A Real Solution To The Israeli/Palestinian Conflict

Have you ever noticed that the more intelligent a man is the less masculine
he tends to be? And doesn’t it seem like the smarter a woman is the less
feminine she is? Why is that? The answer to that question, along with the
implications thereof, constitute no less than the keys to relationship
bliss.

The basic explanation for this phenomenon is that rationality lies in the
middle of a sliding scale where femininity is on the left, and masculinity
is on the right. As a person becomes increasingly controlled by their
intellect as opposed to their masculine or feminine (primal) tendencies ,
they move toward the center of the scale. Men move left, women move
right.

This was originally written in June 2007.

This may seem like an unimportant observation, but in fact the world of
relationships revolves around this very same scale. Trophy wives life on the
extreme left, alpha-males live on the extreme right, and these two groups
seek each other out as the epitomes of desire.

The key to relationship bliss is mastering this scale. Each partner must
be able to move back and forth on it as required in order to
simultaneously be attractive in a primal sense while using logic and
reason as relationship glue.

In other words, if you’re totally primal you basically meet people, shag,
get in fights, make babies, shag, make up, go to court, shag, meet new
people, etc. Life becomes a never-ending circus ride of pain and pleasure.
If, on the other hand, you’re an over-analyzer who is out of touch with your
inner animal, life is somewhat meaningless. The joy of being human is
repressed and much of the color fades from life.

The answer, of course, is one of balance. Specifically, it entails each
partner learning to experience and embrace their respective extremes — the
primal and the intellectual. Assuming each has a scale of 1-10, with 1 being
the intellectual and 10 being the primal, most only have 2-3 points of
mobility. So the average person sits between 4-6, which just straddles the
center (5).

If we imagine an average geeky guy, he probably lives between 3-5. So his
intellectual side is good (2 points better than average), but his primal
rating’s maximum is at 5, which is not good. And the average brute
(Putty from Seinfeld) lives at 6-8 — which is precisely the opposite and has
its own set of strengths and weaknesses.

The ideal situation is to have as many points of mobility as possible,
and we can rate this by subtracting the two numbers. The best situation is
a rating of 1-10, which yields a score of 9, while average people like the geek and brute listed above only have 2 points of range.

Of course, the real magic is not just having a good range but knowing how to
use it. Each partner has to decide where they are going to reside normally
on the scale, while remaining constantly aware of when they may need to
slide in one direction or another. And here’s where it gets controversial 1.

We are animals. We might be special animals, but we are in fact
extraordinarily similar to the baboons and wolves we see on TV. As such,
anyone who wants to succeed in the realm of human interaction needs to learn
the rules of the animal world. To deny these rules shows either ignorance,
political/intellectual cowardice, or both.

The Illogical Animal

Think about the people you know personally and the various types of
relationship structures that exist. Have you noticed that the most stressed
out and unhappy women are those who are forced to develop dominant
tendencies because they’re married to under-confident, non-masculine men?

We also know of legions of women who sacrifice a perfect marriage, a perfect
family, and their entire livelihoods to be with a man who is extremely
domineering and controlling over them — especially sexually. I’m talking
about Mrs. Cleaver risking it all to sneak out at night and get brutally
shagged by a man who constantly degrades her, tells her exactly how to dress
and look for him (slutty), and says unspeakable things to her while they
have sex in way she would never consider with her husband. Why does she
endure this at the risk of losing everything?

Because at a most primal level — she loves it.

Quite simply, I think this submission stimulates a deeply primal pleasure
center within the female and signals a sense of security and happiness. It
actually makes excellent sense evolutionarily — with happiness coming from
safety and security, and those things only coming from being with a man
who’s forceful and powerful. A man in the past who was passive and
non-dominant was likely to fail, and this fact is programmed into women.

Hence it’s often the case that when a woman is with a non-masculine man who
treats her as an absolute equal and never takes charge, there is a part of
her that secretly resents him for it. This is completely hidden from the
woman, as she has been trained to ignore her primal side just as the man has
been trained to ignore his. Her intellect says she’s happy, but her primal
side starts to betray her. And as time wears on this inner tension continues
to build2.

