Female Parasites - How Women Attach Themselves To Male Hosts

I won't post all of his videos but this one is "a banger" and includes how Feminism has affected women's behavior to the detriment of relationships.

I expect he'll be threatened shortly.

Following up on "How Female Power Caused the Decline of the West" by Alexander Grace from January 4th.

https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/4360658/posts

For those who prefer the transcript:

"Female Parasites - How Women Attach Themselves to Male Hosts" by Alexander Grace
1/13/2026

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=643BuwQIf5o

Modern relationships between men and women are dysfunctional. But to understand why, we cannot examine them through the lens of emotion or morality. We need to look at something far more fundamental, our biology.

If you look at the natural world, you'll see that there are three distinct categories that demonstrate how two organisms relate to each other. The first is competition, where you are fighting over a limited resource. This is the lion and the hyena fighting over the same carcass. One party's gain is the other party's loss. This dynamic is the classic power struggle where one needs to dominate your competitor in order to succeed.

The next model is symbiosis where two organisms cooperate with each other for mutual benefit. This is the bee and the flower where the bee gains food and the flower gains a method of propagation. By working together, both organisms thrive far more effectively than they would working in isolation. And this should be our ideal model for romantic relationships.

But regrettably, modern relationships more often fall into the third category, parasitism. This is the dynamic where one organism, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host. This is not a competition and it is not a mutual benefit. The host provides the resources and the parasite contributes nothing. It is absolutely crucial to understand that parasitism is not a mistake of nature. Some estimates suggest that up to 70% of all biological life engage in parasitism as a strategy at some point in their life cycle.

The mistake made by many modern men is believing that they are immune to these natural laws. They naturally believe that all romantic relationships are symbiotic in nature, unaware of the danger that they may have a parasite that is benefiting at their expense. Through this lens, it completely recontextualizes their relationship as it's not merely malfunctioning or broken as a symbiotic exchange, but the relationship is actually fulfilling its intended purpose for the parasite. This is not to say that parasitism is what is intended for human relationships.

Naturally, symbiosis is the most efficient energetic state for two people to relate to each other. The reason why the human species, like so many other creatures on this planet, have divided into the dichotomy of male and female, is to allow for functional specialization. Men and women evolve to be distinctly different from each other and to have superior strengths in certain domains. That way, when cooperating, their union becomes more effective than the mere sum of their parts. It is precisely the evolved differences between men and women that prevents competition. Because when two organisms are identical, there is no need to cooperate. Neither has something that the other desires.

True symbiosis requires a differentiation that is complimentary. One party provides what the other lacks. The masculine and feminine archetypes in their uncorrupted forms fit this archetype perfectly. This is the lock and key model.

The man in the relationship provides structure, stability, direction while the woman provides nurturing and emotional attunement. The masculine protects the feminine while the feminine restores the masculine. It is a closed loop energy system that is self- sustaining.

However, this process of natural symbiosis has experienced a cultural disruption as society has rejected the key notion of differentiation. Suddenly to notice and to encourage differences between men and women is not evidence of natural law but social inequality.

Under the ideology of Feminism, the goal has been to reject symbiosis as a model and treat men and women as though they are same, which leads to two distinct outcomes.

The first is competition. If women begin to adopt masculine traits and act like men, then the two organisms suddenly start to compete over resources. As they see that they have nothing to contribute to each other, there is no need to cooperate. There's no benefit to be achieved. As regrettable as this development is, competition is relatively wholesome as it's a fight for the same resource and it's reasonably clear what's going on.

What's far more insidious is the other outcome, parasitism. This is becoming far more common where women are rejecting feminine duties of submission and nurturing, but at the same time actively resisting adopting any masculine responsibilities for provision or protection. It is a hybrid strategy where she demands the autonomy of a modern woman while at the same time demanding the financial support and protection of a traditional man. Such a woman can be accurately described in biological terms as a parasite because she extracts the benefits of both gender roles while fulfilling neither.

When examining key areas of modern relationships with regards to how men and women relate to each other, we regrettably find that parasitism is frighteningly common.

Looking at stress and tension in a relationship. In a competitive model, this looks like man and woman fighting. Frequent arguments over who is right, keeping grievance scorecards. Disagreements become a war where the objective is to annihilate the enemy.

This is obviously dysfunctional as what is intended in nature is a symbiotic model where two people work together using disagreements as an opportunity to learn from each other, to gain new perspectives, and to co-regulate.

But for many men, it is the parasitic model that most accurately describes their relationship, where the woman is granted free reign to dump her anxiety and stress onto the man, regulating herself by destabilizing him. And yet, crucially, this only ever flows one way. He is expected to be a stoic repository of her emotions. And yet, she is not expected to provide the same nurturing and care in return. In this instance, she is a parasite because the peace that she is experiencing was stolen from him.

