Gender Divide

You’re not going deep enough.

Presuming that a woman is beautiful, maybe wearing a skimpy outfit, walking alone out late, of course she is in danger of being taken into an alleyway, beaten, and raped. Males want sex, however, few are willing to go to such risky and immediate lengths to have it. Such occurrences are rare. You’re glossing over this fact, about rarity. Instead common males and females have common relationships, dating, seduction, temptations, etc. Men want to use women. Women want to use men. Sometimes mutually beneficial relationships are formed, a man offers what a woman needs, and a woman offers what a man needs. For men, it’s almost always about sex. For women, it’s about everything else. I demonstrated this already.

What you are taking about, however, with violent and dangerous males, is Desperation. Some males are desperate for sex, like Ecmandu, and it severely perverts and twists their drives and willpower. A sexually desperate male, has a high probability to rape and commit such crimes. Or usually it’s as simple as guy pouring roofies into a woman’s drink, or getting women drunk and passing out, etc. There are many factors and contexts to choose from.

It’s not a matter of “men are to blame” since males already receive the vast majority of punishments for sexual crimes. Females tend not to be punished for sexual crimes, since females are providers of sex to begin with. Most modern people see sex as pleasure, not reproduction. Reproduction is a foregone conclusion. Because average, common, and modern people don’t think that far ahead. Are blind to tomorrow. And an abortion would suffice.

Can you go deeper, or not?

Give me an example of what you mean by deeper. Your last post wasn’t it, so don’t try to fool yourself that it was.

Where’s my answer?

My last post was a counter-point that you’re barely scratching the surface. I always go deep, wink wink.

Anyway, it strikes me now, that you as a female, don’t really understand male desperation. Thus it’s another point worth talking about. Females don’t understand, nor want to understand, male sexual desperation. That’s fine. A sexually desperate male is pathetic, to women, repulsive, disgusting, creepy, etc. I’ll add here that sexual desperation is also repulsive among males. Men do not respect beta-males who debase themselves, stalk women, and need to go to desperate lengths for the hope of sex. Throw all the negative identifiers into it. What triggers repulsive feelings is automatic and instinctive. Women can’t help it. Many women and girls try to “be nice” but that only encourages depraved/deprived males. So there is no “being nice” about it, in the end.

Many times I hear “alpha male status” as a social contrivance, a type of man who is not desperate for sex, since sex is readily available to him. And he subjugates and humiliates beta-males and other sexually depraved-deprived males. He’s a “bully” but with good cause.

Creeps (desperate males) are not good nor beneficial for any social grouping. It hurts the women of that group. It also causes disunity in the males. Therefore, sexual repulsion is universal, to both males and females. There’s something more to be said about guys who can “easily have” women versus those who cannot. The satiated versus the desperate.

That’s the distinction I’ll use.

Satiated males, versus, Desperate males. Desperation can take on many forms. It’s a different topic, worthy of a different topic, but it’s a good topic to derive from this thread. I’m happy that this thread finally produced something of worth.

Where’s my answer?

How is stating the obvious helpful? Beta-males, many are married and have access to sex. The problem is in the male mind, his psychology, overall.

Most men are broken and simply exhibit their defects in different ways, due to the lack of common sense found in a proper family upbringing.

Be more specific.

For the fifth time:

Can you understand that not all threats are self-evident?

I already answered that question, but I’ll answer it a second time since I’m feeling generous.

What is “self-evident” to one woman is not to another. It’s about intelligence. I already said that, of course, average and lower intelligent women are duped, leading to rape or worse, murder. An intelligent woman is better about screening, understanding male nature, recognizing and identifying threats, etc. This doesn’t seem obvious to you, but now’s always the best time to learn.

Do those “IQ tests” teach about identifying rapists? Seems like they’re not doing you any good.

Real intelligence is different. Real intelligent women don’t have the same problems as average and lower intelligent women have.

So you are incapable of answering a yes or no question? I was being easy on you and your advanced aptitude.

