Are women really attracted to men of high intelligence?

Although women are generally attracted to men who tend to be marginally more intelligent than they are, it still remains a fact that the vast majority of women tend to be intimidated by men of high intelligence. One possible explanation for the usual female reluctance to date men of high intelligence is probably becasue of the statistical rarity or total absence of intellectually superior women at the furthermost reaches of the bell curve distribution of psychometric intelligence; since the overwhelming majority of women tend to be roughly homogeneous in personality and behaviour, men of high intelligence often find it difficult, if not almost impossible, to find a woman who is similarly gifted in mental capacity.

Interestingly enough, I managed to pose a similar question to a number of well-known and justly celebrated academics and scholars. My question was:

The French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau once said: “Women, in general, are not attracted to art at all, nor knowledge, and not at all to genius.” A close personal acquaintance of mine seems to believe that most women are physically repelled by men of high intelligence because most women are seeking a man who can be easily manipulated mentally into handing over whatever natural resources he is capable of commanding. He has also informed me that the more highly intelligent a man is, the greater will be his risk of having to endure a lifetime of perpetual celibacy given the statistical rarity of female intellectuals and the fact that “likes generally tend to attract likes” (women, being generally average in intelligence, pursue men who are similarly average or slightly above average in mental capacity). Certain studies would seem to bear this out; for example, a study conducted by C.T. Halpern et al (2000) suggests that “higher intelligence operates as a protective factor against early sexual activity in adolescence and lower intelligence, to a point, is a risk factor.” A number of writers, such as Clifford Pickover (Strange Brains) and Cesare Lombroso (The Man of Genius) before him, have also suggested that both intellectual giftedness and especially genius are highly correlated with celibacy, even gynophobia. I must admit that much of what my friend says seems to be true; it always seems to be the most highly intelligent males who have the most amount of difficulty attracting even a woman of average physical appearance. After all, if we are to believe Lombroso, most of the great geniuses of history were either celibate or endured miserable home lives. Is it true that most women find smart men to be intellectually threatening and run from them as fast as possible? Is there a strong connection between high intelligence in the male and misogyny?
Here are some of the responses I received:

David C. Geary Ph.d., author of the book “Male, Female”, wrote:

Well, there are studies that suggest that women are attracted to these traits in men. But, there is a negative correlation between IQ and men’s reproductive success; positive correlation for income. My guess is that women do not want men who are too extreme on any trait; they want tall, but not too tall, e.g. This is probably true of IQ and for reasons you state. What is too extreme? I don’t know, but probably once you get passed the 145 range (3 standard deviations > mean), you’re probably getting there. Of course, someone this bright should be able to figure out how to cover this up, except when necessary.

Professor David Buss, author of “The Evolution of Desire”, responded by saying:

Interesting thoughts, but they are not supported by my data, nor the studies of others. Women are indeed attracted to intelligent men, and in fact marry men on average 4 IQ points higher than their own. At the tails of the distribution, of course, one runs into trouble; so yes, at the very high ends, both men and women have problems finding someone they can talk to. Still, women are drawn to men smarter than they are; men are more willing to settle for a woman less intelligent, since they prioritize looks and other qualities more.

The famous anthropologist Donald Symons, author of the classic work “The Evolution of Human Sexuality”, wrote:

Here are a few observations re your questions.

Human intelligence increased dramatically over several million years of evolution, which wouldn’t have happened if intelligent men were at a reproductive disadvantage.

Studies of women’s mating criteria consistently show that intelligence is valued by women (cf David Buss’s books on human mating). Intelligence is near, but not at the top of the list, and there’s no reason to suppose that high intelligence by iteself can compensate for other deficits. Furthermore, other female mating criteria, such as high status, economic prowess and being funny correlate positively (though, of course,imperfectly) with intelligence. I would guess that geniuses like Newton, who is not known to ever have had sex with a woman, were celibate by choice, because of odd character quirks, and not because they were too intelligent to be attractive. Einstein certainly did well with women, and it sure wasn’t because of the remorseless precision of his profile.

Studies of preliterate peoples have consistently shown that headmen and shamans, who tend to have more wives and children, are regularly described as unusually intelligent. These are the societies that most closely resemble those that obtained during most of human evolution. And in modern industrialized societies, which diverge in many ways from the environment of evolutionary adaptedness, upper classes have fewer children because they choose to and have the means to (reliable contraceptives), not because upper class men can’t find wives or other sexual partners.

The anthropologist April Gorry analyzed the character traits of the heroes of 45 highly successful romance novels, written by and for women. Heroes were described as muscular (45/45), handsome (44), strong (42), large (35) and so forth, and no hero was described as the opposite of any of these things. Heroes also had various character traits, such as sexually bold (40), calm (39), confident (39), etc., and in 38 of the 45 novels he was explicitly described as intelligent. No hero was described as not having any of these traits or of being unintelligent. I find these data especially compelling, because women are voting for these books with their money, and the market will produce the kinds of romantic fantasies that women want to read.

In sum, I think that intelligence is a highly valued trait in men, and always has been, though it may not be number one on the list, and certainly can’t compensate, for most women, if other highly desirable traits are absent.

The psychologist Roy Baumeister, author of “The Social Dimension of Sex”, wrote:

Hmm, this has not been my impression, except for the statement that highly intelligent young men are slower to commence sex. But my understanding is that they often make up for lost time and live better sex lives than the dummies. Not sure, though.

In future, in the US at least, we are moving toward having a strong majority of university degrees going to women. Because women tend to marry up, this will be quite a sexual bonanza for the next few generations of men who earn advanced degrees. Educated women won’t want to marry uneducated men, and there won’t be enough highly educated men to go around, so those men who are available will be able to pick and choose like studs.

