MonsieurChauvin

Just Saying... I am sick and tired of hearing certain individuals criticize others for employing generalizations of sex or ethno-racial differences between individuals. There are no logical objections to constructing a statistical generalization based on the relative probability of trait possession within a given population demographic. It is always safe to generalize as long as one realizes that the various characteristics of contemporary female socio-sexual behaviour (for example) gravitate around certain statistical polarities. Secondly, I would like to say that there is a definite, objective biological basis to the concept of race, but that sexual differentiation between man and woman is of a much deeper biological origin than ethno-racial difference. For one thing, racial differentiation of the human species begins about the time of hominid emergence from ancient Africa anywhere between 10 - 70, 000 years ago, whereas sexual differentiation has existed from the very beginning of the 2 million year existence of the genus Homo. As a matter of fact, sex antedates race by about 85 million years, actually beginning with the existence of the primate family that Homo sapiens is now descended from. Additionally, it is much easier to change one’s ethno-racial make-up (by adopting ethno-national dress, learning a new language, tanning one's skin etc.), a construct which is socially and culturally manufactured to a certain extent, as opposed to one’s sex, which is deeply rooted within human physiology (reconstructive sex re-assignment surgery anyone?).

Only Genetically Masculinized Females Display Above Average Levels of Human Intelligence and Creativity; or Why Do Smart Women Look and Act Like Men? Marie Curie, the celebrated French physicist of Polish extraction, was a woman of high intelligence who both looked and acted like a genetically masculinized female. Note the broad forehead and large cranial capacity typical of males. Madame Curie is the perfect example of an intellectually gifted woman who, by logical extension, was also highly virilized in both thought and action. Even from a cursory examination of her portraiture, it becomes immediately apparent from her obviously masculinised physiognomy that she was either suffering from congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) or an epidemiological condition whose aetiology involves much of the complex symptomatology that underlies certain forms of excess ovarian androgenic hormone production. According to much of the historiography and biographical materials surrounding her life in the early twentieth century, it would seem that her life was one that was drenched in buckets of liquid testosterone. Many of the details surrounding her life seem to be consistent with the numerous clinical observations made by the late Johns Hopkins psychologist Dr. Money concerning highly masculinised women suffering from CAH. For one thing, the outward physical appearance of Madame Curie struck even the casual observer as overtly masculine: she was a woman with an unusually broad forehead and receding hairline, traits often indicative of male pattern baldness; on her throat could be observed the slight traces of an adam’s apple; she had unusually large hands and feet, as well as particularly lengthy digits that happen to be uncharacteristic for her sex. In addition, she also displayed very few of the secondary sex characteristics that are sex-typical for her gender: her breasts were largely underdeveloped and she had virtually no waist-to-hip ratio. In true masculine style, she had little interest in cosmetics or fashion, prefering to wear the same black dress that she wore for days on end. She even managed to push her contempt for fashion to such extremes as to wear the same kind of clothing she was accustomed to wear in the laboratory to both of the Nobel Prize ceremonies she was obliged to attend. Contrary to the champions of woman’s emancipation, she had no interest in being seen as a woman seeking equality with men. Her strongest desire was to be accepted as an honorary man who wished to be treated as a man on exclusively male terms. As indicated by her biographer Richard Reid, Madame Curie neither identified herself as a feminist nor did she have the slightest inclination to organize as one. In fact, she was contemptuous of feminism and believed that science, whether theoretical or experimental, could solve all of the world’s problems. In the laboratory, she was known to display her masculine strength and energy by performing the hard physical labour of a stevedore. She was known as a woman capable of performing such physically strenuous tasks, many of which obviously exceed the physical capacities of the vast majority of women, because of the high muscle to body fat ratio and upper body muscular development that characterized so much of her individual physiology. The physicist Georges Urbain, having observed her working diligently in the laboratory, exclaimed in amazement that: ... he saw Madame Curie work like a man in the difficult treatments of great quantities of pitchblende. Having established that Madame Curie was really a man in both thought and action, we must now try to understand why women of high intelligence always act and look like men. As les frères Goncourt once