Author: Fabrice Julien PUA

Permanent sexual arousal

Before, we lived surrounded by 20 to 50 people genetically close. Now, in the cities, there are easily 10,000 people. It is impossible to walk a few hours in a city without meeting a large number of desirable people of the other sex (and sometimes, we are close to them).

Physical desires are always excited (even if it is often unconscious) but will only rarely be satisfied. We live in a very frustrating environment.

Clothing helps avoiding it a little bit but obviously not enough: it hides some visible skin therefore mitigates some excitement but it allows on the other hand to bluff and hide flaws, which can have the opposite effect. It is double-edged. Clothes also have the power to make a girl look sexier than she is… (but do not worry that once naked and the male aroused, he will fuck her all the same!)

It also forces to confront your own misery with the success of some others (especially if you are alone and sees in the street ugly guys with beautiful girls). This can lead to tantrums and outbursts.

 

Differences of interpretation

The fact that men interpret a smile as an advance when it is nothing, consider the girls dressed sexy as sluts, or that rapes are widespread (increase in the number of rape on a sample of individuals) is a legacy of our evolutionary psychology.

This is not a reason to tolerate all that shit (especially not rape). But society is such that people tend to go crazy. So, it’s up to us to control ourselves and to give a good education to our children.

I sincerely believe that the game can help men to be less “hungry for sex” and so more attractive (which will seduce women): they will fuck more it will be beneficial to the whole society.

We should not forget that sex is, in our society, a taboo subject that fascinates and attracts us all… but secretly (just see the number of songs and films that talk about it)! Fucking for fun and not to perpetuate the species (through contraceptives) could change that. But in fact, women are still fine little plaster saints and men are still sex-starved. And women in particular, have so much their ass between two chairs that they often react aggressively to men’s approaches. This is not a behavior of healthy people, you will agree. We live in a stressful society and this anxiety causes people to be always more careful and not to live their lives… but to suffer their lives.

It is true that it is really better to become alcoholic that being a woman who loves sex, right? Well, in today’s society is better seen by many people. But where are we going?

It would be good that our brains evolve rapidly to take contraceptives into account so that fewer people are frustrated (thus potentially dangerous). This mixture of bad faith and biological dissatisfaction seems to be a dead end road leading right to the overuse of drugs and alcohol (everyone needs an outlet). Video games are also a distraction to me: after a certain age, we should prefer “hunting” (I allow myself this term because we all have an instinct of hunter-gatherers) girls than Pokémon!

 

Feminism

One can read in an article in The Futurist called The Misandry Bubble « The Western World has quietly become a civilization that undervalues men and overvalues women, where the state forcibly transfers resources from men to women creating various perverse incentives for otherwise good women to conduct great evil against men and children, and where male nature is vilified but female nature is celebrated. This is unfair to both genders, and is a recipe for a rapid civilizational decline and displacement, the costs of which will ultimately be borne by a subsequent generation of innocent women, rather than men, as soon as 2020.»

Feminism is in fact not just a weapon of intra-sexual competition but also a filter that allowed women to select men who are dominant enough to do not submit to it. Now all the propaganda induced effects, including this one : it prevents the development of these men they are looking for.

Currently, the repressed desire of men is used to sell (entrances in clubs, more and more expensive, for example).

 

The Islamic veil

This phenomenon is explained by sexual competition. It’s simple: it distinguishes between “Madonnas” and “Sluts.” The veil is even forbidden to prostitutes and slaves.

Women do not want to look like whores, men are not marrying whores, men do not bring all their resources to whores.

The most beautiful women can say they do not care about looking like sluts, they do not need to run after men, it is men who desire them, and men love sluts. But that does not matter: there are far more average women than hot women, so the first ones have quickly reined in the seconds. This is the law of numbers: democracy.

In addition, the veil prevents men from being too excited at the sight of women… and some wagging tongues say that it allows ugly women to find a husband since men do not see them. It makes sense but, in practice, that would surprise me a bit.

