What do you think?
Rate this book
The Polygamous Sex
English, German (translation)
144 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1974
17 people are currently reading
555 people want to read
About the author
Esther Vilar
22 books168 followersEsther Vilar, born Esther Margareta Katzen is a German-Argentinian writer. She trained and practised as a medical doctor before establishing herself as an author. She is best known for her 1971 book The Manipulated Man and its various follow-ups, which argue that, contrary to common feminist and women's rights rhetoric, women in industrialized cultures are not oppressed, but rather exploit a well-established system of manipulating men.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 33 reviews
July 1, 2020
When you've lived a full life thus far, and then you discover a book that has been shadow banned and made almost impossible to find (yes book burning is alive and well right now), and you read it all in one sitting, and then immediately realize upon finishing that in a matter of 3 hours it dismantled one of the biggest lies our society can't even comprehend as a possible reality.
If you're a man trying to negotiate this fucked up reality this book is going to change your god damn life.
Basically, we live in the upside down and the truth is the hardest pill to swallow.
If you're a man trying to negotiate this fucked up reality this book is going to change your god damn life.
Basically, we live in the upside down and the truth is the hardest pill to swallow.
July 7, 2016
Esther Vilar is a truly brave, honest and intelligent woman.
December 17, 2020
Some parts of this book are no longer true this day and age. However, this book definitely deserves a read if you want to understand how polygamy works in the minds of men and women.
If you are on the road of the red pill, this book should be on your reading list.
Some ideas you can find in this book:
* Men see their women as either their protégé or their sex partner. The two roles cannot be found in the same woman.
* Women tend to be the protégé rather than sex partners.
* A polygamous man should not feel guilty towards other women, but towards other men, as having multiple women diminishes the chances of procreation of other men.
* The feminist agenda wants you to believe women are oppressed, when in fact men are the real oppressed gender in modern times.
I do not agree with the explanations given for some ideas. But this book is very convincing on its entirety.
If you are on the road of the red pill, this book should be on your reading list.
Some ideas you can find in this book:
* Men see their women as either their protégé or their sex partner. The two roles cannot be found in the same woman.
* Women tend to be the protégé rather than sex partners.
* A polygamous man should not feel guilty towards other women, but towards other men, as having multiple women diminishes the chances of procreation of other men.
* The feminist agenda wants you to believe women are oppressed, when in fact men are the real oppressed gender in modern times.
I do not agree with the explanations given for some ideas. But this book is very convincing on its entirety.
August 9, 2020
One of the most eyebrow-raising opinions about women coming off from a female. Multiple passages are outdated and could've easily been scraped off, since times have changed a lot for certain. Concerning the style however articulate Vilar is she falls in the mistake of vulgarizing her words and gets way too baldly upfront sometimes, which I'm sure it is the main reason why she's been considered women's uncle Tom of the 20th century. The title in itself is a major turn-off and I think it was poorely chosen.
As far as gender relations go she forms clearly her approach from an evolutionary standpoint which gets the reader to pause and think for many instances. I appreciated very well her stands supporting animal rights which was an odd of a thing to voice at the time (70's), but somehow she managed to point it out couple of times to stress the importance of the altruistic ethics that are necessary for harmonic non-human and human social relations. To describe the book in one sentence, I would say that no truer words have ever been spoken lol.
As far as gender relations go she forms clearly her approach from an evolutionary standpoint which gets the reader to pause and think for many instances. I appreciated very well her stands supporting animal rights which was an odd of a thing to voice at the time (70's), but somehow she managed to point it out couple of times to stress the importance of the altruistic ethics that are necessary for harmonic non-human and human social relations. To describe the book in one sentence, I would say that no truer words have ever been spoken lol.
February 2, 2021
Pocas cosas más misóginas he leído en mi vida pero ninguna tanto en boca de una mujer. No creo que sea cosa de la época pues el 2005 sacó otro libro y creo que es aún peor si cabe. Qué pena tanto odio a la mujer por parte de otra mujer.
Read
April 28, 2022This book is a mixed bag. Not as good as her first book The Manipulated Man
Certainly, she is wrong on some interpretations. On some other regards she can't be faulted because evolutionary interpretations, that explain the facts and circumstances she mentions very well, were developed only decades later.
But the general sentiment of the book stands.
Certainly, she is wrong on some interpretations. On some other regards she can't be faulted because evolutionary interpretations, that explain the facts and circumstances she mentions very well, were developed only decades later.
But the general sentiment of the book stands.
January 28, 2022
En este libro se centra más en la sexualidad y en lo que ella cree en líneas generales que buscan ambos sexos el uno del otro. No tan bueno como el varón domado pero tiene cosas muy interesantes que merecen la pena su lectura.
December 19, 2020
Un punto de vista sensacional sobre la realidad actual de las relaciones de pareja.
July 5, 2019
Interesting reading about the intergeneric dynamics between men & women. In general, the reasons why men per bond with women & vice versa. In my opinion, this is good reading material; However, since the original manuscript was written in German is unknown to me whether the translator made a good job or not.
I consider that many of the arguments/ideas stated by the author are commonplace, but I must admit that the idea that men in general end-up adopting the women they marry was new to me.