Controversial scholar Richard Lynn, author of “Wealth and IQ”, remarked:

DEAR SIR

YOU HAVE PRESENTED ME WITH SOME DIFFICULT QUESTIONS.

I must admit that much of what my friend says seems to be true; it always seems to be the most highly intelligent males who have the most amount of difficulty attracting even a woman of average physical appearance. After all, if we are to believe Lombroso, most of the great geniuses of history were either celibate or endured miserable home lives. Is it true that most women find smart men to be intellectually threatening and run from them as fast as possible? Is there a strong connection between high intelligence in the male and misogyny?

I DOUBT IT

Is there a causal relationship between psychoticism (mental illness) and genius?

YES - MORE WITH ARTISTS, WRITERS THAN SCIENTISTS

And, if so, is it possible that this factor alone could discourage men of high intelligence from finding suitable mating opportunities?

POSSIBLY

The famous evolutionary biologist Steven Pinker wrote:

It’s totally false. Survey after survey has shown that intelligence is one of the most highly valued traits for a woman seeking a man. There is no evidence that intelligent men are more likely to be celibate. The Halpern study says that smart teenagers are less likely to have sex, not that smart men are unattractive to women.

I also asked Professor Geary this question:

Is there a strong connection between high intelligence and psychopathology? Historically, the notion that genius and madness are somehow interconnected goes back to the time of Aristotle. Certain researchers, such as JC Kaufman (2001) and RA Prentky (2001), have suggested that the incidence of mental illness increases dramatically the farther one goes up the high end of the normal distribution of human intelligence; others have alleged that even high levels of creativity itself could possibly be connected to such disorders as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Even Lewis M. Terman (1947) found a considerably higher degree of social and emotional maladjustment amongst his longitudinal sample of gifted children relative to the normal population at large. Do men of high intelligence share many psychological traits in common with the mentally ill? Does the connection between genius and madness make it difficult for one to form normal relationships with others, especially women? Does it pre-dispose men of genius to lives of complete social isolation from others and the world around them? Can it readily account for the eccentricity and unconventionality that characterize so many of the personal lives of highly intelligent men? How much of this is true?

Is there a causal relationship between psychoticism (mental illness) and genius? And, if so, is it possible that this factor alone could discourage men of high intelligence from finding suitable mating opportunities? What do you think, professor?

The learned professor responded by saying:

Great questions. You might find Redfield’s Touched with Fire of interest. There does seem to be a good link between “genius” – creativity – and bipolar disorder, at least the more mild forms of it. My guess is that this sorts independently of IQ and thus genius types have both, along with a few other traits. There may also be some social awkwardness among really high IQ individuals, independent of bipolar, because they are different from other folks that thus find it hard to really relate to their issues and level of understanding. Some genius types, such as Newton, had a combination of high IQ, and possibly a mild form of bipolar disorder and I suspect Asperger. Overall, since there are more males than females at the high end of this continuum, finding an “equal” will be difficult, but it doesn’t mean a life of isolation. Newton never married, but Darwin did. Galileo had a long-term relationship and sired several children… Tesla never married, but Edison did.

To someone like this, talking to a psychologist about these frustrations might be helpful. Learning a few tricks about dealing with other people is helpful.

Additionally, I posed another question to Steven Pinker:

Evolutionary biologists have long suggested that it is the most successful men who attract women as wives and girlfriends, whereas men who are relatively unsuccessful more often than not tend to attract none. How is this reconciled with the fact that it is always men of the lowest socio-economic strata who tend to be the most fertile?

Mr. Pinker wrote:

Evolutionary predictions concern the time span over which we evolved, not the present. Until the twentieth century and the invention of contraception, wealthy men had far more surviving offspring than poorer men.

Even today, men of the lowest strata are not more fertile, though they use contraception less – that is a big difference.

Women should learn when to shut the fuck up...

... because every woman is a goose-stepping, black-booted Fascist at heart!

The greatest essay ever written on female psychology!

On Women (abridged)

by Arthur Schopenhauer


The nature of the female

One needs only to see the way she is built to realize that woman is not intended for great mental or for great physical labor. She expiates the guilt of life not through activity but through suffering, through the pains of childbirth, caring for the child and subjection to the man, to whom she should be a patient and cheering companion. Great suffering, joy, exertion, is not for her: her life should flow by more quietly, trivially, gently than the man's without being essentially happier or unhappier.

Women are suited to being the nurses and teachers of our earliest childhood precisely because they themselves are childish, silly and short-sighted, in a word big children, their whole lives long: a kind of intermediate stage between the child and the man, who is the actual human being, ‘man.’ One has only to watch a girl playing with a child, dancing and singing with it the whole day, and then ask oneself what, with the best will in the world, a man could do in her place.

Natural weapons

In the girl nature has had in view what could in theatrical terms be called a stage-effect: it has provided her with superabundant beauty and charm for a few years at the expense of the whole remainder of her life, so that during these years she may so capture the imagination of a man that he is carried away into undertaking to support her honorably in some form or another for the rest of her life, a step he would seem hardly likely to take for purely rational considerations. Thus nature has equipped women, as it has all its creatures, with the tools and weapons she needs for securing her existence, and at just the time she needs them; in doing which nature has acted with its usual economy. For just as the female ant loses its wings after mating, since they are then superfluous, indeed harmful to the business of raising the family, so the woman usually loses her beauty after one or two childbeds, and probably for the same reason.