declared in a famous aphorism that: There are no women of genius; the women of genius are men. From the biographical details of Madame Curie, we can see that the only near genius produced by the opposite sex was really a man in drag; a female of high intelligence is really a man trapped in the frigid dungeon of a woman’s body. According to Cesare Lombroso, the great Italian criminologist and physical anthropologist of the nineteenth century, all of the most illustrious women who have existed throughout history, consistent with their available portraiture and biographical details, were all highly masculinized women who thought, acted and felt like typical adult males; therefore, we should not be surprised if, numbered amongst these supposedly female luminaries, were many women who were intersexed or hermaphroditic in both phenotype and behavioural traits. In his bestseller La donna criminale, la prostituta e la donna normale, Lombroso writes: Women of genius frequently have masculine appearances. Female genius can be explained as Darwin explained the colouration of birds that resemble the males of their species: by a confusion of secondary sexual characteristics produced by a mismatch of paternal and maternal heredity. One need only look at the pictures of women of genius of our day to realize that they seem to be men in disguise. (pg.83) Concerning the causal relationship between masculinity and intelligence in women, one can readily see that Lombroso’s observations have enormous relevance for our understanding of the female psyche of today once they are stripped of their reliance on craniometric analysis and phrenological measurement. In fact, much of the data he collected from his own empirical observations of those extremely rare women of high intelligence can be readily explained through the discipline of modern endocrinology by invoking the well-known linkage between elevated levels of circulating androgens in the blood-stream and high intelligence and aggressiveness in women. There is a large body of evidence that indicates that female performance on tests of visual spatialization, the general mental capacity underlying both mathematical and analytical ability, and general intelligence are clearly determined by either the presence of fluctuating hormones throughout the menstrual cycle or abnormally high levels of testosterone brought on by the pre-natal masculinization of the female central nervous system. A number of scientific investigations, most notably those conducted by E. Hampson in the early 1990s, have actually found that variations in the levels of circulating estradiol and progesterone throughout the menstrual cycle are responsible for modulating levels of female cognitive functioning; the researchers noted that whereas higher concentrations of estradiol and progesterone throughout the midluteal phase of the ovulatory cycle were responsible for a diminution of visuo-spatial ability, the correspondingly lower concentrations of both hormones at the onset of menstruation, relative to substantial levels of androstenedione (the most common female androgen), actually resulted in an improved ability to write tests evaluating both intelligence and the ability to rotate 3-dimensional geometric figures. It was established by Silverman and Phillips (1997) that female performance on the Mental Rotation Test (MRT) increased by almost 50% during menstruation due to the lower blood serum concentrations of estradiol and progesterone relative to elevated levels of androstenedione. In addition, it is a well-known fact that masculine women, who have elevated levels of testosterone, tend to demonstrate high intelligence throughout their lives, whereas those women (the overwhelming majority) who possess very little or no testosterone tend to be of mediocre or below average intellectual functioning. Consistent with this report, the researchers S.M. Resnick et al. (1986) administered both IQ and MRT tests to women affected with CAH, a condition characterized by high levels of circulating testosterone in the blood-stream, and women unaffected by the same condition. It was observed by Resnick et al. that the highly masculinised women tended to score significantly higher on both the IQ test and the MRT than the control group of normal women. Futhermore, in a personal communication received by the writer earlier this year from English psychologist Richard Lynn, it was stated that women who display levels of intelligence outside the somewhat below average range of normal female intelligence tend to have been genetically masculinized during embryological development in the womb. Thus, women who are intelligent always look and act like men, if not being essentially men in female disguise. Males Exceed Females in All Things; or Are Men Really Better than Women? Men are many times more complex than women in terms of personality and behaviour. In other words, what we have is female conservatism on the one hand and male progressivism on the other; because of the great complexity of male socio-sexual behaviour, men vary much more in terms of human trait possession than women. The mere recognition of greater male variability in terms of both mental, emotional, and physical characteristics is something that has been known by Charles Darwin and discussed at great length