NAWALT, human nature, and evolution

[Anonymous 0]

Although I am convinced in the core lifestyle of MGTOW (1. no marriage; 2. no kids; and 3. no cohabitation) due to a risk-benefit and cost-benefit analysis to the well being of males in a gynocentric society, Red Pill perspective somewhat overstates or oversells the gynocentric problem with AWALT. My minor problem with AWALT is that it presumes that female nature (and human nature for that matter) is immutably inherent, and it ignores the bell distribution curve of personality and behavior of human nature. Social science is not like the hard sciences; unlike the hard sciences with universal laws, social science has general rules, not universal ones. There is always an exception to general human behavior and personality. So, it is with fe/male nature. No matter what the environment, there is fe/male behavior and personality that will be the exception to defy general fe/male nature. So, yes, NAWALT, and yes there is a unicorn or two or seven in the world. However, that drives the authentic premise behind AWALT: NAWALT/unicorn is rare, perhaps extremely rare, and even if such exist, such may not be available to partner with. It is sufficient to the MGTOW that only 3 out of 10 WALT. 3/10 is a sufficient problem to fail a risk-benefit and cost-benefit analysis to justify a MGTOW lifestyle. It’s an empirical conclusion that is problematic to dis/prove, but my personal anecdotal experience and observation is 8 to 9 out of 10 WALT. At that level, gynocentrism isn’t just risky, it’s extremely dangerous, and drives the point home all the more for being monk.

Just suggesting that 3 out of 10 (let alone 8 to 9 or 10 out of 10) WALT, generally incurs angry responses from gynocentrists. Further, people have a hard time distinguishing “generally” (as in “most” or “substantial”) from “universally” (as in *every one*). So if MGTOW says “women are like that”, it’s not clear whether it is generally (51% to 99%) or universal (all), but more often than not it is interpreted to mean “all”. Because humans tend to recognize that human behavior and personality is not universal, it is typically offensive to universalize it. I agree with the NFG/DGF outlook about how other people perceive MGTOW, but as a matter of personal integrity it is disingenuous for me not to be nuanced enough to accept that NAWALT, although for practical purposes, trying to find, identify, and pursue a NAWALT-unicorn is wasted effort. Further, because of the high percentage of AWALT, and no clear way to identify NAWALT, you never know if a supposed NAWALT is actually a sleeper-AWALT under various trigger circumstances. So, it’s more pragmatic to assume AWALT in real life, and proceed accordingly.

One more point about AWALT, even if AWALT inherently were universal, that does not necessarily mean that female nature is immutable. Presuming that evolutionary development drives hypergamy, entitlement, self-victimization, lack of personal responsibility, emotional manipulation, less (emotional) intelligence, less (emotional) control, stunted development beyond child-like behavior, etc, the evolutionary process is dynamic and ongoing. Yes, evolutionary change is extremely slow, especially over a large, global population, but nature and personality are mutable in all species by definition under evolution, despite gender dis/similarities among all species. It should not be surprising that evolution produces a rare NAWALT-unicorn, and perhaps due to developing social dynamics, NAWALT may surpass AWALT at some distant evolutionary point in the future, but for now MGTOW caution should be embraced where gynocentrism prevails.

[It’sallbsParticipant]

Let me make this very simple for you AWALT.

http://www.leavemeansleave.eu

[CarnageParticipant 22113]

Ok bell gauge, let’s forget about 99-95.

For theory sake let’s work with 65.

65% of women are a danger to your life (living in hell, constant nagging, DV, divorce rape, the usual stuff) that’s the “normal “
Expectrum.

Now let’s go to the weird 35%. Of wich 17,5 % is nawalt and 17,5 % is murder psichopat, and since women are chamaleons and they pretend, your selection criteria is influenced by her acting.

You actually have less than 17,5% chance of hitting the jackpot.

Best case scenario you get normal bad deal, worst case you get killed.

Now I think about it, is easier to survive Russian roulette game, becouse there is not confusion factor “women acting”.

GET NAWALT OUT OF YOUR HEAD.

NAWALT is nothing but the bait.

To those following me, be careful, I just farted. Men those beans are killers.

[Anonymous 6]

AWALT is that it presumes that female nature (and human nature for that matter) is immutably inherent.

Your foundational assertion here is an oversimplification, and that’s a nice way of putting it. Yes human nature is inherent, in fact there are entire studies of just that. Psychology, psychiatry, evolutionary psychology, and biology on top of that. What these things say about the humans are profound and too numerous to be treated by just a brush off comment that “we treat them as immutable.” The correct statement is: “We treat much of it as immutable with good reason, the rest is seen as happening within a particular context that biology, nature, and several other factors provide.”

