Are women the less romantic, loving and monogamous oriented gender?
Women
>initiate 80% of divorces
>take longer to fall in love and their love is generally less intense
>fall out of love more easily and also lose sexual interest in their partner
>move on faster after a breakup
>place immense value on status and money. It's less about their partners and rather what they can extract from them
>expect their partner to court them and make romantic gestures, not vice versa
>some studies suggest that single women are happier
Part of it can be explained by culture, but it's unlikely that these differences are entirely caused by that.
What's the evolutionary cause for this? At first glance it seems that men should be the ones to be less preoccupied to be enamored with one individual, since they can easily spread their seed and have little to no consequences from doing so.
Women are pickier because they have a greater risk with pregnancy, but once they get a partner, why would they grow tired of it quicker? Assuming evolution selected for ambitious women who wanted to do better, it seems like a risky strategy.
Women generally are more submissive and less rebellious, and yet they seem less fit for monogamy.
>4 billion people
They're different
Averages
Average of a billion things doesn't translate to anything in your real life
Differences between sexes have been observed in a multitude of behaviors and domains, including brain anatomy
Race, too. Doesn't matter in daily life unless you live somewhere fucked up
the average American family household has 3.13 people in it.
my family's .13 is a severed forearm, what's yours?
You're so fucking dense
Love happens to them, they just accept it. Men do all the work. women will put in the effort if the guy is hot, but that can fail because every other girl wants that type too.
Women are blank slates and patient predators like spiders. They probably don't have any real feelings at all and only feign everything.
You need to tie them up and break them to bring out their real feelings, the debate though is whether or not at the bottom they truly exist.
>They probably don't have any real feelings at all and only feign everything.
This, to my desperation, seems to be the final truth.
Imagine a completely soulless psychopath.
That's every woman. Every single one. From a very young age.
What has happened for you to see them as psychopaths?
Probably online dating which is a worst thing a men can do to cut him self from any woman ever because at online dating there are usually whores or insufferable creatures who hunts for 10/10 men.
Never ever online date.
what happened?
Why experience happened.
Relationships with women.
Actual women in the flesh, and their bullshit.
It was far better when I was a young teen who didn't have a gf.
Let that sink in. Read that twice over and let that sink in.
I would have been better off never even looking at women.
Never have they failed to fuck me over, and the ones who mattered more especially so.
Read this thrice over:
Today it is apparent to me that I would have been better off if every single woman I've ever approached had rejected me and laughed me off.
That's how bad it is
>don't have any real feelings at all and only feign everything.
gee I wonder what kind of evolutionary pressure would do that
Women are retarded, they never grow mentally past their childhood. Our early ancestors knew this, therefore women were married early and had kids early. Not a single culture in the world had a tradition of marrying a 30yo women until recently. My grandparents and parents and probably yours too were married at a very young age.
I think it has to do with the husband competing for the woman's attention which is solely for the children. Once a woman has children, she is less inclined to romance than she was before. Of course she has to keep some facade lest the husband becomes uninterested and goes for a second wife which is what happened in most cultures before modernisation. Nowadays, women neither want a husband nor children which is why they are so unhappy.
You're joking, right? You seriously post this shit while being aware of "the key and lock" attitudes being a common meme up until very recently? Or how men having multiple women having always been a thing meanwhile women doing the same would get stoned?
Even today if you look at dating statistics you see majority of women target a small selection of men who have no qualms whoring around.
You are absolutely delusional. Men are just as if not more morally bankrupt than women, and just as hypocritical too.
Bump
This just a shitty thread to circle jerk hate, congrats OP.
>Captcha 4K YAP K
I'm leaning towards thinking they are more easily influenced by the subliminal messages. As men, we are critical thinkers and we are rebellious. When a common woman listens to music on the radio, I think it more easily programs their behavior and thinking processes. This isn't a bad thing, but it is my belief that this has been somehow weaponized to make them more r selected.
this is 100% the reason. Men are naturally more r selected for obvious reasons but things are flipped nowadays due to programming. Humans with a female mind exist in a word of social interaction and cannot imagine anything outside of human interaction. That's why they unironically beleive in a god who is an old guy in sandals. And it's why propaganda controls them like drones.