Beyond the emotional sphere, it's also in the practical details of many relationships that you can see this model of parasitism at play. In a competitive model, a relationship looks like transactional scorekeeping. "I did this yesterday, so you need to do this today." There is no good faith, and it results in frequent arguments as each partner is chronically anxious that they're doing more than their fair share.

In a symbiotic model, there is no expectation that the man and woman's contributions perfectly match a 50/50 split. Instead, roles and duties are assigned to each person based on competence. If the man is more skilled at generating resources and the woman is more skilled at domestic management, then the relationship naturally maps on to the provider stay-at-home wife dynamic.

And though it also features some level of differentiation, the parasitic model by contrast features strategic incompetence. In that model, the woman actively exaggerates the level of anxiety and overwhelm that she is experiencing in order to encourage the man to take on a more parenting role where he's responsible not only for his needs, but also for hers.

Sadly, many men do not realize that they are living with a parasite because on the surface, this can look like traditional femininity. When a woman says, "I want a man to take care of things," it can awaken that ancient masculine instinct to care for a woman. But the key difference is that in a symbiotic relationship, while a man does provision a woman with resources and protection, he receives something in return. By contrast, when a woman is a parasite, she will demand the protection of a traditional wife, but she offers only the contribution of a dependent child.

Men often see evidence of this early on in the dating process where she invokes traditional gender roles in order to encourage the man to pay for their dates while at the same time invoking modern feminist ideology to explain why she does not owe the man any traditional feminine duties. Again, many men are unaware of the fact that they are dealing with a parasite because from a symbiotic perspective, they believe that provisioning a woman with protection and resources is part of natural masculinity, and they mistakenly believe that their sex life is evidence that the woman is making her own feminine contribution.

But if they examine their sexual intimacy more closely, they'll see clear evidence of parasitism. While they do have sex, it is always the man who is initiating intimacy. Again, he is required to take the active role while she can passively enjoy the benefits of being the one who feels desired and pursued. During the sexual act itself, he is the one who is making more of an effort to direct how the love making unfolds; the length, the positions, the reciprocity of oral sex.

And worst of all, outside of the bedroom, the sex life becomes a weapon that she can wield to get what she wants. Sex is held over his head like a hostage in a terrorist negotiation, threatening him that if he does not comply instantly with her desires, then their sex life is going away. She will also pathologize his desire if he attempts to initiate sex too frequently, accusing him of being perverted or obsessed with sex. She frames the normal human desire for sexual intimacy as though it is a moral failing in the man with questions like, "Is this all you care about?"

What's important to understand is that you can be in a relationship with a parasitic woman even if there is a sex life. But the question that men need to ask themselves is whether or not she wants you or if she simply wants to be wanted by you. If sex only ever occurs at her discretion and she treats your desire as though it is a nuisance that she needs to manage, then this is not a healthy symbiotic relationship. It is parasitic.

A lot of men would be completely shocked if they actually did an audit of their relationship and discovered how parasitic their relationship truly was. But the reason for this is because parasitism does not display itself as a strategy openly from the beginning. It's something that occurs gradually.

Again, looking at nature, it is the strategy of many parasites to appear harmless or even mutually beneficial at the beginning in order to gain a host's trust. At the beginning of a relationship, a parasite will make themselves appear as though they are offering symbiosis. She will be loving and kind, offering lots of affection. But you would be mistaken to believe that this behavior is evidence of symbiosis that simply turned parasitic later on in the relationship, when it is actually the chosen strategy of the parasite to appear symbiotic in order to gain access.

What many men discover is that the strategy of parasitism is only revealed after the woman finds herself in a secure place, typically after marriage or childbirth. Once the masculine duties to the woman are legally enforcable, then the incentive structure changes. Before then, she had to earn the commitment of the male host. But now that his continued investment in her is legally mandated and the cost of him exiting the relationship is catastrophic in terms of finances and access to his children.

Then the parasitic woman realizes that there's no longer any need to uphold the pretense that she is making an equal contribution to the relationship. Gradually she winds down her feminine contribution. There is less domestic duties. There's less emotion and compassion and nurturing towards him and certainly a decrease in the frequency of their sex. While she withdraws her feminine contribution, she maintains or even increases her expectation on the man fulfilling his duties. She demands that he spends more time with her, that he offers more emotional validation, that he increase his paycheck.

At a certain stage, any pretense of symbiosis is completely lost. We have a full-blown instance of a parasitic woman existing purely off the resources and energy expenditure of a man.

