how women judge you (opposite sex)

[peoplesuck]

The current problem is that women want a type of person our society isnt cultivating.
Young men have so little guidance, tbh the best thing a man can do is make money, at least then you wont be alone. Dating is quite rough, making some progress is infinitely better than sitting home wondering why nobody wants you. So in many ways the idea of money and popularity are as good advice you can expect to receive. Become someone who people will spend time with, then learn from there. or be extremely lucky and become your own person, that somehow is likeable.
Unfortunately pleasing people is essentially a game, unless you are lucky enough the be the perfect person, games take practice to accel, you dont get practice if something doesnt draw them in, in the first place.
most women date a few guys, and the others are left alone most of the time, never learning how to be likable, eventually becoming bitter and surrounding themselves with other bitter people. Its better to see them as damaged, than yourself, sometimes.

essentially, life is like an old competitive game, getting started is nearly impossible, you will fail so many times before your first success, most people quit before they ever reach any level of competency. its because the player base is already so good, the average level player is leagues above any beginner. In real life that translates to guys who have something that allowed them to get in early access practice, meanwhile fucking idiots like me bought the game 4 years later, and get crushed, when the skillgap is too great, there is nothing to be learned, there is actually no competition.

thats my take.

EDIT: I dont mean to sound like im bitching and moaning, I would consider myself to be one of the lucky, naturally-likeable types. Even so, im not smooth, its very clear im a bit awkward and I have my share of sharp edges.
Also, what Im saying here is for the people who dont randomly lose their deep need for a partner, I think some of us learn to be alone, but expecting or telling someone to do that, is like telling them to stop wanting food when they are hungry.

 

[Inexorable Username]

As far as what it is that women want that men aren't understanding...I think that answer is actually a pretty straightforward one.

Women want men to understand how they are feeling, and to value and respect them like fellow human beings.

No matter what your preferences are as a woman, the bottom line of what you're looking for is almost ALWAYS the same. Women want to feel good in a relationship, just like men want to feel good. The difference comes into play when we believe different things will make us feel good.

Men often believe that beautiful young women will make them feel good, for physically fulfilling reasons, and sometimes, I think, ego-driven ones.
Women often look for a man who will relate to how they are feeling, validate their emotions, enjoy having conversations with them, and make them feel valued, and loved.

That is why, from my experience, women look for personality much moreso than physical attributes. Women, in general, are thinking of the "long run" - how is this guy going to make me feel? Is he mean? Is he very critical? Will he make me cry? Will he cheat on me? I don't know of many women who will look at the way a man looks and think "I want to bang that guy". There's some, but they seem to be very much in the minority, and any that I have met have had unusually high sex drives and an extreme lack of fidelity. (Nymphos, I suppose)

So the miscommunication comes into play because men believe that physical attributes are the most important thing when it comes to mate selection, because that is what men value. That is why so many men seek to objectify women, and oversimplify the dating game by trying to reduce it to scientific theories like evolutionary biology. Believing concepts like evolutionary biology (insofar as it relates to mate selection), and objectification, in and of itself is a highly unattractive quality in and of itself, because it shows that a man doesn't value (and potentially, isn't able to understand) emotional context.

The "scientific man" is seldom very successful in dating. No woman wants to be thought of like an animal. If you think of her like an animal, you don't value who she is as a person. She's not much more to you then a bunch of cells in motion. Furthermore, this kind of man seldom values life, itself. Whether its his own life, or the lives of children, or animals.

By contrast, most women value life very highly.

So you see where the deviation is here? And also, where the dangerous misconception comes in? Men believe that by becoming more objective, and more scientific, they can somehow "crack" the female equation - but the act of doing so causes an even bigger gap of relatability. And no matter the gender, men and women are more successful at dating when they are better able to relate to, and understand the opposite sex.

That is why my first bit of advice is that men should surround themselves with women. Men need to dedicate themselves to understanding how women think and feel. Having female friends is an excellent way to do that.

My next bit of advice is that - whether you're a man or a woman - you have to address your own insecurities. If there are things you don't like about yourself, or things that make your feel insecure, it's your own job to fix that problem. It's what mature people do, and whether you're a man or a woman - immaturity, laziness, complacency, and self-esteem issues are not attractive. Of course, it doesn't mean you can't find someone who will love you and accept your flaws - but you're not entitled to that. That's just the cherry on the sundae. Simply identifying your insecurities and doing small things on a daily basis to address those issues you have with yourself will make you feel empowered and will give you confidence. Men who are confident, empowered, and optimistic are more attractive than those who are not.

My last bit of advice is that men need to have goals. It's not enough to just say "I'll figure it out one day". Women want men who are ambitious, but not high strung (in general). The purpose of life is to thrive, and men who are apathetic or who don't consider their future - well they're failing to thrive.

Women are often much more concerned with their future than men are. Biologically, women have less time to figure it out, if they're going to have a family. So there's more pressure. Because of that, men who don't spend time thinking about their future and coming up with their goals come across as very childish.

Men want to think that having certain qualities makes you more attractive...and they're right, it does. But what most men fail to realize is that it isn't the qualities, themselves, that is attractive - but the personality traits of the man that reaped those benefits. If you're very physically fit, it means you have self-discipline. If you're wealthy - you're probably also ambitious, dedicated, and passionate about what you do.

I grew up in an area where a lot of guys are born into wealth and they get rejected all of the time because they're lazy, apathetic, depressed, sexist, bitter, shallow, and childish.

------

If you want to get slightly more complex than that, I'll say that there's probably three things that women find exceptionally unattractive...and it might be valuable to start your efforts there.

(1) Immaturity
(2) Cowardice
(3) Shallowness

Immaturity: Take responsibility for yourself. Don't be satisfied with being mediocre. Strive to grow and improve. Be okay with sharing your very deep emotions, but don't be whining constantly. Crying when your dog dies, for instance, is a good, healthy thing. Crying because your friend didn't laugh at your joke...not so much.

Cowardice: Bravery is attractive in both men and women, and it isn't synonymous with being an asshole. Being brave means standing up for what you believe in, and defending those who are weak or helpless. This is why so many men get the wrong impression that women "love bad boys". Women love men who are able to face their fears, and unfortunately, a lot of men who demonstrate fearlessness also have negative qualities. It's a trait that both heroes and villains share, and telling the difference between a hero and a villain is not always an easy thing to do. I think most women, as they age, get better at it.

Shallowness: Objectifying women. Not valuing life. Getting annoyed and irritated by children or animals. Judging people based on superficial values - like the size of a woman's breasts. (Note: Liking big breasts isn't a bad thing, but judging women because their breasts aren't big enough - that's shallow.) Thinking that money is the most important thing. Believing that women are shallow *** big red flag. If men believe women are shallow, it almost always means that the man, himself, is shallow.

 

[Black Rose]

When you are feeling “judged”, it may be helpful to realize that the way you naturally judge others is probably not the same way women do. You might judge people more based on their physical qualities, so that is how you expected to be judged.

However, women are more likely to be picking up on your verbal and emotional cues than your physical appearance or body language.

There was a thread on INTPf called "should men stare at women. Is it rude".
I tend to look at the face when I am interested in knowing what a girl is like.
Problem is that if she stares back I turn my gaze somewhere else.

My problem is not being unable to talk to women. It is approaching them.
I have an insecurity approaching new people, especially women.

It is emotional, an extreme form of anxiety and embarrassment. If they are looking at me and I am looking at them I do not know what it is she is thinking. That is the moment I should walk up to her but I don't know her so I keep sitting at my table.

 

[Inexorable Username]

The good news is, if men can get over their fundamental belief that women are shallow creatures who judge men based on their wealth and physical prowess...then they will realize that attracting women is actually not that difficult.

Furthermore, it's something almost any guy can do in a relatively short period of time. It's much easier than being a famous basketball player, or a billionaire, or a guy with a 12-pack. All of those things are very difficult and take a long time to achieve. Believing you need to have qualities like that is not only nonsense (because, dude - just look around you...), but it's a cop out. If you set your goals insanely high, you don't have to feel burdened to reach them. Instead, you can just cry about how unfair the game is.

Instead, when men really trouble themselves to understand women, and think of them like "a person, just like you or I" - rather than an animal who is a slave to hormones and instincts...they will realize that what women want is to feel good.

Aside from that, just avoid the very few things that are universally unattractive. Immaturity, cowardice, and being shallow/superficial.

Once you make the effort to be a genuinely good, high quality person - by changing your beliefs, the way you see the world, and the way you see yourself, and by setting goals for yourself - even if you haven't achieved those things quite yet, the fact that you have the makeup of someone who will, is highly attractive.

Once you change that core aspect of yourself, the rest tends to follow. You become more confident, you think with a more healthy mindset, you find it easier to relate to others, you value life more...all that great stuff. And that shows.

That's why when Jordan Peterson and his class did a study to find out what women valued the most - they found that it was usefulness. (Not money, for instance)
It's because usefulness is a measure of someone's potential as a person. Money, in and of itself, is not.

I think this is the video where he discusses that but I could be wrong. Check the transcripts for "usefulness" - I would, but I can't get the transcripts to load at the moment.

 

[Inexorable Username]

When you are feeling “judged”, it may be helpful to realize that the way you naturally judge others is probably not the same way women do. You might judge people more based on their physical qualities, so that is how you expected to be judged.

However, women are more likely to be picking up on your verbal and emotional cues than your physical appearance or body language.

There was a thread on INTPf called "should men stare at women. Is it rude".
I tend to look at the face when I am interested in knowing what a girl is like.
Problem is that if she stares back I turn my gaze somewhere else.

My problem is not being unable to talk to women. It is approaching them.
I have an insecurity approaching new people, especially women.

It is emotional, an extreme form of anxiety and embarrassment. If they are looking at me and I am looking at them I do not know what it is she is thinking. That is the moment I should walk up to her but I don't know her so I keed sitting at my table.

So - for your case, my recommendation is pretty much the same advice I gave Peoples.
You need to learn more about the way women think, so you can better empathize with them.