How does one measure love or romance in an objective way?
pupil dilation
Pupillometry seems to be too variable. It would also be too individualized.
metonymy for hormonal deviation. easier to work with in real life.
How accurate can that be when exposure to medications and bog standard modern human pollutants are considered? I ask because there is extremely little observable difference in my pupil diameter, even through orgasm.
that's 2 questions wrapped in 1.
very accurate. to measure deviation you need to measure a baseline first.
very inaccurate. maybe there's a better visual spitball than pupil dilation but if so I don't know what it is, it's not in the literature
That's just attraction kek
what part of love or romance isn't attraction tho
There's your answer why you're single kek.
Most men like you will never truly grasp love because some are so hard wired to their dicks they can't solely experience the blessing of pure, genuine love for their partner.
how you could be single for more than a week?
*could you
you aren't dumb
Some day you will figure out that romance is inherently short-term for the vast majority of people (especially for women) and is therefore at odds with the familial kind of love that keeps people invested in each other in the long term. Then it will all make sense to you.
i'm sorry your parents didn't love each other anon
it's not your fault.
Sorry that your parents didn't have particularly high IQs.
on second thought maybe it IS your fault
I don't even understand what it was about my post that made you seethe that much. Are you a hole who got lost?
Thing with woman is you have to constantly make fall for you if you do not she leave. Men can't get this because they either think it's for one night sex or whole life time which is obviously not. Woman are like car you have to refuel constantly.
I'll second this. If you go in with too low of an effort, she won't think you're interested. If you go in with too much, it's overwhelming. At whichever amount of effort you sought after her that she accepted you, if it's not continued then it will be seen as a problem.
Basically this, it's just you need to know how and why which is not something that they taught you in school and woman are like super hard to understand if you never spoke to one ever. It's easier for me because i grow between 6 of them and i learn a lot of hard lessons specially about setting up lines.
>but I don't like what men historically did to women when I look at women today
all this thread
let's talk it out. like what are you saying happened to these people you heard about in a story? and how does it the old thing keep pushing itself into people who didn't live in the story?
>and how does it the old thing keep pushing itself into people who didn't live in the story?
https://labs.psych.ucsb.edu/german/tamsin/uploads/2/4/0/4/24040853/10.1.1.708.4662.pdf
https://experts.illinois.edu/en/publications/do-infants-possess-an-evolved-spider-detection-mechanism
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01710/full
>psychology.com
come on. I want to talk about why a man is a spider and the paper is about spiders being spiders
maybe the entitlement? it's all throughout the thread.
how would you interpret the state of things, with women?
same as without. I just like women. the shape, you know
well sure. men usually like women. pretty sure women figured it out by now. they can't dominate men, physically speaking, and men want them. what do you think survives that?
sex? women don't like men? bdsm is a kink. come on. everyone survives and we're all on the same boat.
>bdsm is a kink.
yeah did you really think about that?
anywho, men get the women they deserve. I see no issues really.
>Nah, you're aware of it now. If nothing else, you've learned something new.
i'm not. i didn't read it. explain the part that matters for us.
my bad. you said sex was about dominating someone. what would you call that?
This is all that's available without paying.
i don't want to interpret "Detect Creepy Wiggler buff"
i only care what you think it means to you
That babies evolved to tell the difference between things that are spooky and bitey versus something that's harmless. Other than that I still don't know why the anon linked it with the other studies. I'm not being intentionally stubborn here.
