PA earns another COTW with a Theory of Eurasian Oneitis,
Oneitis is a symptom of frustrated pair bonding instincts in the higher humans, who are wired to marry their first girl at 14 – 17 and bond for life.
Game is a way for men to get over oneitis, but at a cost of a piece of their romantic souls. Once you lose your oneitis, you have lost a dizzyingly euphoric innocence that you’ll never regain. But most men are willing to sacrifice that for an end to their involuntary celibacy.
Alternately, young men could avoid oneitis by, as PA said, locking down their first true love. (Alternately, these alternatives only exist in an alternate universe that isn’t lashed by intergalactic clouds of poz matter.)
Interestingly, another commenter noted that women respond to their thwarted pair bonding instinct by becoming LESS able to bond, (beta men go the opposite direction and become supplicating and desperate for an authentic monogamous bond).
The thwarted pair bond coarsens both sexes. In men who overcome oneitis, a clear mind and heart exposes them to the interchangeability of women and erodes their protector and provider instinct, coaxing them to repudiate their natural male role as a “bridge over troubled water”. These men accumulate a lot of notches, and may even fall in love with a few of them, but they will rarely if ever be captivated by their own yearnings. Their passions are compartmentalized and controllable and thus, earthly.
In men who are overcome by oneitis, their scrote-shaped anima is venesected and their urge to stand firm in the face of female drama is weakened. They are worse off than men who have defeated oneitis, because the former have no command of their love lives. They are buffeted by female whims, and this creates a negative inward spiral of anhedonic navel-gazing betatude. They only experience one-way love, and that’s akin to being tortured by one’s desire.
There is no such thing as a woman overcome by oneitis. We call a woman like that, a “woman in love“. Men will treasure her.
The woman who has overcome her oneitis is a force of darkness. She spreads filth, disease, malice, dysfunction, hysteria, and vice wherever her pain finds a victim to possess. The woman who is denied her deepest desire for a lovestruck pair bond is a future catlady, pussyhatter, careerist shrike, feticidaire, STD factory, recyclable mistress, and barren womb. She is She-vaj, Destroyer of Nations.
Why do women and men diverge in how they respond to thwarted pair bonding? Part of the reason is simple biomechanics. Women can more easily access empty sex to distract from their distress, to give their egos a shallow and fleeting boost, and so that’s what they do. And women who fuck around a lot are ruined for love.
Men don’t have that avenue of easy sexual access, so their denied pair bonding urge manifests as cloying neediness (picture a drug addict seated and strapped in, just out of reach of a gram of happiness). These men aren’t ruined for love if they can’t get any love to ruin. If these men could get a woman, they would bond instantly, strongly. Too strongly. Hold on tightly, until she lets you go.
Another reason is the inherently deeper well of romanticism that both blesses and curses men. When a man’s romantic yearning is continually denied, he either gives in to cynical solitude or recommits himself to his frisson quest, in which his frantic paddling for the slore pushes him farther out to sea.
Oppositely, when a man who has overcome his blue-balling oneitis is dispirited by flings with broken unloveable women, he gives in to ennui and inconsideration. These men haven’t lost the ability to pair bond so much as they can’t find a reason to do so. Their romanticism is only partly fulfilled by sex and the aping of frenetic love with chronically un-bonded women. The magic is gone; every sleight of hand and hidden trap door is beheld by increasingly jaded eyes. He goes to the show to amuse himself, but the wonder is left behind to stalk his dreamy nostalgia. Still, if a rare woman were to present herself, he would remember that old feeling, and it would come storming back.
Women have a stunted version of male romanticism. As the more practical sex (see: women spreading their legs for invaders to save their hides and genetic legacy), women whose pair bond window has closed or shattered don’t react as do men stricken by oneitis; the romantically underdeveloped woman is an all-business bitch-in-waiting. When her brief moment of romantic abandon is denied (her teenage to early 20s years), she will swap her bonding instinct for a predatory sexuality and rationalized self-centeredness. When the Wall hits, there will be no safe passage to the other side for her.
Finally, women react to a deprived pair bond the same way they react to any desire of theirs that is deprived: Sour Grapes. They spite that which they cannot immediately possess, consume, and control. Their spite provokes self-defeating behavior, for example pushing away good men, staying with bad men, and denigrating the True and Beautiful for the solipsistic gruel of gogrrlism. It’s the “if I can’t have it, I’ll curse it” egoistic howl.
This is why women denied an early-in-life pair bond are, unlike men, less able to bond later in life: what is cynicism in men is destructiveness in women. The cynic can be uplifted; the vandal only restrained.
Multiple flings genuinely reward men with higher self-esteem despite germinating cynicism. In contrast, multiple cockas scar female self-esteem, and the longer the cocka line, the lower her self-esteem — which is attuned to different rewards that include love and commitment and family — until her self-hate is propelled outwards at men and society. This is why the woman denied a pair bond is driven to remake society in her misery, and why it is in the interest of a nation to prevent the growth of a large, enfranchised group of bitter single childless women.
***
COTW runner-up is R.G. Camara, with his HAGiography of Jessica Valenti,
One favorite story about Valenti, when she wrote her “autobiography”, she revealed she was a massive, drug-addicted slut back in her NYC high school. At one point, she got sick of the skinny-armed NYC guys and hooked up with a bodybuilder whose body she loved to get banged by because his body “felt like a real man should”—who was apparently in his mid-20s while she was in high school. Then he dumped her.
Then she partied her way out of college, and only got her groove back when she became a professional man-hater.
Why human failures like this are listened to and given a platform is a combination of human stupidity and deliberate propaganda by those in power.
