The Problem With Women Today

[Shahrazad]

Am I the only one who doesn't know what mansman is talking about?

[Tomas]

Am I the only one who doesn't know what mansman is talking about?

One of the many hazards of the conflict-of-language.

.. Me?, I used to be fluent in Norwegian and Sammi, when Grandmother Berthea died, our family simply stopped speaking those, 'cept for Mother and dad but they discouraged its use (much to their chagrin later in life) round the dinner table etc.

But where mansman is from plus what he's really getting at, I dunno. Difficult to follow when he's not a regular poster.

And, he's anti-woman .. like a lot of the wanna-be "sages" that troll here.

It's one of the (few) downsides of Genius Forums (and I suppose David realizes this) that what he has as a Header (headliner) so many people misconstrue as a type of nomadic lifestyle which as far as I can gather Kevin is the only adherent.

Skipair comes to mind (nomadically) as what I can gather lives out of a tent somewhere (eats peanut butter sandwiches and broccoli) and commutes to his job at some airport outside of Timbuktu, Africa :-)


.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

It's one of the (few) downsides of Genius Forums (and I suppose David realizes this) that what he has as a Header (headliner) so many people misconstrue as a type of nomadic lifestyle [...]

It's perhaps not that simple. A philosophy of truth could be said to be nomadic in nature (like "foxes have holes and birds have nests, but the son of man has no place to lay his head"). The moment one gets comfortable, erect walls of beliefs, ideas, concerns, roofs of lifestyle, habits, engagements all all kinds - mentally - the weak greenhouse seedling of truth could die rather quickly.

Now people always tend to misconstrue the spiritual as material but at the same time one cannot keep treating them as separate realms either, as above so below; what's in your mind is related to where your ass is sitting on.

As this forum has as lofty goal to encourage certain types of growth in a certain audience: people beginning to think about what the absolute might mean, one has to certainly encourage people to investigate the type of life they're leading and the value it's expressing. Where your money is, your time, effort, your comfort zone, there your heart really is devoted to. The words one part-time speaks, thinks, believes, all don't change a thing about this reality.

[brokenhead]

Am I the only one who doesn't know what mansman is talking about?

Of course not. Mansman himself is another.

[brad walker]

how is babby formed? how girl get pragnent

[Dan Rowden]

I say Thank You to this brave person for so much untasteful truth, clap, clap!

How much "truth" was contained in that article is a matter of opinion.

For sure this one live and experience for himself insanity of sick American culture,

Indeed, but therein lies the rub, as they say (whatever the hell the "rub" is -funny how we use these phrases without knowing the specific meaning of the content). The guy has obviously been a "victim" of the system and feels disenfranchised by it. Unfortunately, that kind of motivation seldom produces anything of genuine worth. Aspects of the American judicial system, for example, quite obviously suck, but it's no good blaming women or even feminism for that because it's not women doing it - it's men. In my opinion his railing against what he perceives women having become, is misplaced rage. If a child goes off the rails because his parents give him anything he wants and do not hold him accountable, who is to blame? Seriously, the men who write such articles, though to some extend validly upset, just don't get it. They don't get that the way they raise their daughters, for example, is at the core of the problem, and yet they want to raise them to grow up to be the Mom in the Partridge family. They are thick as bricks.

I dont think any other culture come close to this state of social disease,

Nah, it's just a variant of the same virus.

Please all you foreigners if not spend many days in USA please be quite you not know what you talking about!

I believe I understand American culture quite well, thank you. It's not that hard. Mind you, the extent of your judicial and political madness is kind of hard to follow. My math isn't good enough to track exponential growth.

I feel bad for American male how lousy a place to live unless born to wealth and power.

I feel bad for them too, but only in the sense that I feel bad that they fell foul of their own myopia and stupidity.

Before you challenge author of this revealing site,

Er, it's not actually that revealing. The Internet is replete with such articles now. I've read heaps of them.

effective point-blank truth,

Er, no - quasi-effective occasional truth mixed with one-sided hyperbole and doubtable socio-economic "facts". Total mish-mash.

before you challenge first live like he live and only then you can know the horible reality.

Oh, boo fucking hoo. When men are forced to marry I'll have some sympathy. There's a price to be paid for living in a dreamworld of one's own creation, you know (i.e. the dreamworld of "Woman").

Just shut up you from where comes wizard of Oz have you no idea your life is like King compared to average man in America.