I linked them as example of inherited fears and reflex behavior to certain stimuli.
but that's a spider who's spooky and bitey in like a mechanical way and doesn't care about you. not the same spooky as a mom who dresses up in a ghost sheet and hops out of a closet.
dunno, to me seems like a neural net thing. once it detects something that could fit a spider some bells go off from that network. results in some behavior which evolutionary made sense and offered higher survival chances.
i get that. but spiders didn't rape anyone in a sex way so i'm saying why is it useful to talk about spiders and rape like it's the same thing?
it's not the rape part, it's the fear of dying part. this isn't about men physically raping women, it's about coercing them into doing it, at the fear of being thrown out. looking at how humans behave when others don't see them/don't know what they are doing, way back throughout history...
it's the way back through history part i don't get. who cares? you're not someone else's history. use the good parts don't use the bad parts.
My mom used to unironically threaten me that spiders were going to get me when I was acting like a shit as a small child. Why is yours pretending to be a ghost?
>spiders were going to get me
how's that anything like sex or rape though? i agree it could be traumatic af tho lol
if you plunder a village and some women are scratching your face when you try to fuck them you might kill them in front of the others and then move to the next one. the next one now know what it needs to NOT do so she doesn't also die. fast forward to today and would you look at that, you're upset that she seems to be faking everything and not really "caring" for your ass.
i'm saying how does a real rape mythology shape your real life now and why? like say even someone raped your mom and she told you about it like it was spiders. what's the connection to you and your life and today?
>i'm saying how does a real rape mythology shape your real life now and why?
it shapes your life with how women interact with you, today. based on behavior which favored their survival. I'm not complaining. you are.
i'm not complaining i'm talking. rape mythology doesn't shape my life
>mythology
dunno man. have you seen humans? war stories? like in the past 100 years up to today even. same old shit bro. pretty sure a fucking lot of fucked up shit went down in our history, and we do get some clues. depends on how much you want to look at that.
mythology doesn't mean it didn't happen, it means it still shapes your life now. like you can say way too many israelites were killed in germany. but if you can't kill the people who did it because they're already dead, who cares?
that information does not alter my behavior today. I'm not some whiteknight fedora wearing homosexual. what I'm trying to tell you is that past human behavior is reflected today in our behavior without us having a say in it. at least no easily anyway.
I'm also not proposing anything, have no clue how to deal with this. I don't think about it when interacting with women. it's just something that affects you today in the way women will interact with you. their behavior is largely shaped by whatever the fuck happened historically. in this way I am telling you that yes clearly it's affecting you, if you have complaints about the way women interact with you, or with men in general. in this sense what happened affects you today, if you are somehow affected by how women interact with you. hopefully I was clear.
>past human behavior is reflected today in our behavior
so is present human behavior and expectation of future human behavior. i like them all, but if i had to pick one to throw out, i'd throw out past. it's the most useless, you can't change it.
You can't change the past, but an instinctual reaction to possible violence or rape could probably still be useful since it still happens.
i almost agree but it's not the instinct that matters, it's the training. don't put yourself there in the first place. if you do, don't blame anyone but yourself.
>don't put yourself there in the first place. if you do, don't blame anyone but yourself.
one of those extra wise advices you randomly see online.
What are your suggestions? This is something that occurs even with coma patient grandmas that are in long-term care facilities. It occurs under anesthesia under the care of trusted healthcare providers. It occurs in dressing rooms, at the houses of friends, even the homes of family members.
suggestions for what? telling people not to get raped? telling incapacited people not to get raped? telling children not to get raped? come on. that's silly.