Interesting that the most important thing for per bonding with women is polarity (attraction between the opposites), but when the times comes for getting married women disregards polarity in favor of the best provider they can find. In consequence, it does not result in a surprise that sooner rather than later the sex between both partners temper off which usually happens as soon as she legally secures her provisioning (signing the contract).
Under such circumstances, I understand why men seek elsewhere for the sex they should be provided with at home resulting in the development of a polygamous life with certain variations depending on the economic status of the individual.
According to the author (which I also believe), the relationship between a husband & his wife becomes sexual again only when she becomes aware of the arrival of another woman who endangers her provisioning. Generally, a woman much younger than her, who not only satisfies the man`s needs in bed but also turns out to be at the same intellectual level.
I consider that many of the arguments/ideas stated by the author are commonplace, but I must admit that the idea that men in general end-up adopting the women they marry was new to me.
Interesting that the most important thing for per bonding with women is polarity (attraction between the opposites), but when the times comes for getting married women disregards polarity in favor of the best provider they can find. In consequence, it does not result in a surprise that sooner rather than later the sex between both partners temper off which usually happens as soon as she legally secures her provisioning (signing the contract).
Under such circumstances, I understand why men seek elsewhere for the sex they should be provided with at home resulting in the development of a polygamous life with certain variations depending on the economic status of the individual.
According to the author (which I also believe), the relationship between a husband & his wife becomes sexual again only when she becomes aware of the arrival of another woman who endangers her provisioning. Generally, a woman much younger than her, who not only satisfies the man`s needs in bed but also turns out to be at the same intellectual level.
March 28, 2023
9.75/10.
Esther Vilar is the strangest liberal I have ever encountered. She is also the strangest woman I have encountered. This book, like her first one, reveals the complete emptiness of feminist pronouncements. Vilar reverses the tenets of feminism, showing the power women hold over men in our society. Using their looks, sexuality, and coyness, they trick men into becoming eternal providers of them while they do no work.
This essentially amounts to slavery for the man. The man has to work his entire life, or he will not survive. On the other hand, the woman has the capability of never working her entire life; of working random, low-intensity part-time jobs; or of getting a "career" if that is what she deems as fun. The woman has complete power over who has children, due to the invention of the birth control pill. The woman also has a guaranteed financial supporter of her and her children until death — that is called her "husband". If a divorce happens, the legal system will back her up and make sure he spends his days earning enough money just to give it all over to her.
However, there is a problem with the provider "love" that men give to women: it creates an extreme inequality between the two. The woman becomes a child that the man takes care of; the woman is to be pitied. The man thinks her too physically and mentally weak to work a job, so he does it for her. This creates a state of pity for the men, and narcissism for the woman. The woman has complete power over the relationship, and can extract money one way or the other from her adopter-husband. The woman, never giving anything but sex a few times a month, comes to respect the man less and less. He is her servant, he is her slave: how could any sexual attraction be founded upon that?
The man begins to see his adoptee-wife as a child, and a hopelessly inept and spoiled one at that. Who can have sex with someone so dependent? Thus arises the feelings of prudery and guilt for having sex with such a "pure" creature. "I don't want to hurt her, I don't want to trick her" thinks the man (implying her physical weakness and mental stupidity).
Men can only find sexual love, eros, with a woman who is at least near to their intellectual equal. Attraction = Sexual Polarity + Intellectual Equality. The most masculine men (hairy bodies, broad shoulders, tall, muscular, bearded, unemotional) are the most attractive to and most attracted to the most feminine women (large breasts, wide hips, slim, emotional). Men go for these most attractive women while they can. There is a small problem, however. Because men fawn over women sexually, attractive women never have a challenge in their life, physical or mental. Thus arises their inevitable stupidity. Meanwhile, other women see this and imitate the most attractive women (in an attempt to get men), becoming stupid likewise.
So now the most attractive women for men are the most stupid. Ugly and unfeminine women, having little favors being given to them due to their subpar looks, often gain in the mental sphere. They gain some culture and a bit of intelligence. They may become equally knowledgeable as the average man. But men, obviously, prefer the attractive woman to the smart one, even if she is dumber than a bag of rocks.
A similar phenomenon happens with men. Men who are highly intelligent tend to be scrawny and unattractive to women. In their natural sphere, they meet with little success. They compensate for this by doubling down on their intellectualism, finding something that they can finally succeed at. They pile up theories and attempt to get women another way: they proclaim that women are "oppressed". Overintellectualism having confused them, they gather together half-statistics and cherry-picked examples and then proclaim the terrible patriarchy. The first feminists were not women, but were in fact Marx, Engels, Bebel, and Freud. By proclaiming the oppression of women, it helped them in two manners: (1) they get the vote of women and (2) they justify in their own minds that they "deserve" the women because they "fought" for them.
Meanwhile, these women are resting at home, not exerting themselves whatsoever, never fighting battles or wars, swimming in their alimony payments, and sexually blackmailing their husbands. Having been coddled their entire life because of their looks, they remain infantile and stupid. What terrible oppression!
