.

No 4. coming up in a while

4. Love: Male and Female
Love makes men lame and tame. - The Kiswahili of East Africa.
Love is not blind. It has four eyes; it has night vision; it sees well by day and night. - Nigerian woman
Male pundits usually talk as if love had the same effects on women as on men. They seem to overlook the small fact that men and women are not identical but complementary, and that the effect of a current on the opposite poles of a magnet may also be opposite. With a folly typical of those who imagine themselves as the norm, male pundits refuse to heed. Those few women who have told what love actually does to women; and they insist on projecting unto women what is true only of men. As a result, many famous sayings about love mislead by not indicating that they apply only to men. For example; according to Ambrose Bierce, love is "a temporary insanity curable by marriage”, for the sake of accuracy, he should have qualified that by the opening phrase "In men,". Similarly, when Francis Bacon remarked: "It is impossible to love and be wise”, he should have added the opening phrase "For a man,". Likewise, the saying "love is blind" should be taken as shorthand for "a man in love is blind to his best interests". None of these remarks applies to women. A woman in love is far from insane; she is anything but unwise or blind to her interests. On the contrary, her first sigh of love is like a whiff of smelling salts which clears her head, leaving her with four eyes and night vision; it instigates her to a ruthless pursuit of what she wants.
Love acts on men and women in opposite ways. To see that, let us compare examples of a man in love and a woman in love. When he was hit by some woman's love harpoon, Willie Carter Spann, nephew of the then US President, Jimmy Carter, put the following advert in a newspaper:
To Susan Lynn: I love you so much I would crawl thru 9 miles of broken glass and razor blades to sniff the truck tires that haul your drawers to the laundry. I would fist-fight a gut-shot polar bear with my hands tied behind my back for a few moments alone with you. I love you, marry me. Willie Carter Spann.
A fellow's mind has to be unhinged to become a geyser of such foolishness! Hopefully, the marriage he was asking for would cure him of his madness.
In contrast to the mush-headedness of the love-smitten man, here is Barbra Streisand's portrait of a woman in love. In her hit song, "Woman in Love", she declared:
“I am a woman in love and I'll do anything to get you into my world and hold you within”.
Is that not a portrait of a clear-headed huntress, resolute aI1d resourceful? Was there ever a clearer declaration of intent to hunt down and fetter and enslave? Is it any wonder that any man in his right mind would flee from a woman's love like freedom-loving Kunta Kinte from a slave catcher? To compare Willie Carter Spann with Barbra Streisand is to realize that love is a disease of the heart terrible for man's liberty, but an excellent pep pill for a woman hunting for a slave: when love smites a man, it turns him into a dazed prey; when it possesses a woman, she becomes a clear-eyed, calculating huntress coolly stalking her befuddled prey.
Not only does love act differently on man and woman; the word itself means quite different things to each. When a woman tells a man "I love you", she means "I want you to feed me, house me, clothe me, bleep me, get me great with child, and take me as your burden until I catch a better slave".
In contrast, when a man tells a woman "I love you", he means "I am eager to be your slave, and ready to do everything I can to make you satisfied and happy".

