For the longest part, human sexuality was quite simple: women tried to be as good-looking as possible whereas men focussed on acquiring resources. Even getting laid based on good looks is a rather recent phenomenon because as little as a few decades ago, society went to great length to ensure that women would keep their virginity until marriage, and their husbands were chosen by her father, which was much more interested in a prospective son-in-law’s societal status and earning capacity than thug-maxxed appearance. Of course, it also helped that we married off women young back in the day.
The times have changed, however. Whereas sleeping with a lot of women meant that you had to pay for prostitutes, the sexual revolution made it so that women became sexually available for entertainment to a relatively small fraction of men. Instead of paying for prostitutes directly, you had to woo them, entertain them, wine and dine them. Women thought they were winning because they were getting cream-pied by all those Chads. In the end, this was simply a large-scale campaign to destroy female pair-bonding ability, and Chads played the role of useful idiots here, destroying the pool from which to recruit their future wife from. Just like with today’s libtard who promotes mass-immigration right up the point where the government surprises him with the construction of a refugee shelter down the road, so will Chads realize that they were not doing themselves any favors by banging all those women. In the end, there were not enough women left, even for the most desirable men, who would make good marriage prospects.
The absurdity did not end there. Now that men are withdrawing from the dating market and women are not getting married at the rate they would like, female behavior has been changing as well. When Facebook was still popular, many a guy in his late 20s or early 30s woke up to rather enthusiastic messages from women he crossed path with years ago. Suddenly, the girl in high school you had a crush on but who would rather bang the football team tells you that she’s “so happy to have found you on here” and that there is “so much we have to talk about”, partly because she now regrets that she “never gave you a chance”. Guys are no longer biting, though.
You may also have noticed that women past their peak in sexual attractiveness are preying on men. At the work place, in clubs and bars, online, and in public, they may attempt to awkwardly flirt with you. It is quite comical when such women act all coy, pretending to still be 15 years old. Bizarrely enough, this is also pushed in movies. I am not at all surprised by it, but it makes me cringe nonetheless. (Article continues below.)
Break: To show your appreciation for this article and ensure the survival of this blog, please consider making a donation.
One of the better movies I watched in recent years was Guy Ritchie’s Wrath of Man, starring Jason Statham. Statham plays the same role he always plays, i.e. the tough guy of few words. This movie also features forced diversity. We have a competent, quick-witted black as well as a woman who is every bit as rough as the guys and able to fend for herself. Later in the movie (SPOILER!) a bunch of her colleagues get killed and she also ends up with a bullet in her head. Yet, this is not shown, only implied by sound effects as the camera pans away because we can’t show any violence against women on screen.
This female character in the movie is essentially a man. In other words, the screen play writer developed a male character in terms of personality and behavior, and simply swapped the sex. This is every bit as bizarre as it sounds. Yet, this is standard fare in today’s woke movies, which need to have a diverse cast to even get nominated for an Oscar. On a side note, this may explain why people are tuning out from that clown show en masse. Anyway, back to the male character in the movie that is played by a female. Here is how she seduces Statham’s character:
I laughed out loud at this as this scene does not make any sense. The respective position of those two should be swapped. Note that the woman is not taller than the man here. Instead, she first takes a few steps up a small staircase and then turns around. She is then looking down on the male character just like you look at a woman during seduction. This is a complete role reversal. The man is the submissive part that is following the woman’s lead. In contrast, this is how movies depicted this part of the seduction process:
The further unfolding of the seduction side story in Wrath of Man was probably too absurd even for the screenwriters. The movie only implies that they had sex together but does not give you any hint regarding how it happened. Yet, when the male character needs some information from her, and uses a gun to get it, he is, once again, playing the dominant role.
The subplot above is one of the worst I have ever seen on screen. It is nothing but shoehorned-in diversity, which is jarring. It would have been much more plausible for the male in this subplot to take the lead all the way. Then again, it would not be plausible for an alpha Chad to want to seduce a roastie as it stretches your suspension of disbelief about as much as this reversal of the role of the sexes. Despite all that, Wrath of Man is still a pretty good movie. It would be better if the first part of the seduction plot was cut, though, as it is incongruous both with regards to sexual roles as well as with the depicted reversal of power dynamics later.
This blog depends on your contributions. So, share your view and comment on this article (comment policy). Then, to ensure the survival of this blog, donate. If you haven’t bought Aaron’s books yet, buy them, all of them. Lastly, if you want tailored and honest advice, book some one-on-one consultation sessions.