Female truth

The fundamental defect of the female character is a lack of a sense of justice. This originates first and foremost in their want of rationality and capacity for reflexion but it is strengthened by the fact that, as the weaker sex, they are driven to rely not on force but on cunning: hence their instinctive subtlety and their ineradicable tendency to tell lies: for, as nature has equipped the lion with claws and teeth, the elephant with tusks, the wild boar with fangs, the bull with horns and the cuttlefish with ink, so it has equipped woman with the power of dissimulation as her means of attack and defence, and has transformed into this gift all the strength it has bestowed on man in the form of physical strength and the power of reasoning. Dissimulation is thus inborn in her and consequently to be found in the stupid woman almost as often as in the clever one. To make use of it at every opportunity is as natural to her as it is for an animal to employ its means of defence whenever it is attacked, and when she does so she feels that to some extent she is only exercising her rights. A completely truthful woman who does not practice dissimulation is perhaps an impossibility, which is why women see through the dissimulation of others so easily it is inadvisable to attempt it with them. – But this fundamental defect which I have said they possess, together with all that is associated with it, gives rise to falsity, unfaithfulness, treachery, ingratitude, etc. Women are guilty of perjury far more often than men. It is questionable whether they ought to be allowed to take an oath at all.

Feminine charms

Only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex: for it is with this drive that all its beauty is bound up. More fittingly than the fair sex, women could be called the unaesthetic sex. Neither for music, nor poetry, nor the plastic arts do they possess any real feeling or receptivity: if they affect to do so, it is merely mimicry in service of their effort to please. This comes from the fact that they are incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything whatever, and the reason for this is, I think, as follows. Man strives in everything for a direct domination over things, either by comprehending or by subduing them. But woman is everywhere and always relegated to a merely indirect domination, which is achieved by means of man, who is consequently the only thing she has to dominate directly. Thus it lies in the nature of women to regard everything simply as a means of capturing a man, and their interest in anything else is only simulated, is no more than a detour, i.e. amounts to coquetry and mimicry.

Absence of genius

Nor can one expect anything else from women if one considers that the most eminent heads of the entire sex have proved incapable of a single truly great, genuine and original achievement in art, or indeed of creating anything at all of lasting value: this strikes one most forcibly in regard to painting, since they are just as capable of mastering its technique as we are, and indeed paint very busily, yet cannot point to a single great painting; the reason being precisely that they lack all objectivity of mind, which is what painting demands above all else. Isolated and partial exceptions do not alter the case: women, taken as a whole, are and remain thorough and incurable philistines: so that, with the extremely absurd arrangement by which they share the rank and title of their husband, they are a continual spur to his ignoble ambitions. They are sexus sequior, the inferior second sex in every respect: one should be indulgent toward their weaknesses, but to pay them honour is ridiculous beyond measure and demeans us even in their eyes.

Insipid women-veneration

This is how the peoples of antiquity and of the Orient have regarded women; they have recognized what is the proper position for women far better than we have, we with our Old French gallantry and insipid women-veneration, that highest flower of Christian-Germanic stupidity which has served only to make women so rude and arrogant that one is sometimes reminded of the sacred apes of Benares which, conscious of their own sanctity and inviolability, thought themselves at liberty to do whatever they pleased.

Monogamy and 'filles de joie'

In our monogamous part of the world, to marry means to halve one's rights and double one's duties. But when the law conceded women equal rights with men it should at the same time have endowed them with masculine reasoning powers. What is actually the case is that the more those rights and privileges the law accords to women exceed those which are natural to them, the more it reduces the number of women who actually participate in these benefits; and then the remainder are deprived of their natural rights by just the amount these few receive in excess of theirs: for, because of the unnaturally privileged position enjoyed by women as a consequence of monogamy and the marriage laws accompanying it, which regard women as entirely equal to men (which they are in no respect), prudent and cautious men very often hesitate before making so great a sacrifice as is involved in entering into so inequitable a contract; so that while among polygamous peoples every woman gets taken care of, among the monogamous the number of married women is limited and there remains over a quantity of unsupported women who, in the upper classes, vegetate on as useless old maids, and in the lower are obligated to undertake laborious work they are constitutionally unfitted for or become filles de joie, whose lives are as devoid of joie as they are of honour but who, given the prevailing circumstances, are necessary for the gratification of the male sex and therefore come to constitute a recognized class, with the specific task of preserving the virtue of those women more favoured by fate who have found a man to support them or may reasonably hope to find one. There are 80,000 prostitutes in London alone: and what are they if not sacrifices on the altar of monogamy? These poor women are the inevitable counterpart and natural complement to the European lady, with all her arrogance and pretension. For the female sex viewed as a whole polygamy is therefore a real benefit; on the other hand there appears no rational ground why a man whose wife suffers from a chronic illness, or has remained unfruitful, or has gradually grown too old for him, should not take a second.

No argument about polygamy

There can be no argument about polygamy: it is a fact to be met with everywhere and the only question is how to regulate it. For who is really a monogamist? We all live in polygamy, at least for a time and usually for good. Since every man needs many women, there could be nothing more just than that he should be free, indeed obliged, to support many women. This would also mean the restoration of woman to her rightful and natural position, the subordinate one, and the abolition from the world of the lady, with her ridiculous claims to respect and veneration; there would then be only women, and no longer unhappy women, of which Europe is at present full.

Property and inheritance

In India, no woman is ever independent, but in accordance with the law of Manu, she stands under the control of her father, her husband, her brother or her son. It is, to be sure, a revolting thing that a widow should immolate herself upon her husband's funeral pyre; but it is also revolting that she should spend her husband's money with her paramours – the money for which he toiled his whole life long, in the consoling belief that he was providing for his children. Happy are those who have kept the middle course – medium tenuere beati.
In almost all nations, whether of the ancient or the modern world, even amongst the Hottentots, property is inherited by the male descendants alone; it is only in Europe that a departure has taken place; but not amongst the nobility, however.