Which is why, when a woman hears a man say to her "I love you", her joy is great, for she understands him to mean that he has been knocked out by her chloroform of romance, and she can safely tie him up with social ropes, tether him to her nest with legal chains and, while he is still sprawled out in love's delirium, begin to make a toiling jackass out of him.
A visitor-from Mars may be struck by the nonsense which a love mitten man utters, and by the eagerness with which an otherwise sensible woman listens to such nonsense. For instance, he will tell a woman that she is the most beautiful woman in the world, and she will give every appearance of believing him. All you need do is "look at the ugly duckling to know that she is no such thing, and that not even in her utmost vanity does she believe the deluded fool. Why then does she pretend to take his gibberish seriously? Well, when he tells her, with a shine in his eyes and heat in his throat, that she is the most beautiful woman in the world, she automatically translates him to mean that he considers her the most beautiful woman in his world. That he has been reduced to saying that shows her that he is sufficiently desperate with passion to become like putty in her manipulating fingers. And that, for her, is the vital aspect of the matter.
Another nonsense which is often spouted by love-smitten men, and is eagerly awaited by man-hunting women, is a declaration of everlasting love. Everlasting? Now, now, nothing is more absurd than promising to feel love for anybody for ever. No woman in her right mind believes that a man could feel love for her for ever, or even till death puts an end to his ability to feel love for anything or anybody. Women know the world is full of changes, and that the emotion of love is one of the most ephemeral. So, when a sensible woman craves a declaration of eternal love from a man, and gives every impression of believing it, what really does she understand by it?
A woman mentally translates this foolish man-talk into reasonable talk, and understands it to mean that, in the overcharged state of his psyche, the fellow is ready to promise her anything, even things over which he could have no possible control. This is what makes the ' statement delicious and exciting to- her ears. If he can promise an eternal feeling of love, it means he is ready to pledge himself to do something much more within his control, namely, life-long voluntary servitude to her. Now, if she could only get him to make the latter declaration in public, before suitable witnesses, her man-hunt would be successfully concluded. For then, the fellow would be publicly bound to husband (i.e. slave for) her for the rest of his days.
When next we find a woman extracting love-struck nonsense from a man, we should not consider her absurd. No woman believes such nonsense literally. She knows perfectly well that they are lies, and exaggerations, but they give her proof that he is sufficiently out of his mind to promise her anything, including what she really wants from him: life-long nest slavery. As any clear-headed observer can see, between puberty and menopause, a woman is driven by her nesting instinct. For nest-making, she needs the services of a hardworking provider and strong protector.
Man, in his sentimentality, may refuse to acknowledge that the love felt for him by the woman who loves him is, at its core, a slaver's love for her slave. Those who doubt that should consider a woman's proverbial reaction to her spurned love, or to a mate who deserts her nest. When she cries that her husband has deserted her, her fury is that of a slaveholder whose slave has run away. If he has run off with another woman, her rage at the other woman is that of one slaveholder at another slaveholder who has kidnapped her property. Were men fully conscious of the predatory nature and exploitative purpose of a nesting woman's love for her man, they might be found each day praying: "God save man from the love of woman!” That men do not is a measure of how sentimentality thoroughly beclouds their eyes.

WizAkzy:

I have been waitin for you to drop another post since morning

Newbeginnings:


I have been waitin for you to drop another post since morning

Alright i will.

Part 5 coming in a bit

5. Courtship: The Hunting of the Love-smitten Man

A man always chases a woman until she catches him. - Anon.
The courtship scenario is reputedly as follows: boy sees girl, falls in love with her, courts her, wins her, weds her, and triumphantly carries her off to his home to be his housewife (or, in the eyes of some feminists, •his domestic servant, resident sexpot, child bearer, child raiser, etc.). The reality is, however, rather more like this: girl sees boy and decides to make him her nest-slave. She contrives to attract his attention and to set his heart on fire with a coy glance, a come-hither smile, a painted face, an aloof elegance, the shimmering wriggle of a skirted waist, or a stylish walk that makes her booty throb.

When he has been lured to her, and smitten with love for her, the courtship starts in earnest. She puts him through an obstacle course where he must prove to her satisfaction that he will be a competent and loyal nest-slave. If he should pass her eligibility tests .for economic ability, nest defense capability, emotional loyalty, sexual loyalty, etc.; and if she has no better candidate within reach, she accepts his application for the job of her nest- slave. She then stages a public display of his enslavement to her, packs into his home, turns it into her nest, and becomes its queen and his boss. In accomplishing all this, the woman is like a judo artist who uses the aggressiveness of the man to bring him down. That is why the perceptive say that a man always chases a woman till she catches him.

However decorous it may all seem, courtship •is not bliss but battle -a battle to break the free male into a loyal slave. Courtship is a nest -making rite whose ground rules are dictated by the female interest. Its length, complexity and general structure are determined by her need to hunt a virile male, catch him, break his free spirit, and attach him to herself as provider for, and protector of her nest. If courtship were organized in the male interest, it would be a quick game of kidnap, rape and escape; but because it is organized in the female interest, it is an elaborate game of slave-breaking, with the woman as broncobuster.

