<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[http://therationalmale.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[Rollo Tomassi]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://therationalmale.com/author/counterflow1/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[Duplicity]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://rationalmale.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/duplicity.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-213" title="duplicity" src="https://rationalmale.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/duplicity.jpg?w=400&#038;h=312" alt="" width="400" height="312" /></a></p>
<p>It’s endlessly entertaining (and predictable) to see how often women’s (and feminized men’s) default response to anything they disagree with in regards to gender dynamics is met with a personalization to the contrary. It’s always the “not-in-my-case” story about how their personal anecdotal, exceptional experience categorically <strong>proves</strong> a universal opposite. By order of degrees, women have a natural tendency for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism">solipsism</a> &#8211; any dynamic is interpreted in terms of how it applies to themselves first, and then the greater whole of humanity.</p>
<p>Men tend to draw upon the larger, rational, more empirical meta-observations whether they agree or not, but a woman will almost universally rely upon her isolated personal experience and cling to it as gospel. If it’s true for her, it’s true for everyone, and experience and data that contradict her self-estimations? Those have no bearing because ‘she’s’ not like that.</p>
<p>Recently I&#8217;ve been fielding responses generated from my <a title="Wait for it?" href="https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2011/09/23/wait-for-it/">Wait for it?</a> post, courtesy of <a href="http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2011/09/27/hookinguprealities/has-the-price-of-sex-bottomed-out/">Susan Walsh and the Hooking Up Smart </a>audience. What started as some really good discourse has kind of degenerated into the monogamy vs. biology team mentality. There&#8217;s a lot of good stuff, but after 300+ responses all that just kind of gets buried. However, Susan had a predictable come back to my (misunderstood) premise of the Iron Rule of Tomassi #3:</p>
<blockquote><p>Are you saying that all women are prepared to bang a stranger at a foam cannon party on Spring Break? Or even that all women would attend a foam cannon party?</p>
<p>Are there any women who are in control of their lives and actions, in your view? It sounds as if you do not allow for that possibility.</p></blockquote>
<p>One of the great failings of a good debate is casting your perspective in binary terms – and that’s what&#8217;s happening here. This isn’t an all or nothing, black or white premise; intelligent people falling back on binary straw-men arguments is usually a sign that they either don&#8217;t grasp the premise (my fault) or that they really have nothing to back up their own (their fault).</p>
<p>That said, lets put it this way, all women have the potential to bang the hot guy in the foam Cannon party. Whether they have the means, or their personal / physical conditions permit them to carry out the behavior is subject to speculation, but the desire and potential is there under the right circumstances.</p>
<p>Now, the next predictable retort will be, “so you actually believe women are unaware of their own impulses?” I’ll save you the time of asking, and just respond with, yes. ‘Lives’ and ‘actions’ are often conscious decisions, however, the motivators behind those decisions are are not. That’s going to seem outrageous to a gender who’s psychological imperative is to preserve an appearance of being worthy of long term provisioning at all times, but empirical study and observations will contradict this.</p>
<p>Have a look at the work of Dr. Martie Hasselton here:<br />
<a href="http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/haselton/papers/" rel="nofollow">http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/haselton/papers/</a></p>
<p>Pay particular attention to her studies and experiments regarding female ornamentation during periods of ovulation (high fertility) as well as women’s subconscious propensity for seeking men displaying Alpha cues during ovulation, and Beta male provisioning preferences during menstruation.</p>
<p>You might also look into the works of Dr. Meredith Chivers:<br />
<a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/06/030613075252.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/06/030613075252.htm</a></p>
<blockquote><p>In their study, Chivers and Bailey showed erotic films to heterosexual, bisexual and lesbian women while measuring their genital and subjective arousal. They found that women, unlike men, showed the same genital responses to different kinds of erotic stimuli regardless of their sexual orientation, says Bailey. Whether the films depicted two males, two females, or a male and a female engaging in sexual activity, the different groups of women in the study responded similarly.</p></blockquote>
<p>As I stated previously, hypergamy doesn’t afford a woman much waiting time with a Man she sees as superior stock, and women’s biology and psychological wiring have evolved to make women extremely adept sexual opportunists. So yes, ALL women have the propensity to want to fuck the hot guy on spring break, and simultaneously maintain the impression (for themselves and others)  that they’re worthy of long term provisioning potential. Women know their first, best, agency with men is their sexuality. On some level of consciousness they’re keenly aware that men’s primary interest in them is fucking – everything else is ancillary to sex. The value a woman has beyond the sexual only becomes relevant after she’s been sexual.</p>
<p>I can hear the gnashing of feminist, and their male identifiers, teeth at this, but don&#8217;t take this as some horrible proof of the human condition. The binary response will be to presume I mean women are worthless beyond sex; that is not my premise. What I am illustrating is that there will always be a condition of sexuality between the sexes that influences our dealings with each other.</p>
<p>I’d love to perpetuate the pretty lie that women hold off on sex in order increase their sexual market value to men, but the overwhelming meta-consensus as reported by men online is there are far too many “good girls” who’ll knowingly string along patient, dependable (not necessarily beta) men because “she wanted them to like her for more than that” only to fuck a high SMV Alpha the first night she met him. Opportunism is a universal human drive, but it manifests itself differently in each gender as fits their imperatives.</p>
<p><a title="Self-Shots" href="http://www.amadmp.com/withLocation">Self-Shots </a> NSFW.</p>
<p>Have a look here at the sheer volume and frequency with which average women will voluntarily become sexual here. This is just one collection, there are countless millions more. Remember, no one is coercing these girls to take nude and semi-nude pics of themselves in a bathroom mirror &#8211; they <em>want</em> to do this. Are they all sluts? How many of these women have uttered the words ” I want to wait so I know you want me for more than sex?” How many of these women would make great wives in 5-10 years? How many of these women are already (or have been) wife material? How many of these women are thought of as the sweet natured “good girl”? How many guys have considered these girls “Quality Women”? We can look at them with their clothes off and declare them sluts, but would you know the difference if you saw her in church?</p>
<p>Most women are literally oblivious to the underlying motivations of their sexual selections / attractions. Evolution has largely selected-for human females with a capacity to form psychological schemas that preserve an ego-investment that would otherwise afflict them with debilitating anxiety, guilt, and the stresses that result from being continuously, consciously aware of their own behavioral incongruities. Evolution selects-for solipsistic women who are blissfully unaware of their solipsism. Hypergamy necessitates solipsism.</p>
]]></html><thumbnail_url><![CDATA[https://i2.wp.com/rationalmale.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/duplicity.jpg?fit=440%2C330]]></thumbnail_url><thumbnail_height><![CDATA[312]]></thumbnail_height><thumbnail_width><![CDATA[400]]></thumbnail_width></oembed>