How does it feel to be so embedded in such a delusion?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/06/02/russian-ex-scientists-apparent-murder-in-massachusetts-under-investigation.html
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-uc-davis-researcher-killed-ethiopia-20161006-snap-story.htmlhttp://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/coimbatore/asst-woman-professor-found-murdered-at-her-residence/articleshow/56383632.cms
http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/crime/2017/03/23/daap-grad-former-art-academy-professor-killed-dc-corrina-mehiel-stabbing-cincinnati/99536230/
http://www.ancient.eu/Hypatia_of_Alexandria/
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/06/30/2-shot-at-nyc-hospital-says-nypd.htmlhttp://www.cbsnews.com/news/florida-doctor-teresa-sievers-slain-eleven-hundred-miles-to-murder/http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/toronto-doctor-found-dead-neurosurgeon-husband-charged-with-murder-1.3187968
http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/vincent-stanford-jailed-for-life-for-the-murder-of-stephanie-scott/news-story/0479316a4a423d315fb831c791ff2c50

Evidence of real intelligent women(scientists, professors, doctors, teachers) being murdered discrediting your delusion.

So your argument now is that intelligent women are victimized as much as or more than unintelligent women?

You’re done. Take some time to reflect on the error of your ways. Clearly, your reasoning is wrong.

I’m all done answering your dumb questions when you can’t answer a simple yes or no question with a yes or no.

Oh, I see the error of my ways…you made no real intelligent claim when you placed the word probably in there, probably being your wimpy escape clause.

Like I said, no she wouldn’t see it coming if it was not self-evident and the evidence supports my claim. Those women were murdered near or in their homes and none of them lived in a ghetto.

Yes, time out. You have thoroughly throttled me. You should ask one of the big boys for help making your arguments coherent.

Intelligent and proud women will always have the upper hand compared to stupider and more shameful women.

Your suggestion otherwise is wrong.

Should I congratulate your efforts to keep moving the goal post?

Your original claim…which has been proven wrong…many times over.

Your next claim…refuted with evidence as well for they are not bulletproof or stab proof either.

Your last claim…which is silly too due to dangerous men not always being self-evident, in fact, they can be a stranger hiding in your home waiting to ambush you, no matter your level of intelligence.

Intelligence guarantees nothing, it can be an aid given the best circumstances, circumstances that allow a person enough time to react, but bad shit can happen faster than an intelligent woman can compensate for.

Now I’m finished instructing you that the nature of reality can be at times out of the hands of even the most intelligent woman. To reiterate, intelligence guarantees nothing, not a safer husband, not a safer vehicle, not a safer neighborhood or job, or home, not a safer acquaintance or safer stranger.

Being a proud, attractive, intelligent woman is a recipe for disaster, like a billboard advertisement inviting unwanted male attention. It’s much safer to be a homely (not draw attention to yourself), schlepping(a pitiable charity case), dumb, quiet woman (completely mousy), unless you can back up your worth with a bit of ass-kicking.

Actually you’re moving the goalpost, because I said intelligent women change the context, you responded with “no woman is immune”, and that’s not a reasonable counter-point. Because a piano can fall out of a plane and kill anybody in the world. Absolute randomness is not a reasonable point. So you’re dodging the fact that intelligent women are far, far less victimized than average and stupid women. Because you deny this, I have reason to question your motives.

Who said anything about 100% guarantee? Not me, that’s you. That’s your reasoning, not mine.

An aspect of intelligence is deception, acting dumb and ditzy, when actually you’re a master intellect.

Some women, I can tell they’re hiding a very sharp intellect. But others, are not pretending to be stupid. Actions speak louder than words. I can tell intelligent women from unintelligent.

When you are hunted by a man, that is not a random piano. When you have no time to use your intelligence, your intelligence has not changed the context. You stated what appeared to me in your wording an absolute, that an intelligent woman absolutely changes the context and I pointed out that that is false—>

Intelligent women don’t always see it coming…duh!

I will concede that an intelligent woman given the time to act/react will fare better than other women.

Then you’re going backward on your earlier point that “it can happen anytime, anywhere”. You said it was random. Now you’re saying it’s not. So which is it, a matter of chance, or intelligence? If it’s the latter then clearly you agree with my points all along.

A very intelligent woman would “always see it coming” because she’s very intelligent. Sorry that you can’t relate with that fact. Don’t blame me for your own limitations.

