Who would have thought, I'd become the voice of ethics within the seduction community?
First, I'll define terms.
Id: Unconscious instincts and emotional drives - The sex drive comes from here.
Ego: The "Self" or sense of self. Literally "I" Consciousness, experience, and thought.
Super Ego: The unconscious judge. Punishes the Ego for violating moral and ethical rules. Creates anxiety and self doubt.
The Seduction Community was founded by a bunch of amoral semi-psychopathic nerds who leveraged the internet for it's parallel processing capabilities. Lacking and rejecting true empathy or compassion for others, especially women, they relied on their Ids and Egos to systematically study and develop sets of social stratagems and tactics that exploit vulnerable aspects of female psychology centering on emotions.
These tactics are highly effective for purposes of seduction. These guys became masters at the social and emotional manipulation of females. Their tactics operate largely at the unconscious level of the female Id. These guys also unfortunately had woefully underdeveloped Super Egos.
I do not personally have a problem with the manipulative aspect of what they discovered, and codified anymore than I have a problem with females reading fashion magazines, and then wearing high heels, short dresses or push-up bras to manipulate the male Id.
The problem with the community's lack of ethics is a practical one:
Generally speaking, females do not have strong Super-Egos.
Freud was aware of this, and wrote about it in "The Ego and the Id" (1923) and in "Civilization and Its Discontents" (1930) . His theory was that women, not suffering from Oedipal conflict in the way that men do, develop weak Super Egos.
This was of course eventually challenged by feminism, one of the great utopian ideologies of the 20th century. The idea that women lacked morals to the extent that men do on a fundamental level was unpalatable politically, and Freud's theories were discredited, replaced by Behaviorism and other hair-brained notions of environmental determinism, notions that stated that humans were "Tabla Rasa" at birth, and all cognitive imprinting cultural.
Simply put, feminism states that boys behave like boys because that is how they are raised, and girls behave like girls for similar reasons. Reverse the stimulus, and boys will enjoy tea parties, and girls guns.
There are reasons to doubt this hypothosis, and little evidence to support it, but it was politically expedient, and so became conventional wisdom.
- Stephen Pinker gives a good talk about the blinding consequences of such speculative, politically driven cultural theories in his talk "Chalking it up to the Blank Slate" (The first 5 minutes or so tell the story):
So, if we accept that humans are not blank slates at birth, and that there are gender differences between the emotional/cognitive strategies of our species, strategies that evolved for a variety of environmental and reproductive reasons, then Freudian psychological modeling provides one way to attempt understanding these differences as they manifest behaviorally.
For Instance:
Any guy with much experience in bars or nightclubs, or for that matter in any public place, has noticed that when he is accompanied by a woman, he receives more attention from other females in that setting. This attention takes the form of flirting and other indicators of sexual interest.
The Seduction community chalks this up to the idea of "Social Proof", but this only partly explains the dynamic. Certainly men accompanied by other men are seen by females as more desirable than "lone wolves" in social settings, but the highest form of "social proof" comes from other females.
But is it truly social proof that is at work here, or sexual selection? I believe that the answer comes from the distinct make-up of the typical female ego, which is shaped by her unconscious Id, and weak Super Ego. If a woman can gain the sexual attention of a man who is already with another woman, this creates a conscious sense of validation for her ego. She does not egage in such behavior consciously, it is instinctual.
The lack of a strong Super Ego as counter weight to her Id allows her ego to ignore the fact that the male is with another woman. It simply "feels good" to flirt with the "taken" man.
The Seduction Community uses this fact to lethal effect.
A "Pivot" is a female who accompanies a man socially simply to trigger this sort of female behavior, and pivots make the work of a male seeking sexual companionship much easier.
However, there is a flipside for females to this instinct:
Jealousy.
This is one reason why the Seduction Community recomends not having sex with women who serve them as pivots.
If you are a female in a public place with your mate, you instinctively know that you have raised his mating value significantly in the eyes of other females. Thus, if he entertains the attentions of other females, you feel betrayed - you feel a loss of "trust" in him.
But what is the mechanism for this loss of trust? Why is this the way the instinct manifests itself?
Why is it directed at the man?
I believe that women also instinctually know that they lack absolute ethics, morals, and a sense of honor, especially when it comes to mating competition. Because of this, they project these feeling onto other females, and assume they lack morals too. There is a certain amout of forgiveness that comes with this projection in some females, others become "catty" and openly attack thier sexual competition, either indirectly through social networks and gossip, or directly through verbal or even physical means.
This excites some males, witness the prevalence of female "wrestling" videos and pronography.