I agree that it's completely changeable. if it doesn't present extra survival/reproducing chances it will dilute out in time.
it's not evolved. there's no gene lol. it's a myth. myths are there to be helpful. use a myth to help you, not to disable you.
there kinda is still a lot of shit we don't understand. not sure you can call it out yet, as impossible.
let me probe for something. do you happen to believe that we are not conditioned by anything and we have full free will with basically any aspect of our life? and the only thing keeping you from doing anything you want/can think of. "is the right thing to do" is just you deciding to? like behave in a very specific way just because you choose to and there's nothing weighing into any of your decisions, such as past human behavior? based on who the fuck we are, genetically speaking? I mean thinking past human behavior does not affect your choices today MUST tie into some of that shit, somehow, dogmatically speaking. I can't fathom anything else that would make you think that. picrel I swear to fucking god was this fucking close kek
you're conditioned by everything. some people buy a $50 shampoo that smells great. some buy a $20 that smells really good. you can choose
There's a self preservation aspect to it, but I can't imagine that it's all about deception. Maybe that comes through on paranoia when consistencies in behaviors change, and it signals a red flag though?
They're like nightmares, but you're experiencing the ass end of it as you're awakening and think that it's still happening before becoming coherent again. Sometimes people are physical about it and jump around to escape the dream offender, or maybe scream. There's interesting info out there on it if you're interested in parasomnias.
>paranoia
well I personally think many people have a powerful response from that area. bottom line it is about survival, and even dimwits can usually put 2 and 2 together, even if slower. there's some bottom lines that are masked when triggered, but they do push certain buttons real hard. most people just react to shit.
what do you think has the most chances for "something", whoever is faking it but doesn't put that much heart into it, or the one who's able to brainwash himself/herself that he/she is 100% whoever he/she needs to be so they fucking survive. in time, the ones who start to fucking become whatever is needed to become do it perfectly believable. they have the highest chances.
then there's certain triggers which takes them out of it, like you losing the power you had over them, suddenly they snap out of it. it's not needed anymore, what you think at that point is of no more consequence to them, hence they don't really give a fuck about being who they had to be up to that point.
that's a pretty fucked up thing, if real. and tells weird stories about our past.
This feeds into the nature/nurture argument. There's probably features that bleed through from evolution, but there's also observation of peers, family members, or strangers heard about on the news. The skin prickling on the back of your neck that signals an instinctual "wrongness" about a situation is probably innate, but the observation of current or more recent events that other people experience gives it more weight. With romance or love, consistency in behavior and attention given is maybe misinterpreted and signaled in the brain as safety. Any fluctuations in that start triggering a negative response, or a change in availability of that safety.
This is speculation for me. There's probably a lot of variables that muck things up.
i'm interested in why dreams and myths and my mom's dreams and myths should be a thing. for how you live your life. instead of I love you but my life is new and different
It's not. However, I can easily lock in immediately if there's an insect in the room in visibility range now. There's also night terrors, but at least there was a kind of reactionary adaptation along with it
>lock in immediately if there's an insect in the room in visibility range now
omg i've spent half an hour jumping around beating mosquitos into the wall at night as soon as I saw the first.
>night terrors
like dreams about spiders? I dream about crazy shit but if it's bad it's over when you wake up (unless it's not a dream)
I was walking on the street in my city, nothing close to having any kind of snake around here. tho randomly noticed one on the pavement, came out from some bushes. I found it extremely interesting how fast I spotted that bitch. from the corner of my eye there was like a general alarm thing and focused on it in a fraction of a second and body defaulted to stepping back, I basically was observing whatever the fuck happened, had no input into it. very interesting. I think I only saw snakes up close like 3-4 times all my life.
sure, this seems like simpler behavior than what I was suggesting with women.
I'm just speculating anyway.
>mom pretending to be a ghost
that was a lie to make a real thing that was spooky and fun not be misread as rapey
fucking the meat whenever you feel like it even if the meat doesn't feel like having sex is technically rape, I think. dunno, seems pretty clear that women adapted to fucking men over in ways men don't really have control over.
and it feels bad whenever it happens to you. but you don't like thinking about whatever the fuck compels them to act that way. historically speaking
>historically speaking
why? does that violence in history really matter in any bad way to violence now?
you can think of it like getting a shit inheritance from your ancestors. you did not do the violence but you inherited it's effects, today. what are you doing with this? whine about it on LULZ? really?
shit inheritance means you're poor like everyone else. it's not violence it's life. what's sex about that?
