Sexual strategy is like that scene at the end of Wargames where Joshua the computer tries to launch nuclear weapons and start World War 3; the computer cycles-through launch codes quickly while keeping the bits of code that are a positive match. Most people unconsciously allow their brain to do this work, matching behaviors with their positive outcomes, and bookmarking those behaviors while discarding the ineffective.
The conversation almost always goes like this when you tell someone that everything a person does stems from a foundation of sexual strategy: they listen patiently, provide the socially customary nods of understanding, and then say something like, “well, okay, but not everything…”
This certainly seems like it could be the case; it almost feels reductionist on some level to think that men and women are constantly being guided through their choices and actions by some invisible force emanating from their genitalia, silently screaming at them to just get it the fuck in like a pack of dogs in heat. That there must be a special designation, or a degree of intellectual sophistication , which separates the human animal from his more primitive underlings.
And this is certainly true; the human animal is civilized. We are conscious of a wider-span of potential emotions, and are gifted with the ability to fulfill more significant goals than simply eating and fucking. We can shape our consciousness with language, and vocabulary, and with language comes access to higher level thinking.
It’s a lot like when you were a kid in kindergarten, at the beginning of the school year, with all your little school supplies. You mom could have gotten you the boring eight pack of Crayolas, but you wanted the big box of sixty-four; you know, the kind that comes with the crayon sharpener. So instead of just “red” and “blue,” you had a whole variety of different shades of the same color to pick from, and lucky you, right?
No, stupid, they’re all still crayons.
While it seems like we’re entirely different and inherently superior to the wild dogs, roaming vacant lots, searching for a bitch in heat, looking to quench their basic range of animalistic desires- the metaphorical eight pack of crayons- we really aren’t very different, even if we have a wider variety of colors to choose from.
If anything, our greater range of emotions will mostly result in creating a deeper need for coddling when all we really want is sex. And even if all the tools are there for the human to transcend their biological imperative to mate and reproduce, to be more than just snarling animals, our biological imperative will supersede all else.
Understanding the gender differences in sexual strategy is important in coming to grips with the idea that everything a person does acts toward fulfilling that strategy.
Rarely is the young man born a stud. While the natural Alpha male isn’t a myth, they’re in the genetic minority. These men are able to unconsciously tap into the characteristics that women find sexually attractive: the risk-taker with a careless attitude toward authority and consequence.
The natural alpha male is a man who exists without the need for female emotional validation.
A needless man signals a superior man, and women are intrinsically drawn to a superior man.
For every man who doesn’t have his middle school teacher swooning over him and sending naked selfies, one must take a less linear route to becoming sexually successful.
You start by trial-and-error, keeping the tidbits of code that work and discarding what doesn’t; constantly, unconsciously, scanning all aspects of your behavior to understand what creates successful attraction and advancement, or what causes a setback or a total protonic reversal… that’s bad.
Female attraction is a careful dance, led by the man, and learning the proper pace and cadence of this dance takes time. Ultimately, some men will pick-up on this and become sexually successful and some will not and remain sexually invisible.
It’s so fucking simple that it almost seems boring. Hapless boys who can’t get laid fade into obscurity.
It must be the same for women, right?
Women who aren’t sexually successful take whatever skill they possess and try to redefine attraction.
The world is constructed so that the majority of women are sexually successful, with the idea that they’d happily reproduce with a quality mate, and therefore western civilization won’t die a slow and agonizing death…
Female sexuality strategy is through selection, with higher quality women receiving maximum ability to be selective. Once the target is chosen, their sexual strategy somewhat unconsciously becomes manipulative in order to obtain their end of commitment. Even within the landscape of hyper-promiscuity this strategy can be successful… only it’s usually not with their intended target, forcing them to settle for someone they barely tolerate.
Watch this practice play-out in real time as a woman will cycle through increasingly dishonest, MySpace angled selfies on dating sites until the goal of attracting interest from high-value men is reached.
A woman is biologically gifted the majority of her sexual buying power. While she can add to her market value, and thus her ability to be selective, she can’t exactly shine shit. A sexually excluded woman will not be able to create market value for herself- she can read books, learn to be funny, do cool art work, take cooking classes… all sorts of stuff that would make her an interesting person to talk to, while adding absolutely nothing to her sexual market value.
And unlike her Cheeto-soaked male counterpart, the sexually excluded woman will not go quietly into the night playing video games and jacking off to Star Wars porn; she’s angry, feels slighted, and is bent on destruction. If nothing she does can bring her even a modicum of sexual success, her sexual strategy transforms into an attempt to change the world around her… or destroy it while trying.