That the property which has cost men long years of toil and effort, and been won with so much difficulty, should afterwards come into the hands of women, who then, in their lack of reason, squander it in a short time, or otherwise fool it away, is a grievance and a wrong as serious as it is common, which should be prevented by limiting the right of women to inherit. In my opinion, the best arrangement would be that by which women, whether widows or daughters, should never receive anything beyond the interest for life on property secured by mortgage, and in no case the property itself, or the capital, except when there cease to be male descendants. The people who make money are men, not women; and it follows from this that women are neither justified in having unconditional possession of it, nor fit persons to be entrusted with its administration. When wealth, in any true sense of the word, that is to say, funds, houses or land, is to go to them as an inheritance they should never be allowed the free disposition of it. In their case a guardian should always be appointed; and hence they should never be given the free control of their own children, wherever it can be avoided.

Society has always given women more privileges than men...

In no civilization have men and women ever been treated as equals; as a matter of fact, in all civilizations, women have been granted preferential treatment and special privileges, whereas men, especially those of the middle and lower classes, have always been discriminated against harshly and treated with great brutality. Thus, contrary to popular opinion, women were granted more privileges and a much higher status than the vast majority of men in such societies as Pharaonic Egypt, Ancient Rome, Han China, Japan under the shoguns, and the feudal kingdoms of the Middle Ages. In these cultures, the vast majority of men were bought and sold as slaves, coerced at the end of a sword to till the soil like serfs bound to the land forever. In what historical period have women ever been treated with such barbarism? After all, is woman not redeemed solely through the presence of her vagina?

It is under the aegis of contemporary Western society, that women are more privileged now than they have ever been throughout the history of the world. The notion of female oppression by males is an ideological fantasy concocted by Marxist historical revisionists; women have always been placed on pedestals and those men with the audacity to curtail female entitlement have always been subject to violent retaliation. Even in the polygamous culture of Islam, where most available young women are confined to lavish harems of concubines and beautiful odalisques, women have always been granted a higher status than men, given the fact that none ever have to work, pay taxes or fight wars. However, in Islam, female entitlement never reaches the same bizarre extreme as it does in the West.

The only difference between the contemporary West and previous civilizations is that the West has granted women so many privileges as to subvert the current patriarchal basis of civilization. Because all civilizations are founded and held together on the basis of male strength and intelligence, the elevation of the human female to such dizzying heights of power and wealth can only undermine the very fabric of Western society and ensure a civilizational collapse of the modern West more spectacular than that of the Roman Empire during late classical antiquity.

Why do women suck in bed?

The overwhelming majority of women, irrespective of whatever level of maturity they possess, have difficulty performing in bed because they either have very little sexual desire to begin with or are completely sexually frigid. A significant percentage of women are also highly dysfunctional in terms of their ability to achieve physiological sexual arousal; it is this dysfunctionality, together with the female lack of sexual passion, which ultimately prevents women from being able to take collective responsibility for their own actions and subsequently coerces them into blaming their own personal failures on men. This is solely due to the fact that women, because of the relatively small size of the female central nervous system, are largely deficient in both logical reasoning and mathematical analysis; they are less capable of reasoning logically in a systematic fashion than men because female socio-sexual functioning is largely driven by behavioural responsiveness to gonadal steroidogenesis. It means that the female psychology itself is largely dominated by a powerful psycho-physiological urge that drives her to fully realize the maternal instinct at all costs, which is in turn regulated exclusively by the endocrinological activity of both estrogen and progesterone.

Thus, women have smaller brains, lower intelligence, possess little or no human sexuality and are more under the influence of hormones than men; it is because of these factors alone that women are transformed into nothing more except socio-economic parasites and sponges who cannot support themselves without the agency of male earning power. Because female socio-sexual behaviour can only operate within certain physiological parameters, they are coerced by their own biology into using sex as a bargaining chip in exchange for those natural resources, fortunately controlled by men, which are crucial to their ability to successfully give birth and rear infants.

Anyway, has anyone ever considered purchasing a harem of sex slaves? That would certainly be a much better investment than any participation in the effeminating Western institution of marriage. The slave trade in female flesh, especially as it exists in eastern Europe and southeast Asia is probably the best antidote to female entitlement and feminist ideology there is…

Most women are unconquerably frigid...

The English Victorians, as well as their Western European and American counterparts, strike us as quite puritanical and repressive in terms of their moral and socio-political stances. However, it is to their credit that they truly recognized the lower level of of female sexual desire for what it was, as well as the total absence of any tangible evidence for female sexual insatiability (nymphomania). Of all the observations made by the medical authorities of nineteenth century England and America, it cannot but help be noticed that they achieve a certain unanimity of opinion when speaking of the lack of female sexual impulse. Many of the most celebrated physicians of the day argued that women cannot be described as physical creatures amenable to the influence of any known sexual passion. Many even went so far as to suggest that the ascription of sexual passion to the woman was akin to making a vile calumny against an innocent bystander’s character. However, others disagreed and were grudgingly willing to concede that the majority of women possess a very slight sex drive, very much mild in comparison to the potency and urgency of the truly explosive male libido. Most were of the opinion that whatever the actual level of female sex drive itself, the overwhelming majority of women, with a characteristic uniformity that reflects the underlying psycho-physiological reality that sharply differentiates the two sexes, have considerably lower sex drives than men do. Indeed, it was frequently noted by many a physician of the late nineteenth century that all women, or atleast a significant majority of them, possessed no sex drive whatsoever and were incapable of expressing any truly urgent or autonomous level of sexual desire.