In any case, what is certain is that if we do not see the women of our neighbors: no jealousy!

 

Monogamy

It is a model that was based more on the desires and needs of women than men.

Today we also live in a repeating pattern of monogamy (changing partners but often only one at a time). The consequence ? Significant tensions between different social groups.

However, Wikipedia is more optimistic than me (this is appreciable but it seems that there is a part of propaganda because monogamy can lead to frustration which always has negative consequences)

Monogamy is a legal regime allowing a man to marry only one woman, and a woman only one man. The other way is called polygamy.

According to research, it would appear that the human has a lot of receptors on two substances released during sex. This phenomenon would make him an inherently monogamous animal.

Approximately 85% of past human societies for which there are historical data seem to have allowed men to have more than one wife in a polygamous marriage. One might empirically think that the increased wealth of the elites should encourage more polygamous marriages. But the trend is opposite: monogamous marriage has spread across Europe and more recently in the world, even among the elite, even if wealth gaps have grown. An academic study published in 2012 used the criminological data available to compare polygamous and monogamous societies. According to the authors, they suggest that monogamous cultures have less rape, kidnapping, murder and child abuse, and other crimes than polygamous societies.

The institutionalization of monogamy seems to bring more net benefits for society in particular because without it many men are forced to celibacy with less hope to live with a woman. They would then be more likely to abuse and antisocial behavior; The study raised the hypothesis that institutionalized monogamy is associated with a cultural model best suited to the modern world, reducing intrasexual competition among young people, and reducing therefore the crime rate (in terms of rape, murder, assault, theft fraud) while reducing the age difference between spouses, fertility and gender inequality and moving the efforts of men looking for a wife to more paternal investment, and improved economic productivity. Peter Richerson believes that by increasing the degree of relationship within the household, the normative monogamy effectively reduces intra-household conflict, leading to fewer child neglect, less abuse, accidental death and homicide.

 

Is everyone entitled to health care and love ?

The popular belief is that everyone has a soul mate. But evolutionary psychology tells us that bad genes should be excluded from genetic heritage.

It’s contradictory !

Some people should not breed, according to natural selection. Besides, a long time ago, many children did not survive.

Today, medical advances are such that genes that would once have been evacuated are still there and reproduce. On the other hand, this same progress is the source of many disease because of stress and junk food, for example. So it’s the least society can do, taking care of us!

I am neither for nor against the fact that we treat ill people, I was happy when I felt not good in my life. But what I mean is that nature does not want it and suffers. Indeed, there are disastrous consequences: a dumbing down of the population and an overcrowding which hurt the planet.

Let’s think about it…

Extract from : Evopsy and Seduction

All that has been said so far implies that what turns on every woman “100% woman” is determined by genetics.

The game has therefore applied to understand all this and to use evolutionary psychology to teach us what levers make respond women “programmed” as women.

However, as we have seen, some seek female characteristics in men. Just as some guys will be reassured by manly characteristics in a woman. Psychology and placement on the scale from “100% woman” to “100% man” will bring individual nuances in our analysis. But on average, men have more success by adopting a rather manly behavior and women by adopting a feminine behavior. It seems logical but many people have not yet integrated it (or have forgotten because of “feminism”)!

In summary, according to Evopsy, women are genetically programmed to look for men who have the best genes and which can ensure the survival of their offspring (strength, resources…) As for men, they look for women offering a good genetic resume for their offspring (beauty, health…)

Through a study of evolutionary psychology, we can get to reproduce the attractive attitudes and avoid those that communicate we’re not an attractive candidate.

A man with good attitudes also becomes as attractive to women as a girl who is a pure hottie would be attractive to us. She will as quickly as possible make a sorting out “pussies” with whom she will have a purely friendly relationship, and serious candidates for sex. This is natural and cannot be controlled! It is useless to blame her for that…

Just like it is useless to be mad to a man who does not wants to fuck a big sausage. This chick may be very nice but evolution does not care. It is uncompromising, contrary to what the Hollywood movies would like to make us believe.

