Thursday, February 1, 2018


     There is an interesting discussion ongoing at one of our linked sites. A poster wrote the following, of which we cite the relevant excerpts:

       "I have come across a very interesting scientific finding at TRP" (to wit, the Red Pill Subreddit) "which seems to back up their belief that women do not love men...the study suggests that men release Oxytocin  (note: a hormone) when kissing women; but women do not release Oxytocin when kissing men. Oxytocin is released by women when they kiss babies, which is said to be what bonds them to children. Oxytocin is the 'love neuron' from what I have read. So basically that feeling of 'adoring' women is not reciprocated and they (i.e. women) only feel heart-tugging when being intimate with babies, not with men. They (the researchers) also mention that men have 30x more Testosterone---meaning 30x the interest in sex. I find this hard to argue with. Anybody care to debunk this?"

      This is fairly typical of the kinds of ideas that come from the 'Red Pill' section of the Manosphere. They don't really understand things like science but pick up phrases and studies that sound impressive to confound their credulous followers. As a side note, they do this with religious, theological, and philosophical subjects too. 

         First, this study has nothing to do with interpersonal relationships. Oxytocin is present in both genders, but it is primarily a hormone secreted by females at the reproductive stage. And it is a hormone, not a neuron, as the writer claims. It stands to reason then---given its function in women---that a man would secrete it more during intimacy because the male function in reproduction is to win a female sexually. It also stands to reason that females would secrete more Oxytocsin when kissing babies because it that action is linked to the hormonal function. 

           There is some junk-science floating around to the effect that Oxytocsin is the hormone responsible for feminine emotional bonding; but this based on no evidence whatsoever. The researchers who claim this reverse cause and effect: the reality is that emotional bonding causes release of Oxytocsin: not the other way around. 

            This is so obvious that it doesn't even require an in-depth study to prove it. Suppose a man is hanging around out in the street and a hot, young nubile walks by. The man's biological sensors go off and start producing hormones. But said nubile isn't interested; and she doesn't get the same reaction. Then, next comes along a fat, slovenly hag. The man's sensors shut down. 

             But what if said hag is turned on by the sight of the man? All her biological attraction triggers are going. By the logic of these researchers, the man would reciprocate her admiration---having no control over his hormones. And by the same reasoning, there could be no such crime as rape. Rape would simply be a hormonal expression instead of a felonious crime. After all, how could a man have sex with with a woman unless she was exuding hormones herself?

           It's just common sense. These hormones and other biological processes are driven by psychological processes; and these processes have little or no effect on behavior.

           "The researchers also mention that men have 30x more Testosterone than women; that means 30x more interest in sex."

            As if we needed a research study to tell us that men are more sexually-focused than women. Thousands of years of men chasing women have gone by; yet none of us knew this until yesterday. 

            That aside though, the author of this article has evidently fallen for one of the most pernicious sexual myths: the idea that sex=love. Usually women fall for this myth, but occasionally men do too. From a male standpoint, if sex=love was true; then sluts and prostitutes would be the best wives and girlfriends. 

            The true fact is that women by nature monogamous and will love and bond with a certain man with almost blind devotion. Needless to say, this can be a good or bad thing; and its one reason why women in the past had fathers, brothers, and female relatives vetting their objects of affection. Because a woman in love will die for a complete dirtbag just as readily as she would for a national hero. In reality, when it comes to relationships, women are a greater threat to each other than they are to men.

            Feminism has created a lot of dysfunctional women---as has family breakdowns. Dysfunctional women still love; but their love is defective, mostly for three reasons: they either have learned to hate men, fear men, or are ignorant about men and relationships in general. Women of these types should be avoided as relationship material anyway; or a man is inviting a lot of trouble for himself.

             Now as for these Red Pill kooks: it ought to be obvious too that anyone who doesn't believe that women have the capacity to love is a terrible source for relationship advice. Reading any of their blogs one can see that they have extremely narcissistic and often brutal tendencies. Don't fall for their nuttiness. They're as bad as the Radical Feminists---and oftentimes even worse. 



No comments:

Post a Comment