It's like being afraid of sharks. People are afraid of sharks when they don't understand them. You're afraid of women, because you don't understand them. The sucky part is that to overcome that, you kind of really need to talk to or listen to women - which is hard to do if you're afraid to approach them....

So my suggestion is that you make friends with females online. You know me, I'm a female. You can listen to women talk by going to female forums on reddit. You can also make friends with females on dating apps...and just try sending them a message and letting them know that women really intimidate you and you're working to get over your fear. If you think you're up to that. I know it probably sounds pretty horrifying. But if you were to send me a message on a dating app like that, I would think you're really sweet and I'd be really happy to help!

It's important to understand that, while having a fear or being intimidated can come across as cowardly, voicing your feelings and trying to understand them and work through them is brave. So it kind of goes back to what I was trying to say before - the act of working to better yourself, in and of itself, can make a person monumentally more attractive.

You might find that if you admit to your fears to a woman on a dating app, she might be more receptive to speaking with you than she would have been otherwise. Even if she's just doing it initially as a way to help you conquer your fears, many women will end up falling for men who they're friends with...because said men make them feel good.

 

[peoplesuck]

The good news is, if men can get over their fundamental belief that women are shallow creatures who judge men based on their wealth and physical prowess

Men want to think that having certain qualities makes you more attractive...and they're right, it does. But what most men fail to realize is that it isn't the qualities, themselves, that is attractive - but the personality traits of the man that reaped those benefits. If you're very physically fit, it means you have self-discipline. If you're wealthy - you're probably also ambitious, dedicated, and passionate about what you do.

this is a complete contradiction. If a man doesnt want to be alone, and hes weird or anxious, simply get fit and make money. it means u are ambitious and have discipline. Women care so much about these, that if you pretend to be decent, they will just fall into your arms, because you have things. On the other hand, being a good person, doesnt really do much for women, bc you arent ambitious enough, or attractive enough.
many things show self discipline, being fit is one, not even the best one.

The real problem is guys act decent and get friendzoned because the guy with money and status are more attractive. IME women dont go for the right guys, its why they fail so often.
obviously, there is a balance... Ive seen way too many women fall for terrible guys, and make excuses bc they had things..

 

[peoplesuck]

I feel im coming off like I spent too much time on 4chan, I dont mean women are purely shallow or men are. I have too little experience to say tbh, so just disregard my comments

 

[Inexorable Username]

I guess I'll just also make the point that....the more women you're around, and the more women you talk to - the better your chances.

So having female friends, doing hobbies that females frequently do...things like that will all make it more likely for a guy to succeed with women, via increased exposure.

The good news is, if men can get over their fundamental belief that women are shallow creatures who judge men based on their wealth and physical prowess

Men want to think that having certain qualities makes you more attractive...and they're right, it does. But what most men fail to realize is that it isn't the qualities, themselves, that is attractive - but the personality traits of the man that reaped those benefits. If you're very physically fit, it means you have self-discipline. If you're wealthy - you're probably also ambitious, dedicated, and passionate about what you do.

this is a complete contradiction. If a man doesnt want to be alone, and hes weird or anxious, simply get fit and make money. it means u are ambitious and have discipline. Women care so much about these, that if you pretend to be decent, they will just fall into your arms, because you have things. On the other hand, being a good person, doesnt really do much for women, bc you arent ambitious enough, or attractive enough.
many things show self discipline, being fit is one, not even the best one.

The real problem is guys act decent and get friendzoned because the guy with money and status and more attractive. IME women dont go for the right guys, its why they fail so often.
obviously, there is a balance... Ive seen way too many women fall for terrible guys, and make excuses bc they had things..

I mean, we're speaking in generalizations here. Shallow women exist just as shallow men exist. But it's absurd to think that most women are shallow. Only someone who knows nothing about women would think that.

As far as the "friend zone" goes - well - I've known many, many women who dated their friends. Actually, I probably know more woman who dated guys that they considered to be their friends than otherwise. And if you're a guy who has undesirable traits like a lack of ambitious, being in the friend zone is a great place to be. It means that you have a chance to show women your better qualities - the ones that make up for a quality that is less desirable.

The most successful guys I have known have had many female friends.

But if a guy is nervous about being put in the "friend zone" - the way to avoid this is simple. Firstly, stop feeling entitled to sex. Secondly, stop honing in on a single woman you want to get sex out of. Thirdly, don't become intimate friends. That is - don't become friends that share very deep thoughts and feelings. Keep friendships casual and fun. Save your intimacy for relationships. Men get put in the friend zone, in my opinion, because they try to mimic a deep, intimate relationship, in hopes that it will get them sex. But if you're going to do that, in many cases, a woman may not be willing to risk having sex with you, for fear of losing their friendship with you - which, in and of itself, is more valuable than intercourse.

Of course...even that "method", of establishing a deep, intimate relationship with a woman minus the sex, can be useful, because when she gets her heart broken she's likely to turn to the people in her life that care about her the most for comfort. Often times, that's a guy. I've seen a couple of relationships start that way.

 

[redbaron]

The good news is, if men can get over their fundamental belief that women are shallow creatures who judge men based on their wealth and physical prowess...then they will realize that attracting women is actually not that difficult.

ya pretty much

 

[Inexorable Username]

I feel im coming off like I spent too much time on 4chan, I dont mean women are purely shallow or men are. I have too little experience to say tbh, so just disregard my comments

You just sound like a frustrated guy. When guys get frustrated, they want to believe most women are shallow and superficial.

Same can be said for women. When women get frustrated with men, they want to believe all men care about are things like age and looks. I'm guilty of that myself. It's not true though. Men, also, care very much about how a woman makes them feel. It just took me a long time to realize the truth of that, because they won't admit to it. Lol.

 

[Inexorable Username]

I've learned though that men like to feel manly. Just like women like to feel feminine. Men also like to feel smart, useful, and as though they are the best man you've ever met/dated. Exactly how women like to feel. It's uncanny how many similarities there are between the sexes...

Of course, if he doesn't value or respect you, he probably doesn't care about any of that. He just basically wants to use your for physical satisfaction. But the same can be said for a woman. If she doesn't value you or respect you, she is likely just using you for something.

That's why it's important to work on one's sense of self-respect, first and foremost, because that will define what you believe you deserve and how you think you should be treated. Plus, the simple act of working on that aspect of oneself is attractive - it shows maturity, intelligence, and ambition. I wish I'd learned that lesson earlier in life.

EDIT : Obviously, I'm talking about heterosexuals here. I've haven't known enough people that identify otherwise, to make these kinds of generalizations. It's also just something that I think isn't studied much or talked about yet. Not much information to be had there. I think if you're LGBT+ you're sort of stuck writing the story yourself, at this point in our modern culture.

 

[peoplesuck]

Kinda drives me crazy women always think guys are upset about being seen as friends, because of sex. sorry but these people getting upset about not getting sex, are actually sad because they want love. yep, just love. fairly human tbh. People dont want to feel unwanted or unfuckable.
Also I didnt mean all women are shallow. Im just saying if you make money and have status you get women, which is infinitely better than feeling damaged and alone.
are these intellectual women, worthy of spending your life with? no probably fucking not, but again, you need interactions to learn...
I come from a weird perspective, almost a made up one actually, hypothetical, because I havent had a normal life, but I know how hard it is to be isolated. Younger me would have had a much easier time if he had become what I described. Im glad I didnt, but I know most people would rather take the easy path, so its what I would tell them to do, because they would actually stick to it.

 

[Inexorable Username]

Kinda drives me crazy women always think guys are upset about being seen as friends, because of sex. sorry but these people getting upset about not getting sex, are actually sad because they want love. yep, just love. fairly human tbh. People dont want to feel unwanted or unfuckable.
Also I didnt mean all women are shallow. Im just saying if you make money and have status you get women, which is infinitely better than feeling damaged and alone.
are these intellectual women, worthy of spending your life with? no probably fucking not, but again, you need interactions to learn...
I come from a weird perspective, almost a made up one actually, hypothetical, because I havent had a normal life, but I know how hard it is to be isolated. Younger me would have had a much easier time if he had become what I described. Im glad I didnt, but I know most people would rather take the easy path, so its what I would tell them to do, because they would actually stick to it.

It's easier to work on yourself though, and have the kind of character and personality that is attractive, than it is to get strength and money.

Especially since money is comparative. What is "a lot" of money when you're 16 isn't a lot of money when you're 25 - and you're fighting against other people who have been making money for longer. You're also making yourself the kind of person gold diggers want to date.

Having particularly attractive superficial assets is not necessarily the best route to forging non-superficial relationships. You're more likely to get duped by someone who acts like a good person because they want what you have. Its true for women who have physical beauty...and it's often true for men who have a lot of money.

It's not really that true for men who are just physically fit, I think...honestly, I'm not sure why so many guys think this is the way to a woman's heart. Yeah, strength is sexy. But there's a lot of strong guys out there to choose from, because most men think that's the best way to find dates.

What's much more unusual and worth hanging on to is when you find a guy who likes you as a person, enjoys spending time with you, likes to talk with you, considers you to be his friend, makes you feel valuable, loved, and respected...there are very, very few guys like that in my experience, and I think it's because men don't usually relate to women. That's why, when you meet a guy that relates to women, it's really...really sexy. That's not just coming from me, either. I've had this conversation with so many women. The general consensus is that it is one of the most attractive attributes a male can have.

But if a guy is going to really relate to a woman, he has to see women as people just like him. That's just not a quality you run into a lot, and it's certainly not a quality you find in men that think men and women can't be friends.

 

[Black Rose]

The only time I was with women my age was when I was on college campus for a year. There were lots of people around and I felt no intimidation at all. But things are different now. I barely get out of the house. But I am doing therapy for my mental illness. All my problems stem from emotional trauma. My mother was indifferent to me growing up, I have fear of rejection. It is just really difficult to change my temperament. At least not that I am over 30 I know what maturity is.

 

[Inexorable Username]

Have you thought about talking to women online?