by the celebrated English sexologist Havelock Ellis. Concerning the principle of greater male variability as manifested in terms of genius, Havelock Ellis wrote in the book "Man and Woman": We must regard genius as an organic congenital abnormality ... and in nearly every department it is undeniably of more frequent occurrence among men than among women.... Genius is more common among men by virtue of the same general tendency by which idiocy is more common among men. The two facts are but two aspects of a larger zoological fact — the greater variability of the male. Concerning the greater variational tendency of the male, Charles Darwin writes in Chapter VIII of the Descent of Man: The great eagerness of the males has thus indirectly led to their much more frequently developing secondary sexual characters than the females. But the development of such characters would be much aided, if the males were more liable to vary than the females--as I concluded they were--after a long study of domesticated animals. Von Nathusius, who has had very wide experience, is strongly of the same opinion. (22. 'Vortrage uber Viehzucht,' 1872, p. 63.) Good evidence also in favour of this conclusion can be produced by a comparison of the two sexes in mankind. During the Novara Expedition (23. 'Reise der Novara: Anthropolog. Theil,' 1867, ss. 216-269. The results were calculated by Dr. Weisbach from measurements made by Drs. K. Scherzer and Schwarz. On the greater variability of the males of domesticated animals, see my 'Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication,' vol. ii. 1868, p. 75.) a vast number of measurements was made of various parts of the body in different races, and the men were found in almost every case to present a greater range of variation than the women; but I shall have to recur to this subject in a future chapter. Mr. J. Wood (24. 'Proceedings of the Royal Society,' vol. xvi. July 1868, pp. 519 and 524.), who has carefully attended to the variation of the muscles in man, puts in italics the conclusion that "the greatest number of abnormalities in each subject is found in the males." He had previously remarked that "altogether in 102 subjects, the varieties of redundancy were found to be half as many again as in females, contrasting widely with the greater frequency of deficiency in females before described." Professor Macalister likewise remarks (25. 'Proc. Royal Irish Academy,' vol. x. 1868, p. 123.) that variations in the muscles "are probably more common in males than females." Certain muscles which are not normally present in mankind are also more frequently developed in the male than in the female sex, although exceptions to this rule are said to occur. Dr. Burt Wilder (26. 'Massachusetts Medical Society,' vol. ii. No. 3, 1868, p. 9.) has tabulated the cases of 152 individuals with supernumerary digits, of which 86 were males, and 39, or less than half, females, the remaining 27 being of unknown sex. It should not, however, be overlooked that women would more frequently endeavour to conceal a deformity of this kind than men. Again, Dr. L. Meyer asserts that the ears of man are more variable in form than those of a woman. (27. 'Archiv fur Path. Anat. und Phys.' 1871, p. 488.) Lastly the temperature is more variable in man than in woman. (28. The conclusions recently arrived at by Dr. J. Stockton Hough, on the temperature of man, are given in the 'Pop. Sci. Review,' Jan. 1st, 1874, p. 97.) The cause of the greater general variability in the male sex, than in the female is unknown, except in so far as secondary sexual characters are extraordinarily variable, and are usually confined to the males; and, as we shall presently see, this fact is, to a certain extent, intelligible. Through the action of sexual and natural selection male animals have been rendered in very many instances widely different from their females; but independently of selection the two sexes, from differing constitutionally, tend to vary in a somewhat different manner. The female has to expend muchorganic matter in the formation of her ova, whereas the male expends much force in fierce contests with his rivals, in wandering about in search of the female, in exerting his voice, pouring out odoriferous secretions, etc.: and this expenditure is generally concentrated within a short period. The great vigour of the male during the season of love seems often to intensify his colours, independently of any marked difference from the female. (29. Prof. Mantegazza is inclined to believe ('Lettera a Carlo Darwin,' 'Archivio per l'Anthropologia,' 1871, p. 306) that the bright colours, common in so many male animals, are due to the presence and retention by them of the spermatic fluid; but this can hardly be the case; for many male birds, for instance young pheasants, become brightly coloured in the autumn of their first year.) In mankind, and even as low down in the organic scale as in the Lepidoptera, the temperature of the body is higher in the male than in the female, accompanied in the case of man by a slower pulse. (30. For mankind, see Dr. J. Stockton Hough, whose conclusions are given in the 'Popular Science Review,' 1874, p. 97. See Girard's observations on the Lepidoptera, as given in the 'Zoological Record,' 1869, p. 347.) On the whole the expenditure of matter