Before the sexual and feminist revolutions of the 196Os and 1970s, the lone ranger American' huntress was helped by the fact that her intended victim had been brought up to believe that the marriageable woman should be approached like a goddess perched on a lofty pedestal of chastity. She was to be seen, swooned over, worshiped, craved and laboriously wooed before she could be touched sexually. While wooing her, the man submitted to an exhausting, frustrating, heart-aching obstacle course. He had to pace his effort, and win her consent in stages marked by gifts: so many roses for a peck on the cheek; to many dates (outings, picnics, dinners and movies) for a first hug; so many more for a lip kiss; then a pin to secure for him the privilege of light petting; then an engagement ring to bar her from being wooed by III her men; and, at last, a wedding to publicly confer on him the privilege ' III make use of her womb.

If the man's abilities as economic provider and nest-protector satisfy the woman, she may start to tame him by securing three essential commitments from him: sexual commitment, emotional commitment and economic commitment. Of these, economic commitment is central.
The applicant must be taught to habitually devote his earnings to maintaining her nest and herself. All other feeders at his trough must be banished; those not banish-able (like his parents, siblings, relative and close friends), will have their access to his income minimized. If his the generous type, his impulse must be curbed, and he must be trained, if need be, to hand his pay packet directly to her each payday. As part of his economic training, a not-so-rich man might be required to give up smoking, drinking and gambling, and any other "vice" through which he might "fritter away" his income. But where the man is suitably rich, she may be content simply to train him to spend most of his income on her good and lovely self.

She also makes a point of training him to be sexually loyal to her. This is partly to minimize the risk of losing his economic commitment to her. As she well knows, male-female attachments are notoriously vulnerable to better sex. Should she fail to fix his roving eye on herself, or fail to tie down his wandering lust, he might become sexually addicted to another woman after some chance encounter. A woman who grabs his balls away from her could then grab his purse away too.

For securing a man's sexual loyalty, a woman's main ruse is to get him sexually addicted to her, whether by heavy petting that doesn't go all the way, or by full and abundant sex. Once hooked, he is never let out of her sight, except when he goes off to work, lest some chance encounter with another woman should break her spell on him.

To secure his emotional commitment, a woman will train a man to attach his feelings to her. His jealousy and her cantankerousness are great instruments for this task. The more jealous she makes him, the more strongly the heat of his own jealousy bonds his heart to her. In inciting his jealousy to incandescence, a woman's ways can be quite bizarre. She might deliberately encourage the attentions of rival suitors. If he gets jealous enough to fight them off, all is well; if he doesn't, his emotional attachment to her is judged insufficiently strong, and further inciting is required. But should he, in a fit of high jealousy, beat her up after chasing off the rivals she encouraged, she has excellent proof that he could not bear to lose her.

If the suitor's commitment to her has been found satisfactory in the vital areas, she then has to get him to propose, thereby signalling his eagerness to begin slaving for her. If he is not already on his knees, blabbering with impatience, he must be reduced to that position, and then hauled off to the altar where he shall publicly accept the standard contract between nest-queen and nest-slave.

For getting him to propose, a woman has many weapons at her disposal - lust, love, romance and motherly care. She can addict the suitor to her body (lust); or afflict his heart with deep tenderness toward her (love); or make him lose his head over her (romance); or accustom him to the comforts of a well-ordered home (motherly care). Each weapon is aimed at some suitably vulnerable part of his being. Romance aims at his head, to befuddle it and disarm his common sense; lust aims at his nerves, to train them to rush to her body for calming dips; love aims at his feelings, to make her the preferred object over which to discharge his tender feelings; motherly care aims at his enjoyment of physical comforts, such as he once enjoyed •in his mother's nest. For each of these weapons, a book of tactics could be written by observing the behavior of women. However, let us consider here only some of the tactics of lust and motherly care.

