Female Mind

Women have a lot of very high standards. They just don’t always stick to those standards, is all. In fact, they usually abandon a lot of them.

I had a funny insight recently. Well, more a new way to look at something I already was aware of, but the new way of looking at it instantly made me go, “Ah, that’s how it is, yes.”

I started writing an article about girlfriend retention earlier. I got about a third of the way into it, got pulled away from it, and don’t really feel like going back to it right now. Then I started writing one on hooking up with girls who are horny when you’re not the most attractive guy in the room, but went on a big tangent and kind of lost my train of thought so shelved that one for now too (lost trains of thought happen sometimes when you write).

Anyway, in the ‘keeping a girlfriend’ one, I embedded a YouTube video of a hit 1970s soul song where the female singer talks about trying to hang onto a broke male partner she feeds and clothes and houses and whom she discovers is having an affair. It’s a great song (the single sold a million copies in its first eight weeks), and people love it... but the YouTube comment section is filled with women proclaiming how they would never tolerate a man straying on them and how the singer needs to find herself a new man.

And I thought “It is so funny how women do that.” Because I have had numerous girlfriends – beautiful, intelligent, charismatic girlfriends, with no shortage of male suitors and no lack of self awareness – declare to me they would never tolerate a man seeing other women while with them, even as they knew I saw other women while with them. I have watched these same women tell other women no woman should tolerate this and that any woman with such a man ought to leave him. Then come right back to me after these little rants to others, happy as pups.

It’s not just about fidelity. Women do it with many things. There was a poll I came across where someone asked Japanese women what they’d like to change about their man. 40% of women said a bit more muscle, 25% of women said more wealth, and another 25% said they wanted more personality. One male commenter on the poll results remarked “So just get muscular, be rich, and have a great personality. Easy!” (that’s sarcasm, in case you didn’t catch it). Another commenter remarked that the problem women face is all the ripped, rich guys with great personalities are gay.

And it’s true (the standards disconnect, not the gay thing. Although that is kind of true too)! If you ask most men what they want in a girlfriend, you’ll get a couple of items. Cute, nice, submissive, can cook and clean. That’s about what most guys want. Maybe one or two other things, like likes to dress sexy or is into this or that leisure activity. Many women have full-on wish lists of 30 to 70 qualities they want a man to have. Yet, again – reality doesn’t match women’s words. Look at the guys these girls with huge long lists of things they want date, and you discover their actual real world partners don’t have most of what these women say they want.

So why do women say they want all these things, and then turn around and date men who don’t have any of them? And then they keep saying they want those things anyway, in spite of their dating histories to the contrary?

Are women just nuts?

As a woman ages, her tastes in men change. What does an under-21 girl prefer that women 32+ do not? Read on and find out.

As a man, your taste in women may or may not have changed as you’ve aged. I know a few guys whose tastes have changed over the years. Though I know many more guys whose tastes haven’t. I can tell you the only difference between the women I’m drawn to now and those I was drawn to 10 years ago is the girls I’m drawn to now are usually cuter. That is more simply a factor of having more choice with women now than I had when I was young, overweight, and romantically unskilled.

Women’s tastes in men, on the other hand, go through some major evolutions as they age. From between a girl’s late teens to her mid-30s, she shifts her tastes often dramatically.

Talk to most single women in their 30s about younger women and you’ll hear such women pan younger women’s standards in men. “Young women have the worst taste in men,” they’ll tell you. “The guys they go for are assholes with attitude. They have no taste.”

Male pundits normally regard this as a way for an older woman to make herself look more valuable in the dating market (i.e., she is more ‘refined’ than ignorant younger women) in order to make up for some of the lost value of her faded youth. And this “younger women are silly and foolish” frame does help older women do that. But there is a deeper reason so many single women in their 30s feel this way about those younger versions of themselves on the dating scene.

Before we talk about that though, we’ll talk about the different sorts of men women at different ages are most drawn toward. As always, game and fundamentals play a huge role here – the better yours are, the less you need to worry about fitting a certain template, and the better you’ll do even within that template.

Note that the age ranges we’ll discuss below are generalities. Some women may be more or less ‘mature’ than their ages (we’ll talk about that a bit below too). But in general, for the majority of women, you should find these age ranges fairly accurate.

A woman can be fickle and changeable. But why is this so? Science shows us this fickleness is an inherent aspect of female decision making.

The roiling Harvey Weinstein Hollywood sex scandal was caused by a unique mix of perversion, sexual power dynamics, and the twilight of feminism.

In late 2017, The New York Times broke a story on Harvey Weinstein paying off sexual harassment accusers. A few choice excerpts:

“[A]fter being confronted with allegations including sexual harassment and unwanted physical contact, Mr. Weinstein has reached at least eight settlements with women, according to two company officials speaking on the condition of anonymity. Among the recipients, The Times found, were a young assistant in New York in 1990, an actress in 1997, an assistant in London in 1998, an Italian model in 2015 and Ms. O’Connor shortly after, according to records and those familiar with the agreements.

...