Now, I will move this conversation forward. There are two sides to the equation. Smart women, and men, stupid women, and men. An intelligent predator, male, is very dangerous. Intelligent predators often feed on stupid females. Intelligent females are rarely targeted, because the chances of dropping on them, surprising them, is much lower. It’s like hunting and prey in the wild. Stupid and weaker victims tend to be victimized. So your approach to these matters is all wrong, and unrealistic.

WendyDarling, you’re WRONG.

Quote my saying that it was random, I didn’t say that, UR WRONG. Duh! I said that dangerous predators can ambush a smart woman at any place…anytime…duh!

Did you not peruse any of the articles I linked to or would learning a truth be too painful for such a mind as yours?

You said it never happens below

Pick one crazy notion and stay with it…maybe it will become less crazy the more you repeat yourself.

I refuse your whole line of reasoning and logic, because you are implying, at heart, that women are stupid, weak, defenseless, victims. I reject your whole system. I have faith in some women, unlike you. I believe that some women, perhaps a minority few, are intelligent, are “dangerous”, and can outsmart predatory men. I don’t care about your anecdotal evidence because rare exceptions, pianos falling out of planes killing people, don’t really make a point. You can link a few articles, say “here are example!” but they don’t help your point, which is, all women are victims. I don’t believe that, at all.

Your entire reasoning and argument is that women are weaklings, inferior. I say, “not all” in return. I say “some” women are intelligent, smart, can, and do defend themselves from all that you’re asserting.

Some men are predators? Obviously, you’re saying nothing new. Everybody knows this. I’ve explained a lot of it. Desperate males, or intelligent predators, are going to feed on women. Intelligent predators are 1 in 1000, probably. Desperate males are common though. Most women defend themselves well enough from desperate males.

However an intelligent male predator is rare, and if you are targeted, then there may not be a lot that women can do. An intelligent woman can defend herself from an intelligent predator. That’s about it. She has the highest chance of defense.

That’s why…some daughters and girls are blessed to have superior fathers, to pass on intelligence, physically and mentally. Those who are less endowed, stupider, will always continue to be victims. It’s an aspect of human evolution.

And there’s another point. Women can prey on weak men, psychologically, just as men can prey on weak women, physically.

I believe…could be proven wrong…unlike Wendy here, that some women are superior in regards to intelligence, poise, dignity, pride, than others. Some women are not victims, can defend themselves against the most dangerous types of men, and are educated with deep codes of honor. I could be wrong, but, I don’t believe I am. Many people, like Wendy, would have others believe that women are necessarily, always, victims. I refuse this. And it is a matter of intelligence, along with other factors. Dignity and pride are required. Shameful women are exceptions. Some women, with very low self esteem, mind less about being raped, prostituting their bodies, and some will even pride in “being a slut”, slut-walking.

Lumping all women into one group, as Wendy does, is dishonest and inaccurate. It’s wrong. After I add intelligence into the mix, it becomes clear how some women, superior, don’t share many of these sexual problems, like being assaulted, that Wendy implies.

To Wendy, you’re still wrong, start being right.

Self-defense is a moot point. By the time a woman is being assaulted physically, she’s already made countless mistakes. Physical assaults and rape of women, by strangers, is actually rare and becoming rarer. Most assaults and rapes, in modern times, occurs by men the woman already knows. This begs-the-question. How do women “know” their aggressors so well?

And I already explained this. Because many women are stupid, and, easily duped and led astray by dishonest or desperate men.

By the time a sexual assault becomes physical, the battle is pretty much lost. Males excel in physical violence. I’m repeating myself again. Males have evolved, thousands of years, of warfare, physical competitions, a vast majority of strenuous sports are acted by men, as well as soldiers in wars. So a woman really doesn’t stand a chance against 90% of men, physically. It’s not a contest.

That you imply that women “need to improve physically” demonstrates to me that you’ve lost the way. You’re not making sense. Intelligence is the better route, anyway. Women should be smarter about these types of things, but unfortunately, that may not be the case.

What kind of intelligence are you demonstrating, for example? Are you listening to what I’m saying? Are you getting my points? Maybe not. I shouldn’t have to repeat myself a dozen times.

It seems to me, overall, that you’re promoting victim-politics and supporting for women to be victims. I reject that. I am opposed to victim-ideology.