and force by the two sexes is probably nearly equal, though effected in very different ways and at different rates. In a recent scientific paper by Strand, Deary, and Smith (2005), it was observed that: The majority of studies have only considered sex differences in mean scores. However, in an often overlooked aspect of their review, Maccoby & Jacklin (1974) also concluded that males were more variable than females in mathematical and spatial abilities, although the sexes were equally variable in verbal ability. The issue of increased cognitive variability in males was previously discussed in detail by Heim (1970). Feingold (1992) analysed the results for the national standardisations of the DAT, the SAT, the WAIS, and the California Achievement tests. Males tended to be more variable than females in general knowledge, mechanical reasoning, quantitative ability, spatial visualisation, and spelling. There was little difference in variability for most verbal tests, short-term memory, non-verbal reasoning and perceptual speed (see Table 1 for DAT results). Hedges & Nowell (1995) reported that males had greater variance than females in all but two of the areas they considered, typically in the order of 3%-15% greater variability in boys’ scores than in girls’ scores. Cole (1997) also reported greater variability in boys’ scores on many of the tests analysed. For example, at age 17, males outnumbered females in the top 10% on maths tests by 1.5 to 1, and in science by 2 to 1. Sex differences in spread or variability are important because they help to explain why males may outnumber females among the highest scoring individuals in tests that show only a small male advantage in mean score (Feingold, 1992; Hedges & Nowell, 1995; Nowell & Hedges, 1998). The obverse was also true: in Hedges & Nowell’s (1995) study boys outnumbered girls in the bottom 10% for those tests with only a small female advantage in mean score (e.g., reading comprehension, perceptual speed and associative memory). The principle of male variance and monotonous female uniformity can be readily demonstrated on a mathematical level by constructing a Gaussian curve which plots the incidence of sexual dimorphism in male-female personality and behaviour. It will be seen from the standard normal distribution along the curve itself that not only do men have higher standard deviations than women but that men always have a tendency to cluster around the upper and lower extremes of the curve, whereas women, being generally homogeneous in both personality and behaviour, tend to have lower standard deviations and tend to gravitate towards the middle of the curve. Thus, there are more men of genius and high intelligence than women; women of talent and ability are extremely rare, and in many instances, nonexistent. In addition, there are more male daredevils than women; more male eccentrics than women; more males with tremendous athletic ability than women; more men with high levels of creativity than women; more men with a much greater sense of humour than women; more male criminals than women etc. This is so because of three major reasons. Firstly, because alleles on both sex chromosomes present within the male genome are not coupled in the same dominant or recessive pairs as in the female; this means that there is nothing to mask the expression of gene replication errors in RNA transcription within the male lineage itself, ultimately producing a wide variation in both male temperament and phenotype. Secondly, men often bear the brunt of male-male competition for available females, and because of this are forced to become a kind of genetic filter for the species. Lastly, greater male variability is due to the presence of testosterone which enhances neuro-biological mechanisms for individual motivation within the male central nervous system, thus giving men a much greater drive to adapt and overcome whatever obstacles have been placed in their way by an unforgiving and merciless environment. All of these features are lacking in the human female, making women roughly homogeneous in both personality and behaviour across all times and places, all ethnicities and cultures. In conclusion, there is much greater variability in personality and behaviour amongst males, than amongst females; it is exceedingly difficult to construct a body of multivariate statistical analysis that can rigidly predetermine the biomechanical operation of male socio-sexual functioning; this is because men tend to cluster around the very extremes of any trait that is either expressed phenotypically/ genotypically, or one that is ultimately the natural by-product of socio-cultural adaptation. Thus, men tend to be all things in all times and places. However, women tend to be roughly homogeneous in both personality and behaviour. The female of the species always tends to cluster around the middle of any Gaussian distribution that statistically calculates the relative probability of any trait being distributed throughout a given population demographic. Thus, because women tend to be relatively uniform in all places and times, they tend to operate as a collective organism functioning within the confines of an amorphous social network, the boundaries of which are ultimately defined by the biological parameters of the maternal instinct.

