seems typical these days – being incredibly selfish if they believe that they are entitled to swirl up the passions of whomsoever they wish and then escape all responsibility for any negative consequences that might arise from the wrong kind of attention.

    In a nutshell: People who go out of their way to provoke "an attack" are less deserving – should an attack materialise – than those who do not. Most people would agree with this. But Western women see themselves as so superior that they think they should be above such things. And they think that they should be able to provoke men – all men – as much as they like – and then take no responsibility! (And this is true not just in the area of sex. It is true in many other areas.)
    'Ollocks, I say. Their own behaviour must be taken into account. And, take it from me, it soon will be!
    Land of the Free because of the Brave.
    "Do not seek death. Death will find you. But seek the road which makes death a fulfillment." Dag Hammarskjold
    "Children know the truth. Love is not an emotion. Love is behavior." Andrew Vachss

Similar Threads

  1. The Emergence of Sex Differences in Personality Traits in Early Adolescence
    By Catterick in forum Psychology, Behavior, & Neuroscience
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Friday, August 19th, 2016, 10:35 PM
  2. The Smarter the Female the More She Dislikes Sex
    By Hanna in forum Psychology, Behavior, & Neuroscience
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Wednesday, May 7th, 2008, 08:28 AM
  3. The Male/Female Attitude Towards Love and Sex
    By Bridie in forum Men, Women, & Relationships
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: Monday, February 12th, 2007, 05:33 PM


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts