Category: Social Analysis

• “Only one coffee?”, the counter girl asks after I give my order.
• “Yes, because two… two will be too many”, I reply.
• Silence follows. She proceeds to do her job mechanically

• “You need more points to use a discount”, the counter girl asks after I scanned my loyalty card.
• “Ah, you want me to buy more things!”, I reply jokingly.
• Silence follows as she stares into the abyss.

Pick Up Overview

These and similarly retarded interactions are the norm in this god-forsaken country. I will analyze in depth my thoughts, but for now, I can confirm, after medium-term time there, I have escaped! I am out! Flight bound back to West!

Korea has been a mixed experience. On the PUA side of things, it was an adventure. The stories are so crazy, they are barely believable. Here are some on the top of my mind:

• I dated a girl and her best friend at the same time.
• I was hooking up with my landlord (in the most PUA fashion).
• I had a “date” on a fuckin bus, then we went straight to the girl’s home (lay).
• I had a girl 20 minutes into the date tell me “You are ugly”, followed up with “you are boring and we don’t match”. This was a 2.30 hour lay.

And on the achievement trophy table:

• I always had a rotation of 2 girls, sometimes jumping to 3.
• Had sex with 3 different girls in the same 24 hour window. (1 new lay)
• Had sex with 4 different girls in one calendar week. (2 new lays)
• Had 3 near misses in 3 days.

However, as you can already notice, there is a lack of “normal” stories. Boy meets girl and then after dating they fuck: +1. Aside from one girl that took 3 dates to get the lay, all the rest happened within a window of 3 hours, sometimes as low as one. This is not normal seduction, it is outlier seduction….

Note: Dating in Korea is known to be notoriously slow. When I was getting 2 hour lays, some of the girls were in disbelief on how fast things moved. This needs a very, very high level of Game to pull off.

And it is outlier seduction, because in the normal day to day life, this country is a giant shithole, so dysfunctional that is hard to explain to a non-traveler in a way they can understand the culture. Regardless, let’s give it a try.

Pause: I will reiterate this now. This is a pick-up review of the country and the people. The country is assessed on the axis of the pleasantness and openness of making new connections. If you are a die-hard fan of Korea because this country blows the shit out of yours in terms of cost of living and quality of life, so be it: this is a different mentality altogether. I averaged about 1 new date a week and a new lay every 2 weeks to 1 month. The Korean society shows a totally different face once you engage with it like that.

The Emptiness

Understand this: this country rejects your whole being. As a foreigner, you are a non-entity. Travellers fail to see this because the honeymoon phase is so novel with new foods, cheap prices, and weird ass things to see and enjoy. These are legit, Korea is a very nice country for short-term traveling. However, they fail to focus on the elephant in the room.

Koreans don’t speak to you. At all. If you try to interact with them, they will throw some Korean to you, feel satisfied they “did” their job, and then leave. You think I am joking, but this is exactly the “face” culture at work. It looked like they tried, but really, they didn’t. They won’t try to use broken English, a translation app, or sign language; to them, you are just a nuisance. This behaviour had driven me to such a frenzy, many a time, I literally took out my phone, wrote insults into Papago (the translation app), and shoved it into their face.

I will delve more into this later on, but for the TLDR, keep the following in mind. Korean banality is at extreme levels. People just walk around with empty eyes, going through life on autopilot – a form of nihilism that would be envious to Russians. Maybe, indeed, they were Samsung cyborgs all along.

Men, and especially so women, have no real hobbies, no real curiosity of the world, no true ambition (that is not status seeking), and most of all, they have zero interest to anything that is non-Korean [And as I will explain later, whatever is Korea, is so fake, constructed and a product of post civil war society (if not the last 30 years since their last dictatorship) that is hard to see the picture without pulling your hair].

This translates into dating beautifully. You get a slob of a girl sitting opposite you, who won’t, and more accurately cannot carry her own weight of conversation. Additionally, she has no real character, speaks mostly on cliches, and has so little curiosity about what you say, that navigating the date is a landmine field on its own.

Many a time, they would just decide that the simple act of speaking English is hard and lose all interest mid-date. Some others, they would try to make an effort and participate, but they would operate on such slow pace that they might randomly laugh at a joke you made 2 minutes ago.

All in all, dating Koreans was about finding one, for whatever reason, who happens to be open to you and like you. It is up to chance whether she decides to pick you or not. Leading is nigh impossible, as she will operate at her own pace and speed, and you might as well be a ghost if you try to stir the conversation into any topics she just doesn’t happen to be interested in. It felt that beyond looks, how much of the value the girl would get to absorb was based solely on her and not on me. It was essentially “being chosen” with all the passivity that comes with it. It was reducing the art of pick-up into a Bingo slot machine.

You might say that this is only my experience as non-Korean speaker. And I would agree to an extent, but from the couples I observed, the vast, vast majority to me seemed mindless drones that were dating for the simple purpose of doing things that are “cute” or “on trend”. There was a small but significant subsection where the girl was literally bullying the guy to get any reaction or dominance out of him. And there was a small minority, maybe 1 or 2 couples a day, that had a really great dynamic between them. Something that might resemble good Daygame sets – in all honesty, kudos on them, that is hard to achieve organically. [And that is 2 more couples than what you normally see in the West btw – so hold your horses back home].

Cool, you might therefore say: at least the girls are hot, and this is largely true. They have some of the hottest girls in Asia, if not the World. Blessed on the upper and lower departments, rampant facial surgery and intense beauty treatments make for admirable girls.

However… the emptiness! Even when it comes to sex, the baggage we discussed earlier doesn’t go away. You have a beast in the shape of a human, who barely knows how to show erotic affection, that is screaming and squeaking while you fuck her. Yes, autistic self-obsession can even ruin sex.

And it gets even worse. They give half-assed blowjobs, usually with teeth (if they give at all). And just to rub it in, they, and I am no kidding here, all want seconds or even more. If you become tired, some of them literally start rubbing their pussy. Take the hotness aside, and you have a first-class Neanderthal next to you.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not complaining. I would love this normally. But when every sexual encounter is just deja vu, it feels just like masturbating with a girl rather than your hand. When sex lacks the femininity to power it all, it really is only the act that remains. This is what I am alluding to here. For the first time, I got to experience sex for the act of sex. There is something innate, maybe even metaphysical, that gives girls their warmth and appeal.

It also gets to show that a girl is more than a sexy appeal. Education really matters, and this is what was lacking here. Of course, when I refer to education, I don’t mean list 10 facts about X. I mean manners, social aptitude, and how to be able to interact with others. “Woman, left on its own, devolves into a smelly beast” [Bronze age pervert], and this is at work here. Korean girls living at the spearhead of feminism and consumerism just didn’t bother to learn anything. Hence, all this freedom amounted to making breathing AI dolls instead of enriching them.

The Korean Dating Market

It begs the question therefore, how much of an outlier I was getting as a foreigner (or just being me, with my personality and SMV) compared to what the true dating market is for Korean men. Is the average Korean experiencing a totally different world than the one I described?

Let’s try to make a two piece argument on this. I will make the case now that the dating market cannot be the opposite to what I describe: it can be less intense, but there is no hidden South Mediterranean culture unobserved by foreigners.

To prove this point, I will speak with anecdotes (of course), but on the one hand, what I saw on the street is that Koreans themselves were getting the cold shoulder as well. They were experiencing the same phenomena I described. The caveat is that they also had less social expectations than I. It bears no secret that I was in the company of mostly Korean women, but you would be surprised by their social risk aversion. Many a time I asked them to translate for me, and I flat out got the “you cannot just say/ask/do this in Korea”. I also got to learn about their social groups and especially university clubs: just a bunch of introverts thrown together that refuse to interact with each other for meetings on end.

The real picture, therefore, has on some level to represent what I described. And here comes the second part of my argument: as long as we are thinking like this, then the situation is fucked. I might got 100% fuck-you points as a foreigner, but if the Koreans get even 10% of what I got… then we are already on damage control, because fundamentally this is not a situation of thriving, it is a situation of making due tooth and nail.

A criticism to the digital nomad culture

I stand by the writing above. And as you can already see where this is going, I thus ask the question: the run-of-the-mill French/British/American guy who lives long term in Korea (and presumably Japan) under these social conditions… something has to be wrong with him. People, or at least proactive people, won’t just take it on the chin and say “that is just life”. I lived like this for months and months in Korea. It is a state of meditation where the world around you is not real: you can see images and people, but you can only interact in a scripted manner with it.

But eventually it gets to you. Maintaining your identity and objective value measurements (from abroad) starts to require tremendous inner effort. Let your concentration wander, even for a second, and your personality might dissolve into a faceless mass of Korean society. To paraphrase Nietzsche: “We built beautiful parks, malls, and clean streets. We found happiness, they say – and then, they blink.”

Daygame

Let us turn to Daygame specifically. I will not sugarcoat it. I got one lucky lay out of it, and aside from 4 more dates… I failed to get anything in more than 100 sets. I saw most success in nightgame and some from apps (3 lays, however, used sparingly). The former screened for status, as it is the only thing their pea of a brain registers, and the latter screens from travelled Koreans who are equally isolated as you.

Note that from nightgame, I actually left every night out with a girl, and the 3 lays from apps come from a total of 2 weeks using them. The alternatives to Daygame were indeed efficient.

The majority of them never even stopped. And I am not only talking about the risky sets, I am talking about all sets. You would see extreme behaviour on the streets. Non-verbals cranked to 11. Hip sway, aimless walking and unapologetic eye-fuck staring. Then you would run to her, and not only you would get rejected, you would get humbled.

Aside: the Korean eye contact trick. This country approaches eye contact weirldly. Girls are very, very sensitive to it. Just stare at the girl. The first 3 seconds she will ignore you, the next 3 she will stare back, then she will give you amazing non-verbals.

They would walk over you. Be genuinely insulted you dared try to talk to them (note that this is even before the compliment, this is from the “hi”). And I even had girls literally scream 3 times [Note: nothing to worry here, if she screams because you said “excuse me” from 2 meters of distance away, that is on her for being a degen, not on you]. But who am I to talk about it? I had many more people scream because I asked them if they stood in line to pay at the counter, the society is just that socially retarded.

Go through this for any significant amount of time, and your inner game will get crushed. After a while, I was genuinely wondering how had I even banged 9 of them. There would be the oddball good set here and there, but it would be one single demographic, the Korean girl who had worked or studied abroad (usually in the US or Australia). And that was the single objective advantage of online game in Korea over Daygame. The girls would auto-filter themselves out, so the search costs would significantly be reduced. [But make no mistake, even my limited success in Daygame was averaging a point hotter than online game].

In short, Daygame in Korea is not bad; it is apocalyptic. It can only mirror Mr. White’s (an old daygamer) review of Japan. [What happened to your blog nowadays, Mr. White !?] He called this type of response “ghost blowout”. But in contrast to his experience, where in Japan cheating is acceptable as long as it is not caught, in Korea, you would just get bodied from the get-go.

Even the dirtiest of Korean sluts would stay loyal once they are in a “relationship”; it carries a different weight. That is actually a thing to be admired of them, so credit where it is due.

I never claimed to be a Don Juan in looks, but nowhere else in the world I ever had such bad reactions trying to engage with people. One time, I was at Times Square mall, in Yangdeopo, and one street behind the mall, there is a red light district conveniently placed. Out of curiosity, I went to have a look. The girls were mostly outside their boxes, trying to hustle Korean grandpas for a fuck.

I am pointing out the fact that they were calling out to fat, ugly, salary men and grandpas who needed a stick to walk properly. Because… the moment I was within a 5-meter radius of her box, they would start to hiss at me, shouting “shhhh, xsss” and waving me to go away with their heads.

Welp, if God was ever to give me a signal… getting rejected by a whore (actually 90% of them) might as well be it.

Aside from the lucky lay, that she happened to have lived abroad extensively, all the other 4 dates I had from Daygame died out within the first hour. All of them because the girl gave up on English. One of them had actually prepared English notes specifically for the date, but decided otherwise when she had to use this weird language of English.

The last part is why, in contrast, nightgame and online game were more efficient. The majority of Daygame attrition was being burned in finding girls open to speaking in English. Online naturally filters them out, and in the club, status plays a much more central role than verbals.

Logistics – Daygame

Despite all this, if you are hotheaded and want to Daygame, here is my intel.

Regarding the weather. Before March, the temperatures are well below zero. Sometimes all the way to -10 Celsius in the evening. After May, the temperature goes into the 20s, but as Seoul is a concrete jungle, it feels way too hot. So the sweet spot is March to May.

Regarding locations: Jamsil (Lotte tower), COEX mall (Samseong station), Gangnam route (between Gangnam station and the next few stations in vertical line), Seongsu (alternate/hip area), Myeong-dong (tourist area), and Hongdae (2 universities there, one of which is Yonsei) are your best bets.

Maybe you can make it work around Dongdaemun, but the area feels like a ghetto. Also, going down from Gwangwamun into Jogno seems like a viable plan, but be warned, the sewage system of Korea is notoriously close to the ground, and that area smells particularly bad. You will get isolated gusts of something that can only be described as biological warfare.

Out of all these areas the level of English felt the best in Hongdae, but mind you it is isolated 40 minutes away from everything else. All other areas are within 20 minutes of each other. Seongsu was second, for the random alternative girl. Myeng-dong wasn’t bad, but only for the Chinese/Japanese tourists. In every other area I tried, I got way too much pushback regarding English.

Logistics – Nightgame

Gangnam (including Rodeo street) felt unworkable. Overtly transactional from the side of the girls, weirdly effective for Koreans who had money to spend (but I don’t know if they actually fucked the girls). But watching the entire nightlife devolve into something resembling open prostitution felt weird. Anyway, if you open a bottle and get a big table (and speak Korean), girls seem to flock to you. In Gangnam, I achieved absolutely nothing of note. I failed to even get any set going.

Itaewon felt much more workable, especially with foreigners. Foreigners in general felt better quality than your average expat, but maybe it is the contrast (to Koreans) speaking. As I explained in my semi-guide for nightgame, work the club, not the girls.

In Itaewon, foreigners are your first line of attack, and then the Koreans who speak English and are willing to engage with you might join your group. If you randomly open sets, the situation of the street will repeat in the club. There was not a single night out I left without a girl (of varying quality), and it is quite easy to get a kiss, usually averaging 3-4 per night.

Hongdae is the third club area, but I never visited. They also have age and nationality restrictions, so keep that in mind. Even in Itaewon, there are Korean-only clubs.

This concludes my PUA guide to Seoul, the remaining is me trying to put some background to my claims above. Essentially, still shitting on Korea… but with arguments!

Koreans are Utterly Useless

You might read the above and the bad reactions of the girls feel personal or even racist. That is not the truth. The issue is societal and systemic, and it starts from the fact that these people are allowed to be useless slobs in the first place. I will first make some observations on the men.

Korean men?

Korean men have disappeared. It is a shock to walk around the street, and the ratio being consistently 70-80% women. Just where are the men?

I did visit some internet cafes – and for sure they were full of men -, but this is not a simple issue, because we are not discussing whether men are video game addicts or hikikomori. We are discussing the total exclusion of men from day-to-day public life.

So where are the men? Are they all at work, army service (ridiculous 18 months)? Possibly. But the only demographics on the street are young girls and grandmas. Every space has been estrogenized. You can see it in people’s eyes, ready to explode from status competition and indirect aggression. In the metro, people will just whale on others to go through. Not once did I see people just lightly tap others and say “excuse me”.

I won’t do a full analysis of this; any half Red Pill educated person would be able to associate the issue of every space being utterly dominated by women with its social after-effects. I am strongly pointing out the observation.

Side note: Regardless, I was truly surprised at how well their men were able to work in groups and cooperate (mostly by following rules). This is a thing of note.

Back to the main topic. Never listen to people complaining that work in Korea is grueling, tiresome, and stressful. They indeed have a culture of hurrying up, lack of personal boundaries, etc., but never associate this with competence.