Do Women Have Lower General Intelligence Than Men? There are multiple ways in which to conceptualize the lesser intelligence of the human female. The best way to comprehend female intellectual inferiority to the superior mental capacity of the male gender is by constructing a statistical generalization based on the relative probability of trait distribution within a given population demographic. There are two fundamental operationalizations around which gravitate those statistical polarities synthesized from the standard gaussian distribution of sexual dimorphism in human intelligence; the first serves as an important basis upon which the typical gaussian distribution of gender-based differences in mental capacity rests. This can be readily observed in its primary function as being a scientific methodology which generates both an epistemological praxis and workable data on the basis of objective statistical and empirical information. A second function that needs to be emphasized is that such a mathematical tool also serves as a means of conducting a rigorous analysis of corresponding normal distribution curves whose final pupose is to calculate the relative probabilities which determine the likelihood of the average male being more intelligent than the average female and vice versa. This is achieved by standardizing the product of the raw score subtracted from its population mean and than further dividing the product by the standard deviation. The final step involves converting the end result into a z-score or standardized variable as statistically computed from a standard normal distribution table and than subsequently expressing the result as a percentage of the pattern of continuous probability distribution. The analytical process itself functions as an underlying computational methodology which enables us to fully grasp the fact that the average male has significantly greater levels of ‘g’ (a construct first developed in the early twentieth century by the famed British psychometrician C. Spearman) than the average female; it is this process which highlights the fact that this can only be done by gaining an exact knowledge of what is the relative probability that the average male has significantly higher levels of intelligence than the human female. To be fair, the body of statistical data used for constructing such a level of probability shall be the gaussian distribution of male-female differences in mental capacity provided by the WISC-R, a test specifically designed to assess the intelligence of children between the ages of 6 - 16.5. It is also an IQ test notorious for furnishing experimenters with one of the most conservative measures of sexual dimorphism in human intelligence; the overall format of the test is structured in such a way as to largely lean in the direction of minimizing sex differences. Another important aspect of the data collected from the administration of the WISC-R is that the test is generally designed to assess the ‘g’ of the developing child; although male intellectual capacity may be closer to the female in childhood, the gap in intelligence between both male and female genders widens by up to 10 points as the juvenile gradually matures into adulthood. Furthermore, it is also important to point out that, with the onset of old age, the average female IQ declines at a much more rapid pace than the male. The data furnished by the WISC-R is converted into a z-value by means of standardizing the raw scores. This is done by statistically computing them on the basis of a standard normal distribution table. The equation that expresses this function is: Z = X - mu / sigma, where Z represents the z-score, mu represents the mean population distribution, and sigma symbolizes the standard deviation of the continuous probability distribution of X. This is ultimately calculated by converting the end result into the z-values of the standard normal statistical tables, and than finally expressing the figure as a percentage of the probability of X. A further, much more practical example is needed in order to fully elucidate this point. For the purposes of instruction, our mathematical calculation of the probability that the average man will be considerably more intelligent than the average female and vice versa shall be directly based on the raw data gathered by the WISC-R, as established by the researchers A.R. Jensen and C.R. Reynolds (1983). The subsequent equation will look thus: 103.08 - 101.41 / 13.55 = 0.123 = 0.4510535 = 0.45 = 45% This equation expresses the fact that the probability of the average woman being more intelligent than the average man is 0.45. Expressed as a percentage of its own probability distribution, it indicates that 45% of the female population demographic will be smarter than 100% of the male population demographic. 101.41 - 103.08 / 14.54 = - 0.115 = 0.5457775 = 0.55 = 55% The solution of this equation expresses the fact that the average man has a 55% probability of being considerably more intelligent than the average female; this means that 55% of males will be substantially more intelligent than 100% of the female population demographic.If the values provided by the more liberal estimates of Lynn and Irwing (2005) were substituted into the equation itself, than the probability that the average male is more intelligent than the average female would increase from 55% to approximately 65%; correspondingly, the probability that the average female would be more intelligent than the average male would decrease from 45% to 35%. By way of explanation, the gaussian distribution of gender-based differences in human intelligence as extrapolated from both child and adult versions of Weschler’s intelligence scale is just a small amount of the substantial psychometric evidence pointing in the direction of tremendous sexual dimorphism in human intelligence. Only somebody possessing the limited intelligence of a lesser evolved and more primitive female central nervous system would assume that the bell curve itself is dimorphic; what the gaussian distribution demonstrates is that the disparity between male and female levels of