Everything that flows from your incorrect assertion misses the mark as a result. My pet dog for example will never be able to discuss the finer points of Shakespearian sonnets with me, why? He’s incapable and will never be able to do that. HE DOES however like to bark at birds and to chase them because he is an American C~~~er Spaniel. Why? Because that’s in his nature, his breed was literally bread to do just that 100’s of years ago. So yes in fact C~~~er Spaniels are AWALT. Human are only different by degree. We have agency, but only up to a point. Albeit a far greater degree than a dog, but it’s still limited to our biology, psychology, environment, and age (amongst others).

So go back to the drawing board and take your sophomoric and reductionary NAWALT bulls~~~ elsewhere. Why? Because I know better and so do many of the other men on here. By the way if you stick around you’ll be pleasantly surprised by how much confirmation for this that you’ll get from all over the world. England, Africa, Australia, etc. Oh by the way exceptions only prove the rule. Think about that.

[ghostParticipant]

If we stop seeing you around the forums, we will assume you found your unicorn and are living happily ever after. No pun intended.

[MechaParticipant 43]

I just want to point out (in plaintext) that the whole AWALT thing is built largely around two things: Hypergamy and the laws/courts. Even if NAWALT, there is still a loaded gun in the hands of every woman thanks to gynocentric laws and biased courts. She could be the most perfect match for you, but if for any reason that trigger is pulled… its over.

Natural checks to women (and men’s) innate sexual nature such as religion do indeed still exist today. I would argue that devote traditional religious relationships are “safer” for that reason. But again, back to that loaded gun. She can at any time decide she doesn’t believe in that religion anymore and wants a divorce and a ride on that chad c~~~ carousel she was missing out on chained to you.

All women are hypergamous, that meaning all women have innate sexual characteristics that drive them to seek out the best possible mate. A trait that is a GOOD THING from an evolutionary perspective, but one that wreaks f~~~ing havoc in a system designed to encourage and facilitate it. Women aren’t the problem, they’re the same as they’ve always been. It’s the system thats the problem.

[Secret Agent MGTOWParticipant 22510]

Not sure if we can help you quite yet.

Women want everything, but want responsibility and accountability for nothing.

[Anonymous 38]

Unicorns don’t exist.

AWALT doesn’t mean all women are toxic. Or that they will all f~~~ you over. It means they are all hypergamous, and manipulative. This is to varying degrees, but that degree depends on her SMV. Which is proof of AWALT.

This is a scientific fact because of evolution.

I have met and banged many women and trust me – AWALT. Even the ‘honest’, ‘moral’, ‘good’ ones.

Once you fully understand female nature you are only going to find AWALTs. Because that’s all there is! I don’t think any fully red-pilled men have found a NAWALT.

[Anonymous 6]

It looks like someone was punching above their weight class.

[Anonymous 5]

I believe the evolutionary angle you’re taking is the best way to deal with Red Pill reality. It’s the only way.
Any other way leaves us feeling bitter and cheated and worse still, resentful towards women.
Esther Vilar goes into detail about how women really think of men as resources and it inadvertently describes logical evolutionary behavior that benefits the species (and not the individual man)
“Women really are callous creatures – mainly because it is to their disadvantage to feel deeply. Feelings might seduce them into choosing a man who is of no use to them”
and
“it is necessary for woman to enact the role of a sensitive being or man would become aware of her essentially cold, calculating nature. Still, as her emotions are always faked and never felt, she can keep a clear head. You can take advantage of someone’s feelings only if you are not involved yourself. Therefore, she turns her partner’s emotions to her own profit, only taking care to make sure he believes she feels as deeply as he himself, perhaps even more deeply She must make him believe she, `as a woman,’ is much less stable, much more irrational, much more”

Richard Dawkins tackles the phenomena of “Outlier” behavior in many species. A couple of examples are Musk Oxen and balling sardine species. He explains how the irrational behavior of the outliers are suicidal but beneficial to the survival of the species.
Perhaps the outlier NAWALTs do the same thing in that they re-enforce male belief system that women are emotional innocents.

I think everyone has their favorite AWALT:NAWALT ratio. I’m an optimist and I’d like to think that one in six is bearable/sufferable, however, always remember a genuine NAWALT can morph to AWALT at any time, for any reason or no reason at all. Their nature is like that of any radioactive element, and in the presence of the modern judicial system, mass media and social media it’s highly unlikely that any NAWALT is permanent.