To soften up a man to the point where he proposes, a woman can either withhold sex from him or lavish it on him. In the sex-lavishing tactic, the woman gives him sex, quite readily and freely, till he is addicted and can no longer do without his regular dose. Then, like an expert drug dealer, she can make him pay any price for what she supplies. And her asking price? A trip to the marriage altar. A woman who uses this tactic tends to lose all interest in sexually servicing her husband soon after the wedding.

The sex-withholding tactic was much favored before contraceptives became commonly available. It is probably as old as the missionary position, if not older. It is still favored by die-hard puritans who regard sex-before-the-wedding as a mortal sin. The aim is to frustrate the man to the point where he becomes obsessed with having sex with the woman. Claiming that she is not a cheap woman, she proves her costliness by not yielding her alleged virtue for anything less expensive than marriage. At its most bizarre, the hapless fellow gets conned into her way of seeing things, into her way of defining virtue, and joins her in regarding readily available sex as "cheap", as devalued by the very ease with which it could be had.

This tactic was much helped by the cult of virginity which venerated the virgin bride. She held out, it was claimed, in order to give him the honor and pleasure of receiving her with her hymen intact! In practical terms, the poor sod was sex-starved into buying unsample goods. If (the sex turned out lousy, or if her frigidity ruined the honeymoon, or if her vaunted virginity proved to be fake, tough luck for the hapless chap. The woman would by then have filed her title to his labors at the court registry or the church altar. There being no refund clause in the marriage contract, he could not ask for release from his sworn obligations to his new boss, no matter how lousy she proved in bed, no matter if she proved incapable of bearing children.

The motherly care tactic is based on the Christianly notion that she who would be your queen, let her be your house servant. Accordingly, the woman maneuvers to take over her suitor's cooking, house cleaning and housekeeping. Her opening gambit is to relieve him of the chore of cooking for himself. She will tell him that he will feed better on her cooking than on his, and will march into his kitchen to prove it. If the bachelor, has no kitchen of his own, and depends on eating out, she is not daunted. She will offer to cook for him at her own kitchen. Should he try to resist, excuses will spring readily to her honeyed tongue. Ah, the cost of eating out! Or she will complain that there are no places to go for a decent bite after midnight, or after whatever hour the local eateries shut down. She will persist until she has him feeding off dishes she herself has prepared.

That opening move accomplished, she will contrive to have them live together in his house or hers. The ostensible objective is to see if things will work out, if they can share each other's company for long without suffering cabin fever. Or it is simply to save the inconvenience of commuting from one dwelling to the other. Once they move in together, she gives him the VIP treatment. She showers him with smiles at every opportunity; she covers herself in glamour from waking up in the morning to bedtime at night; she offers him meals when he wants them, where he wants them, even serving him breakfast in bed, and even spooning the delicacies into his watering mouth, should he as much as hint at wanting that pleasure. She will darn his socks, sew on his missing buttons, mend his shirts, wash and iron his clothes, fetch his slippers, and even give him a nightly bath if he as much as hints that he did enjoy such treatment from his mother. She will do all the shopping and bar him firmly from the kitchen. She will pamper him even more than he ever was pampered when he was his mother's precious brat. She will persevere with this plan till she gets him used to not cooking for himself, to not cleaning his house, to not taking care of himself. She will persevere till the fool begins to imagine how wonderful it would be if this could go on for ever; till the mad fool begins to believe that this cosy life would continue for ever if only he married her!

If he does not get down on his knees fast enough to suit her schedule, she will start giving him hints, subtle at first, then more loudly later on. If he still is slow, she might suddenly take off to visit some aunt she's never visited in her life, some aunt she had never talked of before, but who conveniently lives on the far face of the moon. The man, by now helpless, cannot stand the prospect of doing without her, for even an afternoon, let alone for the weeks she would need to travel to see her most cherished aunt. What is the now dependent fellow going to do? Crisis! He begs her not to go. But she goes off anyway. And the moment she returns (following periodic phone calls to hear how inadequately he is coping without her), it would be a miracle if even a court injunction, or an order from his employer, would keep him from falling on his knees and proposing to marry her at once.

