Saturday 22 November 2014

Why a woman will not admit the truth

“We take for granted what we have, 
instead of being thankful for what we may not have had.”

Men like me can get involved in conversations with women about their somewhat strange choices in the sexual market.  Even in the short time since this blog commenced, I also receive various female responses to these posts, and their emotive words can range from anything between rational questioning of my claims, to downright aggressive hamster style delusional comments that make no sense.  Wouldn’t it be a mundane world if we all lived in reality…

Some of these questions raised do achieve a certain degree of credibility, and I think here stems the point to how any man should assess women and their mentality in the emotional spectrum.  Whilst many women do nothing more than hide from reality in favour of the fallacy that keeps their hopes, dreams and justifications alive, there are also a decent percentage of them who do talk theoretical sense.  In other words, many women are efficient at seeing the wrong from the right when stepping aside of their bubble and acting as the one looking in.  The problem with these women who do comprehend their peer’s errors is that they will make the same mistakes when placed bang in the middle of their own dilemma.  So even our good lady friends who do see it transparently from a far will still make poor judgments when it boils down to their own world.

The most pressing female query I seem to have pushed against me is why a woman would not simply confess to what I claim if the reward is ultimate happiness.  How would they benefit if men took precedence of apathy over passiveness?  Why would women react positively to men who prioritize their own life before any girlfriend or wife?  If a woman’s ego is dented, surely this will only achieve a negative view of the man she interacts with and consequently she will seek for pastures new with men showering her with gifts, compliments and worshipping of the ground she treads on?  Well for all women and men watching on, I offer you these 3 reasons to why women do not admit the truth:

Women are never sure what they want

Women are never completely sure what they say when an emotional topic – that involves them personally – arises in discussion.  This is why you will hear them offer far more valid and substantiated views when they are referring to a female friend or acquaintance.  Because they have stepped out of their own bubble, they speak the words to how a woman should act in the light of decision-making with men.  But if this same commenting woman was placed in the same position, it’s there for all to see how many times she would act differently to what she said and the same as how her female counterpart delivered.

Female egos do the talking

Women talk with their egos and not their preferences.  To clarify, a woman will, for the most part, say what her ego tells her, but then over time it will come back to haunt her.  The best example is how a woman will state she wants a nice guy as a male partner who will always be there for her, he will continuously place her before anything else in his life, and he will exert inundated effort, energy and monetary expenditure on her.  Yet as time passes by, it’s no coincidence that many women jettison from these giving men.  Her ego told her that she must be special for a man to treat her like a princess, but her ultimate happiness and sexual predilections are drawn towards men who act with far less care to the consequences.

Another case in point is how women claim so many men are jerks.  This claim is nothing short of comical, because to be a jerk in proper terms – cheating, taking a woman for granted and constantly lying to her – a man needs to be of extreme high scale physical looks or someone who has very high social status.  These men can get away with being jerks if they so please to be so, because they are the men with options.  In percentage terms, how many men really tick either box?  So when a woman protests that she always ends up with jerks, it construes as the following self-promotion tactic and justification on her behalf:
  • As jerks are seen as the most in demand men, if she ends up with them she must be special to the world and a cut above all other women. This is at least what she tells herself and hopes others believe.
  • Women, deep down in their honest veins, know that the vast majority of men are nice guys.  Unfortunately, these men by majority also happen to be the least in demand men who are, by no coincidence, the most loyal boyfriends.  Up to a point, women are loathed to go for these men because they want males (mainly jerks) who are less in supply but more in demand.  However, naturally by the sheer numbers logic they will find their path to a nice guy, only to be later underwhelmed.  To justify never dating a nice guy, or likewise finding reasons to depart, women will ultimately argue that they only end up with jerks.  Despite laying on the bad luck sob story, the truth is these women consciously, but usually subconsciously, go screening for jerks.

Women want the best of both worlds

Women want the “cake and eat it” metaphoric luxury.  This is all the more relevant once they pass the age of 23 and are perhaps looking to settle down a little, or a lot.  As touched on, men (most nice guys) who are the least in demand are the most willing in commitment.  They are also, by no lucky spin of the coin, the men who will appreciate their female partner’s existence to the furthest degree.  By being an efficient provider, these men tick most boxes with regards to being a loyal, faithful, trustworthy and long term suitable partner.  The drawback, for women, is these men lack the credentials to sexually optimize their female delegates.