[AwakenedParticipant 35201]

Anonymous wrote:

It’s an empirical conclusion that is problematic to dis/prove, but my personal anecdotal experience and observation is 8 to 9 out of 10 WALT. At that level, gynocentrism isn’t just risky, it’s extremely dangerous, and drives the point home all the more for being monk.

If you’re SOLD on the monk lifestyle, WHY do you care about AWALT/NAWALT ?

In a World of Justin Beibers Be a Johnny Cash

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

Anonymous wrote:

My minor problem with AWALT is that it presumes

No.

AWALT is not a presumption.

AWALT is not an assumption.

AWALT is an observation.

I know a lot of women. I have never, ever seen a true NAWALT. All women are unique, but All Women Are Like That. All of them. They are each AWALT in their own special unique way.

Because AWALT = NAWALT + time.

If you think you’ve found a NAWALT, wait. You’ll see.

Or marry your NAWALT unicorn and see even sooner. But by then it will be too late for you.

[bstoffParticipant 4863]

The bell curve you’ve decided to use presumes that there are acceptable women at the positive end of the curve.

You’ve already screwed up, right there.

Try using a Venn diagram, but make sure the circles do not touch.
Then you will have something useful to work with.

Stop making excuses for women.

[Zuberi TauParticipant 10606]

The Red pill relapse only leads to ruin.

AWALT

[Jack HarperParticipant 2863]

Something smells fishy here.

Anyway the NAWALT counter argument has been dissected ad nauseam. I can’t recall if it was Stardusk or someone else who put it in simple enough terms. To paraphrase; it doesn’t matter if NAWALT because EWALT (Enough Women ARE Like That). That is simple truth.

And as Mecha pointed out you still have a biased system against you that will always favor female interests in gynocentrism. The cost benefit analysis is clear for any rational man.

[Gravel PitParticipant]

This is what happens when new boots take on the label mgtow without actually reviewing critical content like the Stardusk Compilation. All this is covered. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jo6zWu8nsW8&t=7486s&index=5&list=PL6LSuPWDeAAXb_mT1t0zBMOsyAw0a8YRI

[FrostByteParticipant 19005]

“Did you know that if you put a frog in boiling water, he’ll jump out? But, if you put one in cold water and heat it slowly, he’ll stay in. And boil to death. He won’t even try to get out. He won’t even know he’s dying. Until it’s too late. Men are a lot like frogs.”
— Emma Chase

If you rescue a damsel in distress, all you will get is a distressed damsel.

[HermitParticipant]

Jack Harper wrote:

Something smells fishy here.

Anyway the NAWALT counter argument has been dissected ad nauseam. I can’t recall if it was Stardusk or someone else who put it in simple enough terms. To paraphrase; it doesn’t matter if NAWALT because EWALT (Enough Women ARE Like That). That is simple truth.

I like that. That is a simple truth. I was just telling a woman today to stop acting like an entitled bitch. She didn’t like it, but I don’t like her acting like an entitled bitch.

The evil in women’s hearts leaves them no moral bounds as to inhibit them from descending to the lowest levels of darkness to acquire their self entitled desires.

[Gravel PitParticipant]

Proof for AWALT is simple:

All women (all humans) are descended from the humans who reproduced before us, filtered and filtered going back millions of years before we were even human.

Back then, and still today, women are the limiting factor in reproduction, meaning that without them, we will go extinct. Why? Because they give birth and produce the next generation.

Now, during their 9 month pregnancy they are extremely vulnerable to predators. The humans who survived to make us today had to be the fittest to survive.

Naturally, this meant that the men who protected them from tigers lived long enough to see their children born (thus was born white knightery). And the women who were smart enough to have male proxy security and resources, through manipulation or attractive features, lived long enough to reproduce (thus was born hypergamy).

Once you really start to understand our origins, sexual dimorphism and AWALT become crystal clear. No amount of MRA’s changing the cultural narrative is going to change 6 million years of naturally selected traits ingrained in our DNA.

[Anonymous 6]

Once you really start to understand our origins, sexual dimorphism and AWALT become crystal clear. No amount of MRAs OR FEMINISTS changing the cultural narrative is going to change 6 million years of naturally selected traits ingrained in our DNA.

I help make your above quoted statement fully correct. No offence intended here, but just mentioning MRAs and not feminists is remiss.

[Author]

Posts