For men stuck in the husband-adopter situation, attraction has now waned. The provider instinct is fulfilled, but not the instinct for sex. These cannot be combined in the same person because they are contradictory. One treats the other as a child, the other as an equal. Women can handle this, as their children fulfill the provider instinct and their husband the sex instinct. However, men are not fulfilled in this manner. Generally, women use regular sex as bait for a marriage; then marriage occurs and sex wanes or even stops. The man becomes full husband-adopter for his new wife-adoptee. What an incredibly desirable scenario. I would trade 2/3 of my life earnings and 1/2 of my future earnings for such a deal.
Not. The solution for a man is to find a mistress, someone who fulfills his sexual needs as opposed to his provider needs. Does this hurt his woman? Certainly no less than it hurts other men. From time immemorial, high-status/rich men have had multiple women, whereas low-status/poor men have had one or zero women. To just think of a few examples, Johann von Goethe had many mistresses, as did Louis XIV, Edward VIII, James II, and perhaps every other monarch in the world. Why did they have mistresses? To satisfy a sexual instinct that their adoptee-wife could not satisfy as a complete financial dependent. Thus men are the "polygamous sex".
Esther Vilar is the strangest liberal I have ever encountered. She is also the strangest woman I have encountered. This book, like her first one, reveals the complete emptiness of feminist pronouncements. Vilar reverses the tenets of feminism, showing the power women hold over men in our society. Using their looks, sexuality, and coyness, they trick men into becoming eternal providers of them while they do no work.
This essentially amounts to slavery for the man. The man has to work his entire life, or he will not survive. On the other hand, the woman has the capability of never working her entire life; of working random, low-intensity part-time jobs; or of getting a "career" if that is what she deems as fun. The woman has complete power over who has children, due to the invention of the birth control pill. The woman also has a guaranteed financial supporter of her and her children until death — that is called her "husband". If a divorce happens, the legal system will back her up and make sure he spends his days earning enough money just to give it all over to her.
However, there is a problem with the provider "love" that men give to women: it creates an extreme inequality between the two. The woman becomes a child that the man takes care of; the woman is to be pitied. The man thinks her too physically and mentally weak to work a job, so he does it for her. This creates a state of pity for the men, and narcissism for the woman. The woman has complete power over the relationship, and can extract money one way or the other from her adopter-husband. The woman, never giving anything but sex a few times a month, comes to respect the man less and less. He is her servant, he is her slave: how could any sexual attraction be founded upon that?
The man begins to see his adoptee-wife as a child, and a hopelessly inept and spoiled one at that. Who can have sex with someone so dependent? Thus arises the feelings of prudery and guilt for having sex with such a "pure" creature. "I don't want to hurt her, I don't want to trick her" thinks the man (implying her physical weakness and mental stupidity).
Men can only find sexual love, eros, with a woman who is at least near to their intellectual equal. Attraction = Sexual Polarity + Intellectual Equality. The most masculine men (hairy bodies, broad shoulders, tall, muscular, bearded, unemotional) are the most attractive to and most attracted to the most feminine women (large breasts, wide hips, slim, emotional). Men go for these most attractive women while they can. There is a small problem, however. Because men fawn over women sexually, attractive women never have a challenge in their life, physical or mental. Thus arises their inevitable stupidity. Meanwhile, other women see this and imitate the most attractive women (in an attempt to get men), becoming stupid likewise.
So now the most attractive women for men are the most stupid. Ugly and unfeminine women, having little favors being given to them due to their subpar looks, often gain in the mental sphere. They gain some culture and a bit of intelligence. They may become equally knowledgeable as the average man. But men, obviously, prefer the attractive woman to the smart one, even if she is dumber than a bag of rocks.
A similar phenomenon happens with men. Men who are highly intelligent tend to be scrawny and unattractive to women. In their natural sphere, they meet with little success. They compensate for this by doubling down on their intellectualism, finding something that they can finally succeed at. They pile up theories and attempt to get women another way: they proclaim that women are "oppressed". Overintellectualism having confused them, they gather together half-statistics and cherry-picked examples and then proclaim the terrible patriarchy. The first feminists were not women, but were in fact Marx, Engels, Bebel, and Freud. By proclaiming the oppression of women, it helped them in two manners: (1) they get the vote of women and (2) they justify in their own minds that they "deserve" the women because they "fought" for them.
Meanwhile, these women are resting at home, not exerting themselves whatsoever, never fighting battles or wars, swimming in their alimony payments, and sexually blackmailing their husbands. Having been coddled their entire life because of their looks, they remain infantile and stupid. What terrible oppression!
For men stuck in the husband-adopter situation, attraction has now waned. The provider instinct is fulfilled, but not the instinct for sex. These cannot be combined in the same person because they are contradictory. One treats the other as a child, the other as an equal. Women can handle this, as their children fulfill the provider instinct and their husband the sex instinct. However, men are not fulfilled in this manner. Generally, women use regular sex as bait for a marriage; then marriage occurs and sex wanes or even stops. The man becomes full husband-adopter for his new wife-adoptee. What an incredibly desirable scenario. I would trade 2/3 of my life earnings and 1/2 of my future earnings for such a deal.