 

[peoplesuck]

The only time I was with women my age was when I was on college campus for a year. There were lots of people around and I felt no intimidation at all. But things are different now. I barely get out of the house. But I am doing therapy for my mental illness. All my problems stem from emotional trauma. My mother was indifferent to me growing up, I have fear of rejection. It is just really difficult to change my temperament. At least not that I am over 30 I know what maturity is.

what helped me was cuddling, maybe try to find some random person to cuddle.
I suppose if you function on some abysmally low levels of oxytocin, that huge increase does something, rewiring your brain. after that first..7 hour cuddle session, my anxiety never came back, and I wasnt nearly as afraid of women.
goodluck!

 

[Inexorable Username]

I hope you feel free to reach out to us on here. We're your friends after all. If you just need to vent sometime or to talk about it...It seems like a lot of people here can relate to your experience somewhat. And maybe someone will say something that just sticks for you - like it's just advice that's really applicable to you that you think will work. Maybe you should start your own thread like Peoples did, so people here can share their thoughts, experiences, and advice with you so you can see what works/what doesn't.

 

[Black Rose]

Have you thought about talking to women online?

good point
I'll make a thread

 

[peoplesuck]

Have you thought about talking to women online?

good point
I'll make a thread

The cuddling also cured my anxiety regarding eye contact.
go get some cuddles!
dating apps work fairly well, or you can pay a person to cuddle u
or you can kidnap a person to cuddle

 

[Marbles]

My J is going haywire trying to respond diligently to this novel that has appeared in my sleep. I generally enjoy your long texts, Inex, but discussion is very difficult when your partner writes 20 times as much as you. Engaging simply becomes too much of an effort. If you could distill further arguments into shorter texts, I'd be happy to continue conversation, because you have a fresh perspective. A female one, as you say.

You are very critical of evolutionary psychology, but I think it stems from misunderstandings. These are some of your assertions, paraphrased, as I understand them (correct me if I am wrong):

"Men strongly overestimate the importance of evolutionary fitness because it makes rejection much less personal"

Perhaps. You bring up another relevant variable when you point out that simple enjoyment of another's company is important. Such enjoyment is bound to correlate with another's evolutionary fitness (we enjoy looking at beautiful faces, we like virtuous character traits, etc.), but the correlation certainly wouldn't be absolute.

However, if evolutionary fitness wasn't essential in mate selection, we would still be single celled life. Evolutionary fitness is paramount.

To summarise, in mate selection both evolutionary fitness and personality compatibility are important.

"The studies Marbles presented look exclusively at physical traits"

Yes, but that is not because evolutionary psychology disregards psychology, it is simply because science must study one variable at a time. When looking at female mate preferences across the menstrual cycle, for instance, by studying their attraction to feminized/masculinized faces, the hope might be that we can learn something about their preference for masculine and feminine psyches, as well. Personality traits are much harder to both define and measure than testosterone levels, so we make do with the latter, for now.

"Women care about more than appearance"

Certainly, has that been disputed, here? Women do seem to care significantly about appearance, though, which I think surprised many men in my generation when they realized it:

Why Physical Attraction Matters, and When It Might Not

Good looks may be both undervalued and overvalued in our dating and mating decisions, depending on the context.

www.psychologytoday.com

And they are quite picky about who they consider of above average attraction:

Attraction Inequality and the Dating Economy

The future of Western civilization may need brave new institutions and brave new ways for men and women to fruitfully relate to each other.

quillette.com

Keep in mind that this study was done on a dating arena dominated by one night stands. It makes all the sense in the world that women would be extra picky under such circumstances.

"Evolutionary biology says wealth and physical prowess alone determines success of a man."

Not at all. Intelligence (including social aptitude), health, altruism and many other traits are also considered important. Many, different strategies can lead a man to reproductive success.

"Men chose simple explanations from evolutionary psychology over uncomfortable truths."

I think as far as uncomfortable truths go, "I'm being weeded out from propagating the species because I'm fundamentally defunct." Is pretty far up there. I get that you take issue with incels because of the misogynist opinions often attributed to them, but let's not be unreasonable. Those guys chug red pills like champions. I agree that they tend to miss essential parts of the picture, but I'd say they have a clearer impression of the world than the majority of people.

"An evolutionary explanation is easier for a rejected man to handle, because the rejection isn't personal, then."

What? How could it get any more personal than "you are unfit to breed"? I think Incels are often defeated, and being defeated offers a certain comfort because it means you don't have to try; you have already lost.

"Believing concepts like evolutionary biology (insofar as it relates to mate selection), and objectification, in and of itself is a highly unattractive quality in and of itself, because it shows that a man doesn't value (and potentially, isn't able to understand) emotional context."

This is a direct quote because I take particular issue with it. It looks like you are trying to shame those who disagree with you into disengaging because their style is "sexually unattractive". Let me be clear: I am not trying to woo you, here.

Furthermore, what you are saying is wrong. Evolutionary psychology is an excellent tool to understand other people. Engaging with people according to strict theory of any kind is unlikely to be productive, but as a subscriber to Charisma on Command, I'm sure you understand that a firm grasp of theory can be beneficial in social interaction.

A runner would be wise to study videos of his gait, and calculate optimal technique. He might then practice specific components of his technique to improve his performance. No one is suggesting that he should bring his whiteboard to the running field and do calculations there on competition day.

"Men believe physical attributes are the most important in male selection"

Do they? No man I know does.

"Thinking scientifically about women makes men less successful in dating"

If a scientific approach to social interaction is so detrimental, again: why do you subscribe to charisma on command? Charlie Houpert relies heavily on science in his analyses. Also, again, no one is trying to woo anyone, here. We are discussing how the world works, not how to be successful in a bar.


I think most of the advice you offer is good. If I were to supplement it, as someone who grew up with many female friends and an older sister:

Women are reluctant to admit that they like any morally dubious qualities. One of the primary dominance hierarchies women engage in is altruism and agreeableness, so most of them are unwilling to admit both to others and themselves that any antisocial tendencies can be attractive.

You can be "alpha" without being mean. Psychopaths and narcissists are confident and often achieve dominance. There are other ways to achieve confidence and dominance than being an asshole. Women would not primarily be attracted to these people because they are mean, I believe, they would be attracted to them because antisocial traits are sometimes viable strategies to achieve success, and success is attractive.


And I am not saying women are shallow at all. I'm saying evolution is pragmatic, and that manifests in the way both men and women pick mates. Caring about how useful your mate is, is vital to evolution. Nature is a cruel mistress.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

although I have learned quite a lot from women themselves about this kind of stuff, one has to understand that what women say is heavily biased in favor of their own optimal reproductive strategy, and what they say must be adjusted accordinly. Any reproduction is better than nothing for both genders, which means there is a cooperative component to it, yet what's optimal for each gender separately is different, so there's an adversarial component to it too. A woman will probably not tell you what you should do in order to optimize your chances with women in general, she will tell you how she wants men to act to make her own reproduction a smooth ride.

I'm not sure why they constantly keep repeating that they are not attracted to dark-triad characteristics (aka "bad boy"), and that they are only attracted to kind, humble and understanding men. I view it like this: a woman typically judges a man quite harshly in one particular dimension, which is the extent to which he lives at the mercy of external circumstances. I guess a colloquial term relating to that is "being a pushover". If a man is a pushover and is unconditionally willing to cater to and gratify you, as a woman, this means he is unreliable, because he is probably going to do the same to whoever shows up next too. The good thing about a non-pushover is that he is reliable, and if he has dark-triad characteristics this not only means he will be impervious to getting screwed over by other people, he will probably screw over other people to benefit himself and whatever woman is with him.

let me put it like this: I am a man of science – mostly empirical science, and I've approached this stuff like a science since I was a teenager. What I've seen is that there needs to be a balance between this kindness- and humility stuff and narcissism and rudeness stuff, and the balance needs to be decided depending on the woman. I would say catering to a woman in an unbalanced way is decidedly unattractive, perhaps excepting cases where she has some self-confidence issues.

 

[Marbles]

Maybe Incels just aren't being themselves hard enough.

 

[moody]

@Serac
Whenever you talk about women, it feels like women are subjects of a social science experiment. Or a species like the dolphin, where we already know a lot about them, but the way they communicate and their social structures are a total mystery.

 

[Marbles]

Shame on Serac for telling us what humans are like, rather than what they ought to be.

 

[scorpiomover]

Evolution didn't have to convince organisms to procreate, it just had to convince them to fuck. Then humans invented condoms.

Condoms are a very recent invention, and only became used by a large portion of the population since the 1940s or even later. It's not really been around long enough to generate significant biological changes.

So I agree that condoms would not have had time to significantly change how humans behave when ovulating and when not ovulating.

Women who wish to procreate might have a somewhat stronger preference for masculine men than women who do not, as that is what we see in ovulating women. When women seek long term partners they look for more androgynous men than when they look to get pregnant. After all, you could always cheat for those alpha genes, while you have a caring partner to raise your kids.

I know that scientists say this. But look at the scientific evidence:

1) Young women in college looking to have lots of casual sex, are most likely on the pill. The pill stops you from ovulating, right?

So if the theory was correct, then we should be seeing all college women would be seeking the types of men the theory says they would be seeking when they are not ovulating, right?

So young college women looking to have lots of casual sex, would be seeking Beta men, right?

But I gather that usually, the reverse is true, right?

2) Women in their late 20s who are college graduates, have a good job, and now taking their time to find a long-term partner to be a husband and father, are not going about having sex left, right and centre. They're waiting for "the one". So there's no point in them being on the pill. So they're probably ovulating, right?

So then since they're ovulating, they should be most attracted to, and thus seeking out Alpha love-'em-and-leave-'em type males, right?

But I gather that usually, the reverse is true, right?

==================================================
Alternative hypothesis:

1) Evolutionary process I:

100,000 years ago, long before IVF, getting pregnant usually required sex with a man.