The majority of workers would pretend to work hard, while most of the time, just sitting on their phones. When you would ask them a question or for assistance, they would freeze and not know how to answer. You could just observe them and spot the utter incompetence in everything. I remember going to a phone store, and the full-time worker – who had an office and a computer – not only doesn’t know how to assist you, but is not allowed to help you and is meant to refer you to the call center instead.

In short, it is truly miraculous that Korea even functions at all. All the workers are unmotivated, don’t have initiative, imagination, or any sense of duty to their work. Somehow, the machine keeps running. There you have it, when you think of it as a capitalist hellhole, it is not the system that fails, it is the attitude of the people.

Aside: It is truly an interesting observation that this country can run so well. Their services and infrastructure really is beyond anything we have in the West. However, and at the same time, on the individual level, the picture is as I describe it.

I will keep going: everything is just appearances. Many times, when I would ask something in English, the worker would reply in Korean, then attempt to leave because he was “seen” doing his job (i.e., replying). Did it matter whether he actually did his job (i.e., the outcome), and actually helping the customer? No. Fuck that.

That is exactly the mentality at hand: be seen, not do. That is why you have people sitting at their shop counter for hours on end, when it is obvious that such a place can never make any money, or the worker is not needed. I specifically remember the central station in Bushan: miles and miles of underground shops, all selling the same Chinese stuff. It is impossible that 90% of them can turn a profit; however, they were all operating with employees.

It goes even further. You have scores and scores of old people that have nothing to do all day. So they work to beautify the city. You could see 3 people holding a screen for 1 person to blow leaves. You would see people tasked to walk around and pick the weeds from the side of the road. You would see people walking around tasked to open and close their public umbrellas (for the sun, under the traffic lights). Utterly useless work if you ask me. Better than paying welfare for sure if that is your only alternative, but name it for what it is: covert welfare.

Now, beautifying the city is an important task, and I did enjoy the clean, catered spaces. The issue comes at hand when this type of demographic dominates public life so much. A sterilizing and passive demographic. The issue comes when your active and entrepreneurial demographic is hidden on the sidelines. This is the dividing line between reading what I said in a positive or negative tone. What I am getting at, is to paint this picture: that you have an entire society, presumably well educated, but aside from being able to function in the bureaucratic state, these people are unimaginative, and totally useless for every other task.

Some Korean History

Well, I am totally unqualified to speak of their history, but I can make educated guesses, mostly from their art. Because the old question still remains, what made their society covertly defective?

Well, let’s take a look, what did ancient Koreans leave to us?

This was a nation so stubborn about life in the village and life in nature that we barely have any paintings from them of big cities or other monumental architecture. Mind you, these paintings are dated when Europeans were sailing the world and discovering America. They even have museums depicting all their customs and traditions. Their culture was close-minded (long-standing traditions), defensive to intervention, and most importantly, total. Everything from birth to death was regulated by celebration and custom.

The last 100 years, they have swapped from Japanese occupation, to a civil war that is barely believable… I mean, come on, were these guys ready to fight against communism? I don’t know the full history, but I believe whatever foreign meddling went on to initiate the war, it was significant.

People ready to risk their lives on ideological grounds

To a succession of dictatorships and night curfews (until late into the 1980s), to the final modern Seoul that looks like this:

Or better put, you took your Korean out of his small carefree life in the rice paddy and put him into the rat cage that is modern Seoul. The modern mega-city life of Seoul is opposite to all life that took place in Korea before that.

Hence, it is my personal opinion that modern Korean Culture is an utter fiction, a patchwork, placed to mask the total emptiness of soul. There is no real Korean culture, because what can be named Korean culture has never left the small town. All the traditions and closed-mindedness stem from there. Read here for the implications of what I am describing.

Korean work operates on a near feudal state (incompetent workers, unrespectful employers) because these people never developed the capacity to cooperate with strangers on equal footing: hence, hierarchy. Hence, closed-mindedness. Hence, anti-social behaviour.

The manosphere has blessed the world with invaluable knowledge. I truly believe that there are men whose lives have been saved from total ruin, simply by following and understanding Red Pill basics.

However… this does not mean that there are not versions of Red Pill advertised that totally miss the mark. They aim to spread confusion rather than clarity, the same way modern media propagates establishment misinformation. Similarly to how social media campaigns are decided in small rooms from so-called “PR consultants”, so is your daily manosphere content decided by the same guys.

The main detection tool to distinguish gems from chuff is answering the following question: Is this advice aimed at increasing my agency? If it is not, it is usually there to confuse you. The founding block of the manosphere is precisely male agency.

Having said that, let us address some common myths that are thrown around nowdays.

The dating market is harder (Supply side)

No, no, and no. A million times no. The dating market, as a market in the economic sense, has never been better than it is today. Lower your Ego and rationally consider the following:

• Nearly every fertile young girl is unmarried – Never have been in the past. Young girls don’t leave the market (supply is maximal).
• The concentration of people in megacities has made search costs as low as possible. In terms of meeting girls, the modern male has potential never before imagined.
• Adding to the above, we have ease of travelling, instant communication, and if you are willing to go that route, dating apps.

Therefore, purely in terms of Supply, the market for hot, young women has never been better in the history of the human race. Girls never leave the market, are concentrated in one place, and it is easier to communicate with them.

You disagree? Speak with your grandfather. His village had 50 hot young girls, and by the time he was an adult, 30 of them had already been married. Compared to your ancestors, you are visiting a modern supermarket, while they had access to a raided convenience store.

However… you still want to protest, the market is doomed because of male competition… well let’s see.

The dating market is harder (Demand)

Well, you protest that males are taller than ever, richer than ever, and… more of them in pure numbers than ever. We have well documented 3rd world (primarily male) invasions to modern nations that make the average city a low value cockfest.

Well, it is true by purely mathematical and statistical accounts. The demand for sex from males matches and possibly exceeds the supply of girls. But you are forgetting the simple biological fact: Betas will always be Beta.

In the eyes of the girl, the Beta is an imp, a donkey, a beast of burden. And more importantly, an eunuch. There is a whole Red Pill literature supporting this with examples aplenty. In the eyes of the girl, the Beta male is a non-human. That is why they express contempt and unimaginable cruelty at them (have you seen divorce laws?).

Therefore, even if your city has a male-to-female ratio of 99:1, in reality, you are competing against other Alphas and Naturals. Betas will get the scraps regardless.

Don’t confuse pure numbers with real “volume” of competition. That competition is a Potemkin village. You always have been and always will be competing with relatively few other sex worthy men. And those men are always rare.

If you are not getting any sex, it is because you are in the wrong box, not due to competition.

So why is it so hard?

Have you seen the job market lately? Where the rallying cry of the whole industry is “over 100 applicants per job!”, you are not getting a job due to competition! Well… let me tell you, as the job argument is horseshit, so is the dating equivalent.

Let’s start with the job market. The reason you are not getting a job is because there are no jobs. Period. If there were jobs, those 100 applicants would be assigned to jobs, even if not immediately, maybe within a short period of time. But the reason they are not assigned into jobs, is because there are no jobs, not because there are 100 applicants.

Therefore, if your argument is that there is not enough sex to go around. It is because there is no sex happening. Not because there are more dicks in the modern world.

And now we arrive at the root cause of evil: not the market, not the supply of dicks, not the supply of pussy. Instead, simply that there is no sex happening in general. So why is there no sex happening:

1. Atomization
2. Feminism
3. Anti-male laws
4. Lifestyle of slavery (better put systematic suppression of agency)

The system isolates you, makes you overworked, and makes the women hysterical with fantasies of brutality and hatred. That is why there is no sex, because there are no connections between men and women being established. Because those connections are inherently becoming more and more impossible to establish, either via systemic pressure or ideological divergence.

But the mother of all causes is…

Sex is initiated from the erect phallus, not the pussy

If you are any familiar with Red Pill literature, it should be clear that eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap. Women don’t need sex as much as men do. Even genetically in humans this is supported: 14-30% of men reproduced vs 80% of women, ever.