Again, fuck this gay world.
Women denied their fleeting moment of youthful pair bonding with an alpha male become forces of feminist destruction for the rest of their lives. Beta hubbies hardest hit.
[crypto-donation-box]
Comment Of The Week: Oneitis As A Consequence Of Thwarted Early Pair Bonding
Nov 13th, 2018 by CH
PA earns another COTW with a Theory of Eurasian Oneitis,
Game is a way for men to get over oneitis, but at a cost of a piece of their romantic souls. Once you lose your oneitis, you have lost a dizzyingly euphoric innocence that you’ll never regain. But most men are willing to sacrifice that for an end to their involuntary celibacy.
Alternately, young men could avoid oneitis by, as PA said, locking down their first true love. (Alternately, these alternatives only exist in an alternate universe that isn’t lashed by intergalactic clouds of poz matter.)
Interestingly, another commenter noted that women respond to their thwarted pair bonding instinct by becoming LESS able to bond, (beta men go the opposite direction and become supplicating and desperate for an authentic monogamous bond).
The thwarted pair bond coarsens both sexes. In men who overcome oneitis, a clear mind and heart exposes them to the interchangeability of women and erodes their protector and provider instinct, coaxing them to repudiate their natural male role as a “bridge over troubled water”. These men accumulate a lot of notches, and may even fall in love with a few of them, but they will rarely if ever be captivated by their own yearnings. Their passions are compartmentalized and controllable and thus, earthly.
In men who are overcome by oneitis, their scrote-shaped anima is venesected and their urge to stand firm in the face of female drama is weakened. They are worse off than men who have defeated oneitis, because the former have no command of their love lives. They are buffeted by female whims, and this creates a negative inward spiral of anhedonic navel-gazing betatude. They only experience one-way love, and that’s akin to being tortured by one’s desire.
There is no such thing as a woman overcome by oneitis. We call a woman like that, a “woman in love“. Men will treasure her.
The woman who has overcome her oneitis is a force of darkness. She spreads filth, disease, malice, dysfunction, hysteria, and vice wherever her pain finds a victim to possess. The woman who is denied her deepest desire for a lovestruck pair bond is a future catlady, pussyhatter, careerist shrike, feticidaire, STD factory, recyclable mistress, and barren womb. She is She-vaj, Destroyer of Nations.
Why do women and men diverge in how they respond to thwarted pair bonding? Part of the reason is simple biomechanics. Women can more easily access empty sex to distract from their distress, to give their egos a shallow and fleeting boost, and so that’s what they do. And women who fuck around a lot are ruined for love.
Men don’t have that avenue of easy sexual access, so their denied pair bonding urge manifests as cloying neediness (picture a drug addict seated and strapped in, just out of reach of a gram of happiness). These men aren’t ruined for love if they can’t get any love to ruin. If these men could get a woman, they would bond instantly, strongly. Too strongly. Hold on tightly, until she lets you go.
Another reason is the inherently deeper well of romanticism that both blesses and curses men. When a man’s romantic yearning is continually denied, he either gives in to cynical solitude or recommits himself to his frisson quest, in which his frantic paddling for the slore pushes him farther out to sea.
Oppositely, when a man who has overcome his blue-balling oneitis is dispirited by flings with broken unloveable women, he gives in to ennui and inconsideration. These men haven’t lost the ability to pair bond so much as they can’t find a reason to do so. Their romanticism is only partly fulfilled by sex and the aping of frenetic love with chronically un-bonded women. The magic is gone; every sleight of hand and hidden trap door is beheld by increasingly jaded eyes. He goes to the show to amuse himself, but the wonder is left behind to stalk his dreamy nostalgia. Still, if a rare woman were to present herself, he would remember that old feeling, and it would come storming back.
Women have a stunted version of male romanticism. As the more practical sex (see: women spreading their legs for invaders to save their hides and genetic legacy), women whose pair bond window has closed or shattered don’t react as do men stricken by oneitis; the romantically underdeveloped woman is an all-business bitch-in-waiting. When her brief moment of romantic abandon is denied (her teenage to early 20s years), she will swap her bonding instinct for a predatory sexuality and rationalized self-centeredness. When the Wall hits, there will be no safe passage to the other side for her.
Finally, women react to a deprived pair bond the same way they react to any desire of theirs that is deprived: Sour Grapes. They spite that which they cannot immediately possess, consume, and control. Their spite provokes self-defeating behavior, for example pushing away good men, staying with bad men, and denigrating the True and Beautiful for the solipsistic gruel of gogrrlism. It’s the “if I can’t have it, I’ll curse it” egoistic howl.
This is why women denied an early-in-life pair bond are, unlike men, less able to bond later in life: what is cynicism in men is destructiveness in women. The cynic can be uplifted; the vandal only restrained.
Multiple flings genuinely reward men with higher self-esteem despite germinating cynicism. In contrast, multiple cockas scar female self-esteem, and the longer the cocka line, the lower her self-esteem — which is attuned to different rewards that include love and commitment and family — until her self-hate is propelled outwards at men and society. This is why the woman denied a pair bond is driven to remake society in her misery, and why it is in the interest of a nation to prevent the growth of a large, enfranchised group of bitter single childless women.
***
COTW runner-up is R.G. Camara, with his HAGiography of Jessica Valenti,
Women denied their fleeting moment of youthful pair bonding with an alpha male become forces of feminist destruction for the rest of their lives. Beta hubbies hardest hit.
[crypto-donation-box]
Posted in Biomechanics is God, Comment Winners, Ugly Truths