Some women's hormones made them more attracted to male characteristics.
Some women's hormones made them more attracted to female characteristics.
Some women's hormones didn't give them a preference between males and females.
Females have more in common with other females, and tend to understand each other better. Therefore, naturally, without any preference, women would choose to date other women.
But women with a preference to date males, would be more likely to get pregnant while ovulating, and so would end up with more kids. Therefore, women whose hormones made them more attracted to male characteristics, would become more prevalent in the population until they became the majority of females.

Please note that a minority of females would still remain without the dominant genetic variation.

2) Evolutionary process II: Certain hormones increase the desire for sex. 100,000 years ago, before condoms, sex with men vastly increased the chances of getting pregnant.

Some women's hormones would increase during ovulation than normally.
Some women's hormones would decrease during ovulation than normally.
Some women's hormones would stay the same during ovulation as normally.
Those women whose hormones would increase during ovulation, would feel an increase in sexual desire during ovulation, and thus be more likely to engage in sex during ovulation than normally, and so be more likely to get pregnant, than those whose hormones didn't change, and certainly more than those whose hormones decreased during ovulation. So those women whose hormones increased during ovulation, would have more kids, and so women whose hormones increased during ovulation, would have become more common, and eventually the majority.

Please note that a minority of females would still remain without the dominant genetic variation.

3) Combine the two:

The majority of women have a variant that causes that the hormones that make them horny would make them more attracted to male characteristics.

The majority of women would be much more horny when they are ovulating.

Add them together, and the majority of women would become much more horny towards male characteristics during ovulation.

If a person is a little horny, they will be drawn a little towards male characteristics, and will naturally be drawn a little more towards extreme male characteristics, such as Alpha male characteristics. But as they are just a little horny, the effect will only be a little.

If a person is a lot horny, they will be drawn a lot towards male characteristics, and will naturally be drawn a lot more towards extreme male characteristics, such as Alpha male characteristics. But as they are a lot horny, the effect will be a lot.

So you can expect that during ovulation, the woman will be a lot more horny than normally, and so there will be a significant difference between the tendency to notice extreme male characteristics during ovulation than normally.

As a consequence, the tendency of the majority of women to notice extreme male characteristics during ovulation, and not to show such a marked tendency to notice extreme male characteristics when not ovulating, is just a consequence of being more horny.

4) Real life:

Young women in college who are looking to have lots of casual sex, would naturally be drawn more to extreme male characteristics, simply because that's what happens naturally, whether ovulating or not, and hence would show a tendency to be more attracted to Alpha males.

Women who have finished college and are now looking for a long-term partner, are still more attracted to Alpha males, simply because that's what happens naturally, but know that Alpha males would not be a good choice for long-term partners, and know that Beta males would be a better choice for long-term partners, and so select Beta males for long-term partners.

As a consequence, women who are just seeking casual sex (and who have little experience in sex), would be more likely to seek out Alpha males.

Women who want a relationship or just good treatment, would be more likely to seek out Beta males, for sex, a relationship and as someone to have children with.

Thoughts?

 

[Inexorable Username]

@scorpiomover

I had a much more involved reply but I got self-conscious about it. Lol. Sorry.

Long story short, I’d probably disagree with your theory, but I like the fact that you make the effort to consider theories of evolutionary biology and whether or not they’re accurate. It’s a very dubious field of science, and one based on Darwinism, which is not a very solid foundation. I think most people don’t respect the fact that many of the assumptions we make in evolutionary biology are soft scientific observations at best. It’s like the field of psychology. It’s useful, but largely based on conjecture, and founded on some very unscientific opinions.

In the case of female mate selection, there is so much wild guess work. So many invalid conclusions drawn from studies that are so limited as to be barely considered useful regarding the point they’re used to make.

So I like the fact that you question these things. It’s refreshing.

Anyways on the topic of ovulation and mate selection....
I’ve not noticed an increase in my sexual drive during ovulation. I also have not heard my female friends report such a thing. What I have noticed is rather the opposite. When I do feel psysiological affects from hormonal fluctuations - I generally feel irritable, impatient, and intolerant. Especially when it comes to men.

It seems like some women get horny on their periods though...I think it’s kind of like a biological confusion, and it’s, I think, mostly related to a physical sensation. But I don’t really personally know any women that would consider having sex on their period. I’ve run into maybe one or two...who seemed like outliers as far as their personalities were concerned.

Anyways. If you want to explore the validity of this assumption - ask women about PMS. I believe it commonly takes place during ovulation....and uhh...it’s probably not the best time to walk up to a lady and ask her if she wants to Netflix and chill. Just saying.

I heard about this ovulation study a long time ago and found it mildly interesting...but I would think that it makes such a minor difference in someone’s behavior that even if there is a real correlation there, it’s irrelevant.

Put it this way. If the sensation was strong enough that it’s enough to actually influence a woman’s decisions - women would know about it. And talk about it. And we don’t.

I HAVE actually had conversations with women about strange correlations they notice in levels of horniness. It’s an interesting conversation to have, because women can be so complicated. Nobody has ever told me they feel horny when they ovulate - and we usually know when we ovulate.

I’ve heard about foods that do it, spots on a person’s body that do it, colognes, the way a guy’s voice sounds, the time of day, the temperature...all sorts of things. Angry sex. Sad sex. I’ve never heard about ovulating sex.

I feel like if it was a thing, I probably would have felt that way at least sometimes myself - and other women probably would have noticed it.

If it’s so minor as to go unnoticed, then it’s really not that influential, is it? So it probably doesn’t really impact a person’s decisions.

I think one of the miscommunications here is that guys seem to have this idea that it’s common for women to go out hunting for sex. I think that’s just...really weird, very unusual behavior in a woman - at least a heterosexual woman.

Normally if you like a guy you’ve known it for a while. Of the women that I DO know that will frequent bars, they never leave with a guy. I have met a couple of women that will do one night stands, and I used to have a friend like that...but all of the women I’ve known like that have issues of having been sexually abused or having mental illnesses.

That’s NOT me saying that all women who have one night stands have issues. I think some women even go through a bit of a phase...That’s just me trying to say that, as a woman, I’ve not encountered that kind of behavior enough to say that it’s common enough to belong in a generalisation about the female sex.

Maybe the more accurate study would be - of the demographic of females that cheat, engage in one-night stands, and go out bar hopping when they’re PMSing, how many of those women choose higher testosterone men to sleep with. You might end up drawing a more accurate generalization if you better define the sample of women participants.

 

[Inexorable Username]

I’m probably going to get some hate here for speaking on behalf of women.

I just feel like - how can men know what women are thinking and feeling if there aren’t women who are willing to share their experience? And being able to relate to the opposite sex is a very valuable thing. It makes better men.

I think it’s easier to hear about the male perspective than the female one, even though so many females are more than happy to give a person a wealth of information if they just ask for it...because there’s just not a lot of women online. Men are all over the place discussing their feelings and problems in life. I don’t see that a lot from women, and when I do, it seems like there’s enough sexist, aggressive males, that the opportunity that represents usually gets destroyed.

So here on the INTP forum, where there’s a lot of guys who are genuinely good people that are trying to understand women better...I feel like maybe my perspective can be helpful. I hope so. Otherwise, without any information to the contrary, people might end up sharing a lot of the misinterpretations that are spread on the web within male communities. Like the dating advice community.

 

[darque]

I just feel like - how can men know what women are thinking and feeling if there aren’t women who are willing to share their experience?

Absolutely Inex. Women that can breakdown their perspective into logic and rational expression without statements like 'you know' or 'its not important' or my favourite 'if you loved me you would understand' are rare. Especially in a male dominated head on a stick community like this.

Men are very confused at the moment as we are being told that we are bad people and that we live in an evil patriarchal society that disenfranchises women. I think most men are bemused by that concept and don't know what they need to fix. Men need rational discourse to pick through the detail and weigh up pros and cons and measure consequence so funds can be raised and solutions constructed. It's a little thing called science and economics.

Playing Where's Wally with angry mobs of ideologically driven, sexually confused and emotionally charged out of control women is scary as bloody hell. I'd prefer to be playing Russian roulette, at least I have the cold comfort that one of the chambers has a known outcome.

There has been a lot of talk about men needing to be more emotionally available and that they need to consider feelings in decision making. Ok, fair cop we haven't considered the more subtle outcome of our decisions in the past and we did built the assets that have polluted and bulldozed forests.

However, there is very little discourse about women being more definitive in the issues they are perceiving and getting structure into movements. A little more figurative corset wearing please ladies.

But back on topic, INTP women are under 1% of the population and are the most logically considered and emotionally detached women on the planet, rarer than rocking horse shit and unbelievably critical to getting us out of the escalating war of the sexes.

Go out and find all 6.2M of them and bring them here to discuss issues. Men, if you see any of our number being dicks go all alpha male on their arse, else all we will have to work with is purple haired, sexually amorphous, sailor tattooed, braless ideological harpies screeching unitnteligable emotional memes at us... shudder I don't even want to contemplate that future. Please god let aliens exist and come and turn us into a meat farm.

I’m probably going to get some hate here for speaking on behalf of women.

Got your back, they can all hate me now men & women alike.

 

[The Grey Man]

The "scientific man" is seldom very successful in dating. No woman wants to be thought of like an animal. If you think of her like an animal, you don't value who she is as a person. She's not much more to you then a bunch of cells in motion. Furthermore, this kind of man seldom values life, itself. Whether its his own life, or the lives of children, or animals.

I don't recognize this "scientific man" who doesn't value people because he thinks that they're animals, but I have recently learned what it's like to spend years studying and working in self-imposed solitude, neither expecting nor desiring any attachment to anyone, only to perceive at last that life does not have to be over at 23 and, moreover, that all the erudition in the world does not outweigh a single particle of love. Alas, having cloistered myself for so long, I seem to have become hard, socially calcified. Last week, a man who considers himself my friend, perhaps my only friend, told me he'd miss me, and I had to stop myself from saying that I would not miss him and didn't care whether I saw him again or not. And yet, the urge to embrace, to lose myself in her is so overpowering that I can barely sleep or eat anything. How is this possible? Has God sent this creature to humiliate me?