We almost all have a potential to turn on girls because it is more a psychological than a physical matter. Culture and society blur their instinct (thanks you Walt Disney …) so the girls may not even consciously know what really pleases them in fact. That’s why it is not a good idea to ask a friend with whom it is platonic to tell you how to seduce. No more than it is advisable to read women’s magazines.

We’ve listed some characteristics that can make someone desirable (there are many others in the rest of the book). That said, people of the opposite sex will always have personal preferences out of our scope of influence.

For example, each woman has her own hierarchy of qualities she looks for in a man (e.g. social position > Confidence > beautiful physical appearance).

And even within this hierarchy, there are different hierarchies: the server of the hype club can be an alpha in the eyes of girls who give value to clubbing. He would be nothing for the girl who does not go in that club and does not care about people who drink alcool listening to electro. The drugged will like a dealer or a rich guy who will pay her some powder. The sportive woman will like her ski instructor or yoga teacher, etc.

Most people know from adolescence where they stand in the hierarchy of reproduction: just a few trials during adolescence are enough to find it and then targeting at this level. It leaves traces!

Personally, I did not have much success when I was young and now I still wonder how I got there. You can climb in the hierarchy of reproduction but you will have to fight (do not take it too literally) against yourself and against others.

This is what is called inter-sexual selection, which corresponds to variable selection criteria from one person to another in the eyes of the opposite sex. Another example: a woman can give more importance in selecting certain attributes such as leadership, a tall man, his eye color, his impudence… While another may prefer the quality of speech, humor… the girl’s education level can also influence the hierarchy of her preferences!

Finally, there are issues of perspective that comes into play: a politician like François Hollande is a dominant in Paris but if one day he finds himself lost in the jungle, he would be nothing in the eyes of a savage girl.

I hope you have better understood why seduction is such a delicate area, hard to study (many variables), and why the game works through the logic of large numbers (most women are programmed to love Men).

Extract from : Evopsy and Seduction

Sexual selection started a long time ago and happened on the very long term: our brain has been optimized for a world that no longer exists. And had not enough time to adapt.

We must assimilate this notion that we have already mentioned, the “Mismatch” : our brains date of the Stone Age, so it was not selected to live in today’s environment: overcrowding, sharing labor, etc.

We are currently facing an unprecedented sexual context, far from what our ancestors have known: reliable contraceptives, infertility treatments, artificial insemination, dating sites, sperm banks, AIDS … The prehistoric brains of men and women did not know condoms, for example! And yet, it changes everything, sexually speaking!

We face these new conditions armed of old strategies that have worked at different times and in environments disappeared forever. The modern human has been shaped by a world that had nothing to do with the modern world and the change of the environment was not slow enough to allow a deep adaptation.

Fortunately, this book will focus on what it is good to keep in this programming but also and especially what it is counter-productive to keep. Basically, I invite you here to think for yourself about certain things you do or refrain. Why ? How? Is it really in your best interest to do that?

Extract from : Evopsy and Seduction

We must consider that this expression is always implied in this book and is here to show the boundaries of this knowledge and to remember the caution that must be preserved when it comes to its interpretation.

For example, when we say that being tall and muscular offers a reproductive advantage, we imply “all things being equal”.

In real life, the benefit is not necessarily very obvious. First, maybe that the guy who has this combination will never dare to approach a girl or is impotent, which does not question the principle of the benefit but its realization for the individual.

Then maybe that this genetic combination has other consequences going against the reproduction of its bearer: for example, if, after a disaster, the last girl on earth is traumatized for one reason or another and fear tall men (do not laugh, I know some) she will not consider the handsome giant survivor and will prefer an opportunistic guy like me. In this particular case, it is obviously not an advantage anymore: the principle is challenged and the genes of this man who seemed nevertheless advantaged would disappear.