Nature experiments and discards men like there is no tomorrow. If human male was a standalone species, it is facing the worst evolutionary pressure in the entire animal kingdom. Primarily induced by other humans, as homo sapiens himself is an apex predator.

The whole point is that if women are asked the question to fuck or not fuck, they won’t fuck. Therefore, when the male becomes passive, loses his entrepreneurial power to combine resources with his friends and make things work, then… only women are left to choose when sex happens, and the entire decision falls on their shoulders.

And as we already said, when women choose, they won’t fuck. They will just milk men for attention and resources (either directly or indirectly via the state).

I have seen (and had sex with) girls, that if you judged them by their behaviour, you would had said that they are complete sluts. They talk about dick, actively think about it, hit on men, etc. Well, even after clubbing with such women long term, do you know how many guys they fucked? … the best one was 2, over the course of a full year. And that was a girl who would be clubbing solo until 8am, after the rest of the group left.

Drill this into your head: sex needs male leadership. From meet, to escalation, to bedroom. Leave it to the girls, and no matter what they say, they won’t fuck – sex just won’t happen.

On the other hand, if males bonded, initiated festivals, parties, and showcased true male competence. The women would relax and be led into intimacy. The Dionysian orgies of antiquity are not what we see in modern clubs. Because ancient Greeks had what you don’t: manly agency and spirit. That is why the 4 reasons stated in the previous section sting so much. Because they take male agency away.

And with this out of the way, drill the following into your mind.

Women’s competition is not sexual

If you had a pussy, you would understand that you could sexually access any totem pole in a 100km vicinity. Even a 6 can jump a male 9 with very little effort. Hence, their competition is not sexual, it is not to grab men. They have undisputed free rein. Their competition is against other girls for a purely materialistic and pervertedly status seeking goal.

You protest and claim: that even then, women are sexually competing, but they do so for connection and relationship exclusivity. Bollox I say, because what is the purpose of a “relationship” than to parade the man in front of her friends and show them how good of a catch she got. She could very easily get emotional stability and safety nets from her own female social groups. She doesn’t need a man who barely understands what being a girl is.

All female competition exists for the simple reason of sticking it to other girls. Square and simple. It is not there to access high value men or resources. Take Korea, for example, the place with the most fierce female competition on planet earth: 1 out of 3 women has done facial surgery, and the spending for luxury and fashion is through the roof. If this is not “female competition”, I don’t know what it is.

So what are these girls competing for? Have you seen Korean men, and their pussified physique and mentality? Nearly all Korean girls I have dated have told me straight: Korean men are very kind and available, but so boring! [because they call me selfish in contrast].

Regardless, let’s give the benefit of the doubt and assume that there are hidden K-pop stars in the building corners that are monopolizing all sex. Girls, therefore, are competing for this hidden, angel face, Asian sex-ninja. The following numbers are from 2020, presumably better than now:

• Mean age of first sexual encounter: 22
• Percentage that had engaged in casual sex: 12% (up to 14% for a 95% Confidence Interval)
• Sexlessness in the past year: 43% of women and 36% of men reported no sex in 2020-2021

You can go on with these; we all know the situation is bad. But my point is, if the competition is so fierce, then where the hell is the sex! Where is the horny little Asian man?

Because that is the whole point, female competition is not about sex! The idea is smoke and mirrors. Female competition is about attention, which originates from pettiness to stick it to other girls. And if you take it too seriously, the whole society will end up going to shit.

The Sexual Market Place is a parable. It is meant to represent a model and a model only. A predictive and useful model that nails the task of implanting the basics of Red Pill into the student. Its usefulness ends there. Because the SMP is not a tool for self-actualization. Excelling at the “market” is not your purpose in life. Cascades from this idea lead to all sorts of perversions and discussions on Game and Value that ultimately miss the point.

What is your purpose in life and Game

Are you in Game to bang girls? Are you in Game for the hedonistic purpose of sticking your dick into women?

Have you ever had pointless sex to understand the emptiness of sex just for sex? Using the girl as a masturbation machine to be forgotten the next day? It is not worth it like that; this is alleviating the symptom, not the cause. At the end of the day, paying a whore will always be effort positive towards you. Even at advanced stages of Game, if Game were to be just a “job” to “buy” sex, then I guarantee you, working overtime on your normal job and hiring an escort instead is the play.

So, the point is not about the sex. Well, let me tell you it is not about women either. Have you seen animals in the zoo, bears do this and monkeys do this: they make bored, silly faces, all life sucked out of them… and they masturbate. Masturbation symbolizing the emptiness of their existence. They never do this in nature… maybe, have they been hyper-sexualized?

Do you see my point now? When you think of women and think of adventure, companionship, and connection – depending on which angle you observe the thought – you are missing the point. You find this adventure, companionship, and connection in them only because you have no other way to find those.

Do you have any friends? True male friends to bond over the hunt and campfire like your ancestors did? Can you roam into the forest and be truly free, do whatever you like, explore however you like, let your curiosity run wild? Of course you can’t; that’s why you are regressing to seeking that in women.

Don’t get me wrong, in the modern world, you don’t have any alternatives. All space is owned by some state or another, and they will force you to submit to their petty and arbitrary rules. The times when you could enforce your own justice based on the strength of your ability and might are long gone now. Same is true of your connections. Respect is a concept long gone. Because respect for another man comes from a shared understanding of good and beauty. But no such thing is possible in the cult of identity. Uniqueness for the sake of uniqueness. Brokenness and incoherence everywhere that makes the man weak. Even if you could find your so-called “true friends”, you would be too weak to achieve much of anything.

The hunting part of courtship is the only space that is relatively unmoderated. This with an asterisk. On one hand, courtship that is primarily regulated by hormones has to be free. Because the hormones themselves bow to no rules. The wildness of the female spirit and sexuality, is still that, unregulated wildness. On the other hand, the social programming of the last 60 years has invaded exactly that free and wild space. It invokes petty rules and boundaries even in the realm of courtship. That is the one true reason many of us find satisfaction in more feminine cultures, with so-called traditional gender roles. These are just cultures where the female spirit hasn’t been constrained.

But understand this: satisfaction in Game comes from the adventure. It doesn’t come from the fucking. It is you, your skills, and the wildness of the social battlefield. You are on a raid to conquer. The loot is just that… the cherry on top. The adventure itself is your true purpose.

I strongly disagree that replication is our purpose in life, taking precedence over many other functions. I believe copulation and the generation of new life in humans is an instinct that only kicks in after a sufficient level of self-actualization. At the basic level, think the fate of the mantis, where he is being beheaded from the female while he is sticking his dick into her. Do you not feel the aversion to this fate? Do you not feel the aversion of your life purpose being reduced to a shoot of sperm, carrying half of your genetic composition? On the non-basic level, think of the fate of the depressed millionaire. Spending his days on his dark head, with life having no meaning – that is success with no meaning. Is popping a kid into a woman the thing that will give him purpose in life? Are you mad?

There is a higher force and a higher satisfaction that comes from a successful seduction. It is not mechanics, and it is not gene propagation only. It is the act of achievement, the use of skillset, the creation of something out of nothing. There is a bottom version of seduction – the fucking. There is a higher and noble version of it – the art. That is why picking up a slut from the dance floor at 4am feels empty, that is why fucking a whore feels empty.

The Sexual Market Place

Sufficient iterations of Game and intersexual theory have gone to incredible depths. Knowledge of male and female psychology has never been understood better than to this day. The SMP, however, with all its genius, is just a perversion of the concepts. Because the SMP is meant to signify a signpost, a scientific and predictive tool, not a thing in itself. It doesn’t exist as a fixed structure; it only exists on the first level of abstraction – not a true representation, instead, a low-resolution image.

So what is the issue with the SMP? By acknowledging its existence, you have given yourself a new set of rules and boundaries to trap you. The point of Game is the conquering. You have your skillset, and you need to apply it to make something out of nothing. You are not a point in the SMP graph; you are a range of points, all conditional on how you use your social skills in the short to medium term. There is no fair exchange, there is only “risk assessment” to where your skills can take you. The SMP is guidelines, what is good and what is bad, but under no circumstances should it be viewed as an absolutist list of prices, what X in male value can buy Y in female value. Because your X doesn’t exist, as a man, you make that X. Static value is only for women, that is the curse of looks. And you should be thankful for it, because static value implies no agency.