Oh, yes, I suspect things are much better here, but again, whose fault is that? American men truly are wimps - they don't even have enough character to lie in the bed they made for themselves.

Not can know by reading words and brousing internet, never you have any idea how little a man rate in the great usa-ha! where can I spit?

Oh, I only have to watch the plethora of news and popular culture to see where men rate. It's hardly a mystery. Australian men laugh at how pussy-whipped Septics are. Mind you, their laughter may be the compensatory jocularity of a man on death row.

Congrat I say to brave creator of website here at top,

Oh, come on, can we stop with the "courage" claptrap. There's no courage required for what he's doing. It's not like he's attacking the feminine, per se - that would take courage! He has the moral support of an entire population of conventionalists. Have you seen the amount of kudos he receives in his article's comments section? And, interestingly, how many comments are deleted by the blog administrator? What's he's doing is to some extent laudable; the current state of affairs does need to be addressed. But I can only give that approach extremely qualified support.

ready to sacrifice himself in ways all you comfy protected writers never do,

Ok, now you're being vomitious. What is he sacrificing, exactly? He doesn't even put he real name to the blog for Christ's sake.

you are sickening "maybe I connect to his site but say we dont agree" you COWARD!

Oooo, please don't hurt me.

How dare you try to connect his site without first ask permission! If was me I NOT give you permission, you coward.

Maria tenía un pequeño cordero,
Su paño grueso y suave era blanco como nieve,
y por todas partes esa Maria fue,
que el cordero estaba seguro de ir.

[Carl G]

Dan wrote:

Indeed, but therein lies the rub, as they say (whatever the hell the "rub" is -funny how we use these phrases without knowing the specific meaning of the content).

I think it's originally from Shakespeare's Hamlet. I'm guessing it might refer to rubbing an animal's fur the wrong way, against the grain.

[Iolaus]

Dan,

I feel bad for American male how lousy a place to live unless born to wealth and power.

I feel even worse for the American woman, who has probably never been unhappier, never less respected, never so fundamentally unfulfilled.

I watched the utube video by the way, at Kevin's new site, called Taking Sex Differences Seriously. I thought it excellent, and pretty much is my view.

Oh, yes, I suspect things are much better here,

Why, and in what ways?

American men truly are wimps - they don't even have enough character to lie in the bed they made for themselves.

I don't think they made this bed.

Oh, I only have to watch the plethora of news and popular culture to see where men rate. It's hardly a mystery. Australian men laugh at how pussy-whipped Septics are. Mind you, their laughter may be the compensatory jocularity of a man on death row.

Septics? And are Australian men less pussy-whipped?

What about Swedish men?

[Dan Rowden]

Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub:
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come,
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause: there's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life;

[Kelly Jones]

The guy has obviously been a "victim" of the system and feels disenfranchised by it. Unfortunately, that kind of motivation seldom produces anything of genuine worth.

If a person recognises a systematic untruthfulness at work in the way he or she is raised, that can greatly stimulate a strong attachment to truth.

Probably a lot of what you say is true, Dan. The herd-instinct is strong in this fellow; his soul is flimsy. Yet can we fault him, if he lives where herd-instinct is very strong? Point out anyone with a soul in America. Anyone who is not hiding in a fox-hole? Even Sam Harris has his wife for camouflage.

Without the examples of Kevin, or David, would you have rejected your femininity to the same extent as you have? I don't think so.

Would you move to America if your pension were granted as an overseas resident?

What would you do if Sandra got a bee in her bonnet about migrating together to America?

[Dan Rowden]

The guy has obviously been a "victim" of the system and feels disenfranchised by it. Unfortunately, that kind of motivation seldom produces anything of genuine worth.

If a person recognises a systematic untruthfulness at work in the way he or she is raised, that can greatly stimulate a strong attachment to truth.

Yes, potentially, but I'm not seeing that in this guy; what significant untruthfulness is he really recognising? He's basically upset at not being respected by that which he adores and not being able to feel attracted to that which he adores. His legitimate complaints about systemic injustice strike me as merely a means to correct that situation. The guy doesn't appreciate - at any level at all - that the women he hates are the very same as the women he loves and wished to be loved by. That fact alone makes his article all but bereft of any real truth-content. There may be potential in him if he's made privy to his errors of thinking, but I'm greatly skeptical. His religiosity is yet another factor in my skepticism (though it's hard to tell precisely what form that takes).