One of them is about how infants come pre-equipped with the Detect Creepy Wiggler buff.
>Detect Creepy Wiggler buff
I missed that one. am I worse off for not understand that?
just look at dogs instead if you have and issue with my example.
or any other animal. wtf are you denying how we get certain traits or?
what about dogs?
you can breed traits into animals by killing all of those who don't have what you are looking for. that kind of selection can put massive pressure on say a woman, to adapt to survive. whatever made it out is the product of figuring out a way to survive the environment.
you can train a cat to pee and poop in a box in a few days. that's not like MM years that's max a week.
Nah, you're aware of it now. If nothing else, you've learned something new.
Anon, is it that farfetched to wonder what you were implying by posting a study on infant ability to detect spiders? I just don't understand if that was supposed to mean an allegory for women, and continue on from what you were saying about trap door spiders.
the assumption that men and women are equal when it comes to everything is frustrating. the assumption is almost always an ideological one, and muddies sincere communication. moreover some of the points you highlight as evidence are specious bordering on dubious. women don't fall in love quickly? have you met any of them?
let's delineate between general evolutionary biological pressures, cultural pressures and legal pressures as influencing factors on mate selection. as you rightly point out, women carry risk burden in child bearing. to offset this, they should be more selective in their mate. as settled societies became more commonplace, regional cultures became identifiable, including monogamy. women won't be left pregnant without a provider, men have good reason to stay and build their community, there's no ambiguity on paternity, and the children mature in a secure family unit. legal pressures are obvious enough so I won't describe them.
>initiate 80% of divorces
in between man-hating family courts, alimony, child support and no fault divorce, there is an incredible financial incentive for women to divorce. not to mention that their single friends will encourage divorce regardless of the quality of that advice
>>o lose sexual interest in their partner
not exclusive to women
>>move on faster after a breakup
idk where you're getting these
immense value on status and money. It's less about their partners and rather what they can extract from them
peculiar phrasing, but I don't think this is inappropriate. a woman should be thinking about her future family when she is finding a mate. men should value health and virginity in women as much as women value income
cont.
>they should be more selective in their mate.
Bro men who ditch their kids are the ones who get selected the most, so please stop thinking female selection has any rationality to it
>that their single friends will encourage divorce regardless of the quality of that advice
Their mothers also encourage discord and paranoia.
pt 2
their partner to court them and make romantic gestures, not vice versa
i also don't think this is inappropriate. men and women are complementary to each other, not equivalent. this dating paradigm encourages boldness in men and honesty in women. men who are too passive to even try courting would likely not make a reliable partner anyway
>some studies suggest that single women are happier
women have more opportunity in employment, property, public office and overall independence now than they ever had in the past. they are also less happy and more medicated than they have ever been. happiness is not the appropriate end point for assessing the health of a society
I do agree that women are more susceptible to propaganda. it would explain why so many seem to behave as though they're part of a group and not their individual selves. social media, gender politicking, anti family laws, medicalization, materialism, a weakening connection with Divinity etc have made us adversarial. this is why it's important that men be bold and dependable. girls who don't witness positive masculinity from their dad/brothers/peers frequently become unhinged women. likewise, boys who don't witness positive femininity become cruel or spineless.
children who grew up in spiritually diseased societies and couldn't work through it have basically been handicapped. many, unfortunately, decide against kids. we're seeing this now, which might explain some of your observations regarding women in love (moreso than evolutionary pressure). the truth is you may never understand a woman's motivations, and women may never understand yours. that doesn't predict a sexless marriage after the first kid (only common for fat >people) and it doesn't preclude love, marriage, or finding balance between in the masculine and feminine.
Romance is a male thing, women are just female mammals meaning sperm thieves
In the Bible, it says women only care about dick. I'm paraphrasing pic related.