It's at this stage that a critical psychological paradox emerges which is the resentment of dependency. A lot of men would imagine that if they are actively contributing more to the relationship than they are receiving, then this would engender gratitude and appreciation from the woman. However, they find the opposite. Instead of being grateful, the woman is frequently more hostile. This is because deep down she understands that she's the beneficiary of an unequal relationship. She knows that she's not pulling her weight. She is aware of the imbalance. But in order to protect her ego, she reframes the narrative and cast the man as a villain.

If she can successfully paint the man in a negative light, casting him as the one who is exploitative or selfish, then suddenly all of the gifts that he provides for her is seen as reparations out of the guilt that he must necessarily feel. She convinces herself that she is not a parasite. She is simply a victim.

This selfdeception is one of the hardest parts for a man to psychologically untangle. Because if he senses that something is out of balance in his relationship, he might ask the woman about their dynamic, seeking validation of his suspicions. But if the woman has truly convinced herself that she is not a parasite, that she is simply a victim, then she's going to respond to any inquiry with anger. His concerns will simply be reframed as further evidence of his inherent defectiveness, further validating her requirement of reparations.

If the man ever does try and establish a clear boundary with regards to finances or domestic duties, he will find that a parasite does not easily detach. A parasite is terrified of losing access to its host. And so, if the host ever tries to remove it, the parasite is going to dig in deeper. A leech does not let go simply because the host shakes his leg. It simply clamps down deeper.

In modern relationships, if a man withdraws his affection, she's going to accuse him of neglect. If he withdraws money, she will accuse him of financial abuse. Every attempt from him to restore fairness and steer the relationship back towards symbiosis is reframed by her as an attack on her safety.

It's at this stage when many men finally accept the truth of their situation. They are trapped. They have a parasite that is feeding off of them and they don't know how to remove the parasite without massive personal cost.

It's true what they say. Sometimes you don't know that you're in prison until you try and escape.

However, it is important to note that there are some men who will never reach this realization. This is because the woman's parasitism has infected their brains.

Again, we can look at nature for an explanation. The most advanced parasites do not simply attach themselves to the host's body. They actually infect their mind and begin to influence their behavior. There are certain fungi that attach themselves to the bodies of insects and then send spores into their brain, influencing how that insect moves, ultimately guiding them to a certain place in the rainforest so that the spores of the fungus can reproduce more effectively. In that instance, the fungus ends up killing the insect.

But there are many parasitic relationships that actually require the host to continue to live. If the host organism perishes, then that's the end of the parasite's access to resources. You can see why from a strategic point of view, psychological hijacking is the most effective strategy that a parasite can employ. The host continues to live and to provide resources, but its behavior is now governed by the parasite.

What's necessary for this strategy to work is to rewire the neural pathways of the host away from self-preservation. This must be disrupted. Otherwise, there is a huge danger that the host will discover the parasite and try and rid themselves.

In human relationships, the most effective form of psychological hijacking is when a female parasite convinces a man that his exploitation is actually an expression of virtue. Men are neurologically hardwired for values of honor and virtue. If a parasitic woman convinces a man that it is honorable that he lived with a parasite such as her, then her continued sustenance is guaranteed.

In order to enforce this, a woman will use tools of guilt and shame anytime a man tries to assert his independence or request reciprocity. If he asks for his boundaries to be respected, or ask for her to match his contribution, and she shames him, telling him that he is selfish and that his requests are evidence of a moral failing, over time, he begins to doubt his own natural instincts for justice and equality. Eventually, he starts to believe that him noticing the parasitic nature of the relationship is in and of itself an expression of his own internalized toxicity.

The ultimate goal of the female parasite is to replace her mind in exchange of his own as the moral compass that guides him. When he no longer has the capacity to independently distinguish between wrong and right and needs to seek confirmation from her for all of his decisions and judgments, at that stage the process is complete.

If she is upset then by default he must be guilty. She replaces truth as the metric by which he judges the quality of his actions. Facts no longer have any relevance. The only thing of any importance are her emotions and how she feels. Very few men will willingly surrender to this state of affairs. They will fight and they will resist. But when any attempt to independently assert their own judgment on a situation is met with ridicule, insults, and shame, eventually the whole process becomes so overwhelming and confusing that from a perspective of simplicity and ease, he eventually just submits to her judgment as a means of keeping the peace.

At this stage, he will also reject the judgments of any outside parties who try and warn him about the parasitic nature of his relationship. If he has good friends or even family members who try and warn him against the woman, so deep has the female parasite infected his mind that he will begin to see those concerned parties as threats. He then begins to isolate himself from any outside parties and falls deeper into the trap that the female parasite has set.

Understandably, many men are reluctant to use language like this to describe their or other people's relationships. To use such cold biological terminology feels dehumanizing. However, men make a huge mistake when they imagine themselves to be immune from the laws of nature. Parasitic relationships are not rare and they are not evidence of symbiosis that has gone awry. For many organisms in nature, parasitism is the strategy.