Probably a lot of what you say is true, Dan. The herd-instinct is strong in this fellow; his soul is flimsy.

Yes, and so are the souls of his audience. His agenda is such that it's doubtful to inspire anything significant. Mind you, if his wayward thinking were pointed out to him, who knows what may be possible. I rather think his reaction to such an act might be ultimately revealing. Who knows what were contained in the many comments to his blog that have been administratively deleted. I don't have time to write a comment as his blog. Maybe someone else does.

Yet can we fault him, if he lives where herd-instinct is very strong?

Yes and no. Anyway, I'm not seeking to "fault" him so much as put the article in proper perspective.

Point out anyone with a soul in America. Anyone who is not hiding in a fox-hole? Even Sam Harris has his wife for camouflage.

True enough.

Without the examples of Kevin, or David, would you have rejected your femininity to the same extent as you have? I don't think so.

I have no way to know that as I don't know what my future would have been absent of such influence. But, I'm not sure what that question is about since the article being discussed in no way shape or form is about eliminating any part of the feminine.

Would you move to America if your pension were granted as an overseas resident?

The relevance of that question escapes me completely. My answer to it, however, is no, I would not.

What would you do if Sandra got a bee in her bonnet about migrating together to America?

That question also seems 100% irrelevant to this discussion. My answer to it, however, is that I'd do exactly nothing. Your question carries implications that are erroneous.

[Alex Jacob]

Dan wrote:

"it's not women doing it - it's men. In my opinion his railing against what he perceives women having become, is misplaced rage. If a child goes off the rails because his parents give him anything he wants and do not hold him accountable, who is to blame? Seriously, the men who write such articles, though to some extend validly upset, just don't get it. They don't get that the way they raise their daughters, for example, is at the core of the problem, and yet they want to raise them to grow up to be the Mom in the Partridge family. They are thick as bricks."

I agree with what you have written Dan, and I also wanted to apologize for the video with the two gay dudes dancing to that Barbie song.

I hope this makes up for it

This is also good.

For a lady with a bee in her bonnet...

[Dan Rowden]

I think you took "All the world's a stage" too literally, Alex.

And if you couldn't access Youtube, what would you do?

[Carl G]

I personally think that's a lazy-assed way to communicate, linking people to videos. I feel like we're Alex's little kids being set down in front of the Tube when dad's too busy for real time touch. I feel like a fucking latch key child when he does that. It makes me angry. I'm going to need therapy.

[Alex Jacob]

You mean he didn't mean it literally?

However that may be, I do very much agree with what you wrote.

"It's not women doing it - it's men. In my opinion his railing against what he perceives women having become, is misplaced rage. If a child goes off the rails because his parents give him anything he wants and do not hold him accountable, who is to blame? Seriously, the men who write such articles, though to some extend validly upset, just don't get it. They don't get that the way they raise their daughters, for example, is at the core of the problem, and yet they want to raise them to grow up to be the Mom in the Partridge family. They are thick as bricks".

The fundamental change has to occur in men, and that change has to be very, very far-reaching.

"And if you couldn't access Youtube, what would you do?"

Hmmmmm. Increase word-count by an average of 500 per post?

[Blair]

The little dicks ramble, rough each other up. Little boys like to play around.

Let me tell you what a real Man is,

A real Man faces reality in its raw form.

A real Man lives and Dies by his code of ethics.

A real Man doesn't breed.

[kissaki]

A real Man doesn't breed.

A real man does breed. The real man, however, is aware of all the forms he gives birth to and ultimately takes no credit for them. To limit oneself to the illusory popular definition of breed is to be a fake man indeed.

I am breeding right now.

[Dan Rowden]

You mean he didn't mean it literally?

However that may be, I do very much agree with what you wrote.

"It's not women doing it - it's men. In my opinion his railing against what he perceives women having become, is misplaced rage. If a child goes off the rails because his parents give him anything he wants and do not hold him accountable, who is to blame? Seriously, the men who write such articles, though to some extend validly upset, just don't get it. They don't get that the way they raise their daughters, for example, is at the core of the problem, and yet they want to raise them to grow up to be the Mom in the Partridge family. They are thick as bricks".

The fundamental change has to occur in men, and that change has to be very, very far-reaching.