The allegations piled up even as Mr. Weinstein helped define popular culture. He has collected six best-picture Oscars and turned out a number of touchstones, from the films “Sex, Lies, and Videotape,” “Pulp Fiction” and “Good Will Hunting” to the television show “Project Runway.” In public, he presents himself as a liberal lion, a champion of women and a winner of not just artistic but humanitarian awards.

...

Dozens of Mr. Weinstein’s former and current employees, from assistants to top executives, said they knew of inappropriate conduct while they worked for him. Only a handful said they ever confronted him.

...

After she arrived, he offered to help her career while boasting about a series of famous actresses he claimed to have slept with.

...

“She said he was very persistent and focused though she kept saying no for over an hour,” one internal document said. Ms. Nestor, who declined to comment for this article, refused his bargain, the records noted. “She was disappointed that he met with her and did not seem to be interested in her résumé or skill set.””

Not long after, a recording broke of a 2015 NYPD sting investigation, in which Weinstein can be heard trying to cajole a 22-year-old Italian model up to his hotel room:

Weinstein and Ambra Battilana Gutierrez, the model he attempted to get up to his hotel room.

Rose McGowan accused Weinstein of rape. Stories surfaced of him cornering women and making them watch him masturbate (once into a pot in a restaurant kitchen). And then the dam burst. To-date, 91 actors, producers, and other members of Hollywood have been accused of sexual impropriety, courtesy the #MeToo campaign. Women, en masse, have come forward with accusations against men – particularly men who held power over them.

Why this time, though? There have always been sexual accusations against powerful figures. Bill Clinton, Tiger Woods, Michael Jackson, Bill Cosby, Donald Trump... just to name a few of the most prominent ones. Some of the accusations swirling around these figures are worse than anything alleged against Weinstein; Cosby is accused of drugging women to rape them. Many of the varied claims made against Clinton over the years sound like something out of a B-level political thriller, with all the rape, murder, and coverups you can dream of.

Yet despite all the controversies around and accusations leveled at powerful political and media figures, the dam never broke before. But this time it did. Why now? What does this ‘Gropocalypse” and its #MeToo campaign tell us about men, women, and sexual power dynamics in the professional spheres?

Morality is a varied field, and we can view women’s morality in quite different ways... depending on which of 5 branches of morality we use.

Hey, guys. I am aware that I don’t usually discuss theoretical stuff that is not directly related to the field, but I decided to take some liberties today.

Recently, Hector Castillo wrote a post on “women not caring about morality” that some of you may have loved, hated, loved to hate, or hated to love. There is no doubt that subjects related to morality may be seen as controversial, triggering a variety of feelings in different people. Chase also weighed in on the subject with his own article in response to the heated debate brewing in Hector’s comments section.

In regards to ethics and the philosophy of morality, there is no such thing as full-blown truth. Ethics is a subfield of philosophy, meaning it is less likely to contain the types of truths you’d find in science – as philosophy is not science. Philosophy is the process of discovering truth, and for this reason, we have decided, in light of good old Socratic tradition, to learn through debate. By presenting multiple takes on the matter (Hector, Chase, and now me – so far), we hope to give you more arguments to fuel your reflections and hopefully contribute to your reaching a (more) solid conclusion – if you ever reach one at all.

What Hector points out (that descriptive ethics is more fact based compared to normative ethics) is very true. However, there is still some normativity within descriptive ethics. As mentioned, descriptive ethics devotes itself more to “how people act” rather than “how people should act” – the latter going into the field of normativity. However, in order to discuss how people actually act (what kind of moral sentiments and drives they possess), we need to define one of the key variables. Namely, what is “morality”? If we want to discuss the observed morality of women, how we define morality will have a key impact on our discussion.

Now, how we define this variable will have a crucial impact on our observations. This is where my critique mainly flourishes.

I will cover my criticism step by step, and like Hector, I will add references to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which is considered a very credible source. This way, you can read more on the different theories if you happen to find this interesting.

Before I get to my arguments, I do want to make it deadly clear that there are no rights and wrongs – only good arguments. Hopefully, my arguments will be as convincing as Hector’s and, in the end, help you solidify you own.

Female morality can seem alien to men – and men fear what they do not understand. Yet the moral woman can be man’s greatest lover and supporter… if he is willing to be a moral man.

We published an article by Hector this Monday that ruffled a lot of feathers. Its title was Women Do Not Care About Morality. The premise of the article was that women’s morality revolves around what is best for their biological strategy – their morality comes in service of S+R, in other words. Survival and replication. Hector did not intend it as a dark piece, but many readers got that out of it. I wrote this article to cover the same subject – yet in a slightly different light.

--

Since I started dating, over the past dozen years, I have seen women do crazy things.