Enter ugly Harper Lee.
“To Kill a Mockingbird” is absolute garbage; the single most over-rated piece of popular American fiction. A plot that hinges on the false-rape accusation of a black man, where the defending lawyer and main character, Atticus Finch, is quick to dispel any potential guilt for the woman making the false rape accusation. You see, it wasn’t her fault after all… it was the structural fault of a society which discourages inter-racial relationships; a society constructed by insecure white men. And ugly Harper spends most of the book trying to depants them all.
If “men love their country, and women love men,” a woman who is entirely cut off from any hope of landing a man will become mentally ill. Lee’s only novel is an angry expression of that illness.
Why do you think there are no exceptional female philosophers? Unlike fiction, philosophy is judged by a more objective standard; mindlessly pushing feel-good ideology through philosophy won’t cut it.
Think of “To Kill a Mockingbird” like one of those internet lists on “why dating a single mom is great”; they share more in common than you’d think. Both serve to campaign for their author’s sexual market value, while attempting to make their weaknesses something irrelevant… Ugly Harper living in a pre-internet world just took the long way around.
It was only by the end of chapter two of “To Kill a Mockingbird” that I decided Harper Lee was an ugly, sexually excluded woman bent on revenge while using her awful, childlike novel as a means to not only shame her excluders- those sexy and delicious white men who wanted nothing to do with her- but also as an attempt to redefine female sexual market value.
You see, those pretty girls, they’re actually really dumb and dumb isn’t sexually attractive. Duh!
Harper is smart, self-defined as proto-social justice and the ownership of a thesaurus, and smart should be sexy. The constant use of unnecessarily obscure vocabulary words is smart, and vocabulary is sexy. Get it?
But it was only by the end of chapter two that I caught on to ugly Harper’s game, after she spent the entire chapter developing a pretty female character, Scout’s teacher Miss Caroline, as unbelievably stupid and entirely incompetent while having Scout- the embodiment of Harper’s younger self- get the intellectual best of her. Harper concludes the chapter with the tacky and condescending snip that Miss Caroline was “a pretty little thing.”
Take that, pretty girls who got male attention instead of ugly Harper- turns out you weren’t really all that pretty after all… wait, what?
And if you weren’t convinced by the end of the second chapter, if you still really believe Harper was a loyal white knight of lofty social justice, in chapter ten Harper explains through her Mary Sue character, Miss Maudie, that people shouldn’t feel particularly proud of their natural talents and abilities after Atticus, Harper’s idealized white cuck, puts down a rabid dog with a rifle.
“People in their right minds never take pride in their talents,” explains ugly Harper, for reasons never made explicit.
To the reader unaware of Lee’s genuine, albeit maybe unconscious, intention to change the parameter’s of female sexual market value through sophistry and manipulation, this passage comes straight out of left field.
This proclamation comes after several instances where characters scold one another for acting “high and mighty,” or, acknowledging that all people are not inherently equal- yes, there are differences, and taken to that end, we can place value judgments on those differences… something the left still struggles with greatly.
Lee wants to change what men find sexually valuable with women- and not necessarily the other way around. Notice how ugly Harper plays both ends with Atticus- he can handle a rifle and kill a rabid dog, Lee’s measure of masculinity- but it’s tempered by his own humility over this skill and his refusal to practice it:
“If your father’s anything, he’s civilized in his heart. Marksmanship’s a gift of God, a talent- oh, you have to practice to make it perfect, but shootin’s different from playing the piano or the like. I think maybe he put his gun down when he realized that God had given him an unfair advantage over most living things.”
An unfair advantage like pretty Miss Caroline had… an unfair advantage like any woman with a greater ability to be sexually selective than poor, ugly Harper had. These genetic differences are unequal, and unfair, and should be disregarded by anyone who’d consider themselves civilized; physical attraction be damned.
This is the foundation for Lee’s attempt at redefining female value to suit herself, and this is not something atypical to ugly Harper; women have always manipulated reality to widen their ability to be sexually selective. The horrifyingly cliche “real women” designation cuts to the heart of what Lee took the long way around on. A woman labeling qualities that favor her particular skill-set as “real,” and everything else as fake, is meant to disqualify the competition and redefine attraction through manipulation.
Ugly Harper defines value through what she considers her skill-set: natural, or God given, advantages- like good genetics- are silly and unsophisticated; social justice and a dynamic vocabulary is the way to go.
Apparently, real women have a thesaurus.
New to KTP? Check out my hand-picked “BEST OF” material.
Support Kill to Party through my Amazon link