I saw a video on YouTube the other day which put forward the proposition that a man’s looks is of primary importance to a woman. This is part of the so-called “Black Pill Theory. And it got me thinking …
So the idea behind this is that most of our conventional wisdom about what attracts a woman to a man is mostly a red herring. It’s not “being alpha”, warm, intelligent, a good sense of humour, etc., that are important qualities that a woman looks for in a man. The argument is that most of the spark or chemistry is looks.
Then it dawned on me: in order to understand womens’ behaviour, you have to understand biological imperatives, not self-reported motives. Women behave not in ways that is beneficial for them personally, but in ways beneficial to the species. Or put it another way: a woman must get Chad’s genes no matter her personal cost. If you accept that proposition, then a lot of pieces of the jigsaw fall into place.
OK, so what is a woman’s biological imperative? If we can understand that, then so my thinking goes, we can understand everything. Here it is: women bear a huge cost in having a baby, so they need to procure the best seed they can. Let’s call the possessor of said seed “Chad.” Not “alpha”, because that’s confusing the issue, but “Chad.” Chad is defined by his physical characteristics of being a 10, and all that implies: square jaw, good teeth, strong upper body, and so on. You know … Chad … the perfect physical male specimen.
A woman, wants Chad, and only Chad, because she wants to breed the best offspring possible. This has profound implications for her behaviour.
Have you ever noticed how a woman deems one man’s behaviour adorable, and another man’s behaviour creepy, even though both men are acting exactly the same? This may seem illogical on her part, but if you refer back to my basic premise, it makes sense: the first man is a Chad, and the second isn’t.
You see, to her, non-Chad is a repulsive snot. In fact, let’s call him Snot, in honour of the show American Dad, where the son Steve has a best friend called Snot. She’s trying to eliminate Snot, who’s buzzing around her like a pesky mosquito, so that she can concentrate on getting Chad’s attention. Should we perhaps Snot a “vagina-blocker”?
Many women, particularly good-looking women, are actually offended when a Snot approaches her. Implicitly he is stating that he is on at least the same level as her, an assumption she rejects even, or especially, if it is false.
Do women like being objectified? And if not, how do you explain why women constantly “doll themselves up” in what logic clearly dictates is an attempt to be sexually alluring? And if men are so thirsty, why does she need to doll herself up anyway?
I am going to define “Objectification” as viewing someone as physically sexually desirable. Let’s not argue over semantics here, let’s just agree that it’s a reasonable definition and see where it gets us.
In answer to the first question, I would say “yes,” but only to Chad, otherwise “no.” Here we see Nature’s cruel trick on women. Nature requires that all men act as Chads, whether or not it is true. The woman must be bombarded by a lot of men whom she finds objectionable. From the biological perspective, it is the price she must pay in order to secure Chad.
This also explains why women wear make-up. Explanations such as “I’m doing it for myself” is a mere misdirection. Women must wear make-up because they are competing for Chad’s attention. Here’s the great inequality: women’s attention for men is a seller’s market, but for Chad, it’s a buyer’s market. Women may be the gatekeepers of sex, but Chad gets to make the final decision.
At this point, it is interesting to consider what strategies rabid feminists use. Take this abomination by way of illustration:
Presumably it’s not a conscious decision on her part, but she has taken herself out of the game by presenting herself as hideously as possible. No need for her to fear men’s sexual advances; although what she lacks in unwanted sexual interest, she makes up for by open condemnation.
It is often considered that all women love a bad boy. I would like to reframe that idea in light of the basic premise. It’s not that a woman loves a bad boy, it’s that she is biologically mandated to accept whatever heartache or physical violence a Chad inflicts on her, just so long as she gets his superior genetic material for the good of the species.
This leads us naturally onto a discussion of its opposite, “nice guys”, and …
We have all hear the term “divorce rape”, where a man is taken to the cleaners by his wife. The man loses a significant proportion of his assets, access to his kids, and is forced to pay alimony. According to an ONS (Office for National Statistics) report in 2015, marriage rates for opposite-sex couples were the lowest on record.
It’s plausible to suppose that we could attribute at least some of this to the greater autonomy of women. However, it should be borne in mind that women are reporting dissatisfaction with their inability to find a suitable partner.
Divorces now weigh heavily in the womans’ favour. I might add, parenthetically, in the age of so-called gender equality, that this is a hypocrisy.
It adds a new dimension to mating strategies. Erstwhile, women had to make a considerable investment in having a baby. Now men must make a considerable investment. They must perform a risk-assessment exercise that they did not formerly have to do. Is it fair? Well, maybe it’s not unfair, but it certainly does alter the dynamics of relationships. Men must now ask the question of women: “and what do you bring to the table?”
The privilege (yes, I used that word) that women enjoyed of marrying up the genetic pool, is eroding. Women will either have to adjust their expectations downwards, or hope that they aren’t allergic to cats.
Where will this all lead? To quote Woody Allen: “We stand at a crossroads. One path leads to despair, the other to destruction. Let’s hope we make the right choice.”