That's true. But it's possible we have differing perspectives on what actually needs to change. What needs to change is men's emotional dependence on women and ideational dependence on Woman (it being largely an ideational construct). Even an incremental change in that direction would be something. My point in addressing that article is to show that it doesn't [seem to] represent any such change because its agenda is backward looking. The danger in such writings is that of projecting one's private meaning - and profundity - onto the words therein. Two people, with entirely different values and agendas, can make their points using the exact same words. Such is one of the pitfalls of language. Could aspects of the author's agenda be improved with better understanding? It's possible. More than that I cannot say. It's also possible he wouldn't give a rat's about our/my agenda. I've decided that I will try and allot the time to make a web-page based analysis of his article. We'll see how he reacts to it when and if he sees it.

"And if you couldn't access Youtube, what would you do?"

Hmmmmm. Increase word-count by an average of 500 per post?

Thank God for Youtube. All hail Youtube! May your access live long and prosper.

[skipair]

"A real man."

Pffffffffft.

[Kelly Jones]

The guy has obviously been a "victim" of the system and feels disenfranchised by it. Unfortunately, that kind of motivation seldom produces anything of genuine worth.

If a person recognises a systematic untruthfulness at work in the way he or she is raised, that can greatly stimulate a strong attachment to truth.

Yes, potentially, but I'm not seeing that in this guy; what significant untruthfulness is he really recognising? He's basically upset at not being respected by that which he adores and not being able to feel attracted to that which he adores.

I agree with this, and the rest of your paragraph. I think it's a level of consciousness struggling over its self-esteem, as a 'soldier of the U.S. economy' which he has been trained to protect and develop, and now perceives as being destroyed. While he's in offensive mode to protect the treasure he's trained to protect, he is attacking truthfully the flaws of the enemy. So, while his motive is not really to destroy the enemy at all, but rather protect the treasure (his 'agenda', as you put it correctly) he does manage to recognise some truths about feminine-mindedness. That may do some good.

Mind you, if his wayward thinking were pointed out to him, who knows what may be possible. I rather think his reaction to such an act might be ultimately revealing. Who knows what were contained in the many comments to his blog that have been administratively deleted.

Yes, who knows. I think you know how terrified men are of criticising women in public (and not only men); and how much they develop when someone else demonstrates intelligence and insight in relation to the problem of women.

KJ: Yet can we fault him, if he lives where herd-instinct is very strong?

DR: Yes and no. Anyway, I'm not seeking to "fault" him so much as put the article in proper perspective.

I'm seeking to correct it. What causes the extent of soullessness in the article? Is much of it to do with the husband mentality? If so, why are wives so influential in prompting people to back away from spirituality?

Also, I had a slow internet connection on my previous look at the article, so I didn't see the opening image of Mrs Partridge (?) as the ideal woman. You're right, it does look much more like a "Xian Mens Rights movement" production. On the face of it, I too don't like the extinction of pleasant, courteous, dignified women, and the growth of the women's refuge type female: very unhealthy, psychologically unstable, destructive, suicidal, drug-addicted, sluttish, kleptomanic, etc. I lived in a women's refuge in Melbourne when I was 23, and it's a place of hell. So, if this is what the new woman is, I can well understand a regression to the old ideals. It is more consciousness-loving, even though it isn't the whole story.

So, this is what I'm getting at with the closing questions in my last post. Partly, perhaps it is a personal criticism, but moreso I'm using you as an example to shape this polemic.

KJ: Point out anyone with a soul in America. Anyone who is not hiding in a fox-hole? Even Sam Harris has his wife for camouflage.

DR: True enough.

KJ: Without the examples of Kevin, or David, would you have rejected your femininity to the same extent as you have? I don't think so.

DR: I have no way to know that as I don't know what my future would have been absent of such influence. But, I'm not sure what that question is about since the article being discussed in no way shape or form is about eliminating any part of the feminine.

But in my head it is, so I ask you to bear with me. The article is about "The Problem With Women Today", and even if it supposes that this is a new problem, rather than the problem as it always has been, it is providing information about the feminine.

How we eliminate the feminine is by using reasoning, and by being spurred by certain ideals. The ideals are often things like: truth, justice, honesty, charity, wisdom, serenity, chastity. In the past, these old-fashioned ideals were often formed in idealistic feminine forms. It is with some sense of aspiring idealism that I believe the article is written, even if it is largely obliterated by grumpiness.

