Archive for April, 2010

The two poles of the female soul

April 26, 2010

The female soul has two poles: imperiousness and subserviency. Intermediate states are unstable, and so, in her interactions with you, she will vacillate between the poles. The only relationship she cannot have in comfort is an equal one.

Mocking and laughing

April 8, 2010

The only way to live and transcend our limitations is by continually mocking our own bullshit — lovingly.

Mocking is a powerful inhibitor. That’s why it is so cruel when done to another person for some act of self-expression. It is the demolition of a particular building in that person’s ego.

But mockery is also the underdog’s subversion of power. Satire and mockery can permanently damage powerful politicians.

So what about self-mockery? It is dangerous, because it is powerful. But it is appropriate when applied to thoughts and feelings one really knows to be bullshit, counterproductive, a waste of time.

No matter how strong or established you get, among strangers, it may happen that you feel disconnected, isolated, the outsider. Though it may be true that you know no one here, people are easy to talk to and the dynamic can change within a few minutes. The feeling is an anachronism of your development. It was bullshit then, and it is unbelievable bullshit now. This is one example of a feeling that deserves internal mockery.

Self-mockery makes me smile, chuckle, laugh. I notice other people wondering what could be so funny or what I’m so happy about. It inhibits the associative pattern from the past, while relaxing me and putting me in a positive state of mind.

Chuckling and laughing are interesting. Some time ago I worked all night. I hadn’t eaten properly. I biked home in the cold air. It was freezing. My hands were freezing. I just started to laugh on my bike, in the cold, at 6 am in the morning. But the laugh was not quite my own. It was a cynical, dirty, masculine laugh. More of a parody than a genuine expression — but who knows. It made me understand the function of that way of laughing: To cope with a challenging situation.

Laughing is wormholing from one point in state space to another point, which would not otherwise be accessible. When a joke’s punchline suddenly transforms our interpretation of the situation described in the exposition, we wormhole and laugh as a consequence. Conversely, we can laugh in order to wormhole out of an unproductive state or interpretation of the present situation and into a better state or more enlightened view of the scene.

Control, the male dilemma, and the eerie parallelism between sex and love

April 6, 2010

For a man, control is key. Control is power, is to be desired and loved by women. Status merely comes with it, and indicates that you have it.

Control starts with ourselves and extends outward: control of our body and its functions, especially of ejaculation; control of our physiology, of our orgasm, and of our emotions, especially of falling in love.

Extending outward, control is exerted over other people’s thoughts (when they follow our words), over their feelings, emotions, and behavior. Outward control is power. The ultimate masculine power is control of a woman’s emotions, of her body, in particular her pregnancy, and of her orgasm.

Control is precisely the thing in a man that women cannot resist. It is perhaps the only thing that women cannot resist. Control is to a man what beauty is to a woman.

Women are not inherently more emotional, sensitive, or unstable than men. They are allowed to be. They can afford to be, because they don’t need control to be loved. Men do.

Don’t you hate all this? What for?

Well, to be desired and loved by women, and to procreate – or to pretend to God to do so while using contraceptives. This is to say, to fuck, essentially, to ejaculate, to orgasm, and to fall in love.

Ejaculation, orgasm, and falling in love do not require a woman’s cooperation. We can masturbate, shoot our seed into the sink, come over porn, and fall in love without inciting love in her. But that would mean half a life to a man, or no life at all. We do need women.

The irony is this: the ends of masculine control, ejaculation – inside her, orgasm – with her, and falling in love – as she falls in love with us, these are the great pleasures and they are all, in essence, loss of control. This is the male dilemma.

The hard prick, when it ejaculates, goes limp and ceases to be physically stimulating to her. Male ejaculation and orgasm are always sexually disappointing to both parties in that they are a loss of control, of masculinity – his pleasure, and her triumph, notwithstanding.

The disappointment on her side is greatest, of course, if she hasn’t yet orgasmed.