All this leads to my next point. The issues that spring from taking the SMP too literally. That is the Online Game type of guy: Looksmaxx, get your finances in order and get your value sky-high. Then girls will pick you, bro! Putting effort is for Betas! Does that sound fun to you? Did you already forget the purpose of Game we discussed above? By acknowledging that mindframe, you already forfeited the challenge of the adventure for the perversion that is lack of agency. You do X and optimize Y, then you expect the teacher to come to you, say “Good boy”, and give you a girl to pork. It is fundamentally a weak and reactive position. And it will stay like this, regardless of you tapping a girl here or a girl there. You are the depressed millionaire in search for meaning.

That exactly is the difference that gives meaning or not. Expecting to chart your own path vs waiting someone to praise you for excelling at something. From the former, SMP is a navigating tool; from the latter, SMP is a prison no different than the one you had before. The SMP doesn’t have a predetermined slot with your name on it. You force yourself into the SMP, and you make that slot for you. And you only occupy that slot in the moment and in context, not universally. That is only the correct way of understanding it, and by extension, understanding Red Pill in general.

It is time, again, for a discussion on mental models. In particular, we will extend Amaury de Riencourt’s [Eye of Shiva] ideas in regards to evolution of thought. I had already touched this subject in a recent article, where the question was on how to approach and learn seduction. This time, it is about understanding headspaces and how we can use them.

Philosophical background

What we will explore today is the relation of the mind with the external world. This is a curious topic, as the brain itself is not optimized for world objectivity and understanding. Contrary to popular belief, the minimal requirements to sustain life do not really require mapping out the world, with examples aplenty: from primitive bacteria, to plants, to even dogs with limited color perception. Much of what you would even call color perception is generated in the brain; heat, for example, is radiation, not different than blue or red. The same is true for sound (vibration waves), taste and smell (chemical compositions), etc. We have already explored these ideas and the way they relate to frames in this article here.

For us, higher beings that we are, a lot of interaction with the world is needed, so our senses are quite advanced, despite inherent mechanistic limitations. Beyond senses, however, is the brain’s own interpretation of the world. A peculiar aspect because it is freed from evolutionary shackles and is much affected by culture and man-made progression and discovery. When we focus on this aspect, a story becomes painfully obvious about the history of thought, written in myth and tradition passed down through history. I will keep the following summary short; the linked article has a much more in-depth explanation.

Up to the advent of Indo-Aryans and their subsequent establishment in Greece and India, during the second millennium BC, much of life operated under a mythopoetic viewpoint. Mental space and reality (i.e., senses) were intermixed in a single blend of life experience. Gods and morality would jump out of men’s heads and affect the real world directly. A bad omen would relate to subsequent catastrophic events, hence symbol was reality itself. Continuity in time was also a questionable topic. For example, a bad gamble or a lost bet could not be analyzed in isolation with a mental split between “decision” and “outcome” (under probabilistic uncertainty), but only as a holistic continuous event.

For complicated reasons, mainly associated with the rise of Male spirit, the eternal myth that distorted reality under mythological perception broke down with the rise of Indo-Aryans. The external world, for the first time, could be understood as a thing in itself, something that exists beyond our perception and predisposition of it. For the first time, an independent Object exists in the outside world, and a biased Subject that observes the Object lives in man himself.

East and West

Before relating the discussion back to women, let us understand the effects of this mentality shift with the biggest split in thought the planet has experienced. Regardless of the culture in which you grew up, one of the two following schools of thought has left a tremendous mark on your perception of the world.

Greece and West

In the West, stemming from Ancient Greek philosophy, the Subject was eliminated completely. This is not to say that we are unbiased; remember that rationalism of all things was the outcome of Greek philosophy, and certainly that caused much confusion in the West until the empiricism and materialism of science and the scientific method.

However, the elimination of the subject is what allows for the codification and reproducibility of knowledge. Take the concepts of addition and subtraction: they are meant to work in abstract. When you are tasked with the calculation of 5+3, you know that the answer is 8. When you give the same question to your friend, you expect the same answer. The point of the question itself is precisely to arrive at the answer, and to do so regardless of your emotional or biological state. Once you learn to add up two numbers, you can do so regardless of whether you are depressed, happy, starving, or with a full belly. It is knowledge that can be boxed in and “installed” in any person.

Much of European artistic and poetic expression follows suit. Paintings and sculptures are meant to induce a shared understanding among all participants. Even an ambiguous case, like the Mona Lisa’s smile, still induces questions in regards to a shared, objective, unambiguous question: “Is she smiling?”

Buddhism and the East

In the East, stemming from Buddhism, analytical thought took a different direction. The subject itself wasn’t eliminated as in the West, but analysis was primarily based on the interaction of the subject and the object. As a result, analysis of the subject itself is more advanced in the East. The central question revolves around internal understanding of psychology, with the aim of overcoming the self and reaching enlightenment. However, with the predictable result that Western style of science, arguably, could never have been developed in the East.

To explain this shift, it is best to consider the difference between the teachings of each. Remind yourself of our argument on how addition is taught in the West. The concept is boxed, packaged, and made reproducible for each person. The Eastern equivalent is quite different. Knowledge is meant to be personal and developed over lived experience. That is why meditation is important to insight for them. Guidance to enlightenment is through an experienced guru, personalizing teaching and guiding the student to revelation. The student’s emotional state and viewpoint (the subject) are as important as the outcome of the mediation (the subject).

No words can describe the situation better than a few pictures. Let us now see some differences between Western and Eastern art:

Observe the differences between the Western and Eastern art. The Western version is about the depiction of the painting. This is about the fall of Rome. You can see each individual piece independently, without it losing its meaning. In contrast, the Japanese art is meant to be digested as a holistic piece. Taking the boat and the sailors and isolating them from the picture would, as a result, lose its purpose and meaning. The Japanese artwork is about what feeling it induces in you, rather than what feeling it depicts (in the Western version).

Back to Women

I hope you liked the philosophical digression, because here is where we connect the topics discussed back to seduction. The revolution in thought, for both Greeks and Buddhists, was an outcome of the Male spirit establishing itself into the world. The entire concept of Object is meant to amplify the Male need to understand and conquer the world. The point of my following argument is that this is not the default software of women. Girls, unless there is a need, do not prioritize Object and Subject the way men natively do in the modern world (either through something resembling the Greeks or the Buddhist thought).

The Native Mentality of Women

My position and empirical experience is that in contrast to men, which the direction of understanding moves towards the Object, either via the Subject or directly into it, then women’s understanding predominantly revolves around the Subject. The Object itself, is only a tool for self-understanding, i.e., an interpreter of the subject. Women selectively use the object as a tool to shape their subject.

When the Buddhists used their subject to better understand the world (the object), women will use the material and external world (object) to understand themselves (subject). The direction is:

Object → Subject

In particular, their self-image is not sovereign as it can become in men, but entrapped in the material/perceptual world. When talking about sovereignty, it is the ability to shape the Subject to adapt to your needs, the ability to consciously become. Canonically, that is its definition. Men can do this because the direction flows from Subject to Object, the former is mutable. But for women, the arrow has to go from Object to Subject to define it. Thus Subject cannot be shaped as it is an endgoal, and an end is fundamentally subservient to the process leading to it. The woman cannot be independently sovereign precisely because of this. This is the root cause of female materialism that remains immutable despite culture. Her materialism is her attempt at self-realization: shape the Subject by acquisition of the Object.

Remind yourself, a man must “become”; this is his path to self-actualization. A woman just “is”, the woman is preoccupied with “being”. But being is not a stand-alone concept; being is relative to the concept. She cannot be a princess if the rest of the world doesn’t consider her a princess. She cannot be pretty if others don’t treat her as pretty. Her Subject needs the Object to conform to it.

The fluidity of Object and Solipsism

The first battle, establishing a Subject was explained, and so was explained the woman’s innate materialism. We now showcase the shadow case of this relationship by the backwards relationship between Subject and Object.