Amongst them, one of the more literary exponents of nineteenth century female passionlessness was an English physician named William Acton. He argued that God himself had personally created the woman as a being largely indifferent to the natural processes of human sexuality, patiently enduring the lustful advances of other men as so many tortures of the damned in hell. To Acton, this interpretation made sense, given the limited amount of vital fluid produced by the testis of each male, the complete drainage of which could prove devastating to the male temperament. In a textbook circulated throughout the length and breadth of the British Empire, Dr. William Acton writes:

I should say that the majority of women (happily for society) are not very much troubled by sexual feeling of any kind. What men are habitually, women are only exceptionally… there can be no doubt that sexual feeling in the female is in the majority of cases in abeyance, and that it requires positive and considerable excitement to be roused at all: and even if roused (which in many instances it never can be) it is very moderate compared with that of the male… I am ready to maintain that there are many females who never feel any sexual excitement whatever. Others, again, immediately after each period, do become to a limited degree, capable of experiencing it; but this capacity is often temporary, and may entirely cease until the next menstrual period. Many of the best wives, mothers, and managers of households, know little of or are careless of sexual indulgences. Love of home, of children, and of domestic duties are the only passions they feel. As a general rule, a modest woman seldom desires any sexual gratification for herself. She submits to her husbands embraces, but principally to gratify him; and, were it not for the desire for maternity, would far rather be relieved from his attentions… the married woman has no wish to be placed on the footing of a mistress. (The Functions and Disorders of the Reproductive Organs, in Childhood, Youth, Adult Age and Advanced Life, pg. 162-164)

Many observers on the European continent also came to the conclusion that women were nonsexual creatures; the manifestation of sexual passion within any female was seen as a species of grave mental illness requiring institutionalization within a sanatorium specializing in intensive treatment. The distinguished German neurologist and pioneer in the art of hypnotism, Richard von Krafft-Ebbing eloquently stated quite succinctly in his book, Psychopathia Sexualis, that

Man has beyond doubt the stronger sexual appetite of the two. From the period of pubescence he is instinctively drawn towards woman. His love is sensual, and his choice is strongly prejudiced in favour of physical attractions. A mighty impulse of nature makes him aggressive and impetuous in his courtship. Yet the law of nature does not wholly fill his psychic being. Having won the prize, his love is temporarily eclipsed by other vital and social interests.Woman, however, if physically and mentally normal, and properly educated, has but little sensual desire. If it were otherwise, marriage and family life would be empty words. As yet the man who avoids women, and the woman who seeks men are sheer anomalies.(pg. 8)

In a similar vein, George Napheys observed that “only in very rare instances do women feel one tithe of the sexual feeling which is familiar to most men. Many of them are entirely frigid, and not even in marriage do they ever perceive any real desire.”( On the Transmission of Life, pg. 7)

The only passion women were psycho-physiologically capable of experiencing, these manuals argued, was maternal, with predictable consequences for the female character.To them, the ideal woman of the male erotic imagination, such as it was in late Victorian times, was as a frigid being, an angel on a pedestal, with little capacity for arousal and a strong natural repugnance to all forms of human sexuality. The more conspicuously intense the condition of anaesthesia sexualis, or complete extinction of sexual desire, in the woman, the greater her value as housewife and mother. Thus, having a reputation of great virtue became highly valued amongst a genteel female public. After all, it was the attainment of such a reputation that consequently led to the greater desirability of the female as a commodity within the bio-economic system of the heterosexual marketplace. By manipulating the imperiousness of male libido through the display of her feminine charms, she secures whatever money and power that can be had as the price for the full physiological realization of her maternal instinct. To the Romantics of the day, many of the most beautiful women were conceived of as creatures more frigid than ice, devoid of all erotic impulse. The more sanitized a woman was of her sexuality, the greater her worth and position in society.

If ever a stereotype had any truth, and many stereotypes do possess a grain of truth, there is none more true than this one. It is made seemingly inevitable by the psycho-physiological reality that teases apart the male libido and the frigid/oestral state of the female; it then takes both these halves and sets them up as two separate dimensions of the same reality. Many stereotypes can be highly rational in logical structure, such as being stylistically coherent, adhering to the principle of noncontradiction and internal self-consistency. The rational stereotype can also be based objectively on the sensory impressions derived from external reality. These can be rigorously evaluated according to the tools of scientific methodology and statistical analysis, those vital instruments which regularly guide investigations into natural phenomena. A stereotype need not be structured around such heights of incoherence as to wilfully posit that all the elements of a set are uniform in the possession of a certain trait in order to be considered a stereotypical judgment. All it need demonstrate is that a certain trait or collection of traits revolve around a number of statistical polarities along a bell curve distribution. It is this last property that renders such an assertion susceptible to any empirical evaluation as to its corresponding level of veracity, as can ultimately be discerned from its basic structure.

The notion of stereotype can be defined as a statistical generalization based on the relative probability of trait possession, whose validity can be verified mathematically by means of a series of Bayesian statistical formulae, typically of the form P x (A\B)= P x (B\A) x P x (A)/P x (B) where P x (A) and P x (B) is the marginal probability of A and B is the probability of one event not tied to the simultaneous occurrence of any other event, and that P x (A\B) and P x (B\A) is the conditional probability A or B, given the occurrence of B or A.