These ideals get passed from person to person; when idealistic and strong individuals exist contemporaneously, there's a strong force exerted on the culture. Hence, we can see that the small understanding of the feminine shown in the article, is greatly due to the culture of the writer. It would have been stronger, and future incarnations be improved, with examples of overcoming the feminine.

KJ: Would you move to America if your pension were granted as an overseas resident?

DR: The relevance of that question escapes me completely. My answer to it, however, is no, I would not.

It's relevant to the development of a culture; it's about influence. Why is it that American men as so unlike European men, and so immature regards their understanding of the feminine? Most Australian men are even more backward than the Americans, by the way - they haven't even started grumbling.

KJ: What would you do if Sandra got a bee in her bonnet about migrating together to America?

DR: That question also seems 100% irrelevant to this discussion. My answer to it, however, is that I'd do exactly nothing. Your question carries implications that are erroneous.

Well, don't you think it's wierd to be sharing a flat with someone who has no interest whatsoever in philosophy? If it's simply the easiest person to cohabit with, to reduce living expenses, fine - but why is that non-philosophically oriented person so easy to live with? Not only that, but it's a particular type of woman - a mature, independent, motherly, down-to-earth woman who just happens to be trained in nursing (I think). I'm not criticising you personally, I'm pointing to the husband psychology, the one that doesn't really want to leave woman behind, which is key to critiquing this article.

I posed the question in that way to see whether you'd go to America if Sandra assisted you. It perhaps would have been better to ask directly, what could you not do by living in Australia, that you could by living in America? I think the main reason I wouldn't move there is owing to their health system, as I may be developing signs of multiple sclerosis, and it would probably shorten my life and decrease my usefulness if I lived in America.

In its youth, wisdom can make a man resentful of women, bcause no woman appreciates true wisdom. She prefers the animal-man. Consequently the lingering animal within a wise man feels cheated. However, in wisdom's maturity there is no need for appreciation, and hence no bitterness.

[xerox]

...

[Rhett]

The men that mate with hundreds of women are getting that mainly through appearance and intelligence.

Yes, but not in the classical sense. They have the appearance of intelligence in sexual communication. So it doesn't really matter if they're ugly or dumb.

- So, according to you, a breeder is someone good at sexual communication, and from what you have said previously, sexual communication centers around breaking down the inhibitions males place on women, so the women can plunge into their preferred state of sexuality, and male attention and valuing towards her?

In relation to this, i add, that men place the greatest value on women as sexual objects, and women, having a passive mentality, have absorbed and hold themselves in this light. For instance, when a woman is being raped, part of the high she may get from this is the fact that she is being treated as an incredibly valuable sex object, to think that a man is willing to risk his reputation and freedom for many years for only a brief moment of sex with her, makes her feel very special.

- To what extent do you consider sexual communication to be non-verbal versus verbal? You talk about key phrases, i suspect you have more phrases than the common ones like "you know you want it", "fun", "no strings", "you're gorgeous". I think when women want no strings fun, sexual communication aside, they prioritise the males appearance and confidence and status as a 'man'.

- What would you say of a male that displays high integrity yet attracts married women that would be willing to leave their husband for him? Although, to what extent are you talking about men that attract married women to breed with them while staying with their husband? Personally, i don't think there are many women, in Australia at least, that have children to a male other than their steady partner, who the steady partner then unknowingly raises as his own.

- Stepping aside from the sexual communication approach for a moment, and speaking with regard to those women that choose to breed with unintelligent breeders, my thinking is that could be for three or more reasons. It could be because the women want to be dominant, or, they don't consider they are capable of luring a man that is intelligent, or, they want a male that is feminine and passive and therefore does not stress the woman out so much. These factors may also play into the kind of child she wants.

[brokenhead]

A real man does breed. The real man, however, is aware of all the forms he gives birth to and ultimately takes no credit for them.

Dat is whack, mah man. You be trippin. Ah gots fo', fi' baby mama, ten kids, all mines. Ah takes care o' mah kids!

[Alex Jacob]

Dan writes:

"That's true. But it's possible we have differing perspectives on what actually needs to change."

If your position is the standard QRS monolith then I am sure that our perspectives differ.

"What needs to change is men's emotional dependence on women and ideational dependence on Woman (it being largely an ideational construct). Even an incremental change in that direction would be something."