Remind yourself the goal of Buddhism: to understand the Object via the Subject. The Subject itself is meant to be changed (i.e., the path to enlightenment) to aid understanding of the Object (which is usually considered immutable). This is a big contrast to what happens when, in the case of women, we put the Subject as the directional endgoal. Consider the following 2-step logical progression.

Remember our earlier insight: for her to be a princess, she needs others (the Object) to treat her as such. That is the first step and proves materialism. The next step is that when the Subject itself is fixed, i.e., she IS a princess now, then the Object itself also changes. When she wasn’t a princess, her fellow countrymen were just that – countrymen. When she becomes a princess, her fellow countrymen, are not her countrymen anymore, they are her subjects. The Object itself has changed, and so has its relationship to the Subject. Reality changed via perceptional shift. This is the core and the essence of women’s solipsism.

Clarification: When I say the Object changes here, it is in regard to the relationship with the girl itself. Not a physical change, a relational change. Let’s call it her mental understanding of the Object if you will. In the example used, the equal is not relationally same with the subordinate.

Solipsism is the outcome of the evolving relationship between Subject and Object. The former takes priority over the latter, and hence, she will prioritize the view of the Object that serves her idealized image of Subject. Contrary to popular belief, women will engage with other viewpoints, but only when their relationship to the world has changed first. First, her Subject will need to change, then will the way she perceives the Object change. That is Solipsism.

The experience of seduction

We are now ready to also explain the main talking patterns used in Game. A few things should be painfully obvious already:

• Keep the conversation personal
• Change her feelings, not her mind
• No reason for logical or idealogical speech

This and similar advice already addresses the directional firmware of the women’s mind, i.e., speech is directed to the subject, not the object. Let us now explain two more concepts, the one of attraction and the one of mythology building.

Attraction: rapport breaking

It is long known that attraction is created in the push, but in our current terminology, what does this mean? Push itself is a reframe, a reframe of expectations, or better put: a reframe in the causal link between object -> subject.

Do you see it now? When you say, “I like your big white puffy jacket. It looks warm and cute, but… are you an Eskimo?” It precisely addresses that directional firmware between what is and what does that mean about her.

Rapport: mythology building

One of the strongest ways to establish rapport in dates is via myth-building. At the end of the day, the goal is for the girl to give you significant control over her concept of subject (this is about leadership, don’t get crazy over the concept description). The concept works as follows:

• Reframe of herself (or you, or both)
• Then reframe of the world to match your reframe
• Keep amplifying

As long as your direction is towards happy and positive reframes, they usually play along.

However, this is precisely what we described on the axis that involves solipsism earlier! As the subject changes, so does the object.

Bottom line

Many of seduction techniques aim to amplify nature’s biases. In this case, they aim to amplify the women’s mental software. But at the end of the day, the original relationship is the one that stays true and immutable across time and space, culture and situation. Adapt your game to the golden principle:

Object → Subject

Then, more often than not, you will be acting correctly.

Prelude

People coming into Manosphere often ask: How is it possible that such advanced knowledge was collected in such a short period of time? Well, it wasn’t.

Manosphere and PUAs did significant infield work to collect data and test hypotheses, but many of the fundamental concepts are ancient knowledge passed down since forever. Take any view in Manosphere and you can trace it back to one philosopher or another.

Many of the behavioral traits that we came to validate infield originate from the observations of Schopenhauer. His essay “On Women is the” source of such wisdom. The essay is provided in full, below.

In this essay, I would describe Schopenhauer as pragmatic, maybe even a little bit pessimist. He is analyzing the “woman problem” from a civilizational perspective. He has something to protect; much of his perceived misogyny stems from there. I don’t read him as misogynist, I am reading him as someone whose insights saw very far into the human condition, but failed at realizing the hopelessness of the individual alone trying to maintain Civilization.

Go on then, have a read. This is the philosophical backbone behind the entire Manosphere.

On Women

These few words of Jouy, Sans les femmes le commencement de notre vie seroit privé de secours, le milieu de plaisirs et la fin de consolation, more exactly express, in my opinion, the true praise of woman than Schiller’s poem, Würde der Frauen, which is the fruit of much careful thought and impressive because of its antithesis and use of contrast. The same thing is more pathetically expressed by Byron in Sardanapalus, Act i, Sc. 2:—

“The very first
Of human life must spring from woman’s breast,
Your first small words are taught you from her lips,
Your first tears quench’d by her, and your last sighs
Too often breathed out in a woman’s hearing,
When men have shrunk from the ignoble care
Of watching the last hour of him who led them.”

Both passages show the right point of view for the appreciation of women.

One need only look at a woman’s shape to discover that she is not intended for either too much mental or too much physical work. She pays the debt of life not by what she does but by what she suffers—by the pains of child-bearing, care for the child, and by subjection to man, to whom she should be a patient and cheerful companion. The greatest sorrows and joys or great exhibition of strength are not assigned to her; her life should flow more quietly, more gently, and less obtrusively than man’s, without her being essentially happier or unhappier.

Women are directly adapted to act as the nurses and educators of our early childhood, for the simple reason that they themselves are childish, foolish, and short-sighted—in a word, are big children all their lives, something intermediate between the child and the man, who is a man in the strict sense of the word. Consider how a young girl will toy day after day with a child, dance with it and sing to it; and then consider what a man, with the very best intentions in the world, could do in her place.

With girls, Nature has had in view what is called in a dramatic sense a “striking effect,” for she endows them for a few years with a richness of beauty and a, fulness of charm at the expense of the rest of their lives; so that they may during these years ensnare the fantasy of a man to such a degree as to make him rush into taking the honourable care of them, in some kind of form, for a lifetime—a step which would not seem sufficiently justified if he only considered the matter. Accordingly, Nature has furnished woman, as she has the rest of her creatures, with the weapons and implements necessary for the protection of her existence and for just the length of time that they will be of service to her; so that Nature has proceeded here with her usual economy. Just as the female ant after coition loses her wings, which then become superfluous, nay, dangerous for breeding purposes, so for the most part does a woman lose her beauty after giving birth to one or two children; and probably for the same reasons.

Then again we find that young girls in their hearts regard their domestic or other affairs as secondary things, if not as a mere jest. Love, conquests, and all that these include, such as dressing, dancing, and so on, they give their serious attention.

The nobler and more perfect a thing is, the later and slower is it in reaching maturity. Man reaches the maturity of his reasoning and mental faculties scarcely before he is eight-and-twenty; woman when she is eighteen; but hers is reason of very narrow limitations. This is why women remain children all their lives, for they always see only what is near at hand, cling to the present, take the appearance of a thing for reality, and prefer trifling matters to the most important. It is by virtue of man’s reasoning powers that he does not live in the present only, like the brute, but observes and ponders over the past and future; and from this spring discretion, care, and that anxiety which we so frequently notice in people. The advantages, as well as the disadvantages, that this entails, make woman, in consequence of her weaker reasoning powers, less of a partaker in them. Moreover, she is intellectually short-sighted, for although her intuitive understanding quickly perceives what is near to her, on the other hand her circle of vision is limited and does not embrace anything that is remote; hence everything that is absent or past, or in the future, affects women in a less degree than men. This is why they have greater inclination for extravagance, which sometimes borders on madness. Women in their hearts think that men are intended to earn money so that they may spend it, if possible during their husband’s lifetime, but at any rate after his death.

As soon as he has given them his earnings on which to keep house they are strengthened in this belief. Although all this entails many disadvantages, yet it has this advantage—that a woman lives more in the present than a man, and that she enjoys it more keenly if it is at all bearable. This is the origin of that cheerfulness which is peculiar to woman and makes her fit to divert man, and in case of need, to console him when he is weighed down by cares. To consult women in matters of difficulty, as the Germans used to do in old times, is by no means a matter to be overlooked; for their way of grasping a thing is quite different from ours, chiefly because they like the shortest way to the point, and usually keep their attention fixed upon what lies nearest; while we, as a rule, see beyond it, for the simple reason that it lies under our nose; it then becomes necessary for us to be brought back to the thing in order to obtain a near and simple view. This is why women are more sober in their judgment than we, and why they see nothing more in things than is really there; while we, if our passions are roused, slightly exaggerate or add to our imagination.