 

[Marbles]

@scorpiomover Scientists used to find masculinity preference fluctuation across the menstrual cycle, but from my last couple of sources it appears these results have become controversial in later years. Let's assume there are fluctuations in order to continue this conversation, though.

Women prefer masculinized men when ovulating. When one mechanism drives this preference, it could serve an evolutionary purpose, and other mechanisms could be driving it, as well. We could hypothesize that when college women engage in casual sex, even when chemically stopped from ovulating, they seek masculinized men for reasons not related to ovulation, but driven by mechanisms with the same purpose as whatever nudges women towards masculine men when they are ovulating.

I think we should be careful drawing conclusion from college girls, since we have not actually researched their preferences (I assume the increased preference for masculinity found in the studies is mild, it might not be perceivable without data gathering), and because they are subject to a lot more variables than ovulation.

We could look at what happens to women's masculinity preferences when they are on the pill, though. I know that has been studied, but I suspect these results have also become controversial. I remember wondering whether my GF would like me more or less when when she started the pill some years back, lol

From a quick google search.. I'm in a bit of a hurry, so I haven't looked it over, but I really like the Atlantic. While not a scientific magazine, I believe they will have listed their sources:

Redirect Notice

I think your theory is really good. Thanks for taking the time to express it so clearly.

@scorpiomover
Long story short, I’d probably disagree with your theory, but I like the fact that you make the effort to consider theories of evolutionary biology and whether or not they’re accurate. It’s a very dubious field of science, and one based on Darwinism, which is not a very solid foundation. I think most people don’t respect the fact that many of the assumptions we make in evolutionary biology are soft scientific observations at best. It’s like the field of psychology. It’s useful, but largely based on conjecture, and founded on some very unscientific opinions.

Evolutionary biology is a hard science, but we are discussing evolutionary psychology, which is not. It is based on axioms from the hard sciences, though, and I think its theories make a lot more sense than the ones adapted from Freud's.

And, wait... What? You consider Darwinism, I.E. the theory of evolution, shaky?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism

 

[Deleted member 1424]

lol serac
Don't listen to women about these things, they're biased! Men certainly aren't biased at all when it comes to sex. Not. At. All. There may be large swaths collectively throwing tantrums, but really you can really trust them not to spread self serving bullshit.

To all those who think the women make poor choices, piss off. They're HER choices. You're not involved. Women are people. People get to choose their own paths. Men don't get to control the sexuality or bodies of women by default anymore. Get over it. It's majorly fucked that any even try or feel entitled to be able to do so. That's what all this conflict is ultimately about. Control and power. So sincerely, fuck you.


And Inex....
Oh boy Inex...
I don't even know what to say to you.

Spoiler

Except Nice Job! I appreciate your nuance and willingness to give credit where none is due. I admire your patience.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Side note:
I keep hearing men need role models ad nauseam. This seems fake. You don't need to learn to be a man. You just are. It's not like you needed someone to hold your hand during puberty while you took a piss or masturbated for the first time. So clearly the male thing is quite well figured out by your body barring medical issues and it's your concept of manhood that is the problem. You just are one and it's not some special revered title. You're just a damn person, as simultaneously puny and grand as that is. Just like women. Being a conscious being is tough. I never had anyone I to show me how to do any of it either. You figure it out for yourself. That's the whole point.

Plus times are changing. The last thing you should be doing is clinging to outdated, corrupted models of manhood (or womanhood) that will only make you miserable.

 

[Marbles]

@Adaire This thread is dense with text, and I probably have a sketchy overview of it, but... Has anyone criticized women's choices? Personally I have said women's choices make sense, several times, and I do not hold the choices they make against them. We don't live in a Disney world. It can be uncomfortable to look our nature in the eye.

If examining the raw nature of women sounds like misogyny, I suggest we turn our attention to the nature of men. I think they would fare much worse if judged from a moral point of view. Somehow, this too tends to be seen a misogyny.

If you argue that women act selfishly, you're a misogynist because you "portray women as monsters". If you argue that men act selfishly, you're a misogynist because you "seek to legitimize misogyny by saying it is natural". Ay-ay-ay..

If we're gonna argue, can we at least argue based on proper understanding of each other's position?

Your digression on men's need for role models is better left for another thread, I think, but it's an interesting discussion. Men have a lot of ambition and aggression, but many expressions of those instincts are frowned upon by modern society (and for good reason). While instincts are supposed to guide us in how to express our sexuality, they can fail to do so in an environment so different from the one we evolved in. I think society, both men and women, would benefit from good, male role models.

 

[peoplesuck]

Side note:
I keep hearing men need role models ad nauseam. This seems fake. You don't need to learn to be a man. You just are. It's not like you needed someone to hold your hand during puberty while you took a piss or masturbated for the first time. So clearly the male thing is quite well figured out by your body barring medical issues and it's your concept of manhood that is the problem. You just are one and it's not some special revered title. You're just a damn person, as simultaneously puny and grand as that is. Just like women. Being a conscious being is tough. I never had anyone I to show me how to do any of it either. You figure it out for yourself. That's the whole point.

Plus times are changing. The last thing you should be doing is clinging to outdated, corrupted models of manhood (or womanhood) that will only make you miserable.

I agree, role models are fucking stupid. Men and women dont need help being men and women. Having a person who has gone through the same struggle, explain how they pulled through and thrived, is fucking stupid. Its not like men and women have different problems, men are women and women are men, dont be sexist pigs ffs.
role models are gay tbh, I mean, I survived, and look how pleasant and social I am.

s s
a t
r r
c o
a n
s g
m e

 

[Black Rose]

Women are people. People get to choose their own paths.

In a relationship sometimes you need to change yourself and both learn to accept their partner the best they can. Of course, sometimes there are irreconcilable differences that can't be worked out. 50 percent of new couples got divorced in 2019. It is hard to find the perfect fit.

There are a lot of insecure people and that is where the difficulty lies. If people cannot work with themselves they will project outwardly at their partner and blame an abstraction of male and female for their failers.

I was told by a friend that I treated her like a person when she needed help. I was not interested in her but it was nice to know.

My sister had several fights with her boyfriend and he left but she had his baby who is two years old now. I play with her a lot. I want her to be happy.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

Isn’t it funny how we could easily have discussed any of the myriad of cognitive biases in humans that have been scientifically proven, or other theoretical aspects of human choice like hyperbolic discounting, or analyzed sexual selection in, say, insects, in a game-theoretical framework, yet if we step into the domain of human sexual selection and how it works for females it’s suddenly

ARE YOU SUGGESTING WOMEN ARE NOT FLAWLESS SUPER-HUMAN DEITIES, YOU SEXIST CHAUVINIST PIG

Get over yourself Adaire. Women are carbon-based biological life forms like the rest of us. And also show me where I said one shouldn’t listen to women, because I explicitly wrote I have learned from women.

 

[Boddah]

Heya, first post outside of intros and such. Don't roast me too hard!
I feel that women value success and confidence, feigned or not, above all. Looks are important but I feel that it boils down to base instincts. They want men that can take care of them and the definition of "taken care of" has changed over the course of human history but I don't think the basis of it has changed much. In my experience I see good looking, attractive women with men many would consider "ugly" or "dull" and hardly ever see the opposite.
Obviously, all women are not the same and it can vary greatly but from my limited experience of having girlfriends (even a wife for a few years lol) they all were drawn to me in the same way; I engaged, I showed them I was interested, and I am well off enough for them to feel comfortable and I would consider most of them to be WAY out of my league in the looks department.
Sorry for the anecdotes I'm far from an expert on women, I often crumble when a pretty girl so much as looks at me, but there seems to be ways manipulate the game in order to make women perceive and judge you in a certain way.

 

[scorpiomover]

I had a much more involved reply but I got self-conscious about it. Lol. Sorry.

That's all right. I can get a bit acerbic.

Long story short, I’d probably disagree with your theory, but I like the fact that you make the effort to consider theories of evolutionary biology and whether or not they’re accurate. It’s a very dubious field of science, and one based on Darwinism, which is not a very solid foundation. I think most people don’t respect the fact that many of the assumptions we make in evolutionary biology are soft scientific observations at best. It’s like the field of psychology. It’s useful, but largely based on conjecture, and founded on some very unscientific opinions.

In the case of female mate selection, there is so much wild guess work. So many invalid conclusions drawn from studies that are so limited as to be barely considered useful regarding the point they’re used to make.

So I like the fact that you question these things. It’s refreshing.

Nice to know.

Anyways on the topic of ovulation and mate selection....
I’ve not noticed an increase in my sexual drive during ovulation. I also have not heard my female friends report such a thing. What I have noticed is rather the opposite. When I do feel psysiological affects from hormonal fluctuations - I generally feel irritable, impatient, and intolerant. Especially when it comes to men.

Not to disagree, here. But I have noticed a certain problem, that certain people would frequently get extremely irritable, impatient, and intolerant without any clear reason. But when they'd eaten, they suddenly became calm and relaxed, and not impatient or intolerant at all. They had been very hungry, but hadn't realised it. I started to notice a pattern with those people, enough that when I saw they were becoming extremely irritable, impatient, and intolerant, if I ensured that they ate food ASAP, they stopped.

Thus, it's theoretically possible that women while on PMS are missing something and not realising it. It might be sex, food or something else. Or it may not be anything like that. But it's enough, that I can't completely discount my theory, not without being able to test it out on women who are PMSing.

Anyways. If you want to explore the validity of this assumption - ask women about PMS. I believe it commonly takes place during ovulation....and uhh...it’s probably not the best time to walk up to a lady and ask her if she wants to Netflix and chill. Just saying.

It would be very difficult to test my theory at the moment, because (a) I'm single, and (b) I'm uncomfortable with the idea of asking men and women in a relationship to carry out such an experiment, and very doubtful as if any of the men would even consider it, in case it upsets their partner further.

Still, I'll bear it in mind, and might experiment with different things in the future, when I get a girlfriend, to see if anything might alleviate symptoms of PMS, which would obviously be of benefit to her, as well as to science.