Not. The solution for a man is to find a mistress, someone who fulfills his sexual needs as opposed to his provider needs. Does this hurt his woman? Certainly no less than it hurts other men. From time immemorial, high-status/rich men have had multiple women, whereas low-status/poor men have had one or zero women. To just think of a few examples, Johann von Goethe had many mistresses, as did Louis XIV, Edward VIII, James II, and perhaps every other monarch in the world. Why did they have mistresses? To satisfy a sexual instinct that their adoptee-wife could not satisfy as a complete financial dependent. Thus men are the "polygamous sex".
November 30, 2024
Αυτό το βιβλίο καλό θα ήταν να μην έχει εκδοθεί. Θα μπορούσε κάλλιστα το μοναδικό του μέρος που προβάλλει μια απροκατάληπτη θεωρία να αποτελεί ένα άρθρο σε μια εφημερίδα, ένα περιοδικό, ίσως ένα δοκίμιο σε μια συλλογή ή ακόμα και μια πρόταση για ακαδημαική έρευνα. Αλλά όλο το υπόλοιπο ήταν τραγελαφικό. Και εξηγούμαι:
Η συγγραφέας πραγματεύεται την πολυγαμία που αποτελεί "ανδρικό" χαρακτηριστικό. Να σημειωθεί πως το βιβλίο γράφτηκε το 1977, σχεδόν μισό αιώνα πίσω. Εκθέτει λοιπόν την ιδέα της για αυτό το "φαινόμενο":
Οι γυναίκες προτιμούν το ρόλο του αντικειμένου προστασίας του άντρα αντί για εκείνον της σεξουαλικής συντρόφου. Αυτό έχει ως αποτέλεσμα να παρουσιάζονται στη σχέση του ζευγαριού ως αδύναμες, να υιοθετούν παιδικές συμπεριφορές και να δημιουργούν ενοχές στις συντρόφους τους που τείνουν να τις αντιμετωπίζουν ως υιοθετημένα παιδιά και κατά συνέπεια να θεωρούν τη σεξουαλική πράξη μιαρή, αποτρόπαια, προσβλητική, ανίερη κλπ. Επομένως, ο άντρας δεν έχει άλλη επιλογή παρά να ξεκινήσει να συνευρίσκεται με άλλες γυναίκες, που είναι "πραγματικές" γυναίκες, με ακέραιο σεξουαλικό ενδιαφέρον ως προς τον ίδιο.
Ο καθένας έχει στον κύκλο του κάποια γνωριμία γένους θηλυκού που όταν τη ρωτάς "Τι ψάχνεις σε έναν άντρα;" δίνει σαν απάντηση "Ασφάλεια" χωρίς δεύτερη σκέψη, και βλέπεις ότι αφού πέσει η τζίφρα, ξαφνικά ξεκινούν όλα τα προβλήματα για εκείνη και μονίμως παραπονιέται. Δεν παραπονιέται όμως γιατί ο άντρας της δεν την ποθεί, ίσα ίσα, παραπονιέται γιατί την προσεγγίζει πιο συχνά απ' όσο θα "έπρεπε" και επιπλέον δεν της προσφέρει τελικά αυτή την ασφάλεια που αναζητούσε.
Μέχρι εδώ λοιπόν, όλα καλά. Διότι η θεωρία της Vilar αντιπροσωπεύει την αλήθεια ενός αρκετά μεγάλου ποσοστού του τότε πληθυσμού της τότε εποχής και αντιπροσωπεύει μέχρι και σήμερα την αλήθεια ενός αρκετά μικρότερου αλλά σημαντικού ποσοστού του πληθυσμού της σημερινής εποχής.
Ωστόσο, γίνεται μια υπερ-γενίκευση, σαν να προσπαθεί να πείσει τον αναγνώστη ότι όλοι οι άντρες είναι μια κοψιά και πως όλοι οι άντρες στρέφονται στην πολυγαμία γιατί όλες οι γυναίκες προβάλλουν ως ύψιστη ανάγκη τους αυτή της προστασίας και το γυρνάνε στην ψυχρότητα.
Αναγνωρίζει, βέβαια, κάπου στα μύχια της σκέψης της, πως η θεωρία της δεν πατάει σε γερά θεμέλια, ότι ακόμα και το ανδρικό κοινό, στου οποίου τη συμπάθεια στοχεύει ώστε να καταστεί δημοφιλές το βιβλίο, δεν θα ταυτιστεί αν δεν δώσει λίγη ακόμα ανάλυση και γι' αυτό κάνει το εξής:
Ξεχωρίζει τους άνδρες που έχουν την δυνατότητα (και το δικαίωμα) να είναι πολύγαμοι, από εκείνους τους άμοιρους που δεν την έχουν. Και φυσικά ο διαχωρισμός γίνεται με βάση την οικονομική τους κατάσταση. Εφόσον επισφραγίζει και επικυρώνει τη θεωρία της με αυτή την εντελώς παράλογη και αβάσιμη ανάλυση που βασικά αποτελεί προσωπική γνώμη, περνάει σε επόμενη θεωρία.