The human sciences are sciences like others who seek to define general laws based on variables.

The only problem is that these laws are far more numerous in the human sciences than in most disciplines, and most are difficult to quantify or even undiscovered.

This is the opposite approach that was chosen in Evopsy: instead of trying to list the variables, the researcher will consider those he knows and act like if all the others were unchanged.

This is the meaning of “all things being equal”.

Extract from : Evopsy and Seduction

It should be understood, on the other hand, that the differences between men and women are not absolute.

It is easy to find counter-examples: many women are taller than many men (Big Up to Jamel Debbouze and Melissa Theuriau) although on AVERAGE, women are smaller than men.

These differences correspond to an “archetype”, but it is only guidance. There are also men with women’s intuition. In other words, each one of us is somewhere on the scale of “100% man” to “100% woman” but nobody is on the extremities. We all have some fragments of the code of the other sex in us, even if it does not dominate. Most of us are not totally sexed, we are a kind of mixture of feminine nature and masculine nature. What you will read is not an absolute truth but is true in general cases.

Extract from : Evopsy and Seduction

All our senses and all our daily observations show us that men and women are different. The most visible differences are clearly reflected at the physical level: primary and secondary sexual characteristics.

Intellectual differences are also notable. For example, the woman has a verbal intelligence far superior to the man: she will better understand the different meaning of a sentence. She talks more and not with the same objectives: it is found in every society that have been studied (universality of the influence of genes). Feminine intuition usually allows her to better understand the relationships between people: she will know very quickly who tries to seduce who, what is the emotional state of a couple, while that man will often not “see the matrix “.

In contrast, men are better in terms of visual-spatial intelligence: they dominate in tests asking to reconstruct an image or reading maps.

However, do not make me say what I did not say. We are not that different: we are more similar than different. One could compare the man and the woman with both word processing software each with special characteristics (such as Word and Open Office). Our similarities constitute 97% of our human nature: men and women have two legs, two arms, a body, a head, and our lives revolve around the same dimensions: personal, relational, professional and master. Our needs are essentially the same too: survival, to love and be loved, to flourish, to reproduce. Our fears too. In short, our brains have the same structures…

Men and women are similar but different. Not worse, nor better… just different!

The source of this difference is in our human nature, our genetic code, our atavism. All the humans share twenty-three pairs of chromosomes. Twenty-two pairs are identical: one, the sexual pair, is different.

The source of our differences lies also in our millions of years of evolution. The man always on the hunt, on guard, focused on his physical survival and the survival of his family, displaying ingenuity to stalk his prey, to do not get lost… All that makes a man and is etched in his nature.

The woman, often pregnant, living in the cave with the other women and children, having to learn how to live in a small space, anticipating potential danger, watching the fire, feeding her children from her body reserves, waiting for hunters to regain her strength, gathering all that is edible… all that makes a woman is etched in her nature.

The fairest conclusion is that men and women are not identical, they are complementary.

Extract from : Evopsy and Seduction

In zoology, the dominant male (or male alpha) is the individual in a group of animals that the others follow, obey or submit to.

The dominant male has the priority to eat or mate. In some species, the dominant male even has the exclusivity of females and is the only male that can mate. The dominant male may also, in some species have highly ritualized prerogatives such as the right to lead a procession.

The dominant male in the species of capuchin monkeys is the favorite of all the females of his species. But only the strongest females have a relationship with the dominant male. They must earn it! I reason a little like that… I maybe have genes of Capuchin!

The status of alpha male is related to physical force but sometimes other more complex criteria. For example, for the bonobo or the chimpanzee, the dominant male does not always credit his status to his only physical strength but also to indirect methods such as the ability to create “political” alliances. Like humans (Artistote has also written that man is a political animal)!