Put it this way. If the sensation was strong enough that it’s enough to actually influence a woman’s decisions - women would know about it. And talk about it. And we don’t.

As I said before, I'd noticed a pattern with eating and impatience, intolerance and irritability, both with certain men and with certain women, that none of them had noticed until after I'd pointed it out.

I feel like if it was a thing, I probably would have felt that way at least sometimes myself - and other women probably would have noticed it.

The theory that @Marbles mentioned, is mentioned quite a lot on internet forums, as if it's absolute truth. I'm at least a little dubious about it, because for one thing, it claims that women like to have sex with certain types of men for the purposes of sex, and then other men for the purposes of child-rearing, as if most women are cold, calculating heartless, selfish machines that care nothing for the feelings of men who they want to be raising their children.

A woman who is a gold-digger is far more moral and altruistic than a woman who deliberately seeks to get a man to raise another man's child for 18 years, that costs a million pounds, and thousands of hours in effort and time.

So this theory really makes women sound really horrible.

I think one of the miscommunications here is that guys seem to have this idea that it’s common for women to go out hunting for sex.

When heterosexual men go hunting for sex, they don't grab a spear and a net. They put on clothes that make them look nice, spray themselves with aftershave that makes them smell nice, and then go out to places where there are a lot of single heterosexual women, and talk to lots of them, in the hope that one of them will find them attractive enough to be willing to go on a date.

When homosexual men go hunting for sex, they don't grab a spear and a net. They put on clothes that make them look nice, spray themselves with aftershave that makes them smell nice, and then go out to places where there are a lot of single homosexual men, and talk to lots of them, in the hope that one of them will find them attractive enough to be willing to go on a date.

Plenty of women wear high heels which is extremely painful in the beginning and extremely damaging for the foot, and also is generally considered to make a woman look much more attractive.

Plenty of young women wear short skirts when going clubbing at night, when it's much colder than in the daytime and especially during the winter. I've heard young women say about how they were freezing in them.

You won't catch many men wearing clothes that make them freezing or painful, that happen to make them look more attractive.

Heterosexual women seem to do things that would be attractive to heterosexual men, that, were heterosexual men to do things that would be just as attractive to heterosexual women, would definitely be considered as if the men were 'hunting for sex'.

Perhaps you would use a different type of linguistic expression to express the motivation behind the behaviours I described. If so, then by all means state the expression that you would use, and know that when you think of men 'hunting for sex', what you really mean, is the expression you would use for women.

I think that’s just...really weird, very unusual behavior in a woman - at least a

heterosexual woman.

Normally if you like a guy you’ve known it for a while.

When anyone brings up the subject of men asking out women who have known them for a while, women invariably say that he's already been friendzoned and it would be CREEPY to ask such a woman out, and that the only choice is to go for a strange woman that he doesn't know at all.

So what you are telling me, is completely the opposite of what I have observed women say literally THOUSANDS OF TIMES.

Of the women that I DO know that will frequent bars, they never leave with a guy. I have met a couple of women that will do one night stands, and I used to have a friend like that...but all of the women I’ve known like that have issues of having been sexually abused or having mental illnesses.

That’s NOT me saying that all women who have one night stands have issues. I think some women even go through a bit of a phase...That’s just me trying to say that, as a woman, I’ve not encountered that kind of behavior enough to say that it’s common enough to belong in a generalisation about the female sex.

It's been the norm in the UK for women to have 1-night stands for well over 40 years.

Further, as much as I'd heard that Americans were supposed to be more prudish about sex than the Brits, as indicated by such things as The Hayes Act, from watching American TV programmes and watching American women comedians do stand-up when they are talking, like Brett Butler, it seems the norm in America for American women to go home with a guy.

E.G. Two and a Half Men, where Charlie Harper picks up women in bars and goes home with them and then has sex with them. That sort of thing happens in the UK regularly in nightclubs which are specifically known for it, but rarely in drinking establishments. But on American TV, that sort of thing seems to happen regularly.

So it seems that if you are correct, American TV is so wrong about Americans, that Americans probably all speak with a German accent and everyone in America is a card-carrying demon worshipper who has never touched a gun in their entire life.

That's not to say that ALL women in the UK go for 1-night stands. But it's common enough that it's a valid trend, and it's very clearly the same for the USA.

Perhaps in the USA, it's phrased differently. But here, most women who meet a guy that then ends in sex, is considered a 1-night stand, not dating, and that if the woman thinks it is dating, she's very naive. Perhaps in America, more women think it's the beginning of a relationship?

Or alternatively, it might be something else. I used to work on a premium rate phone line, where most of the callers were British women asking about their love life. At one point, I changed companies, to a company where the callers were American women asking about their love life. Most of the American women had fiancees, but were asking about if their other boyfriends were going to propose. Quite a shock to me, as in the UK, it's rare to hear of a woman who has multiple boyfriends.

 

[scorpiomover]

I’m probably going to get some hate here for speaking on behalf of women.

I just feel like - how can men know what women are thinking and feeling if there aren’t women who are willing to share their experience?

Try using lateral thinking.

How can you know what Holocaust survivors think and feel if you've never spoken to one?

How can you know what Jewish people think of Judeo-Christian values, if you've not asked any Jews what they think of it? Hint: they'll tell you that there's no such thing.

How can Democrats know what African-Americans REALLY think, if Democrats have never spoken to one?

So sure, it helps to get feedback. But let's be honest. You probably consider it fair to talk about all sorts of topics where you haven't got those people here to get feedback from. I'd expect that you'd think it would be even better if you can get it from the horse's mouth. Bu I'd expect that you'd still consider it reasonable for you to express yourself if that's not happening at the moment.

Surely the same should be true of other people, such as men talking about women.

And being able to relate to the opposite sex is a very valuable thing. It makes better men.

Psychological studies have found that repeated exposure helps the most. But to do that, women have to be willing to spend time with men, without immediately criticising, condemning and complaining about men, just because a man makes a mistake because of lack of exposure.

If you want to spend time with Italian men to learn about them more, but every time you do, they complain about women, and when you say anything that might accidentally offend them a bit by mistake, they immediately call you a pervert and a misandrist, and make statements like: "women are afraid of being made fun of by men. Men are afraid of being killed by women", you'll be bound to have your emotions raised to an extreme, such that you can't think straight, and won't be able to understand what they say anyway.

The only women in that situation that would be able to handle it, would be women who can't be made to be excessively emotional, i.e. humans with flat affect, such as psychopaths and sociopaths.

It doesn't really matter what groups you are talking about. This sort of dynamic is not going to be of benefit to either group that much. One group ends up feeling like they are killers, unless they are psychopaths/sociopaths. The other group will find that the people talking to them are always nervous and constantly speaking like they have Tourette's, except for people who don't care about them at all, and are basically either psychopaths, sociopaths, or people who have zero feelings about them and will use them like an object and then discard them.

I think it’s easier to hear about the male perspective than the female one, even though so many females are more than happy to give a person a wealth of information if they just ask for it...because there’s just not a lot of women online. Men are all over the place discussing their feelings and problems in life.

Pro Tip: men usually ONLY discuss their true feelings in a place where they cannot be threatened. Men grow up learning that if they tell Sally about something, then Sally will tell Molly, and Claire, and Jane, and in 3 days, every single woman in the tri-state area knows it, and lots of those women will be judgemental women who will assume that it's being said by a misogynist prick who is probably either a would-be rapist, a creep, or both.

The trouble is, that once a woman has formed a negative opinion of the guy, then she is often adamant that she won't date him.

So for many heterosexual men, making oneself vulnerable and revealing uncomfortable truths, is dating suicide.

E.G. I've known homeless men, religious men who were gay, bisexual men, men who couldn't read, men who couldn't add up, men who were in debt up to their eyeballs. None of them were making any of this public.

I don’t see that a lot from women, and when I do, it seems like there’s enough sexist, aggressive males, that the opportunity that represents usually gets destroyed.

I've gathered that many women get extremely sensitive about a lot of things that aren't really offensive to them, and that they have said about men. I've had many women friends, and I used to sit quietly while they and their other women friends would talk. Saying I was shocked by what they said, would be putting it mildly. I've had men say all manner of things in front of me, including some men propositioning me, and never heard any men say the things they did about women.

Bear in mind, that I've had lots and lots of women friends. So I doubt that I'm a misogynist, and if I am, I'm a misogynist that lots of women seem to like talking with as a platonic friend. So even if my perspective might seem odd, that's probably because I'm odd, more than anything.

So here on the INTP forum, where there’s a lot of guys who are genuinely good people that are trying to understand women better...I feel like maybe my perspective can be helpful. I hope so. Otherwise, without any information to the contrary, people might end up sharing a lot of the misinterpretations that are spread on the web within male communities. Like the dating advice community.

I think that's a really great thing that you are doing. It's all the more worthy precisely because of the problems that I've mentioned. You're like a little drop of wisdom in an ocean the size of the oceans of Jupiter. So please understand, that what I have said above, is not at all mentioned to be critical of you, or any other women, but simply to inform you, so that you have a much better perspective with which to understand how best to inform men.

 

[Marbles]

@scorpiomover "The theory that @Marbles mentioned, is mentioned quite a lot on internet forums, as if it's absolute truth. I'm at least a little dubious about it, because for one thing, it claims that women like to have sex with certain types of men for the purposes of sex, and then other men for the purposes of child-rearing, as if most women are cold, calculating heartless, selfish machines that care nothing for the feelings of men who they want to be raising their children."

I did not share it as if it were absolute truth. It used to be consensus, the last few years it has become controversial. I was upfront about that. I shared it because Washti wondered what criteria women who never wanted children chose partners based on. I suggested that they might choose slightly more androgynous men, and tried to explain based on evolutionary psychology why that might be the case.