intelligence can be mathematically substantiated through the rigorous application of non-overlapping analytic geometrical co-ordinates. Gender-based differences in mental capacity are obviously sexually dimorphic because both traits are unevenly distributed between both genders. There are substantial neuro-endocrinological and psycho-physiological factors, such as higher levels of circulating androgens and greater relative brain size in males, which are responsible for the sexual differentiation in human cognition that leads to men having significantly higher levels of intelligence than females. Just because gender-based differences in human intelligence demonstrate some degree of overlap in no way invalidates the accepted scientific fact that the average male is significantly more intelligent than the average female. For example, male and female levels of aggression also show some degree of overlap, but this in no way invalidates the fact that there is considerable sexual dimorphism in levels of human aggression; gender differences in aggression gravitate around certain statistical polarities which indicate that, regardless of the degree of overlap, men are considerably more aggressive than women. It is the very universality of both higher levels of male aggression and intelligence, within all societies and across all cultures, as well as the substantial body of both neuro-endocrinological and psycho-physiological evidence, which makes them both sexually differentiated traits just as dimorphic as gender differences in genitalia (which also demonstrate some degree of overlap, if one takes such intersexual phenomena as hermaphroditism into consideration). Expressed another way, one could say that the higher levels of male aggression and intelligence, as well as the male reproductive organs, are all sexually dimorphic traits because the expression of all three is the result of higher levels of circulating androgens within the male body; in contrast, the lower levels of intelligence and aggression in the human female, as well as the female reproductive organs, are sexually dimorphic traits because of the presence of higher levels of circulating estrogens within the female bloodstream. In the final analysis, we can see that the notion that the average male is likely to be just as intelligent as the average female is a propagandistic falsehood based on the radical social constructionist interpretive framework of Marxist cultural anthropology. It is impossible to maintain such a ridiculous notion when one recognizes the fact that the average male is about as likely to share equal intelligence with the average female as plants are likely to share the same anatomical structural isomorphism with mammalian species. The statistical tabulation of the probability that males have a 55% chance of having a greater likelihood of being more intelligent than the average female leads to the higher probability that males will be more intelligent than females. This is almost simultaneously translated into average male intelligence being considerably than average levels of female mental capacity.Thus, if males have a 55% probability of being more intelligent than the average woman and females have a 45% probability of being more intelligent than the average man, it follows that this directly leads, by logical extension, to more average men being significantly more intelligent than greater numbers of average women; the higher the probability that a certain proportion of men will be more intelligent than 100% of women means a substantially larger number of average men who are more intelligent than average women; this in turn leads to higher levels of overall male intelligence in relation to the female. In short, it is virtually impossible to deny the existence of sexual dimorphism in human intelligence. The above statistical computations yield but one conclusion only: it reveals that most men, atleast on average, are smarter than most women. For further information on female intellectual inferiority, this excellent link is highly recommended: http://iqcomparisonsite.com/SexDifferences.aspx Ergo, women have lower intelligence than men.

It is often said by feminists that men commodify women as sex objects; however, what is forgotten is that women commodify men both economically and physically as walking ATM machines, status symbols, and big muscles. When it comes to men, building female attraction is based on two things and two things only: 1. Money or the ability to acquire material resources. 2. High levels of testosterone-fuelled aggression or physical strength. Women supply sex as a means of facilitating socio-economic exchange, which in its broadest possible conceptualization, operates as a reliable means of barter. It involves the trade of both material and non-material goods and services where men are both the consumers and buyers of sex. Sexual relations between both sexes functions as a means of financial exchange in which the roles participated in by both genders within a heterosexual marketplace are highly asymmetrical; sex is a female service or social resource that the woman as supplier will use as a means of barter for the highest marketable price, in the form of capital or natural resources, that she can command on both her sexuality and reproductive biology under the prevailing circumstances in which the act of economic exchange takes place. In stark contrast, male sexuality is relatively worthless and cannot be exchanged for material goods; no man can command any price on either his body or his ability to simultaneously impregnate multiple females within the space of a few hours; even a man who is relatively virginal or of chaste reputation cannot command anything economically for his sexuality and could face derision as a result for even attempting to do such. In western industrial capitalist societies, the underlying parameters which determine how the heterosexual marketplace mediates the economic matrix through which sexual transactions are mediated is determined by the autonomous sex drive of men and the relative sexual frigidity of most women. It is also substantially