This may bother some people to use indifferently “dominant male” in a sentence that speaks of a man and in another that speaks of the bonobo. Basically, what these people hate is that we can consider the man as an animal.

Yet this is the case (we are social animals according to certain, moral animals according to others) and if science agrees to say that there are dominant males in a lot of species and especially in our cousins the monkeys, then why not for humans?

The debate that would consist of asking if the Human is so wonderful that he deserves a capital H to designate his species, and should therefore escape the study zoologists,  seems to me not really constructive and a proof of bad faith.

“Dominant male” is indeed a term of zoology. But the man is an animal like another one, so we can apply a term of zoology to Humans.

Extract from : Evopsy and Seduction

Sorry (even if it’s not my fault), but over the centuries, the selection based itself on efficiency, not morality nor happiness. Do not throw me tomatoes, please, I am only the messenger!

Natural selection is defined as the fact that a number of people just pass on their genes. Indeed, it is not enough to live to breed, you must above all be selected by a partner and breed. That is what is specifically called sexual selection, component of natural selection.

Well-known but not really understood, the theory of natural selection is however not very complicated: if there is a variation on genetically transmitted character, then the characters that have facilitated this transmission of genes are more likely to be present in the next generation than those having impaired it. It is therefore not the best genes that will be passed : it’s those that will be passed which will have been the best. It is very difficult for us to predict what will be the best genes in the next generation. The son of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie will maybe look ugly. There is little chance but how to know? There is always a small element of chance that comes into play.

But let’s go back to our sheep doggy styles. The idea behind sexual selection is that it is not enough, in a gendered species to be viable and healthy to transmit your genes: you must also find a fertile partner of the other sex with whom uniting to transmit. In other words, if there are two sexes and at least one sex partner can choose with whom he or she will pass on his or her genes, then there will be sexual competition between candidates.

The degree of sexual competition varies according to gender animal species. Most often, it is the male who will fight (usually physically but not always) to gain access to females. In fact, the distribution of sexual competition between the sexes depends on an essential criterion: the cost of having offspring for one of the sex. For cost, one must understand “anything that has a negative impact on the next or previous offspring” : the time required (e.g. pregnancy), the impact on health, the time required for weaning and raising children , etc.

In humans, it appears that the fathers were very important for the survival of children. In some Amazonian tribes, paternal orphans are killed: no one wants to take them over. In the challenging environment that prevailed for most of human history, a father was very important. Therefore, in humans, it’s not just men who are in sexual competition, women too. Once they found a man, women want to keep him (we will also study how people manage competition between individuals of the same sex).

Of course, parental investment is not the same for each sex: women experiencing pregnancy for nine months… during this time the man can flutter as he wants: his investment in it is still much lower and therefore the selection criteria of each gender are not the same.

Much of the choice of human partners will be influenced by the Reproductive criteria, unlike the woman who will be largely influenced by the criteria of Survival. Those who know a little bit the Mystery seduction method already know what I mean. Basically, “survival” corresponds in theory to manhood, to be a leader, to have ambition, etc. While “reproduction” it’s mostly about physical appearance.

The female strategy of looking for a dominant male, well known in the world of the game, is for the female to do not look for a caring father… but instead for good genes that produce visible effects, such as muscle or marks of health, reflecting longevity and maximum fertility. The females in this logic are seeking to optimize the transmission of their genes by mating with a partner with such characteristics in order to give birth to a beautiful male who also will possess those characteristics which will make many females of future the generations consider him.

However, a male too alpha would scare women who are afraid of not being able to keep him because he would have many offers to leave with another woman. This is the same logic that make the too beautiful women intimidate men, who often do not even dare to approach them.

There are not so long, every society made arrangements in one way or another, so that “everyone has his or her each one” and that no one or as few people as possible are frustrated of sex and offspring. Societies of the “arranged marriage” also still exist in some cultures.