The theory doesn't state that women are doing this consciously, but rather that one mechanism is driving women to prefer masculine men to impregnate them. Women are driven by loads of other mechanisms, many of which are altruistic. Kind of like how men have instincts to rape women, and to take care of them. Luckily, in most men, the instinct to take care of women is much stronger (under most circumstances, but let's not digress)

In a society without contraception, and with many sexual partners, women might have some children with a partner who is the father archetype, and some children with partners who are the badboy archetype. This is evolutionary strategy for men as well as women. Pick the high risk high reward bad boy approach, or the safer but less rewarding "father approach". You have twice as many female as male ancestors. Some men have a lot of offspring. If I remember correctly, 80 percent of women throughout history have reproduced, but only 40 percent of men.

 

[scorpiomover]

Scientists used to find masculinity preference fluctuation across the menstrual cycle, but from my last couple of sources it appears these results have become controversial in later years. Let's assume there are fluctuations in order to continue this conversation, though.

Women prefer masculinized men when ovulating. When one mechanism drives this preference, it could serve an evolutionary purpose, and other mechanisms could be driving it, as well. We could hypothesize that when college women engage in casual sex, even when chemically stopped from ovulating, they seek masculinized men for reasons not related to ovulation, but driven by mechanisms with the same purpose as whatever nudges women towards masculine men when they are ovulating.

That would be using the same lines of thinking as my proposal, and so I would expect it would be equally valid. So that's fine with me.

I think we should be careful drawing conclusion from college girls, since we have not actually researched their preferences (I assume the increased preference for masculinity found in the studies is mild, it might not be perceivable without data gathering), and because they are subject to a lot more variables than ovulation.

OK. But just so you know, a lot of these studies are performed in universities on college girls.

There are thousands of women in universities, who have a lot of free time on their hands, and don't mind doing these studies, either because they have free time, or because it's a bit of extra cash for not much work, or because it can count for extra credit, or because it's scientific and that's what they're there for in university.

If academics wanted to get hold of hundreds of women who are willing to leave work for 3 hours just to perform a scientific study, they'd have to approach them in the street, most of whom would wave them on, and they'd have to ask their boss for permission to give them the day off, which their boss probably wouldn't do, and they'd have to pay them for a full day's wage. They'd also find that many of them would leave half-way through to pick up the kids.

So a lot of these studies are being done on the very people that you say are unreliable subjects. But sources like The New York Times and The Atlantic don't usually say if the study was done using college girls as subjects or not.

We could look at what happens to women's masculinity preferences when they are on the pill, though. I know that has been studied, but I suspect these results have also become controversial. I remember wondering whether my GF would like me more or less when when she started the pill some years back, lol

From a quick google search.. I'm in a bit of a hurry, so I haven't looked it over, but I really like the Atlantic. While not a scientific magazine, I believe they will have listed their sources:

Redirect Notice

At first, I thought that disagreed with my hypothesis. But, having thought about it, when they're on the pill, they're ovulating, which is when according to my hypothesis, they would be more likely to choose Beta men.

Still a bit unhappy about the titles connected to it, e.g.

The Daily Beast

A smart, speedy take on the news from around the world.

www.thedailybeast.com

From: The Daily Beast.
Title: Birth Control Bummer. The Pill may affect attractiveness. But don't give up on oral contraceptives yet.

Sounds like whoever wrote the source article, thought that being attracted to non-extreme masculine characteristics is a "bummer". Guess that whoever wrote the article thinks that women like being clubbed over the back of the head, dragged back to a cave and then made to have sex.

I think your theory is really good. Thanks for taking the time to express it so clearly.

Cool.

I'm still not certain of it (I rarely am). But at least it's a big step up from "women like to have sex with Alphas, but then get Betas to raise the kid."

Just as an experiment, you can go up to 10 random men, and ask them if they would be willing to pay for dinner to go out with a woman who is pregnant with another man's child. I doubt that you'll have many takers.

It's really not a compliment to women, to say that women behave like that.

 

[Marbles]

@scorpiomover I am not saying that college girls are unreliable subjects, I am saying we need to do a study on them with a control group to find out whether they have a preference for feminized men or not. At the moment, we do not know. Since what we were really wondering was whether women on the pill preferred more androgynous men, I linked directly to a study on that. If you distrust the study, I can see if I can find some others.

"It's really not a compliment to women, to say that women behave like that. "

First of all, the domain of science is not to compliment anyone. Secondly, I am not speculating in how women are behaving, I'm observing fluctuations in their preferences and trying to understand why these fluctuations take place. Whether they act on an instinct is a separate matter, one which is influenced by myriad other factors than variations in attraction to masculinity.

It frustrates me to have to write this, because it should be completely irrelevant, but I quite like women. I find them to be much more sympathetic and loyal than men, and much better listeners. I think that the odds of a man cheating are much higher than those of a woman cheating.


Here is an article of a female researcher who has investigated the effects of discontinuing oral contraception on sexual partner preference:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...1901/do-contraceptive-pills-affect-attraction

"From: The Daily Beast.
Title: Birth Control Bummer. The Pill may affect attractiveness. But don't give up on oral contraceptives yet.

Sounds like whoever wrote the source article, thought that being attracted to non-extreme masculine characteristics is a "bummer". Guess that whoever wrote the article thinks that women like being clubbed over the back of the head, dragged back to a cave and then made to have sex. "

I can't get access to that article, but the researchers of the study can't really help who reports their work. Here's the study:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S030645301300070X

 

[scorpiomover]

I did not share it as if it were absolute truth. It used to be consensus, the last few years it has become controversial. I was upfront about that.

OK. But I still see it mentioned a lot.

It's been mentioned before, that internet users should be careful about what they say on the internet, because a person's digital footprint remains a long time after one has changed one's views, and for many things, forever.

So once this notion came on the internet, it would be shared and shared and shared, long after it became controversial. So it's here to stay, even if it's been proved wrong beyond doubt.

I shared it because Washti wondered what criteria women who never wanted children chose partners based on. I suggested that they might choose slightly more androgynous men, and tried to explain based on evolutionary psychology why that might be the case.

The theory doesn't state that women are doing this consciously, but rather that one mechanism is driving women to prefer masculine men to impregnate them. Women are driven by loads of other mechanisms, many of which are altruistic. Kind of like how men have instincts to rape women, and to take care of them. Luckily, in most men, the instinct to take care of women is much stronger (under most circumstances, but let's not digress)

In a society without contraception, and with many sexual partners, women might have some children with a partner who is the father archetype, and some children with partners who are the badboy archetype. This is evolutionary strategy for men as well as women. Pick the high risk high reward bad boy approach, or the safer but less rewarding "father approach".

It sounds plausible at first glance. But consider that for 199,000 years of human history, there was no welfare state.

If a woman got pregnant with a gambler or a drinker, there was no Gamblers Anonymous or Alcoholics Anonymous. A lot of men who were gamblers and drinkers ended up owing debts all around, and then ended up in Debtor's Prison, where people would stay until someone else paid their debts. So often, they'd stay there for years, and sometimes for life.

If a poor woman had sex with a rich noble's son, his family would not let him marry her, or they'd cut him off. He was used to living well, and now had to find his own way to earn a living, without the skills to do it. So 9 times out of 10, the rich man's son would NOT marry the poor woman.

Consider the fate of a woman with a child, who now is penniless. If her parents had passed on, she'd be forced to find a way to earn a living while she had a child that needed constant attention.

A lot of young women in this situation would give the kid up to an orphanage, often run by nuns, which was precisely why in history, orphanages were extremely common right through recorded history.

I used to hear about lots of these sorts of things happening in my youth.

My grandmother was in a similar position. Her husband went MIA in WW2. She had to go out to work every day. My mum was raised in a boarding school. She only saw my mum on holidays. She was one of the lucky ones.

There were lots of stories like this. There was Becky Sharpe in Thatcher's Vanity Fair. There was Lydia Bennett in Pride and Prejudice. There were the women in Tom Jones.

I found references that young single women would have anal sex with guys, so they could remain virgins before marriage.

There are also lots of indications that young women would not have sex before marriage, but would have affairs after they were married. For instance, Jung had several affairs, but all with already marrried women, some lasting 20 years. There are also other indicators.

So it wasn't a great idea to get pregnant with one guy, and then try to marry another guy. The guy would normally not go for it, because until recently, men had to work 12 hours a day, and that was extreme, just to look after someone else's child.

It was just an extremely bad idea.

If you look at films from the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, it's very clear that most women went for the nice stable guy. The "Alphas" were referred to as "cads", "bounders" and "rotters".

From what I understand, they also often got beaten up by the woman's friend's husbands, because it gave decent men a bad reputation.

I saw more references to it, in stories like "The Inspector General", where the mayor's mother and daughter both have sex with a guy who they think is a government official, in order to persuade him not to give a bad report on the town, because that could lose the mayor his job.

So you saw things more like that.

It's in the modern day, with the welfare state, and with reliable contraceptives, that it became more useful for a woman to sleep with one man and then to get another man to marry her.

You have twice as many female as male ancestors. Some men have a lot of offspring. If I remember correctly, 80 percent of women throughout history have reproduced, but only 40 percent of men.

Sure. But remember, that a lot of men died in war. Women didn't go to war, because if 90% of the men died, the town could still repopulate. But if 90% of the women died, then it would take several generations to repopulate the town.

The same went for any risky jobs where one's life would be at risk, such as lumberjack, policeman, and even jobs where there were a lot of pollutant chemicals that could cause serious long-term harm, such as a tanner, or a miner working in a mine where there were cave-ins every so often, and where a lot of miners would die of "black lung".

So any jobs that were risky enough that lots of men would die, went to men, and usually, only men. Usually, women were only given the opportunity to do the safe jobs that would not risk life.

That wasn't always the case. In the 1850s, women and men worked in factories with appalling safety conditions.

But even then, men worked in the mines. Even young boys would work for 10 hours a day in the mines. But not women.

So it's not be a complete surprise to me, that 80% of women reproduced, but only 40% of men.

 

[scorpiomover]

I am not saying that college girls are unreliable subjects, I am saying we need to do a study on them with a control group to find out whether they have a preference for feminized men or not. At the moment, we do not know. Since what we were really wondering was whether women on the pill preferred more androgynous men, I linked directly to a study on that. If you distrust the study, I can see if I can find some others.