There is an eerie parallelism between sex and love, between the physical and the emotional: The man that falls in love gets weak and ceases to be emotionally stimulating to her. The male’s falling in love is always emotionally disappointing to both parties in that it is a loss of control, of masculinity – his pleasure, and her triumph, notwithstanding.

The disappointment on her side is greatest, of course, if she hasn’t yet completely fallen in love.

You are man enough for her to fall in love with you if and only if you have the control not to fall in love with her. In other words, a man can have any woman, except the one he loves. And a woman can fall in love with many men, but not with the one who loves her.

This is perhaps the greatest irony of the human condition.

When I first understood this, I could not believe that nobody had ever explained it to me. In a highly advanced culture, where you can easily find instructions for building an airplane, how could a piece of information so essential to the personal happiness of every man and every woman not be readily available, not be taught at elementary school to every boy and girl?

The reason, I suspect, is that it is such an awful piece of information, such an ugly truth. It’s a truth that is beautiful for its perverse elegance, for its symmetry and irony, but ugly in its consequences to human happiness.

A man in love has lost a substantial amount of control. In particular, he has lost control to her. His falling in love takes the power from him and puts it in her hands, shifting the balance. And because women are programmed by nature to love men for their power – in exactly the same way that men are programmed by nature to love women for their beauty – the man in love is unlovable, albeit only to the woman he loves.

This sounds very bleak. So then is there not a happy couple in love in the world? Is there no hope?

Yes, there is. It works like this: The man controls his emotion and underexpresses what emotion he cannot control. He then controls her, creatively through the art of seduction, her thoughts, her emotions, her body. He maintains control until she begins to lose control. He leads her into her loss of control, into trance and passive feminine pleasure. It takes discipline for him to forgo or at least delay the pleasure of losing control himself.

As he leads her, she leads the loss of control: When she is thoroughly in love he may let himself fall a little (without losing her). When she has orgasmed, then so may he, and obtain his measure of pleasure. But if he were to let go and experience total pleasure, total abandon, he would lose all control, and thus all masculinity, and thus he would certainly lose her. This happens to the young man, again and again, until he learns.

Even the experienced man’s controlled little losses of control, will make him less than perfectly masculine. But then masculinity is just a means to the end of these little losses. He is perfectly masculine to the women who have loved and lost him. And another man is perfectly masculine to his love in the same way.

And the less loving, emotional, and sensitive we are, the easier it is for us to maintain control and appeal to women. The born asshole is a born fucker, emotionally – and often physically as well. He first fucks with her emotionally and then proceeds to fuck her physically – and for exactly this, he is much desired, and much loved, by women.

But we can match the born asshole’s masculinity by mastery of the game of seduction, by sheer genius proceeding from a deep acceptance of the nature of female sexuality.

It is the sexism of nature itself that grants pleasure and loss of control to the female in larger measure. Nature has no qualms about sexism. It’s hard to accept these things when you believe – as I and my lovers, by and large, do – in equality, political and intellectual equality. And it’s interesting that our culture, and especially feminism, idealizes masculine control and power and associates it with freedom and pleasure, although in fact pleasure is loss of control and freedom is gained when someone you trust does the driving.

Control itself, of course, is a masculine pleasure – a sadistic pleasure to the degree that it involves eliciting a wide range sensations or emotions in her, a masochistic pleasure when it takes much discipline to maintain, and a playful pleasure when it comes easy. Just never a pure one.

Sexual attractiveness as a function of age

April 4, 2010

Sexual attractiveness varies as a function of age for both men and women. However, the curves must look very different for males and females. Let’s define sexual attractiveness as the percentage of people of the opposite sex that would enjoy having sex with a person. I haven’t checked the literature on this, but I suspect the curves (averaged across individuals) may look something like this…

Note the sudden rise for the female during her teens and the delayed rise for the male. Note also the sudden drop for the female during her thirties and the much later drop for the male. Further note that I’ve drawn the peak lower and wider for the male. This is consistent with the idea that a girl at 20 is desired by a larger proportion of the opposite sex than a guy at his peak.