"Η αγάπη είναι μονογαμική, ζηλότυπη και πιστή". Αν έχεις ακούσει ποτέ από σύντροφό σου τη φράση "αν δεν ζηλεύεις σημαίνει ότι δεν ενδιαφέρεσαι" είμαι 99% σίγουρη ότι έζησες άκρως τοξικές και συναισθηματικά εξαντλητικές καταστάσεις. Η θεωρία της δεν βασίζεται κάπου, σαφώς, δεν μιλάει για συναίσθημα, δεν αιτιολογεί καμία άποψη, δεν επιχειρηματολογεί, κάνει μονάχα μια απέλπιδα προσπάθεια να σε πείσει (για ακόμη μια φορά) ότι αυτό που η ίδια σκέφτεται είναι θέσφατο, παραθέτοντας αράδες λέξεων σε ξύλινη στοίχιση που δεν βγάζουν κανένα απολύτως νόημα.
Έπειτα έρχεται το ακόμα πιο γελοίο κεφάλαιο του βιβλίου που η συγγραφέας έχει ξεχάσει εντελώς πως είναι γυναίκα και μιλάει σαν μάτσο μικροαστός αλκοολικός τζογαδόρος που έβγαλε-δεν έβγαλε δημοτικό και κατά βάση μαζί με τη μάνα του κατέληξε να μισεί ολόκληρο τον γυναικείο πληθυσμό και οτιδήποτε αποκλίνει από μια καθαρά ανδρική έκφραση. Μας λέει ουσιαστικά ότι οι γυναίκες δεν έχουν το παραμικρό δικαίωμα να θεωρούν ότι είναι καταπιεσμένες καθώς αυτές επέλεξαν αυτή τη στάση ζωής, την βέλτιστη και εξόχως προνομιούχα, αυτή τη θέση ισχύος, μιας και έχουν απόλυτη εξουσία επάνω στους άντρες τους. Επισημαίνω εκ νέου ότι το βιβλίο γράφτηκε το 1977...
Νομίζω ότι δεν χρειάζεται να εξηγήσω σε τι είδους επιχειρήματα βασίζεται. Δεν χρειάζεται καν να τα διαβάσεις, μια συζήτηση με έναν μάτσο μικροαστό κλπ κλπ σχετικά με τον γάμο του θα σε πείσει. Είμαι σίγουρη ότι γνωρίζεις τουλάχιστον έναν από αυτούς, μιας και δεν έχουν εκλείψει, κυκλοφορούν ανενόχλητοι και φορτωμένοι περίσσεια αυτοπεποίθηση ανάμεσά μας.
Κατά την ταπεινή μου άποψη, είναι επικίνδυνο να πατάς σε δύο βάρκες, και μάλιστα τρύπιες. Από τη μία να προσπαθείς να κερδίσεις τη συμπάθεια του αντρικού κοινού απαξιώνοντας τις γυναίκες, από την άλλη να προσπαθείς εντελώς υποκριτικά να "αφυπνίσεις" με πλάγιο τρόπο το γυναικείο κοινό και να τους δείξεις ότι είσαι σύμμαχος στην αναζήτηση συζυγικής ευτυχίας απενοχοποιώντας τους άνδρες. Επίσης, είναι γνωστό πως η πολυγαμία δεν είναι ανδρικό χαρακτηριστικό αλλά ανθρώπινο και πως δεν είναι μόνο οι άντρες που υιοθετούν γυναίκες, αλλά συμβαίνει και το αντίθετο και μάλιστα κατά κόρον.
Κατά τα δικά της γραφόμενα "Ο άνθρωπος της μέσης ευφυίας βλέπει πάντοτε μία μόνον όψη μιας κατάστασης πραγμάτων" και νομίζω μας βροντοφώναξε πού ακριβώς τοποθετεί τον εαυτό της.
Εν κατακλείδι, δεν μου προσέφερε κάτι χρήσιμο. Περίμενα ότι θα διάβαζα τα συμπεράσματα ενός πονήματος, μιας εκτενούς έρευνας που θα είχε ως στόχο να βάλει το λιθαράκι της στην προσπάθεια γεφύρωσης του χάσματος επικοινωνίας μεταξύ των φύλων. Αντ' αυτού διάβασα μια φλύαρη έκθεση απόψεων χωρίς συνοχή που κατά πάσα πιθανότητα γράφτηκε εν μία νυκτί. Στο πόδι. Υπό την επήρεια αλκοόλ και υπό την τρεμάμενη φλόγα ενός κεριού. Με στόχο τις πωλήσεις. Όχι μόνο δεν θα στο πρότεινα, αλλά επίσης είναι ένα βιβλίο που με επιείκεια θα κατέτασσα στην κατηγορία "trash" και εύχομαι να φύγει το συντομότερο δυνατόν η ανάμνησή του από το μυαλό μου.