The stereotype that the generality of women hate sex is by no means irrational, but a statistical generalization based on a large amount of empirical information that lend a high degree of conditional probability to the factuality of the argument itself. It is a scientific fact that the overwhelming majority of women have significantly lower sex drives than men or are completely frigid; few women have strong passions so overwhelming as to be difficult to control. In addition, women have considerably lower levels of both sexual motivation and interest than men. Furthermore, it has been known for hundreds of years that women also demonstrate significantly lower levels of sexual physiological arousibility than men. There is an abundance of scientific data, drawn extensively from the disciplines of endocrinology, biochemistry, molecular genetics, neurology, evolutionary biology, and social psychology, pointing in this direction. If one defines sex drive as frequency and intensity of desire for sexual gratification for its own sake, then women possess very little or no sexual desire whatsoever.

Why is India such a morally puritanical society?

There can be little doubt itself that the culture of contemporary India is rigidly puritanical and characterized by a very conventional morality; one could even plausibly argue that modern India is probably more uptight than the English Victorians at fin de siècle who preceded them ever were. This is amply demonstrated by the well-known controversy in the spring of 2007 over Richard Gere kissing Bollywood actress Shilpa Shetty in public. Alas, one need only be reminded of the fact that public kissing is still a criminal offense, punishable on summary conviction, throughout the length and breadth of the Indian subcontinent in order to accurately gauge the depth of Indian puritanism. Moreover, India has some of the highest rates of HIV infection in the world; much of the civic opposition to the free and unrestricted teaching of those health issues surrounding human sexuality is most certainly to blame for such a pandemic. The rapid spread of the AIDS virus and other STDs within the local population demographic, now surpassing rates of HIV infection in other parts of the globe, is also facilitated by public pressure to ban sex education in schools and to place a moratorium on the open sale of effective prophylactic devices. It is this aforementioned undertaking of a reactionary Hindu public which, in and of itself, constitutes a continuing reflection of the taboo placed on certain discursive practices enveloping the subject of human sexuality within the fabric of Indian life and culture.

As a preliminary remark, it must be said that it would be a mistake to assume that any patriarchal society whose basic marital institutions are founded on polygamy and servile concubinage are necessarily repressive or rigidly conformist. As a matter of fact, the connection between modern liberalism, social welfare economics and the old-fashioned values of the Calvinist work ethic is much stronger than any of the linkages between patriarchy and social traditionalism. All liberal utopias produce bastions of rigid social conservatism; it is these new orders of “right” thinking that eventually come to dictate the kinds of socio-political discourse that ultimately helps define the individual as a social subjectivity in relation to the spatio-historical conjuncture he finds himself in at any given moment of continuous homogeneous time. After all, the conceptualization of the New Man and Woman in the utopian vision of Friedrich Engels (from whose pen originally sprang such quaint notions as mother right and matriarchy), especially after the abolition of private property, the dissolution of familial bonds and the equalization of wages across social substrata, are really the New Puritans remade in the image of a secularized Christian Messianism.

Only a civilization that remains male-dominated, staying close to its patriarchal origins could produce a society capable of celebrating the sensuality of the body in a new poetry of eroticism. Such an example would be the culture of classical India. Before the Muslim and especially British invaders, it was strongly characterized by a kind of sexual liberalism without precedent in the culture of Western Europe in general, and Protestant Anglo-Saxon civilization in particular. The India of the pre-Gupta period was an alien world in comparison to the British India of the Victorians. Virginity was not particularly revered and celibacy was never regarded as any sort of necessary virtue. Many ancient temples and monuments, such as the Khajuraho monuments of Madhya Pradesh, are decorated in explicit sexual imagery. Although Hindu sexual liberality helped shield such actions as sexual assault and child abuse from the daily gaze of others, it otherwise allowed people considerable personal autonomy in the expression of individual sexualities, without the daily threat of persecution, within the privacy of their own homes.

In medieval Hindu culture, the sacred whores, or “deva-dasi”, who had dedicated their lives to the service of the local god, were worshipped as goddesses; they were seen by many Vedic thinkers as the purest incarnation of true womanhood. With the exception of those men of the Brahmin caste, there was virtually no stigma attached to a man who chose to be serviced exclusively by whores. Much of the sculpture and art, as well as many of the song and dance rituals of the period, were characterized by an explicit eroticism that in many respects, still shocks many today. When the English began colonizing India at the end of the eighteenth century, many were shocked, even outraged, by what they saw as the pervasive sensuality of much Indian culture. The blatant display of so much eroticism, not only deeply offended the sensibilities of the British Raj, but was seen as a reflection of that wanton excess so often associated with pure barbarism as understood by the Victorian imagination. To the English Tories of the day, although slightly tempered in their remarks by those Orientalists who recognized India as a great civilization, sexual repression was the chief mark of civilization and “progress.” As a faithful compendium of the sort of British attitudes towards Indian sexuality as they existed in 1817, James Mill writes in his “History of British India”:

It is by no means unnatural for the religion of a rude people to unite opposite qualities, to preach the most harsh austerities, and at the same time to encourage the loosest morality. It may be matter of controversy to what degree the indecent objects employed in the Hindu worship imply depravity of manners; but a religion which subjects to the eyes of its votaries the grossest images of sensual pleasure, and renders even the emblems of generation objects of worship; which ascribes to the supreme God an immense train of obscene acts; which has them engraved on the sacred cars, pourtrayed in the temples, and presented to the people as objects of adoration, which pays worship to the Yoni, and the Lingam, cannot be regarded as favourable to chastity. Nor can it be supposed, when to all these circumstances is added the institution of a number of girls, attached to the temples, whose business is dancing and prostitution, that this is a virtue encouraged by the religion of the Hindus.