It is because women’s reasoning powers are weaker that they show more sympathy for the unfortunate than men, and consequently take a kindlier interest in them. On the other hand, women are inferior to men in matters of justice, honesty, and conscientiousness. Again, because their reasoning faculty is weak, things clearly visible and real, and belonging to the present, exercise a power over them which is rarely counteracted by abstract thoughts, fixed maxims, or firm resolutions, in general, by regard for the past and future or by consideration for what is absent and remote. Accordingly they have the first and principal qualities of virtue, but they lack the secondary qualities which are often a necessary instrument in developing it. Women may be compared in this respect to an organism that has a liver but no gall-bladder. So that it will be found that the fundamental fault in the character of women is that they have no “sense of justice.” This arises from their deficiency in the power of reasoning already referred to, and reflection, but is also partly due to the fact that Nature has not destined them, as the weaker sex, to be dependent on strength but on cunning; this is why they are instinctively crafty, and have an ineradicable tendency to lie. For as lions are furnished with claws and teeth, elephants with tusks, boars with fangs, bulls with horns, and the cuttlefish with its dark, inky fluid, so Nature has provided woman for her protection and defence with the faculty of dissimulation, and all the power which Nature has given to man in the form of bodily strength and reason has been conferred on woman in this form. Hence, dissimulation is innate in woman and almost as characteristic of the very stupid as of the clever. Accordingly, it is as natural for women to dissemble at every opportunity as it is for those animals to turn to their weapons when they are attacked; and they feel in doing so that in a certain measure they are only making use of their rights. Therefore a woman who is perfectly truthful and does not dissemble is perhaps an impossibility. This is why they see through dissimulation in others so easily; therefore it is not advisable to attempt it with them. From the fundamental defect that has been stated, and all that it involves, spring falseness, faithlessness, treachery, ungratefulness, and so on. In a court of justice women are more often found guilty of perjury than men. It is indeed to be generally questioned whether they should be allowed to take an oath at all. From time to time there are repeated cases everywhere of ladies, who want for nothing, secretly pocketing and taking away things from shop counters.

Nature has made it the calling of the young, strong, and handsome men to look after the propagation of the human race; so that the species may not degenerate. This is the firm will of Nature, and it finds its expression in the passions of women. This law surpasses all others in both age and power. Woe then to the man who sets up rights and interests in such a way as to make them stand in the way of it; for whatever he may do or say, they will, at the first significant onset, be unmercifully annihilated. For the secret, unformulated, nay, unconscious but innate moral of woman is: We are justified in deceiving those who, because they care a little for us,—that is to say for the individual,—imagine they have obtained rights over the species. The constitution, and consequently the welfare of the species, have been put into our hands and entrusted to our care through the medium of the next generation which proceeds from us; let us fulfil our duties conscientiously.

But women are by no means conscious of this leading principle in abstracto, they are only conscious of it in concreto, and have no other way of expressing it than in the manner in which they act when the opportunity arrives. So that their conscience does not trouble them so much as we imagine, for in the darkest depths of their hearts they are conscious that in violating their duty towards the individual they have all the better fulfilled it towards the species, whose claim upon them is infinitely greater. (A fuller explanation of this matter may be found in vol. ii., ch. 44, in my chief work, Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung.)

Because women in truth exist entirely for the propagation of the race, and their destiny ends here, they live more for the species than for the individual, and in their hearts take the affairs of the species more seriously than those of the individual. This gives to their whole being and character a certain frivolousness, and altogether a certain tendency which is fundamentally different from that of man; and this it is which develops that discord in married life which is so prevalent and almost the normal state.

It is natural for a feeling of mere indifference to exist between men, but between women it is actual enmity. This is due perhaps to the fact that odium figulinum in the case of men, is limited to their everyday affairs, but with women embraces the whole sex; since they have only one kind of business. Even when they meet in the street, they look at each other like Guelphs and Ghibellines. And it is quite evident when two women first make each other’s acquaintance that they exhibit more constraint and dissimulation than two men placed in similar circumstances. This is why an exchange of compliments between two women is much more ridiculous than between two men. Further, while a man will, as a rule, address others, even those inferior to himself, with a certain feeling of consideration and humanity, it is unbearable to see how proudly and disdainfully a lady of rank will, for the most part, behave towards one who is in a lower rank (not employed in her service) when she speaks to her. This may be because differences of rank are much more precarious with women than with us, and consequently more quickly change their line of conduct and elevate them, or because while a hundred things must be weighed in our case, there is only one to be weighed in theirs, namely, with which man they have found favour; and again, because of the one-sided nature of their vocation they stand in closer relationship to each other than men do; and so it is they try to render prominent the differences of rank.

It is only the man whose intellect is clouded by his sexual instinct that could give that stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped, and short-legged race the name of the fair sex; for the entire beauty of the sex is based on this instinct. One would be more justified in calling them the unaesthetic sex than the beautiful. Neither for music, nor for poetry, nor for fine art have they any real or true sense and susceptibility, and it is mere mockery on their part, in their desire to please, if they affect any such thing.

This makes them incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything, and the reason for it is, I fancy, as follows. A man strives to get direct mastery over things either by understanding them or by compulsion. But a woman is always and everywhere driven to indirect mastery, namely through a man; all her direct mastery being limited to him alone. Therefore it lies in woman’s nature to look upon everything only as a means for winning man, and her interest in anything else is always a simulated one, a mere roundabout way to gain her ends, consisting of coquetry and pretence. Hence Rousseau said, Les femmes, en général, n’aiment aucun art, ne se connoissent à aucun et n’ont aucun génie (Lettre à d’Alembert, note xx.). Every one who can see through a sham must have found this to be the case. One need only watch the way they behave at a concert, the opera, or the play; the childish simplicity, for instance, with which they keep on chattering during the finest passages in the greatest masterpieces. If it is true that the Greeks forbade women to go to the play, they acted in a right way; for they would at any rate be able to hear something. In our day it would be more appropriate to substitute taceat mulier in theatro for taceat mulier in ecclesia; and this might perhaps be put up in big letters on the curtain.

Nothing different can be expected of women if it is borne in mind that the most eminent of the whole sex have never accomplished anything in the fine arts that is really great, genuine, and original, or given to the world any kind of work of permanent value. This is most striking in regard to painting, the technique of which is as much within their reach as within ours; this is why they pursue it so industriously. Still, they have not a single great painting to show, for the simple reason that they lack that objectivity of mind which is precisely what is so directly necessary in painting. They always stick to what is subjective. For this reason, ordinary women have no susceptibility for painting at all: for natura non facet saltum. And Huarte, in his book which has been famous for three hundred years, Examen de ingenios para las scienzias, contends that women do not possess the higher capacities. Individual and partial exceptions do not alter the matter; women are and remain, taken altogether, the most thorough and incurable philistines; and because of the extremely absurd arrangement which allows them to share the position and title of their husbands they are a constant stimulus to his ignoble ambitions. And further, it is because they are philistines that modern society, to which they give the tone and where they have sway, has become corrupted. As regards their position, one should be guided by Napoleon’s maxim, Les femmes n’ont pas de rang; and regarding them in other things, Chamfort says very truly: Elles sont faites pour commercer avec nos faiblesses avec notre folie, mais non avec notre raison. Il existe entre elles et les hommes des sympathies d’épiderme et très-peu de sympathies d’esprit d’âme et de caractère. They are the sexus sequior, the second sex in every respect, therefore their weaknesses should be spared, but to treat women with extreme reverence is ridiculous, and lowers us in their own eyes. When nature divided the human race into two parts, she did not cut it exactly through the middle! The difference between the positive and negative poles, according to polarity, is not merely qualitative but also quantitative. And it was in this light that the ancients and people of the East regarded woman; they recognised her true position better than we, with our old French ideas of gallantry and absurd veneration, that highest product of Christian–Teutonic stupidity. These ideas have only served to make them arrogant and imperious, to such an extent as to remind one at times of the holy apes in Benares, who, in the consciousness of their holiness and inviolability, think they can do anything and everything they please.