moulded by the fact that men have both historically and contemporaneously been in a position to accumulate the most amount of resources. Ultimately, this psycho-physiological fact alone enables women to have a certain degree of individual choice; it allows them to optimally maximize their ability to select the most desirable mate. It would also be pre-determined by the reality that norms and prescriptions concerning sex as a resource for economic exchange would presumably enlighten women as to the maximum amount of resources she can command for both her vagina and womb from the competing males around her. Sex functions as a social resource for women because of her greater investment in parenthood, including a nine month period of foetal gestation and possible death in childbirth. Sex also has potentially negative consequences for women, as opposed to men, and therefore women are driven to apply a kind of cost-benefit analysis that evaluates the economic rationality of any market-driven process of partner selection; this immediately transforms sex into a benefit that men have to pay for in one form or the other. Another reason for why sex is a female resource is because of the differential strength in sex drive between both genders. For this, there is a considerable amount of empirical information supporting the relative frigidity of the human female; these can be readily enumerated as being the fact that the overwhelming majority of prostitutes are women and that male prostitutes, with very rare or unusual exceptions, service a male clientele only. Given the greater male physical strength and higher levels of aggression, it is almost physiologically inevitable that men are almost always expected to be the ones to contribute resources and expend a large amount of time and energy in the process of charming a woman, whereas the female role in ritualized human courtship is really the logical extension of the prostitute’s role in attracting male clients. In addition, infidelity on the part of the woman is punished much more harshly than on the part of the man; this is very much conducive with the idea that sex is a resource supplied by females and that female sexuality is considerably of greater value than male sexuality. According to the principle of social exchange theory, the person who has the least interest in a relationship is the one who exerts the most amount of influence. Thus, because men desire sex more than women. Men are intrinsically biologically motivated to seek out sexual gratification as an end in itself, whereas few women are internally driven seek out sex as an end in itself. It is this aspect of neuro-endocrinological sexual differentiation between both genders that places women in the advantageous position of being able to exert a considerable amount of leverage within the hetero-social interaction itself, blindly coercing the male into a position of powerlessness, provided he stays within the norms of socio-sexual behaviour prescribed by the overarching cultural framework we, as autonomous social subjectivities, are expected to operate within. Another possible reason for sex being exchanged by women for both material goods and monetary media of exchange is because men are often physically stronger and more intelligent than women are and because of this have greater earning power than women do; in order to increase her access to those material resources monopolized by men, women are driven to use sex as a bargaining chip in the sexual negotiation of rights over her own body. However, it is possible to argue that the accumulation of capital amongst men and the economic differential between both genders is largely driven by female-female competition for the most desirable or dominant male. The marriage gradient, extensively documented by J. Bernard (1982), in which husbands have more economic and social clout than wives and both high-status women and low-ranking men are routinely left out, is almost exclusively driven by the fact that women regard the sex act itself as a mode of exchange by which the woman accumulates status and resources for herself. This is because female sexuality and male sexuality cannot be exchanged economically the one for the other in an act of equitable distribution; the man must always offer something more by way of money, material goods, status, or commitment to compensate for whatever deficit his sexuality might bring to the relationship. As a general rule, the man must always be in a much better position economically, politically, and socially than the woman. The fact that the primary physiological urge amongst females is the maternal instinct and that women are more susceptible to disease than men often makes it necessary for the woman to maximize her ability to acquire as many resources as possible so as to successfully reproduce healthy viable offspring and ensure her livelihood and protection in a world characterized by male patriarchal dominance. The conclusion is inescapable; women are responsible for the status and economic differential between both genders. WOMEN HATE SEX

THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF WOMEN ARE SEXLESS, FRIGID BEINGS WITH A DEADLY HATRED OF HUMAN SEXUALITY Given the centrality of orgasm in male reproductive functioning, it is impossible to speak of any man as suffering from sexual frigidity. Because frigidity is a problem which is exclusively physical, rather than psychic, in origin, it is necessarily applicable only to women. This is due to the fact that on an anatomical level, women are not physiologically capable of achieving orgasm through intercourse because of the great distance of the clitoris from the vaginal introitus. Furthermore, the clitoris is really a primitive organ that serves no biological function whatsoever; in anatomical structure, it resembles a miniature penis that failed to become fully differentiated sexually during the course of embryological development due to the general absence of those genes responsible for foetal androgen synthesis. The clitoris is a vestigial appendage; it is really nothing more but the evolutionary by-product of male