Η συγγραφέας πραγματεύεται την πολυγαμία που αποτελεί "ανδρικό" χαρακτηριστικό. Να σημειωθεί πως το βιβλίο γράφτηκε το 1977, σχεδόν μισό αιώνα πίσω. Εκθέτει λοιπόν την ιδέα της για αυτό το "φαινόμενο":
Οι γυναίκες προτιμούν το ρόλο του αντικειμένου προστασίας του άντρα αντί για εκείνον της σεξουαλικής συντρόφου. Αυτό έχει ως αποτέλεσμα να παρουσιάζονται στη σχέση του ζευγαριού ως αδύναμες, να υιοθετούν παιδικές συμπεριφορές και να δημιουργούν ενοχές στις συντρόφους τους που τείνουν να τις αντιμετωπίζουν ως υιοθετημένα παιδιά και κατά συνέπεια να θεωρούν τη σεξουαλική πράξη μιαρή, αποτρόπαια, προσβλητική, ανίερη κλπ. Επομένως, ο άντρας δεν έχει άλλη επιλογή παρά να ξεκινήσει να συνευρίσκεται με άλλες γυναίκες, που είναι "πραγματικές" γυναίκες, με ακέραιο σεξουαλικό ενδιαφέρον ως προς τον ίδιο.
Ο καθένας έχει στον κύκλο του κάποια γνωριμία γένους θηλυκού που όταν τη ρωτάς "Τι ψάχνεις σε έναν άντρα;" δίνει σαν απάντηση "Ασφάλεια" χωρίς δεύτερη σκέψη, και βλέπεις ότι αφού πέσει η τζίφρα, ξαφνικά ξεκινούν όλα τα προβλήματα για εκείνη και μονίμως παραπονιέται. Δεν παραπονιέται όμως γιατί ο άντρας της δεν την ποθεί, ίσα ίσα, παραπονιέται γιατί την προσεγγίζει πιο συχνά απ' όσο θα "έπρεπε" και επιπλέον δεν της προσφέρει τελικά αυτή την ασφάλεια που αναζητούσε.
Μέχρι εδώ λοιπόν, όλα καλά. Διότι η θεωρία της Vilar αντιπροσωπεύει την αλήθεια ενός αρκετά μεγάλου ποσοστού του τότε πληθυσμού της τότε εποχής και αντιπροσωπεύει μέχρι και σήμερα την αλήθεια ενός αρκετά μικρότερου αλλά σημαντικού ποσοστού του πληθυσμού της σημερινής εποχής.
Ωστόσο, γίνεται μια υπερ-γενίκευση, σαν να προσπαθεί να πείσει τον αναγνώστη ότι όλοι οι άντρες είναι μια κοψιά και πως όλοι οι άντρες στρέφονται στην πολυγαμία γιατί όλες οι γυναίκες προβάλλουν ως ύψιστη ανάγκη τους αυτή της προστασίας και το γυρνάνε στην ψυχρότητα.
Αναγνωρίζει, βέβαια, κάπου στα μύχια της σκέψης της, πως η θεωρία της δεν πατάει σε γερά θεμέλια, ότι ακόμα και το ανδρικό κοινό, στου οποίου τη συμπάθεια στοχεύει ώστε να καταστεί δημοφιλές το βιβλίο, δεν θα ταυτιστεί αν δεν δώσει λίγη ακόμα ανάλυση και γι' αυτό κάνει το εξής:
Ξεχωρίζει τους άνδρες που έχουν την δυνατότητα (και το δικαίωμα) να είναι πολύγαμοι, από εκείνους τους άμοιρους που δεν την έχουν. Και φυσικά ο διαχωρισμός γίνεται με βάση την οικονομική τους κατάσταση. Εφόσον επισφραγίζει και επικυρώνει τη θεωρία της με αυτή την εντελώς παράλογη και αβάσιμη ανάλυση που βασικά αποτελεί προσωπική γνώμη, περνάει σε επόμενη θεωρία.
"Η αγάπη είναι μονογαμική, ζηλότυπη και πιστή". Αν έχεις ακούσει ποτέ από σύντροφό σου τη φράση "αν δεν ζηλεύεις σημαίνει ότι δεν ενδιαφέρεσαι" είμαι 99% σίγουρη ότι έζησες άκρως τοξικές και συναισθηματικά εξαντλητικές καταστάσεις. Η θεωρία της δεν βασίζεται κάπου, σαφώς, δεν μιλάει για συναίσθημα, δεν αιτιολογεί καμία άποψη, δεν επιχειρηματολογεί, κάνει μονάχα μια απέλπιδα προσπάθεια να σε πείσει (για ακόμη μια φορά) ότι αυτό που η ίδια σκέφτεται είναι θέσφατο, παραθέτοντας αράδες λέξεων σε ξύλινη στοίχιση που δεν βγάζουν κανένα απολύτως νόημα.