And at a societal level, we have seen widespread efforts to try and reframe traditional masculine values in order to fit into the parasitic model. But if you as a man refuse to play host to a parasite, that does not impugn your masculinity or your honor. If a woman approaches a relationship with you in the same way that a parasite approaches a host, you do not owe anything to her. She is not entitled to live off your energy.

And for any man who discovers that his relationship is parasitic, he needs to understand that there is no amount of love that can cure a parasite. The only cure is to detach the host.

Unping, please.

Every leftist idea was conceived by men, either way.

Shockingly boring.

My bride of these many decades — strong and able and intelligent and outsopken — says the great social errors of these last decades have been “marketing” and “feminism.”

Every leftist idea was conceived by men, either way.

Lucifer was an angel, which are not male or female.

I came up with a win win formula.

2MD

For men.

If you want sex get a mistress.

If you want a clean house get a maid.

If you want companionship get a dog.

~

Woman of to day are greedy.

Pampered.

Grasping malicious.

Harridans.

~

Men of today still work them selves to death.

Men of today still do the dirty and unsafe jobs.

Men of today are the most of the homeless.

Men of today still die in combat more then women.

Men of today still commit suicide more often then women.

Men of today have come to the conclusion that the women available are just not worth the trouble.

Men of today can see the woke, the demoRAT, liberTARDS, the bat shit crazy left leaning pronoun non binary brain damaged supposed women and have just turned away and said 'No thanks,'

“Female Parasites - How Women Attach Themselves To Male Hosts” I’ve had one, 41.5 years, but she’s going to the old folks home soon.

That is a very powerful presentation. I have sent it to a lot of people.

I’ve been seeing this for years. Seriously, what value does a woman bring to a man anymore? They’re all looking for the easy retirement plan. In other words, yes, they are parasites.

Shockingly boring.

Yes, collectivism is insidiously boring... until it's not.

I was just a boy when I sat down to watch the news on TV
I saw some ordinary slaughter, I saw some routine atrocity

"Nature Boy" by Nick Cave and The Bad Seeds

The Bible uses male pronouns for the former Heylel ben Shachar, either way. And that one inspired human males into the ungodly actions we have experienced at large.

Let’s see. He pays the bills in exchange for sex. Sounds fair to me. Why do you think they call it butterfly?

This essay reminds me of Sierra Ferrell's song "I Could Drive You Crazy."

Well, I come down here from the mountain top
And I cut you down like an autumn crop
My love for you will never stop
But, I pulled you over like a small town cop
Hay fever's knocking at your door
You can feed the dogs lying on your floor
Took all your gold from your chester drawer
I can drive you crazy yes I can
Well, I can't hunt and I can't fish
But I can drive you crazy yes I can
I can't even make a dish
I can drive you crazy yes I can
Ooh, ooh, ooh
Ooh, ooh, ooh
Ooh, ooh, ooh
Ooh, ooh, ooh
Ask me on a date and I show up late
I can drive you crazy yes I can
Blow out your birthday candles, steal your cake
I can drive you crazy yes I can
Hay fever's knocking at your door
You can feed the dogs lying on your floor
Took all your gold from your chester drawer
I can drive you crazy yes I can
Ooo, ooo
I can drive you crazy yes I can
I can drive you crazy yes I am

The whole track is Sierra boasting—tongue firmly in cheek (I think!)—about how she's got the power to drive her man absolutely nuts with her quirky, chaotic energy:
• Stealing gold from his "chester drawer"
• Bringing on hay fever
• Showing up late
• Stealing birthday cake
• Making him feed the dogs

...all that folksy mischief. "Cutting you down like an autumn crop" fits right in as a rural-flavored way of saying she can deliver a harsh put-down or keep someone humbled (like "cut down to size"), evoking harvest time where you literally scythe the stalks. It's feisty and unapologetic, rooted in that Appalachian/country tradition of strong, teasing women who aren't afraid to be a handful.

Great song! (if you like tough, domineering, crazy women, I suppose)

No, that narrator is boring. Monotone, boring delivery. I could not watch him.

It's in the math. Check out these indisputable facts.

1) When you have a girlfriend or wife, you spend money on her. The amount of money you spend on her is proportional to the amount of time you spend with her. Mathematically that's expressed like:

women = money X time

2) We all know the maxim that time is money:

time = money

3) Substitute money for time in the 1st equation and you get:

women = money X money, shortened that's
women = money²

4) Finally, we all know that money is the root of all evil:

money = √evil

5) Substitute √evil for money in equation #3:

women = √evil², simplify it to get:

women = evil

It's math.

“Strategic incompetence”

That is hilarious and so common.

“Women Attach Themselves To Male Hosts”

A grotesque way to demean a clear Biblical concept.

I have seen a few of them.