If we were to define sexual attractiveness as the frequency of consensual heterosexual sex acts, then the integral (i.e. the total count of consensual heterosexual sex acts) would by definition be equal for both sexes – consistent with the curves as shown, where the female’s peak is higher but also narrower, yielding a similar integral over the lifespan.

The sudden rise and fall of the female’s attractiveness may pose challenges to her character and development that the male does not face.

If we were to zoom in on a particular individual’s attractiveness across a few days spanning a range of emotional states and changes of status, I think we’d see a nearly constant curve for the female. A hot girl can be happy and perky or crying in a corner of the room – she is still hot. This constancy of sexual power confers the immense emotional freedom that women enjoy: emotional instability is less of a liability if it does not compromise sexual power.

Not so for a guy. If he breaks down emotionally, he loses all masculine appeal. His sexual power similarly declines when he fails professionally and loses status.

A woman’s attrativeness, though it fades with age, is stable like the price of gold locally in time. A man’s attractiveness is fickle by comparison – more like the market value of modern art or popmusic: largely a social construction arising in an unpredictable process of recurrent message passing.

Does this have implications for mating and long-term partnerships?

Let’s go with the conventional notion that a stable match is one in which both partners are similarly attractive – and neither is too tempted by more attractive alternative options.

But a stable match at one point in time is not necessarily a stable match at a different point, if attractiveness varies differentially for the sexes.

For an age-matched couple, the woman will be more attractive in younger years and the man more attractive in later years, leading to instability over essentially the entire course of the relationship (with a short moment of balance in the middle). If they meet young and she has more alternative options than he does, but sticks with him regardless, she could be thought of as investing in his potential. When the tables turn, he may repay her loyality. Alternatively, he may defect and leave her for someone younger and more attractive. So an age-matched early commitment is risky for the woman in the long term.

This assumes that the particular two people have an equal lifespan integral of sexual attractiveness. If a young age-matched couple is matched in attractiveness as well when they meet, then her risk of losing him is even greater.

If she waits until her 30s to find an age-matched partner for the long term, her chances of getting someone of equal lifespan attractiveness are slim, as her best years are past. For the long term, she is a definite bad deal for an age-matched male partner who is currently or over the lifespan equally attractive. However, he may be interested in the short term, while the match is stable.

If the male is 10-20 years older, then the attractiveness curves are in better alignment and the match is more stable over the long term. This is a common scenario and advantageous to both sides.

Conversely, consider the case where the female is 10-20 years older. His attractiveness at 22 may be a match for hers at 37 – for a short, sweet moment.

Beauty is deep by comparison

April 3, 2010

We often hear that men are superficial in their sexual preferences, preferring beautiful women. The implication is that women are more sophisticated. It is true that female preferences are more complicated. However, they turn out also to be even more superficial.

At the simplest level, the equivalent of the male preference for beauty is the female preference for status and power. Both status and power come with one’s position in society and can be gained late and lost prematurely. These qualities are even further from the core of who we are, and thus more superficial, than beauty.

A closer look reveals that not only are female preferences more superficial, but the weight of a given male quality in the female attraction formula rises monotonically with the degree of superficialty of the quality.

The deepest quality, personality, has negative weight, turning a positive personality (nice and sweet) into a liability and creating the positive response to the dark triad (narcissism, machiavellism, and psychopathy) and to everyday assholery. Looks are more superficial than personality and rise to a small positive weight. Status and power come next, earning a heavy weight, topped only by bullshitting ability, which is maximally superficial (as it can be acquired through training at any stage in life if the motivation is there) and most sexually impressive to the female.

Oscar Wilde said that “only superficial people do not judge by appearances.” Well, happily, we all do.