Έπειτα έρχεται το ακόμα πιο γελοίο κεφάλαιο του βιβλίου που η συγγραφέας έχει ξεχάσει εντελώς πως είναι γυναίκα και μιλάει σαν μάτσο μικροαστός αλκοολικός τζογαδόρος που έβγαλε-δεν έβγαλε δημοτικό και κατά βάση μαζί με τη μάνα του κατέληξε να μισεί ολόκληρο τον γυναικείο πληθυσμό και οτιδήποτε αποκλίνει από μια καθαρά ανδρική έκφραση. Μας λέει ουσιαστικά ότι οι γυναίκες δεν έχουν το παραμικρό δικαίωμα να θεωρούν ότι είναι καταπιεσμένες καθώς αυτές επέλεξαν αυτή τη στάση ζωής, την βέλτιστη και εξόχως προνομιούχα, αυτή τη θέση ισχύος, μιας και έχουν απόλυτη εξουσία επάνω στους άντρες τους. Επισημαίνω εκ νέου ότι το βιβλίο γράφτηκε το 1977...
Νομίζω ότι δεν χρειάζεται να εξηγήσω σε τι είδους επιχειρήματα βασίζεται. Δεν χρειάζεται καν να τα διαβάσεις, μια συζήτηση με έναν μάτσο μικροαστό κλπ κλπ σχετικά με τον γάμο του θα σε πείσει. Είμαι σίγουρη ότι γνωρίζεις τουλάχιστον έναν από αυτούς, μιας και δεν έχουν εκλείψει, κυκλοφορούν ανενόχλητοι και φορτωμένοι περίσσεια αυτοπεποίθηση ανάμεσά μας.
Κατά την ταπεινή μου άποψη, είναι επικίνδυνο να πατάς σε δύο βάρκες, και μάλιστα τρύπιες. Από τη μία να προσπαθείς να κερδίσεις τη συμπάθεια του αντρικού κοινού απαξιώνοντας τις γυναίκες, από την άλλη να προσπαθείς εντελώς υποκριτικά να "αφυπνίσεις" με πλάγιο τρόπο το γυναικείο κοινό και να τους δείξεις ότι είσαι σύμμαχος στην αναζήτηση συζυγικής ευτυχίας απενοχοποιώντας τους άνδρες. Επίσης, είναι γνωστό πως η πολυγαμία δεν είναι ανδρικό χαρακτηριστικό αλλά ανθρώπινο και πως δεν είναι μόνο οι άντρες που υιοθετούν γυναίκες, αλλά συμβαίνει και το αντίθετο και μάλιστα κατά κόρον.
Κατά τα δικά της γραφόμενα "Ο άνθρωπος της μέσης ευφυίας βλέπει πάντοτε μία μόνον όψη μιας κατάστασης πραγμάτων" και νομίζω μας βροντοφώναξε πού ακριβώς τοποθετεί τον εαυτό της.
Εν κατακλείδι, δεν μου προσέφερε κάτι χρήσιμο. Περίμενα ότι θα διάβαζα τα συμπεράσματα ενός πονήματος, μιας εκτενούς έρευνας που θα είχε ως στόχο να βάλει το λιθαράκι της στην προσπάθεια γεφύρωσης του χάσματος επικοινωνίας μεταξύ των φύλων. Αντ' αυτού διάβασα μια φλύαρη έκθεση απόψεων χωρίς συνοχή που κατά πάσα πιθανότητα γράφτηκε εν μία νυκτί. Στο πόδι. Υπό την επήρεια αλκοόλ και υπό την τρεμάμενη φλόγα ενός κεριού. Με στόχο τις πωλήσεις. Όχι μόνο δεν θα στο πρότεινα, αλλά επίσης είναι ένα βιβλίο που με επιείκεια θα κατέτασσα στην κατηγορία "trash" και εύχομαι να φύγει το συντομότερο δυνατόν η ανάμνησή του από το μυαλό μου.
July 4, 2015
Well...a very interesting book about men and women. Most of the things are...true, which is a real bad thing. I don't agree about the root cause of the book (women and domination), but most of the behaviours are something we have seen trhough our lives, and you can see there's true in them.
July 2, 2020
Buen libro, se percibe mejor mediante la teoría de Sigmund Freud, sin lugar a dudas un complemento para el libro de el varón domando, que es quizás su mejor libro de ella.
Esclarecedor, revelador y siempre sorprende sus observaciones
Esclarecedor, revelador y siempre sorprende sus observaciones
April 26, 2021
Something every man should read. Was a tough one to swallow.
May 23, 2024
The author's name is obviously a pen name. The author of the book is a man, presenting the point of view only a man would have.
The male readers of this author (which are the majority) being gullible, will be under the mistaken belief that women, as the author's name implies, know of the dynamics and self-idealised view of a man and his xes object presented in this book, which is false.
The book has misguided conclusions regarding the differences between men and women, ignoring very obvious factors that contribute to those differences.
For example, in the book it is mentioned that women live longer because they are trying to deceive the man of their weaker status, thus making the man take the role of their protector. The author ignores, or refuses to self reflect, that a part of the reason why men die earlier than women is because men, in general, avoid going to yearly appointments or following medical and work safety protocols. Men also, in general, have a tendency to engage in dangerous acts with little regard to their own self preservation (even after being warned several times by loved ones and bystanders).
The book is only useful in getting a view into how a man thinks of himself and the people he interacts with.
There are multiple such books where the real male authors try to pass the books as being written by a woman, by using pen names and vague wording. I believe only men can be so gullible in believing such caricatures of life responsibilities, and biological concerns of the women in their life.
