Explanatory framework for female lust

Chicks dig assholes. This is known. But explaining it in terms of evopsych has been a shaky proposition so far.

I believe it can be explained by the extreme selective effects of slavery in human history. Women hate enslaved men because for thousands of years there has been no quicker route to genetic extinction than bearing the child of a fellow slave. This explains the disgust women feel toward submissive male behaviors.

In contrast, women love the signals given off by known classes of non-slaves, particularly the masters, overseers, whip-hands, and occasionally free men. The successful slave women of history would have desperately tried to get such a man to fall in love with her in order to escape the meatgrinder of general work detail. Therefore, a man who wishes to deceitfully signal high-status ought to act and dress like a slave owner, slave trader, or slave breaker. (Generally speaking, the fraction of free men in historical societies has been vanishingly small.)

Civilization is an abstract sort of slavery, where men are domesticated by abstract forms of control like the state monopoly on violence and replacement immigration. It follows that women are generally disgusted by civilized, prosocial men, otherwise known as “nice guys” or “suckers”, and prefer self-interested men.

nice (adj.) Look up nice at Dictionary.com
late 13c., “foolish, stupid, senseless,” from Old French nice (12c.) “careless, clumsy; weak; poor, needy; simple, stupid, silly, foolish,” from Latin nescius “ignorant, unaware,” literally “not-knowing,” from ne- “not” (see un-) + stem of scire “to know” (see science). “The sense development has been extraordinary, even for an adj.” [Weekley] — from “timid” (pre-1300); to “fussy, fastidious” (late 14c.); to “dainty, delicate” (c. 1400); to “precise, careful” (1500s, preserved in such terms as a nice distinction and nice and early); to “agreeable, delightful” (1769); to “kind, thoughtful” (1830).


Particularly, women lust for criminals on the high and low ends. This mirrors Solzhenitsyn’s observation that politicians have some admiration for gangsters but treat their subjects are subhumans and beasts of burden, lower than pets.

As I’ve stated several times before, the most important truth of political science is that slaves demographically replace their masters. Sure, Napoleon might be one of your ancestors, but 99% of the rest were effectively chattel. A bonus takeaway is that cuckolding is a far worse crime than rape.

A modified version of this theory is necessary to account for nice societies like Germany, where the selection penalty for being nice has been effectively removed. However, as the sexual aspect of the immigration crisis has shown us, the female lust for non-nice men has not been bred out of them, it has merely been repressed by k-selected societal cohesion and a lack of opportunity to cheat. It’s precisely because the immigrants are conceived of as uncivilized that they are “sexy” in comparison to German men.

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Explanatory framework for female lust

  1. Mycroft Jones says:

    Read something yesterday, showed that slave women in the Roman empire bred much less and died much younger than non-slave women. Makes sense. Look at how women treat each other. They are vicious. They steal each others children, kill them, poison their romances, at every chance they get. To enjoy a slave woman, you have to keep the free women away from them. Jealousy knows no bounds.

    I don’t see slaves replacing masters in any society. Quite the opposite. Slaves don’t reproduce very much. An oppressed group with its own hierarchy and family structure? Yes. But oppressed individuals within a group? No.

  2. Rime says:

    “Marriage and family is outlawed, thus only outlaws have wives and families.” -James A. Donald

    A man is as free as the strength of his arms and his ability to rally the men that surround him. Prosocial men obey increasingly strict and increasing set of rules that hinder them from using violence. Antisocial and stupid men are incapable to follow said rules and care not for the consequences of using violence. To keep a woman you have to be capable and willing to use violence either to keep another man’s hands off her or to keep her in line.

  3. Heaviside says:

    Cuckservatives will tell you “wage slavery” isn’t real.

  4. Pingback: Divining social status roles from ranks | Aeoli Pera

  5. Pingback: Divining functional social roles from ranks | Aeoli Pera

  6. This is absolutely brilliant, and it partially explains why the “What do women want?” conundrum exists. Women know, deep down in their orbitofrontal cortices, that chasing whip-wielding bad boys is a bad idea, but tingles says otherwise. A grotesque situation, in the truest sense of the word.

  7. Pingback: On Oppositional Defiant “Disorder” | Aeoli Pera

  8. Pingback: Sociopathic disregard for social norms | Aeoli Pera

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