Of course, these weapons, and the tactics for using them, are usually wielded in combination, depending on the skill of the man-hunting woman. They are normally adequate to bring even the wildest, freedom loving bronco of a man to his obedient knees. Sometimes they do fail, and the woman has to resort to rough tactics.

This obsession with women is intense. Guys coming up with well thought out and planned articles about how we work.

I feel really honoured and proud right now.

Except you ask the creator for a revelation, everything you write is just the usual assumptions filled with big words to make it seem valid and intelligent.

But as long as we thrill you, you can keep trying to decipher us.

N.B

I wonder why i don't see countless threads by women trying to dissect the psychological anatomy of men. We got you guys figured out while you keep trying to figure us out

Before the sexual revolution undermined it, one of the most popular of rough tactics was the shotgun wedding. This worked best, of course, if the woman had lavished sex on the suitor. All it then took was to get herself pregnant. If he did not then capitulate, if he didn't offer to slave for the nest to which he had already contributed his genes, her father and brothers would arrive with their shotguns and march "the prisoner" to the altar.

It might be wondered why men do not usually tell the truth about courtship. Why don't fathers, and perhaps grandfathers, warn young men about it? Well, male pride for one. The hunting code requires a man to crow from the rooftops about his victories, not his defeats. This means that no husband will be eager to admit that he was tricked, and defeated, and enslaved by his little wife. Secondly, those men who have an interest in declaring the truth, the successful career bachelors, are very few. And even if they bothered to tell the truth, how many men would believe them? The reputation which women have woven for them (as inadequate, undesirable failures whom no woman would marry) would prevent them from being believed. To those conditioned to believe that being a husband is the natural, god-ordained, and happy destiny of every man, a bachelor's account of the perils of courtship would sound like sour grapes.

Thirdly, a sense of futility contributes to men's silence on the topic when they consider all the men who fell into women's traps all through the ages, those who might be tempted to warn others are driven to despair. What's the use? Driven by his craving for progeny, the average man forewarned or not, would still fall where his betters fell.

WizAkzy:
Before the sexual revolution undermined it, one of the most popular of rough tactics was the shotgun wedding. This worked best, of course, if the woman had lavished sex on the suitor. All it then took was to get herself pregnant. If he did not then capitulate, if he didn't offer to slave for the nest to which he had already contributed his genes, her father and brothers would arrive with their shotguns and march "the prisoner" to the altar.

It might be wondered why men do not usually tell the truth about courtship. Why don't fathers, and perhaps grandfathers, warn young men about it? Well, male pride for one. The hunting code requires a man to crow from the rooftops about his victories, not his defeats. This means that no husband will be eager to admit that he was tricked, and defeated, and enslaved by his little wife. Secondly, those men who have an interest in declaring the truth, the successful career bachelors, are very few. And even if they bothered to tell the truth, how many men would believe them? The reputation which women have woven for them (as inadequate, undesirable failures whom no woman would marry) would prevent them from being believed. To those conditioned to believe that being a husband is the natural, god-ordained, and happy destiny of every man, a bachelor's account of the perils of courtship would sound like sour grapes.

Thirdly, a sense of futility contributes to men's silence on the topic when they consider all the men who fell into women's traps all through the ages, those who might be tempted to warn others are driven to despair. What's the use? Driven by his craving for progeny, the average man forewarned or not, would still fall where his betters fell.

. Interestingly,I read this very book some months back and it definitely opened my eyes to a lot of things and it was also written by a Nigerian . Thankfully I read Estar Vilar before it if not I most likely would have judged him wrongly. It's an eye opener. I'll definitely read it again.

.

WizAkzy:
My man try reading "Men on strike" by helen smith. Men yaff suffered too much in this world o. But are still demonised by the society.

. I will man. Thanks . The hypocrisy is real my brother. It's almost as if we're being targeted or something. It's saddening.