But then, today, within us, have only the beautiful girls and the wealthy guys the right to love (or at least to reproduction)? Does evolutionary psychology condemn men and women who are just average, not too beautiful nor too rich? No, in the society we live in, to help us get our game well, charm, and ambition, are powerful weapons to cultivate. And good news: they do not fade, unlike beauty, and are not as ephemeral as can be the media success, for example.

I will reveal the keys so each one of my readers can succeed at the game of life!

Extract from : Evopsy and Seduction

The first idea that hurts the buttocks but must integrate is that we are not free behind our genetic inheritance. No need to use complicated concepts like the image of the father nor neuroses coming from childhood to understand and predict the behavior of a fertile woman without children (who would want some but have not yet because she has dedicated her life to her career) approaching menopause. No more than the behavior of a 50 years old rich man who cannot resist cheating on his 45 years old wife with a pretty young woman of 20 who could be his daughter but that makes him fit-in.

Note that I do not justify pedophilia but… how many of you would have resisted in the shoes of Vincent Cassel (in Un moment d’égarement version 2015)?

It is our genes that make us belong to the human species, it is also our genes that decide to which sex we belong, shape our bodies, our way of thinking, etc.

When we have children, we transmit them our genes. On the scale of human history, we can say that these are the genes that constantly manipulate us, to be transmitted to survive and exist in future generations. We die, but our genes survive if they manage to reproduce. We’re kind of survival machines for genes. Richard Dawkins rightly defines a gene as “a portion of chromosomal material that potentially lasts for enough generations to serve as natural selection unit.”

Genes control the living beings in the manner of a programmer who would have taught chess to a computer and can no longer intervene once the game started. The chess programs do not envisage every possibility to choose the best shot to play: they contain strategies associated with some weighting that the computer can eventually change, based on games already played. Similarly, genes, build carriers with various coping skills to survive and reproduce.

Our genes influence our behavior in the direction of reproduction. But rather than giving us the order to procreate, genes manage to we make us want to fuck. While they actually just want to be transmitted. And then, to survive, they give us the order to take care of our children.

What we do as parents is just trying to give the best opportunities to our children in the sexual competition that awaits them, which is also what our genes want us to do. Our ancestors were able to do all this, and they have given us these behaviors.

Genes however do not decide everything. The wider environment has an influence too : food availability, climate, other living beings around, the type of relationship with other people, culture, society, etc. Chance also plays a role because you could have the best genetic code of the world, if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time but take a brick on the head… it’s game over!

The genetic program however cannot be too free because if at the end of his life, the man who conveys the gene had no viable children, the program disappears would disappear with him.

Over millions of generations before us, the too free programs were eliminated, and those that remain today do not leave us really free, they seek to manipulate us from inside. They try to give us a body and such a behavior that they find themselves in subsequent generations. I’m simplifying, of course, I am not trying to denounce a weird genetic conspiracy, I’m just talking about the fact that our instinct influences us.

On average (there are exceptions to everything), natural selection favors genes that program their survival machines so that they fit best to their environment, living conditions and relations with animals of the same species and of different species.

It’s always about reproduction : these rules are immutable and always underlying, even when one is young. Otherwise why would 25 years old footballers already have several kids while with their finances, they could easily use condoms and flirt with a lot of supermodels? Knowing that the average age of a first child in France is 28 years.

Some beings transmit their characteristics more than others and thus have a great influence on the future of the species.

Anyway, if you are depressed one day, tell yourself that you carry the legacy of your ancestors : sexual winners who managed to reproduce. So, you have the opportunity to be a winner too! You have got it in your blood…

Extract from : Evopsy and Seduction

Why isn’t Evopsy “politically correct”? Because this discipline offers a view of life in which people are not equal at birth. This seems obvious when I look around me in the street, but it apparently must not be said out loud. It is a taboo subject!