The British response to the overt sexuality of so much of the local Indian culture was to stamp out as much of it that it possibly could. Through the direct imperial administration of the Indian subcontinent, the British gradually imposed their own culture and views, especially those of the hypocritical English Victorian morality much in vogue at the time. Thus, the previous ritualistic practices that had gravely shocked the first English colonizers were gradually stigmatized, erased from the consciousness of an entire populace, and substituted with the ideals of modern Western European culture. Much of the Victorian morality of the English was spread by a number of nineteenth century Hindu socio-religious mass movements, such as the Brahmo Samaj and the Prarthana Samaj. Many of these movements ultimately strove for the rapid westernization of India through the embrace of the pivotal ideas of European culture, such as the education of women. Unfortunately, many of these movements also advocated the harsh morality and strict temperance of the English Victorians as integral to the civilizational development of India as a culture. Although women were allowed to freely mix with men in public, an elaborate set of formalized rules and prescribed castigations were developed which determined how men and women were expected to behave around one another. Even Mahatma Ghandi’s voluntary renunciation of his own sexuality through his eventual conversion to the practice of “brahmacharya” in the Hindu faith is a spitting image of the constant tension between Victorian morality and medieval Indian sexual liberality. From the perspective of Ghandi, it seemed as if the union of the self with ultimate reality could only be carried out through the medium of Protestant (especially Calvinist) influenced theology! It is this Puritanism of nineteenth century Anglo-Saxon culture which characterizes, even defines, much of what is seen as ethically normative in the India of today.

Concerning books about the British imposition of Victorian morality over the Indian subcontinent, I did manage to find one of some interest. It is called “Race, Sex and Class under the Raj: Imperial Attitudes and Policies and their Critics, 1793 – 1905.” It was authored by the late Kenneth A. Ballhatchet, a former Professor Emeritus of South Asian history at the University of London. His central thesis is that colonial British attitudes towards Indian sexual behaviour helped preserve those mechanisms of political control already established from the time of the initial colonization. The spread of Victorian morality also helped dissuade against symbolic transgression across racial lines by discouraging miscegenation amongst the British colonizers; by persuading them to seek out wives from amongst the Anglo-Indian class (White Protestants who had been born and raised in India) it prevented them from “going native” by providing a buffer against the unnatural lasciviousness of the heathen and the civilized morality of the “domiciled British.” The rigidification of ethnic boundaries through the systematic encouragement of racial endogamy also helped to further reinforce English control of the Indian subcontinent by placing the native inhabitant in a double bind; if he decided to keep his native practices, he was sharply denounced by the colonial British as a benighted savage in need of enlightened guidance; if he decided to pursue a Western education in the colonial metropole, he was cast in a pejorative light as a clumsy imitator of European culture and sneered at by the English as another “babu.” It was this policy which not only separated the supposedly civilized European from the undifferentiated sensuality of the racially defined “other” by a great chasm, but it also helped perpetuate a disenfranchisement amongst the people by preserving a British hegemony that was ultimately echoed in the Imperial hierarchy of the Raj.

Women are loveless, sexless creatures

MOST WOMEN ARE DEVOID OF THE CAPACITY TO LOVE

The vast majority of women, probably over 90%, are considerably grasping and possess little, if any, normal human emotion or natural affection. There is virtually no such thing as a woman who could truly be described as possessing the capacity to love. It would seem that the overwhelming majority of women are not psychologically, nor physiologically, capable of loving others in the absence of any sort of direct socio-economic exchange or consanguineous ties; in other words, women only love for money, status, and power, and little else besides. Women are often described as the more “romantic” of the sexes; however, given the fact that the man has, both from a socio-historical and evolutionary biological point of view, always been expected to pursue the reluctant female by means of a system of courtship and romantic gallantry exclusively devised by legions of ingenious males, this is not likely to be true.

Additionally, women are often described as having the greater capacity to love, but this also seems to be an egregious blunder as well; in reality, it is actually a foolish concession on the part of a gracious male patriarchy which has allowed itself to be, to use that sparkling, very apt phrase of Schopenhauer, “clouded by sex drive.” It seems all too obvious that it is men who love the most and women who love the least. After all, it is a well-known fact, scientifically and historically speaking, that men fall in love the fastest and the easiest. In light of the fact that most divorces and separations are female-initiated, it seems obvious that men are also the ones to stay in love for the longest period of time. Consistent with this, one sees that all of the greatest love poetry and romantic literature was composed by men; even the very conventions of medieval chivalry, which much of this romantic literature celebrates, was devised by men as a means of successfully demonstrating the power to visibly charm the female, enabling insatiable Mars to court frigid Venus with greater ease. In fact, the very concept of romance and our modern understanding of love was formulated exclusively by males.

In conclusion, I don’t think any woman truly knows what love is… Most women are cold and selfish… Women do not know the first thing about love; women do not possess the psychological capacity to truly love another human being unconditionally the way a man does. Women are not capable of true love; only men love… only men can be vividly described as possessing a highly evolved romantic temperament; only men can ever be truly romantic.

Vaginas are gross

Georgia O’Keeffe’s vivid portrayal of the vulva as most closely approximating a flower in both real life and on a purely symbolic level is a rather quite humorous analogy that can only bring laughter to the face of any sane man; however, to believe such a thing is to be under the influence of self-delusion. As a matter of fact, the vagina is a dank, slimy hole that resembles a pair of lips spotted with cold sores. As is well known to all who have been exposed to one, this filthy orifice is capable of emitting a tremendous stink so powerful that those who approach it are immediately paralyzed by both nausea and fear. The vagina is a vile, filthy piece of genital tissue; only someone who was clearly sick in the head would derive any pleasure from staring at one; even the great psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud admitted to how grossly assymetrical the vulva is on an anatomical level and freely described it as a thing that was the very obverse of beautiful. On the other hand, no one can deny the fact that the female anus is certainly much prettier and more aesthetically pleasing to the eye than the vulva; from a purely hygienic perspective, it is much more sanitary and certainly does not stink as badly. If a woman should take pride in anything, she should take pride in her anus, which is smooth and round, clean and soft, as opposed to the embarrassment of having such a useless, primitive appendage as the vulva between the legs!