Lacking the sense of absolute morals provided by a strong Super Ego, they also instinctively seek an "alpha" male's strong Super Ego to balance their weaker one.
When her man hints at letting his monagamous morals slip, especially if he has assumed a beta "provider" role with her, she feels a double sense of betrayal and loss - She is losing the competition with other females, and the man she relied on to set boundaries for her is not doing his job.
Thus strong ethics are an "Alpha" quality, a quality conditioned by a strong masculine Super Ego. A man's ethical behavior is the most obvious expression of the strength of his Super Ego, and thus indicative of his "Alphaness"
The male Super Ego also has negative aspects, aspects that women are constantly struggling against. The Super Ego allows men to detach emotionally, and is thus antithical to the Id, and also to emotional connection, something that women seek with men, but rarely find. In fact, when they do find it, they are often sexually repulsed by it, because instinctively she knows that this reflects a weak Super Ego on his part, one out of balance with his Id.
His ethics are thus suspect - and clear ethical boundaries are the very thing she finds comforting and sexual about strong males.
The Super Ego has another, even darker side:
If it is overdeveloped, it can be cruel and heartless - sadistic even. This may be one reason that dominance from a mate is sought by many females - especially those with low self esteem. This lack of self esteem manifests as a desire for punishment, punishment that her own weak Super Ego is incapable of providing for her Ego.
Thus, many females seek to be the object of a strong male Super Ego to balance the stronger pull of their Id. Many men seek "feminine" (Low Self Esteem) women with strong Ids and weak Super Egos to balance their own emotional detachment.
In the end, both sexes find themselves in cognitive and emotional double binds. Mainstream psychology attempts to mediate compromise between these drives and instincts with harmony the goal.
I believe that harmony is the wrong objective - rather recognition and celebration of these emotional tensions should be the goal - as such tensions lead to, dare I say it?
Great Sex.
=)
When men abdicate their ethical duties in relationships, they are abandoning the very thing that sets up a proper dynamic for mating. If left to the women, ethics will be defined relative to her changing emotional states, not the absolute, benevolent dictatorship of a strong, balanced male Super Ego.
Is this bad?
Is this true?
I don't know, but it goes a long way towards explaining female social behavior, and answering Freud’s unanswerable question:
"What do Women want?"
First, I'll define terms.
Id: Unconscious instincts and emotional drives - The sex drive comes from here.
Ego: The "Self" or sense of self. Literally "I" Consciousness, experience, and thought.
Super Ego: The unconscious judge. Punishes the Ego for violating moral and ethical rules. Creates anxiety and self doubt.
The Seduction Community was founded by a bunch of amoral semi-psychopathic nerds who leveraged the internet for it's parallel processing capabilities. Lacking and rejecting true empathy or compassion for others, especially women, they relied on their Ids and Egos to systematically study and develop sets of social stratagems and tactics that exploit vulnerable aspects of female psychology centering on emotions.
These tactics are highly effective for purposes of seduction. These guys became masters at the social and emotional manipulation of females. Their tactics operate largely at the unconscious level of the female Id. These guys also unfortunately had woefully underdeveloped Super Egos.
I do not personally have a problem with the manipulative aspect of what they discovered, and codified anymore than I have a problem with females reading fashion magazines, and then wearing high heels, short dresses or push-up bras to manipulate the male Id.
The problem with the community's lack of ethics is a practical one:
Generally speaking, females do not have strong Super-Egos.
Freud was aware of this, and wrote about it in "The Ego and the Id" (1923) and in "Civilization and Its Discontents" (1930) . His theory was that women, not suffering from Oedipal conflict in the way that men do, develop weak Super Egos.
This was of course eventually challenged by feminism, one of the great utopian ideologies of the 20th century. The idea that women lacked morals to the extent that men do on a fundamental level was unpalatable politically, and Freud's theories were discredited, replaced by Behaviorism and other hair-brained notions of environmental determinism, notions that stated that humans were "Tabla Rasa" at birth, and all cognitive imprinting cultural.
Simply put, feminism states that boys behave like boys because that is how they are raised, and girls behave like girls for similar reasons. Reverse the stimulus, and boys will enjoy tea parties, and girls guns.
There are reasons to doubt this hypothosis, and little evidence to support it, but it was politically expedient, and so became conventional wisdom.
- Stephen Pinker gives a good talk about the blinding consequences of such speculative, politically driven cultural theories in his talk "Chalking it up to the Blank Slate" (The first 5 minutes or so tell the story):
So, if we accept that humans are not blank slates at birth, and that there are gender differences between the emotional/cognitive strategies of our species, strategies that evolved for a variety of environmental and reproductive reasons, then Freudian psychological modeling provides one way to attempt understanding these differences as they manifest behaviorally.