With this I completely agree. Men need to take a step back and examine the whole show, not only of 'emotional dependence' but of other levels of dependence---non-independence---sacrifice of capacity to form and hold values. Obviously, we differ because I feel very strongly linked with an ethic that originates in Biblical values, prophetic values, and this also effects how I see the male-female relationship. I see society at large becoming decadent and perverse, but I differ from you-plural (I think) in that I think that it is men who dropped the ethical and moral ball. If things are going to turn around you first have to have some sort of notion of what it is supposed to turn around to, and men have to begin to redefine this, but not with reaction (the article in question drips with reaction) but with creative energy and will.

"My point in addressing that article is to show that it doesn't [seem to] represent any such change because its agenda is backward looking. The danger in such writings is that of projecting one's private meaning - and profundity - onto the words therein."

I would only mention that it is a strange sort of prose that incorporates photos, and is more cartoonish than anything.

"Two people, with entirely different values and agendas, can make their points using the exact same words. Such is one of the pitfalls of language. Could aspects of the author's agenda be improved with better understanding? It's possible."

There is no clear agenda that I could discern. There may be some good reasons for being angry, but there is nothing forward looking at all in the entire vomit-session. That is a very weak position to be in.

I do think the GF forum has something very worthwhile to offer on these subjects.

The real question should be phrased: The Problem with Men Today. Women will always follow a man's lead, in the long-run that is, and if men are linked to real ethical and moral currents.

[skipair]

So, according to you, a breeder is someone good at sexual communication, and from what you have said previously, sexual communication centers around breaking down the inhibitions males place on women, so the women can plunge into their preferred state of sexuality, and male attention and valuing towards her?

It depends on how you look at it, but I wouldn't necessarily say that it is males who are responsible for a woman's sexual inhibitions. It's an interdependent system.

But in general, yes. Sexual communication is a guy who allows himself to be openly horny with women. This makes them horny, which makes him more horny, and the dance begins.

In relation to this, i add, that men place the greatest value on women as sexual objects, and women, having a passive mentality, have absorbed and hold themselves in this light.

Again, I'm not sure if we can resolve a chicken before egg argument.

But it is interesting that when I used to respect woman's character, she didn't have much use for me. Only once I found them dispicable could I look on them as purely a sex object, and only then did they love me. Pretty shocking.

When I see a pretty girl and let my eyes linger on her face she'll usually look away. And she does this in a way that says, "why are you looking at my face, why don't you look at ME." So if I'm chasing my dick around and am trying to get with a girl, when she talks I blatantly look at her breasts. When it's my turn to say something I look up at her and say, "wait, what?", and have her repeat it. Then I'll probably go back to her breats.

This kind of thing doesn't really make any sense from a larger perspective. Breats are cones of fat. But I think I'm going to have to let this kind of behavior run its course. Perhaps I'll be able to sqeeze the last few drops from the desire in a year or two. I have more thinking to do, but no matter for now. Just have to focus on what I can.

- To what extent do you consider sexual communication to be non-verbal versus verbal?

99% non-verbal.

You talk about key phrases, i suspect you have more phrases than the common ones like "you know you want it", "fun", "no strings", "you're gorgeous". I think when women want no strings fun, sexual communication aside, they prioritise the males appearance and confidence and status as a 'man'.

Sexual state is a flow state, so there are no plans or key phrases in the strict sense. It's the kind of thing that when you drop into it, you already know what to do. It's wired in.

- What would you say of a male that displays high integrity yet attracts married women that would be willing to leave their husband for him?

I'd wonder why he likes thinking about it to the extent of posting the topic on an internet forum.

It's certainly what I wonder about myself.

Although, to what extent are you talking about men that attract married women to breed with them while staying with their husband?

To the extent that she still uses sexual communication. It seems to taper off with age. But again, it's not a conscious desire to "breed", but to have sex.

Personally, i don't think there are many women, in Australia at least, that have children to a male other than their steady partner, who the steady partner then unknowingly raises as his own.

I wouldn't know. Birth control works pretty well, though.

Stepping aside from the sexual communication approach for a moment, and speaking with regard to those women that choose to breed with unintelligent breeders

This doesn't make sense to me. If by "breeders" you mean the ones good at sexual communication, it makes no difference if they are "intelligent" or not. The woman are automatically attracted to them, with no mind of their own. You can't "step aside" from it.