We hear since our childhood that we are all equal and unique. But do not forget that in the Declaration of Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789), men are born free and equal… certainly! But it’s about “rights.” In fact, everyone is not similarly armed for life, with the same genetic advantages. Besides, there is no human group where every members of the opposite sex arouse in us the same desire. Everyone is unique, OK, but the entire base is common… and since this is the basis of our ancestors primates, we also all are very similar and predictable. Why do you think the statistical services are capable of predicting the number of demonstrators, break-ins or traffic congestion if we all are as free and unpredictable than we like to think?

This science is also disturbing because it is not fun to understand that we are not free in front of our genetic inheritance. Our consciousness is only the tip of the iceberg: most of what goes on in our minds and in our bodies remain hidden from us. Saying it is not, however, being not politically not correct, it’s just being realistic. But many people naively think they 100% know and control themselves. Or, they just want to keep their illusions…

We regularly hear that what really matters is the inner beauty. It counts, certainly. But be aware that there is a common basis for all cultures: they value what they perceive as “beauty” and “healthy”. Almost no culture has ever valued what it considered as deformities. Moreover, beyond specific cultures ornaments, physical beauty always involves a certain symmetry of the face. You will not find a culture that values facial asymmetry. We will return course in detail about what makes a man (and a woman) beautiful in the eyes of the opposite sex. But what I am saying here is that this is apparently politically-incorrect to say that we are attracted to beauty. Because there are way more people who do not have these physical qualities (and/or do not cultivate them) than beautiful people, so the majority wins and imposes its dictates which however not always take our species up…

The counter-argument I hear most often is that these theories do not hold good for the simple reason that plump women were perceived as sexy one or two centuries ago whereas currently it is slim girls who are seen as sexy. Where from their conclusion : sexual attraction is not programmed.

Still, we must look further than the tip of your nose: the fat was valued when it was a sign of affluence and good health! Today, we know that too much fat is bad, so being thin is a sign of health and wealth because it proves we have the means to buy the right products and take care of us. Same for sunbathing: before that meant we were working in the fields like the poor, today it means we have enough money to go on holiday!

It is believed that advertisements convey unnatural images and encourage people to look like models. But the ideals of beauty are not arbitrary: they are indices of reproductive value of women. Although, I grant you, advertising abused and some women in these environments are still victims of the always-more: they order their from models to have no female form! They are sometimes retouched in the pictures but cadaveric on the catwalks (breasts, hips, buttocks are photoshopped!)

One could almost say that they are just act as hangers. But let’s go back to our demonstration.

Thus, the terms of the expression of our programming change, but the purpose remains the same: valuing what is perceived as signs of “good health” and “fertility”.

You have now understood the logic: a simple analysis would conclude that everything is relative. An advanced analysis would conclude to be aware of differences between the eras, to wonder what they express and to realize that the goals are the same throughout the history of mankind.

The ruthless logic of Evopsy is thus (fortunately or unfortunately) constant throughout the ages. It is also reluctant to admit that there is not altruism without selfish afterthought. But accept that we are not perfect, due to any cause. Darwin, for example, said “Our ancestors are the origin of our evil passions! The devil, in the guise of the baboon is our grandfather.”

Well, you will read a lot of things that bother in this book, but I have ensured their veracity and I quote my main sources at the end (so it is not redundant, the others I quote them incrementally).

You have the choice to prefer to live in the illusion of happiness given by ignorance or to open your eyes and understand the behavior of people around you. Nietzsche said by the way that there is a gulf between the truth and the life (The Birth of Tragedy)!

If you prefer the illusion, so I guess I will receive hateful mails. But you can deny the facts… sometimes you’ll take it on the chin and be disappointed by the behavior of others. If you read on the contrary, you’ll arm yourself for life in society in order to intelligently compete.

The two life strategies are respectable. You are very free to read me or not.

I am sincerely convinced that ignoring the contributions of Evopsy, because it does not please you and because it does not match the conditioning that society instills us, would be counterproductive.

Extract from : Evopsy and Seduction