For Instance:
Any guy with much experience in bars or nightclubs, or for that matter in any public place, has noticed that when he is accompanied by a woman, he receives more attention from other females in that setting. This attention takes the form of flirting and other indicators of sexual interest.
The Seduction community chalks this up to the idea of "Social Proof", but this only partly explains the dynamic. Certainly men accompanied by other men are seen by females as more desirable than "lone wolves" in social settings, but the highest form of "social proof" comes from other females.
But is it truly social proof that is at work here, or sexual selection? I believe that the answer comes from the distinct make-up of the typical female ego, which is shaped by her unconscious Id, and weak Super Ego. If a woman can gain the sexual attention of a man who is already with another woman, this creates a conscious sense of validation for her ego. She does not egage in such behavior consciously, it is instinctual.
The lack of a strong Super Ego as counter weight to her Id allows her ego to ignore the fact that the male is with another woman. It simply "feels good" to flirt with the "taken" man.
The Seduction Community uses this fact to lethal effect.
A "Pivot" is a female who accompanies a man socially simply to trigger this sort of female behavior, and pivots make the work of a male seeking sexual companionship much easier.
However, there is a flipside for females to this instinct:
Jealousy.
This is one reason why the Seduction Community recomends not having sex with women who serve them as pivots.
If you are a female in a public place with your mate, you instinctively know that you have raised his mating value significantly in the eyes of other females. Thus, if he entertains the attentions of other females, you feel betrayed - you feel a loss of "trust" in him.
But what is the mechanism for this loss of trust? Why is this the way the instinct manifests itself?
Why is it directed at the man?
I believe that women also instinctually know that they lack absolute ethics, morals, and a sense of honor, especially when it comes to mating competition. Because of this, they project these feeling onto other females, and assume they lack morals too. There is a certain amout of forgiveness that comes with this projection in some females, others become "catty" and openly attack thier sexual competition, either indirectly through social networks and gossip, or directly through verbal or even physical means.
This excites some males, witness the prevalence of female "wrestling" videos and pronography.
Lacking the sense of absolute morals provided by a strong Super Ego, they also instinctively seek an "alpha" male's strong Super Ego to balance their weaker one.
When her man hints at letting his monagamous morals slip, especially if he has assumed a beta "provider" role with her, she feels a double sense of betrayal and loss - She is losing the competition with other females, and the man she relied on to set boundaries for her is not doing his job.
Thus strong ethics are an "Alpha" quality, a quality conditioned by a strong masculine Super Ego. A man's ethical behavior is the most obvious expression of the strength of his Super Ego, and thus indicative of his "Alphaness"
The male Super Ego also has negative aspects, aspects that women are constantly struggling against. The Super Ego allows men to detach emotionally, and is thus antithical to the Id, and also to emotional connection, something that women seek with men, but rarely find. In fact, when they do find it, they are often sexually repulsed by it, because instinctively she knows that this reflects a weak Super Ego on his part, one out of balance with his Id.
His ethics are thus suspect - and clear ethical boundaries are the very thing she finds comforting and sexual about strong males.
The Super Ego has another, even darker side:
If it is overdeveloped, it can be cruel and heartless - sadistic even. This may be one reason that dominance from a mate is sought by many females - especially those with low self esteem. This lack of self esteem manifests as a desire for punishment, punishment that her own weak Super Ego is incapable of providing for her Ego.
Thus, many females seek to be the object of a strong male Super Ego to balance the stronger pull of their Id. Many men seek "feminine" (Low Self Esteem) women with strong Ids and weak Super Egos to balance their own emotional detachment.
In the end, both sexes find themselves in cognitive and emotional double binds. Mainstream psychology attempts to mediate compromise between these drives and instincts with harmony the goal.
I believe that harmony is the wrong objective - rather recognition and celebration of these emotional tensions should be the goal - as such tensions lead to, dare I say it?
Great Sex.
=)
When men abdicate their ethical duties in relationships, they are abandoning the very thing that sets up a proper dynamic for mating. If left to the women, ethics will be defined relative to her changing emotional states, not the absolute, benevolent dictatorship of a strong, balanced male Super Ego.
Is this bad?
Is this true?
I don't know, but it goes a long way towards explaining female social behavior, and answering Freud’s unanswerable question:
"What do Women want?"
Posts
1 comment:
Great post. I like how you took the functional parts of pop psych and applied to PU.
Post a Comment