I had sex bareback with a very sexy girl in a white, ornate dress on our first date. She was already a little buzzed when we met up and was carrying a cup filled with wine when we met. The white dress was odd, but nothing unusual about it struck me... until I got a phone call from the husband I didn’t know she had, and discovered her wedding to him had been, well, roughly sometime right around the night I had sex with her. I deduced I had been intimate with her in what I then realized must have been her wedding dress. The husband lived across the country and I guess flew in for the wedding then flew back out that day. Did I hike up the bride’s wedding dress and take her from behind on her wedding night? I didn’t ask the guy for specific dates; he was clearly in a lot of pain (again, I had no idea this girl was married, and it did not register to me she was in a wedding dress – just not something you expect a girl to show up in on a date, so it doesn’t really even process). But it seemed like, yes, that was probably her wedding night.

Later on, I reunited with an ex-girlfriend. She had already begun to date another man while we were split... yet when we reconciled, she neither told me about her new boyfriend, nor broke it off with him. Yet I suspected there was someone else. A few months in, she grew pregnant. I immediately expressed doubt the child was mine; she swore she had been with no one else. “We’ll see what the paternity test says,” I told her. She became deeply stressed, then miscarried; we split back up. I got the full details on her other man – and that she’d slept with both of us on the likely date of conception – when I happened by chance upon her journal months later. Which man fathered the child? I doubt I’ll ever know.

Years after that, another ex-girlfriend of mine befriended a then-current girlfriend I had. On the surface, my former girlfriend masqueraded as a very good, loyal friend to my then-current girlfriend. But she whispered all sorts of things into my girlfriend’s ear: Chase is not handsome. Chase does not have good career prospects. Chase is a selfish lover. Chase this. Chase that. You should break up with Chase. Chase is completely wrong for you. Chase will destroy your life. According to my girlfriend, 90% of what this ex-girlfriend told her about me was bad. It caused drama to spike in the relationship and brought us very close to breaking up. At the same time she whispered terrible nothings into my present girlfriend’s ear, this ex-girlfriend sent me secret messages to meet up, kissed me when I met her, cried over me, and invited me home to her apartment to renew our relationship. It was clear what her game was: get Chase’s current girl to break up with him, and get Chase all to herself. She had always been the sweetest, most warm-hearted girl in the world, and to see her lie and manipulate my girlfriend to separate her from me, so this ex-girlfriend could have me to herself again, surprised even me... and I was quite grizzled in the ways of women at this point.

You may be thinking “Chase must date low class women.” Or perhaps Chase’s women are sluts. Yet, each of these girls had a post-college education. Each had a well-paying professional job. Each of the girlfriends had relatively low sex partner counts when we started dating. These were normal, quality, classy girls (well, the first chick – the bride – she was a little kooky).

To men, this stuff can seem shocking. It may seem like women are rough, depraved... immoral.

Yet there is another side of female morality. A side that is downright pristine.

A side that, once you get past the shocking aspects of women not being Disney princesses, can hearten them to you, with all the warmth, affection, and care a man outside the Matrix can muster.

This side is the true beauty and goodness of the real female moral nature.

Female morality revolves around one central tenet: is this good for her sexual strategy? If yes, do it / agree with it / subscribe to it. If no, don’t.

Defining morality is tough. Even the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which begins with a statement about how it’s simple to define, winds up incorporating an entire dissertation on the various details that go into defining morality.

This particular comment from the entry jumped out at me:

“This is strikingly illustrated by the fact that both C.H. Whiteley and Neil Cooper took themselves to be revealing the important ambiguity in the meaning of “morality” when they distinguished the sociological sense from the psychological (Whiteley 1959) and the social sense from the individual (Cooper 1966).”

This perfectly sets up the context of this article on the amoral nature of women.

Let me be clear. I’m not arguing that women don’t have moral standards. Of course they do. Even sociopaths have a moral framework, though it is devoid of sympathy and concern for others if it doesn’t also benefit them.

The most basic definition of normative morality is “what a person ought to do.”

The operative word here is “ought.”

For many people, their “ought to do X” revolves around duty. This is called duty ethics, for obvious reasons. “My family, my tribe, or my culture demands that I do X, thus X is my duty.” Of course, at some level they have to accept this duty, but this is meta-ethics, and a digression.

Others argue that we should be utilitarian, that our actions should benefit the greater happiness of society. This might also be classified as a duty ethic.

For some moral frameworks, morality is absolute. In others, it is relative. In some scenarios, you should act according to “good,” in others, you should act for yourself, even if it means doing something “bad.”

The usual response to this is some pseudo-intellectual form of “Well, who can define good and bad, huh? It might be bad to one person but good to another,” and it’s left there without an actual foray into meta-ethics.

This response, if anything, is an implication of normative moral relativism, which states that “Because we can’t come up with a good definition of good and bad, we should tolerate everyone’s definitions.”

How that works out in practice, you can judge for yourself.

Fortunately, this isn’t an article on normative or applied ethics. It’s an article about descriptive ethics.

I am describing the observed amorality of women. Nothing more, nothing less.

What you do with this information is up to you. Any anger or spite you may cultivate as a result of this article is your responsibility alone. If anything, I respect women for their savagery. They may not be as violent as men, but they can sure inspire violence, socially and physically. If you want to truly become a lover of women, you need to understand and accept the amoral nature of women. Any remnant of false idealism, and you are loving a false ideal of women, not women themselves.

Let us begin.