sexual differentiation and the male capacity to produce an orgasmic response, a feature that has evolved over hundreds of thousands of years of human physiological adaptation to the external environment of our hominid ancestors. As a matter of fact, only the human male alone, out of all species within the animal kingdom, possesses a sophisticated apparatus of sexual physiological arousal that is unparalleled in the history of biological evolution. Detailed, meticulous observations derived from extensive anatomical investigations conducted by various scientific researchers throughout the twentieth century have revealed that the penis, foreskin included, contains anywhere between 80, 000 to well over 100, 000 nerve endings, whereas the clitoris contains anywhere between 0 - 8000 nerve endings. To elaborate further, the overwhelming majority of women possess virtually no nerve endings whatsoever within the clitoris and are therefore organically frigid. How else does one explain the fact that over 86% of women are physiologically incapable of achieving orgasm through intercourse or that more than 66% of women are virtually incapable of achieving orgasm through masturbation? The widespread inability to achieve orgasm amongst woman is a reflection of the fact that both sexual frigidity and anorgasmia are exclusively female problems. It should be obvious to even the most limited intellect that the clitoris is a vestigial organ that is completely devoid of any discernible biological function; it is an organ that should be removed surgically by means of clitoridectomy in order to protect both the physical and psychological health of the woman. Even on an historical and clinical level, sexual frigidity, or more technically anorgasmia, has always been associated with female sexual dysfunction where orgasm and sexual pleasure are relatively unimportant in the achievement of maximal female reproductive functioning. On the other hand, there is a considerably lower prevalence of male sexual problems compared to a female sexuality that is frequently plagued by both dysfunctionality and psychopathology; in addition, the root cause of male sexual dysfunction is largely due to psychological factors. Thus, although no man can be clinically spoken of as being anorgasmic, it must be noted that the overwhelming majority of women are essentially frigid beings who are almost completely devoid of sexual passion, or experience virtually no sexual desire whatsoever. According to the most recent statistical computations based on raw data derived from an in-depth analysis of the social organization of human sexuality, 71% of women are incapable of achieving orgasm through intercourse, compared to less than 3% of men who have similar difficulties. Although there is a consensus amongst many scholars that approximately 46% of all women, regardless of chronological age, happen to be completely incapable of experiencing sexual desire or achieving any degree of sexual physiological arousal whatsoever, some scholars have actually estimated the prevalence of female hypoactive sexual desire disorder (lack of sex drive) to be as high as 52.4% amongst naturally menopausal women. Another 66% of women are unconquerably frigid or completely anorgasmic, being physiologically incapable of achieving orgasm through masturbation, compared to less than 1% of men. Even under the most repressive conditions, such as abuse or war, men are still significantly more sexual than women, who often lack sex drives and are generally physiologically incapable of producing any kind of orgasmic response. Male sexual desire is much more difficult to suppress and men have a greater interest in both novelty and variety. From an historical point of view, male sexuality has always been much more vigorously suppressed by the state and the dominant culture than that of the relatively frigid, asexual female. How else does one explain the fact that over 90% of all arrests for sex crimes, such as rape, incest, pedophilia, voyeurism, and exhibitionism involve men? We, in the modern West, live in one of the most sexually liberated cultures known to man, yet women happen to be just as frigid and asexual as they were a thousand years ago; as a matter of fact, there has never been a culture in the history of mankind where women were just as sexual or more sexual than men. If there was ever such a thing as the cultural suppression of female sexuality, then women would be overrepresented in arrest statistics for sex crimes. However, because most women are sexually frigid and fiercely monogamous, such is not the case. Sexual desire is operationally defined as the intrinsic, biologically driven motivation to seek out sexual intercourse for its own sake; across all scientific measures and studies of human sexuality, it has been found that women masturbate less, are less promiscuous, fantasize less, rarely respond sexually to visual erotic stimuli, despise their own genitals, have little interest in pornography and almost never have any need to pay a prostitute for sexual release. As further confirmation of the widespread existence of female passionlessness, the famous longitudinal study produced by researchers Julien, Bonchard, Gagnon, and Pomerleau (1992) of suburban Montreal couples demonstrated beyond all shadow of a doubt that almost all problems caused within marital relationships are either the fault of the low female sex drive or the high male sex drive, with the vast majority of both wives and husbands acknowledging the greater sexuality of the human male. Thus, it can be seen from the aforementioned data that women have a much more dysfunctional sexuality than men and although men have been much more violently persecuted for their sexuality down throughout the ages, they remain considerably more sexual than the relatively sexless and frigid human female. In sum, the notion that women enjoy sex is a feminist political fiction. The vast majority of women hate sex; only a very sad minority of female unfortunates derive any pleasure from sexual intercourse and these women are often desperately in need of psychiatric counselling. WOMEN HATE SEX