OK. But your reasons that college girls are often immature, are reasonably valid. However, it so happens that studies often use college girls, because it's a heck of a lot easier to get college girls to agree to a study than working women.

I think, that given that college girls have a very different lifestyle to most women, that they should be treated as if they have a different lifestyle, and so studies should be done on college women, and studies should be done on non-college women.

But it's probably not a great idea to use college girls to make claims about all women. However, it's easier to use them for a study. It's more a matter of convenience for scientists and other academics, rather than appropriate choices of subject.

"It's really not a compliment to women, to say that women behave like that. "

First of all, the domain of science is not to compliment anyone.

I agree. But to approach any subject without any thought of how the topic might influence other people, is to be completely lacking in full consideration of the topic.

It's indicative of very poor thinking skills, and so brings the whole study into question.

Secondly, I am not speculating in how women are behaving, I'm observing fluctuations in their preferences and trying to understand why these fluctuations take place.

Me too.

Whether they act on an instinct is a separate matter, one which is influenced by myriad other factors than variations in attraction to masculinity.

Intention obviously changes behaviour very significantly. So of course it matters greatly in explanations like this.

It frustrates me to have to write this, because it should be completely irrelevant, but I quite like women.

I had mistakenly got the impression that you were a woman. Not that you're feminine. But it can be very hard for me to judge people's gender based purely on their posts.

I find them to be much more sympathetic and loyal than men, and much better listeners.

Depends on the woman.

IME, women who are sympathetic, loyal and good listeners, tended to be better than the men who are sympathetic, loyal and good listeners. Women who were unsympathetic, disloyal and poor listeners, tended to be worse than the men who were unsympathetic, disloyal and poor listeners.

So IME, women are somewhat different to men. But overall, it's a much of a muchness.

I think that the odds of a man cheating are much higher than those of a woman cheating.

You really should get out more, and be quiet. Women tend to talk a lot more openly if you say nothing.

Here is an article of a female researcher who has investigated the effects of discontinuing oral contraception on sexual partner preference:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...1901/do-contraceptive-pills-affect-attraction

Interesting. But inconclusive. It's about women who have been IN a relationship for a while. Lots of women get dissatisfied after a while in a relationship. When women have been in a relationship for a while, they are likely to stop taking the pill.

The references were not that clear either:

5. Russell, V. M., McNulty, J. K., Baker, L. R., & Meltzer, A. L. (2014). The association between discontinuing hormonal contraceptives and wives’ marital satisfaction depends on husbands’ facial attractiveness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 111, 17081–17086.

I've seen studies that said that marital satisfaction for women increased when they were more attractive to their partners, but not the other way around.

So I don't think these studies have been conducted in a way that makes everything perfectly clear, or anything that clear, which is good for scientists, because it gives them something controversial to publish, which will get them more fame, which will increase their reknown and consequently their standing in science, and at the same time, means there's plenty more in their field for study in the future, which lengthens their future career in their field.

So, good for scientists. Not so useful for everyone else, and especially not women, not if any of this scares off heterosexual men from wanting a loving long-term relationship with a woman.

 

[Marbles]

Sexual affairs have been very risky throughout our history, especially for women, which is why we don't see more of them today. However, they are more risky in modern society than in our more ancient past, I would say. Keep in mind that our genetic history did not begin 200,000 years ago, it began 3.500,000,000 years ago.

I imagine that the proverbial alphas fathering many children in the past were more akin to our modern politicians than they were to our modern gamblers and drinkers. Like I mentioned earlier, alpha is high risk, high reward. You might end up on the streets, or you might end up as Genghis Khan, who has spread his y chromosome to about 16 million modern men (granted, probably largely by rape, but unlikely entirely so).

I agree with you that one of the reasons why we have more female ancestors than male is high male mortality. I doubt a single factor tells the whole story, though. Since many of our close, primate relatives have alphas who keep harems, I imagine that has also been an influence on our evolution.

From an evolutionary point of view, it would make sense for females to have some children with "fathers" in exchange for help with upbringing, and some children with particularly fit members of the tribe. This counteracts the mutation rate (and counteraction is necessary because negative mutations are vastly more common than positive ones), keeping humanity healthy. I think we should all be grateful for it.

I shared this video a while back, which I found amusing:

 

[Marbles]

OK. But your reasons that college girls are often immature, are reasonably valid. However, it so happens that studies often use college girls, because it's a heck of a lot easier to get college girls to agree to a study than working women.

Wait, when did I say that college girls are immature? I must have worded myself clumsily, I do not think college girls are immature.

"It's really not a compliment to women, to say that women behave like that. "

First of all, the domain of science is not to compliment anyone.

I agree. But to approach any subject without any thought of how the topic might influence other people, is to be completely lacking in full consideration of the topic.

It's indicative of very poor thinking skills, and so brings the whole study into question.

There are scientific debates, and then there are political debates. Science should not be influenced by politics, and neither should scientific debates, but when making policy I completely agree with you.

Whether they act on an instinct is a separate matter, one which is influenced by myriad other factors than variations in attraction to masculinity.

Intention obviously changes behaviour very significantly. So of course it matters greatly in explanations like this.

I am not sure what you mean. What I am saying is that right now I am examining whether there are in fact fluctuations in female preference for masculinity across their menstruation cycle. Whether they are aware of this fluctuation is a separate matter, as is whether they to any degree consciously seek out masculine mates when ovulating. It is a cornerstone of the scientific method to look at one variable at a time, so I try to do it when discussing science, too.

I think that the odds of a man cheating are much higher than those of a woman cheating.

You really should get out more, and be quiet. Women tend to talk a lot more openly if you say nothing.

Scorpio got jokes :P https://ifstudies.org/blog/who-cheats-more-the-demographics-of-cheating-in-america

Here is an article of a female researcher who has investigated the effects of discontinuing oral contraception on sexual partner preference:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...1901/do-contraceptive-pills-affect-attraction

Interesting. But inconclusive. It's about women who have been IN a relationship for a while. Lots of women get dissatisfied after a while in a relationship. When women have been in a relationship for a while, they are likely to stop taking the pill.
I've seen studies that said that marital satisfaction for women increased when they were more attractive to their partners, but not the other way around.

Well, that's the scientific method for you: eternally inconclusive, but it's the best source of information we have.

So I don't think these studies have been conducted in a way that makes everything perfectly clear, or anything that clear, which is good for scientists, because it gives them something controversial to publish, which will get them more fame, which will increase their reknown and consequently their standing in science, and at the same time, means there's plenty more in their field for study in the future, which lengthens their future career in their field.

The scientific community certainly has its issues. Few are more concerned about the replication crisis than me.

So, good for scientists. Not so useful for everyone else, and especially not women, not if any of this scares off heterosexual men from wanting a loving long-term relationship with a woman.

On that I think we completely disagree. We should not stop research on controversial issues, no matter how fallible scientists are. I believe increasing our understanding of humanity tends to lead to more good than evil.

For instance, I have some friends who have trouble getting laid. They can get a little chauvinist and criticize women for not wanting to have casual sex with them. I tell them that the burden of pregnancy is much higher on a woman than on a man, evolutionarily, and that they should be careful criticizing a woman for not wanting to fuck them unless they themselves are willing to consider marrying her. I'm trying to be succinct, but I hope that was clear.

This perspective has really made a lot of them come around and have more empathy for women, and it would not have been possible without a realistic understanding of both male and female psyche.

 

[Inexorable Username]

@scorpiomover I did read your reply and I'm flattered that you took the time to read everything I wrote and respond quote by quote. That was nice of you.

I DO plan to reply, but seeing as how your experiences and my experiences contradict one another, I think it's time for some science and some more formal arguments - and that is going to take me significantly longer than just throwing out thoughts as they pop into my head.

So I hope you don't feel like I'm ignoring you!
I have a backlog of 10 SEO-driven articles to knock out of the way for a client, and I've got to knock that out before I can indulge. Hope you understand, and you don't feel shunted! It's always great to hear experiences from other people. It's something I value, and take to heart!

 

[scorpiomover]

I did read your reply and I'm flattered that you took the time to read everything I wrote and respond quote by quote. That was nice of you.

Thanks for the compliment.

I DO plan to reply, but seeing as how your experiences and my experiences contradict one another, I think it's time for some science and some more formal arguments - and that is going to take me significantly longer than just throwing out thoughts as they pop into my head.

So I hope you don't feel like I'm ignoring you!

Don't stress over it. If you get to it, great. If not, also great. It's just a hypothetical discussion at this point.

But I do feel strongly that science should be impartial and objective, and shouldn't be presented in ways that would be likely to increase misogyny.

This whole "men vs women" thing doesn't help anyone, because men want to date women, and despite feminist sayings that indicate negativity about men, the majority of women WANT to be involved in relationships with men.

I have a backlog of 10 SEO-driven articles to knock out of the way for a client, and I've got to knock that out before I can indulge. Hope you understand, and you don't feel shunted! It's always great to hear experiences from other people. It's something I value, and take to heart!

Wow. I'd rather you get on with your work!
Fun is fun. But you need money to have the resources and time to have fun.
So it's important to get your priorities straight.

 

[Elen]

Women are as arbitrary and fickle as anybody else. What if I told you they just want to get fucked to? Your appearance and your money don't matter. That only matters if she's looking for a life partner. Nobody wants to wash your underwear if you aren't worth it.

Here's my advice for young, lonely men:
(1) Surround yourself with women. Listen to them talk. Learn to relate to how they feel.
(2) Identify your insecurities. Spend time understanding why you are insecure about them. Develop a strategy to address the things you are insecure about.
(3) Decide what your ideal future life would be. Develop a set of goals to strive for that will give you the future you desire.

(4)Obtain enlightenment and realize you don't need women.

 

[sushi]

(4)Obtain enlightenment and realize you don't need women.

I was semi trolling when i start this thread, but ok.

i have fun with wet dreams and jizzing off with my pillow.