A woman can hardly go around confessing she desires one man to provide and another man for good sex, so she will naturally go with the verbal language that the willing provider is the perfect man for her.  This is vain hope and plausible deniability rolled into one bowl.  But when women instigate the majority of relationship withdrawals and divorce initiations, again, the actions are opposite to the words.

Isn’t it a tough world for a woman to be happy?  At a young age she most craves for a jerk, because the profile he attains makes her feel alive and worthy.  When older, she selects a lesser looking man because, once more, this man strokes her ego the most by polishing the crown and showing excess gratification for taking him.  Each route leads to a car crash at the crossroads.

Now there is some good news for the more courageous and secure women out there.  Despite being extremely hard to track down, some men (like yours truly) do possess the necessary know-how to strike that perfect balance.  These men can be firm and understanding at the appropriate times.  They are tough and sensitive in response to his woman’s actions.  He never borders too far to the asshole or lapdog extreme.  He distributes a challenge that will never illustrate that he is in the palm of her hands, but there is enough knowledge of his attainability and loyalty to prove he is good boyfriend material.   Fundamentally, he is sexually attractive but with the morals and values to match. 

I always get the feeling that, along with making many women antagonistic towards me due to their irritable, if internally denied, feeling of inferiority to my physical looks on a gender relativity scale, when they actually take the time to know me, I cause even more confusion in their little heads.  Because if a good looking man can illustrate his good personality, loyalty and genuine demeanour - something women see as not accustomed to men of blessed physical looks - they lose the justification to be with their lesser looking and safe male partner.  Putting female egoism to one side for a moment, at the end of the day the mitigation to choose a sexually uninspiring man is due to the fact she can trust him and enjoy his comfortable company, right?

As a final note, men should always be careful what women say in respect to their most preferential male metric as a sexual partner.  Many women will harp on about the fact they need a man with great personality, someone who is compatible to their interests and hobbies, and a person who is on their wavelength with consideration and listening ability.  Now place this same woman with a choice between a man who possesses all the attributes as said, and a totally incompatible, grumpy and inconsiderate bloke who just so happens to be a local sports star or a wealthy businessman.  Don’t be surprised to see her go for the one who is not matched to her but who most inflates her perceived importance on planet earth.  Until this day occurs, she can always hide behind the vast majority of men who are so na├»ve that they believe what she says.  Even when thrown in the ring of hypocrisy, she’ll still find a way to justify what she did.    

Women want the best of both worlds when it derives to men they collide with in their everyday lives, and they pretty much achieve it by the sheer magic of how the male population is made up in character terms.  On the one hand they are surrounded by 9 out of 10 men who polish their crowns and make them feel better about life.  This is just how they like it.  But even with this ego boost injection received from the mainstream male puppets, women still need that isolated man in the same environment who acts against the grain and stands out due to his lack of infatuation towards their existence.  Essentially, he is the man acting out the role to optimize their sexual desires.    


  1. Why do "men lack the credentials to sexually optimize their female delegates."? Are you saying that women settle for betas, because they can't capture an alpha, but deny these betas full sexual expression because, ultimately, they're repulsed by them?

  2. It’s not so much these women will deny their respective men full sexual expression (at least not in the early stages, pre pregnancy and/or marriage), but it’s more a case that these men they settle for do not have the physical allure to maximize their vaginal juices. This is where you cannot take women seriously when they say ugly or average looking men can fully compensate for their uglier/mediocre looks if they possessed a very big penis. This is a cover up of the truth. You still have to be turned in the first place by the figure behind the prop. Also, absent of manhood reputation, how did he get there in the first place?

    There is at least a 4:1 beta to alpha ratio within the male population. On this sheer numbers analysis alone, 80% of women would have to settle for the perennial beta male –men who are average looking, no raw power and too passive, giving, etc… - even if every woman wanted to be with an alpha over a long term. Granted, a small percentage of beta males do have the physical looks to sexually arouse women at the early stage (something that will disintegrate over time due to his beta dominated character).

    You also have to consider that women don’t just act like men do – as men primarily and instinctively go for what sexually arouses them within their feasible attainability. Women, with high ego, low trust, low confidence and high insecurity issues to manage, will often take the safe choice of someone who doesn’t optimize her sexual inclinations, even if she could in fact do better in this regard.

    Last, women (mainly post 23) place much emphasis on a man’s provisioning facility. Most of these men will be beta males with average physical attractiveness – hence lacking the credentials to sexually arouse her to a high level.