In the West, the woman, that is to say the “lady,” finds herself in a fausse position; for woman, rightly named by the ancients sexus sequior, is by no means fit to be the object of our honour and veneration, or to hold her head higher than man and to have the same rights as he. The consequences of this fausse position are sufficiently clear. Accordingly, it would be a very desirable thing if this Number Two of the human race in Europe were assigned her natural position, and the lady-grievance got rid of, which is not only ridiculed by the whole of Asia, but would have been equally ridiculed by Greece and Rome. The result of this would be that the condition of our social, civil, and political affairs would be incalculably improved. The Salic law would be unnecessary; it would be a superfluous truism. The European lady, strictly speaking, is a creature who should not exist at all; but there ought to be housekeepers, and young girls who hope to become such; and they should be brought up not to be arrogant, but to be domesticated and submissive. It is exactly because there are ladies in Europe that women of a lower standing, that is to say, the greater majority of the sex, are much more unhappy than they are in the East. Even Lord Byron says (Letters and Papers, by Thomas Moore, vol. ii. p. 399), Thought of the state of women under the ancient Greeks—convenient enough. Present state, a remnant of the barbarism of the chivalric and feudal ages—artificial and unnatural. They ought to mind home—and be well fed and clothed—but not mixed in society. Well educated, too, in religion—but to read neither poetry nor politics—nothing but books of piety and cookery. Music—drawing—dancing—also a little gardening and ploughing now and then. I have seen them mending the roads in Epirus with good success. Why not, as well as hay-making and milking?

In our part of the world, where monogamy is in force, to marry means to halve one’s rights and to double one’s duties. When the laws granted woman the same rights as man, they should also have given her a masculine power of reason. On the contrary, just as the privileges and honours which the laws decree to women surpass what Nature has meted out to them, so is there a proportional decrease in the number of women who really share these privileges; therefore the remainder are deprived of their natural rights in so far as the others have been given more than Nature accords.

For the unnatural position of privilege which the institution of monogamy, and the laws of marriage which accompany it, assign to the woman, whereby she is regarded throughout as a full equivalent of the man, which she is not by any means, cause intelligent and prudent men to reflect a great deal before they make so great a sacrifice and consent to so unfair an arrangement. Therefore, whilst among polygamous nations every woman finds maintenance, where monogamy exists the number of married women is limited, and a countless number of women who are without support remain over; those in the upper classes vegetate as useless old maids, those in the lower are reduced to very hard work of a distasteful nature, or become prostitutes, and lead a life which is as joyless as it is void of honour. But under such circumstances they become a necessity to the masculine sex; so that their position is openly recognised as a special means for protecting from seduction those other women favoured by fate either to have found husbands, or who hope to find them. In London alone there are 80,000 prostitutes. Then what are these women who have come too quickly to this most terrible end but human sacrifices on the altar of monogamy? The women here referred to and who are placed in this wretched position are the inevitable counterbalance to the European lady, with her pretensions and arrogance. Hence polygamy is a real benefit to the female sex, taking it as a whole. And, on the other hand, there is no reason why a man whose wife suffers from chronic illness, or remains barren, or has gradually become too old for him, should not take a second. Many people become converts to Mormonism for the precise reasons that they condemn the unnatural institution of monogamy. The conferring of unnatural rights upon women has imposed unnatural duties upon them, the violation of which, however, makes them unhappy. For example, many a man thinks marriage unadvisable as far as his social standing and monetary position are concerned, unless he contracts a brilliant match. He will then wish to win a woman of his own choice under different conditions, namely, under those which will render safe her future and that of her children. Be the conditions ever so just, reasonable, and adequate, and she consents by giving up those undue privileges which marriage, as the basis of civil society, alone can bestow, she must to a certain extent lose her honour and lead a life of loneliness; since human nature makes us dependent on the opinion of others in a way that is completely out of proportion to its value. While, if the woman does not consent, she runs the risk of being compelled to marry a man she dislikes, or of shrivelling up into an old maid; for the time allotted to her to find a home is very short. In view of this side of the institution of monogamy, Thomasius’s profoundly learned treatise, de Concubinatu, is well worth reading, for it shows that, among all nations, and in all ages, down to the Lutheran Reformation, concubinage was allowed, nay, that it was an institution, in a certain measure even recognised by law and associated with no dishonour. And it held this position until the Lutheran Reformation, when it was recognised as another means for justifying the marriage of the clergy; whereupon the Catholic party did not dare to remain behindhand in the matter.

It is useless to argue about polygamy, it must be taken as a fact existing everywhere, the mere regulation of which is the problem to be solved. Where are there, then, any real monogamists? We all live, at any rate for a time, and the majority of us always, in polygamy. Consequently, as each man needs many women, nothing is more just than to let him, nay, make it incumbent upon him to provide for many women. By this means woman will be brought back to her proper and natural place as a subordinate being, and the lady, that monster of European civilisation and Christian–Teutonic stupidity, with her ridiculous claim to respect and veneration, will no longer exist; there will still be women, but no unhappy women, of whom Europe is at present full. The Mormons’ standpoint is right.

In India no woman is ever independent, but each one stands under the control of her father or her husband, or brother or son, in accordance with the law of Manu.

It is certainly a revolting idea that widows should sacrifice themselves on their husband’s dead body; but it is also revolting that the money which the husband has earned by working diligently for all his life, in the hope that he was working for his children, should be wasted on her paramours. Medium tenuere beati. The first love of a mother, as that of animals and men, is purely instinctive, and consequently ceases when the child is no longer physically helpless. After that, the first love should be reinstated by a love based on habit and reason; but this often does not appear, especially where the mother has not loved the father. The love of a father for his children is of a different nature and more sincere; it is founded on a recognition of his own inner self in the child, and is therefore metaphysical in its origin.

In almost every nation, both of the new and old world, and even among the Hottentots, property is inherited by the male descendants alone; it is only in Europe that one has departed from this. That the property which men have with difficulty acquired by long-continued struggling and hard work should afterwards come into the hands of women, who, in their want of reason, either squander it within a short time or otherwise waste it, is an injustice as great as it is common, and it should be prevented by limiting the right of women to inherit. It seems to me that it would be a better arrangement if women, be they widows or daughters, only inherited the money for life secured by mortgage, but not the property itself or the capital, unless there lacked male descendants. It is men who make the money, and not women; therefore women are neither justified in having unconditional possession of it nor capable of administrating it. Women should never have the free disposition of wealth, strictly so-called, which they may inherit, such as capital, houses, and estates. They need a guardian always; therefore they should not have the guardianship of their children under any circumstances whatever. The vanity of women, even if it should not be greater than that of men, has this evil in it, that it is directed on material things—that is to say, on their personal beauty and then on tinsel, pomp, and show. This is why they are in their right element in society. This it is which makes them inclined to be extravagant, especially since they possess little reasoning power. Accordingly, an ancient writer says, [Greek: Gunae to synolon esti dapanaeron physei]. Men’s vanity, on the other hand, is often directed on non-material advantages, such as intellect, learning, courage, and the like. Aristotle explains in the Politics the great disadvantages which the Spartans brought upon themselves by granting too much to their women, by allowing them the right of inheritance and dowry, and a great amount of freedom; and how this contributed greatly to the fall of Sparta. May it not be that the influence of women in France, which has been increasing since Louis XIII.‘s time, was to blame for that gradual corruption of the court and government which led to the first Revolution, of which all subsequent disturbances have been the result? In any case, the false position of the female sex, so conspicuously exposed by the existence of the “lady,” is a fundamental defect in our social condition, and this defect, proceeding from the very heart of it, must extend its harmful influence in every direction. That woman is by nature intended to obey is shown by the fact that every woman who is placed in the unnatural position of absolute independence at once attaches herself to some kind of man, by whom she is controlled and governed; this is because she requires a master. If she, is young, the man is a lover; if she is old, a priest.

This is the full essay by Schopenhauer.