The male readers of this author (which are the majority) being gullible, will be under the mistaken belief that women, as the author's name implies, know of the dynamics and self-idealised view of a man and his xes object presented in this book, which is false.
The book has misguided conclusions regarding the differences between men and women, ignoring very obvious factors that contribute to those differences.
For example, in the book it is mentioned that women live longer because they are trying to deceive the man of their weaker status, thus making the man take the role of their protector. The author ignores, or refuses to self reflect, that a part of the reason why men die earlier than women is because men, in general, avoid going to yearly appointments or following medical and work safety protocols. Men also, in general, have a tendency to engage in dangerous acts with little regard to their own self preservation (even after being warned several times by loved ones and bystanders).
The book is only useful in getting a view into how a man thinks of himself and the people he interacts with.
There are multiple such books where the real male authors try to pass the books as being written by a woman, by using pen names and vague wording. I believe only men can be so gullible in believing such caricatures of life responsibilities, and biological concerns of the women in their life.
July 10, 2024
A grenade filled with socially volatile issues.
“This book is about love. About what love is, what it can be, and what women have made of it.” Amazon book overview.
If it weren't for Ms. Esther Vilar's penchant for using the word "stupid," this book would be much more popular.
As it stands now, it is virtually unknown, to the point that even the book description is omitted on most platforms.
It's nearly impossible to obtain a paper copy of this book. The reason for this becomes obvious once you see its content. It's short, concise, and straight to the point. You won't find any fluff or rants in this book.
This book, along with “The Manipulated Man,” is the ultimate red pill, a nuclearly charged red pill.
Awaken Neo, read both books!
“This book is about love. About what love is, what it can be, and what women have made of it.” Amazon book overview.
If it weren't for Ms. Esther Vilar's penchant for using the word "stupid," this book would be much more popular.
As it stands now, it is virtually unknown, to the point that even the book description is omitted on most platforms.
It's nearly impossible to obtain a paper copy of this book. The reason for this becomes obvious once you see its content. It's short, concise, and straight to the point. You won't find any fluff or rants in this book.
This book, along with “The Manipulated Man,” is the ultimate red pill, a nuclearly charged red pill.
Awaken Neo, read both books!
September 26, 2024
Esther Vilar, como sempre, é muito inteligente, mas temo que este livro seja usado apenas para justificar o pior dos homens, o que talvez seja algum fetiche pessoal dela mesma — e não há problema algum nisso. A leitura deve ser feita com perspicácia, e com olhar crítico, mas no geral conclui-se sempre a mesma coisa: Esther Vilar é corajosa e não teme as palavras mágicas usadas pra silenciar pessoas.
February 23, 2025
I have recently read Esther Vilar's, "The Manipulated Man". It reveals how women are biologically cold, calculating and manipulative. Feminists coldly attempt to justify and rationalise this as, "Women have to be", while at the same time boasting about the "Power of the Vagina". It is easy to see why Satan chose a woman to tempt in the garden of Eden and why throughout history men have been consistently betrayed by women as if it comes so naturally to them.
October 19, 2017
O livro é menos agressivo do que The manipulated man, mas a provocação permanece (agora advogando pela poligamia masculina enquanto determinados comportamentos femininos permanecerem inalterados). Impressionante como amplia a perspectiva ao tratar as mulheres como atores sociais. Mais uma vez, não sobram elogios para elas, que estariam no controle de tudo.
July 23, 2018
Vilar provides some thought provoking challenges to the increasingly dominate feminist narrative, and some eye-opening observations of the power structure within hetero-normative relationships. Definitely worth a read for anyone interested in relationships, masculinity or feminism.
September 3, 2024
I stopped after a chapter or two. It contradicted the manipulated man. I do understand her feelings and they are valid. I am appreciative of her input.
I think I have what I need and am retiring from research on this topic.
Power. Social Leverage. Practicality.
Do not become weak.
I think I have what I need and am retiring from research on this topic.
Power. Social Leverage. Practicality.
Do not become weak.
September 28, 2025
Tan políticamente incorrecto como brillante. Esther es una excelente observadora de las relaciones humanas y llega a unas conclusiones sorprendentes que te resetean la forma habitual de ver el mundo.
Totalmente recomendado, al igual que El Varón Domado.
Totalmente recomendado, al igual que El Varón Domado.
November 5, 2019
An excellent counterpoint to the popular patriarchal conception of feminism, power, and its effect on male-female relationship culture and society. Brilliant!
June 5, 2020
Well worth the read
August 12, 2020
Excelente libro. Ideas claras y brillantes. No obstante, "el varón domado" fue mucho mejor.
January 1, 2023
¡Otro gran texto de Esther Vilar! Lo recomiendo para entender un poco mejor la dinámica de las relaciones entre hombres y mujeres.
February 22, 2024
Očekivao malo više humora jer sam čuo da je poprilično okarakterizirala žene.
Read
July 19, 2024Women hate it !!! Interesting points again..
August 1, 2024
Copiar de Giordano
November 1, 2023
Not worth finishing
Displaying 1 - 30 of 33 reviews