The only function that the vagina performs with any degree of efficiency at all is to secrete pus and menstrual blood, mingled with fecal matter and other slime dribbling from the anus, as well as popping out the occasional baby after a brief period of incubation. Otherwise, the vagina is largely a vestigial organ; it is the ultimate mark of both female intellectual and biological inferiority; it is the supreme testimony of the body that bears witness to the female inertia of untold millenia, on (1) a socio-historical level and (2) on the level of intellectual stagnation in terms of action and the gradual development of western philosophical ideas.

In light of the foregoing, anyone can see that the penis is obviously a much superior organ to any vagina. In addition to being a thing of great beauty and convenience, it is also easily stimulated and highly orgasmic, whereas the vulva is frigid and cold, only rarely capable of yielding even the smallest amount of pleasure to those who bear one. The penis is a weapon of conquest and domination, whereas the vagina is an intrument of passivity and submissiveness. The male member is the supreme mechanism of order, by which man, beast, and even the entire universe itself is filtered out from the surrounding chaos, gradually tamed and brought under control. The penis is the source of civilization and culture; science and technology spring from it’s ceaseless activity and high levels of natural aggression. But of what world-historical significance is the vagina, other than for spewing out pus and fecal matter, as well as for whelping infants? Clearly, the fate of the universe hangs on the omnipotent shaft of the male member, and not the bloody, slimy mess produced by a loose vulva.

We should thank the gods on Mount Olympus for the penis, because without it we would be living in grass huts, almost completely naked, scrawling illegible hieroglyphs on cave walls.

Rape is about sexual enjoyment, nothing more...

RAPE IS ABOUT SEXUAL GRATIFICATION!

The act of forcible copulation is primarily motivated by the desire for sexual gratification. If such is the case, then the act of rape itself cannot occur without sexual arousal, involving activation of the psycho-sexual centres of the brain, sustained erection and possible ejaculation of seminal fluid. Without the initial experience of sexual physiological arousal in the human male, it would be virtually impossible to commit rape. On this basis alone, it should be obvious that the commission of rape is about the illicit search for carnal satisfaction. Another fact concerning rape is that the overwhelming majority of women targeted as rape victims are women of child-bearing age (according to researchers Thornhill and Palmer (2000), most victims are roughly between the ages of 16 – 24; a U.S. Department of Justice report released in 1994 states that over 50% of all women who were raped in 1992 are between the ages of 16 - 18). If rape is about power, than why is rape almost always perpetrated against women who are at the peak of both their physical strength and vitality? If forcible copulation was driven by the motivation to seek power, then logically speaking, the overwhelming majority of women who would be subject to rape would be pre-pubescent children or geriatric cases in their sixties and seventies, those chronological periods which correspond the most to those moments in a woman’s life cycle when she is at her weakest and most vulnerable. However, this is not the case; relatively young, nubile, physically strong and athletic women are targeted with great frequency because rape is about sexual gratification and has absolutely nothing to do with the brute exercise of naked power.

Consistent with the afore-mentioned data, the fact that women are raped has everything to do with the natural repugnance towards human sexuality harboured by the vast majority of women. If women enjoyed sex, than why should rape be such a painful ordeal? If women enjoyed sex just as much as men did, rape would be a welcome, if not highly enjoyable diversion. However, this is not the case because women are filled with a violent hatred towards all forms of sexual activity; in other words, women have evolved by means of natural selection to only use the act of coitus as a means of socio-economic exchange by which the most desirable males are coerced into providing money and resources in exchange for both reproductively and sexually available females. Additionally, because men have higher levels of testosterone and correspondingly higher sex drives than women, who either have lower levels of testosterone or are physiologically insensitive to the presence of androgenic steroids, it is obvious that men will want sex more, whereas women will desire it less or not at all. Those men who desire sex more, because of the more sophisticated neuro-biological mechanism of sexual motivation found within the male central nervous system, can easily lead to a situation of forcible copulation where the woman does not want sex because of her lesser sex drive or complete sexual frigidity.

From an evolutionary biological perspective, it is the primacy of female reproductive choice that has the potential to act as a kind of “rape trigger”. On the one hand, because women can only have small numbers of offspring, most women are rigidly monogamous; on the other hand, because of the great male potential for gene proliferation through large numbers of offspring, it only takes a small number of males to tie up the reproductive functioning of hundreds, if not many thousands, of females, thereby depriving many males of access to both sexually and reproductively available females. It is within the context of these biological parameters, that a heterosexual marketplace, based on the principles of socio-economic exchange and driven by the mechanism of male-male intra-sexual competition, is automatically established because of the monopolization of large numbers of available females at the hands of a small number of dominant males. Because the male-male competition for available females will be fierce, if not violent, those men who are unable to attract an available female because of poverty, lack of status, or absence of great physical strength and aggression, will be completely denied access to available females and the chance to transmit their DNA to future generations, ultimately transforming rape into the natural evolutionary by-product of sexual physiological differentiation between both genders.

Those who say that rape is about power are merely regurgitating the ideological mantras of radical feminism. Rape is about sex, not power. Indeed, how could it be otherwise? If the vast majority of men want sex all of the time and the vast majority of women have a strong, natural aversion to sex, then wouldn’t one of the inevitable outcomes of such a sex difference, which operates on both a neuro-endocrinological and biochemical level, be rape?

RAPE IS ABOUT SEX AND NOT POWER!