I believe the presence or lack of this tension contributes greatly to the
happiness of a woman, and serves as the reason that wives who are free to
let go are often happier than those who are treated as asexual and equal
partners. It’s because — when given voluntarily — submission can be quite
relaxing, and pampered women often feel extraordinarily feminine and loved
when they are able to give their trust and relinquish control to a kind man.
In fact I believe there is a part of the female psyche that absolutely
craves this feeling.

Get a weekly breakdown of what’s happening in security and tech—and why it matters.

The Feminized Man

Many men (just as their women) have bought into the whole notion of
rejecting the animal when it comes to relationships, and while there is good
reason for this in principle it has been severely maligned by current
culture. We all know men who basically mope through life in constant fear of
their wives. They cower in the face of confrontation and do pretty much
anything to stay on the good side of their women. These are the “Yes Dear”
men, and they are most happy when they are away from their wives.

The irony of the situation is that it doesn’t make their women happy when
they submit. In fact, I’m quite sure it is THOSE women who are most
unhappy and cheat the most. Why? Because this type of man a pseudo-man. He
exudes no characteristics of a powerful male, and as a result she has no
respect for him.

Conclusion

The answer here is to not to run out and try and act like a bimbo or a
caveman to satisfy your mate. My point is simply that there is more to
satisfying relationships than promoting absolute equality and rational
discourse within a relationship. We are still animals, and as animals there
is a core of happiness and contentment that can only be stimulated by the
expression of our primal identity. We must learn to leverage these vestiges
of our previous forms in order to maximize our enjoyment of each other. This
means to some degree sexually polarizing our behavior in order to maintain
the animal harmony that has defined us for millions of years.

Many will recoil at this idea, as the practice happens to correspond pretty
strongly with what maligned Republicans like to call “traditional family
values”. But their views are polar opposites of mine, as my theory sits atop
a foundation of equality and respect. I condone this exploration as an
active, conscious effort on the part of both the man and the woman to milk
every bit of happiness and pleasure from a relationship — both from the
animal the intellectual sides of our personalities.

All enlightened people know that women are truly equal, as it is humanism
and logic that define our values rather than the Bible or religion. This is
not a rejection of that equality; it’s a consciously generated augmentation
to it for the purposes of increasing happiness. It means learning to
acknowledge the differences between men and women on a primal level, and use
that information to make our relationships more rich and rewarding. This
means being able to slip back and forth on the scale as needed — going from
man-and-woman to human-to-human interchangeably.

In other words, we need to use our intellect to build relationship
structures that make the best use of our innate abilities to generate
happiness. When we deny our animal origins we forfeit our ability to tap
into a huge vein of contentment that comes from satisfying our animal
nature.

In subsequent pieces I’m going to discuss how an implementation of this
theory might take form. Feel free to comment below or
via email.:

[ Jun 10, 2007 ]

[ Edit: Modified to clean up my argument and remove language that could most
easily be misunderstood. ]

—1 Try and keep in mind that this is a blog post based on the opinions of
one person. While I do feel there is truth in my comments I am not
presenting any of this as fact. They are nothing more than models for
viewing the world, and I am constantly revising them and looking for
alternative perspectives and conflicting evidence. Please treat them as
works in progress and refrain from criticizing my ideas based on a lack of
irrefutable proof. I’m telling you up front that these are my own thoughts
based on my own experiences, and the point of the post is to get people to
help me either grow, prune, or scrap my ideas according to input received.2
It’s important to point out the difference between a man who is kind to his
wife while remaining dominant vs. a common asshole who preys on fear and
insecurity to keep a woman from attaining happiness. The difference is that
the latter isn’t true submission because it isn’t being given, but rather
taken. The healthy version of this comes from trust and respect, the
unhealthy one comes from fear and self-loathing.