ZenRaiden
One atom of me
Shes pretty good, a little too preachy in some videos, but this vid is spot on imho.
Its very simple. She gives advice for nice guys.
Shes pretty good, a little too preachy in some videos, but this vid is spot on imho.
Its very simple. She gives advice for nice guys.
I think she actually uses the term nice guy in its original meaning here, where nice means you really are a nice person, not just signaling virtue to get into panties.
I want sex just as much as the next guy, but calling it biologically successful is a stretch on any level whether we consider the paleolithic or 21 century lol.one needs to keep something in mind; the biologically optimal reproductive strategy for a male is to have seggs with as many women as possible
Obviously having lots of kids can be biologically successful, but youd also have to forgo all the advantages of functional social being that a child needs to be.so what's biologically successful then
The girl literally said that attraction is there. I am not attracted to these types of galls tho. I am sure they are out there. I am not going to get angry just to show here what a man I am. Too old and too much easy going for that.btw there's only been 1 time ive heard something interesting from a female on the topic of men, and it was this:
that's an obvious point, which has counterarguments. In the prehistoric past there were no nuclear families, no single moms living in state-subsidized housing projects. There were tribes, so you would probably spend almost as much time raising your own kid as your neighbors'.Obviously having lots of kids can be biologically successful, but youd also have to forgo all the advantages of functional social being that a child needs to be.
I hope I don't need to spell out why having a kid and not taking care of it does not always translate to successful.
That is said to be so based on conjecture. As of now the only real life examples we have about tribal life is stone age tribes. Do these researchers even know how people lived 40 or 100 thousand years ago? NO they do not. Secondly tribal dynamics or the dynamics of groups depend on adaptations and resources they have. Eskimos don't have same family structure as Papua New Guinea people. Third their survival would also be different. As for maximizing DNA being passed on I want to see data on this, not just guess work. We can infer all kinds of things, but its not clear what is deemed successful.There were tribes, so you would probably spend almost as much time raising your own kid as your neighbors'.
There were no nuclear families is something we need data for, and nuclear families is also trivial term to begin with. Maybe there were such families, maybe there were tribes and clans and what ever, but that does not mean it was good strategy. That is merely fantasy that was not demonstrated. You need to show assertions not just make claims.that's an obvious point, which has counterarguments. In the prehistoric past there were no nuclear families, no single moms living in state-subsidized housing projects
How could we know. We don't live in medieval times either. Also too many variables, to know what is best strategy today. I don't think treating humans as locust is necessarily a great idea, but even if we do, its only because there are systems put in place to take care of orphans and weak.yes there have always been a tradeoff between the number of offspring and quality of rearing, but that tradeoff was probably much less punishing than it is in modern society.
I ain't saying having more kids and having more women is necessary bad strategy, but one needs to show some argument for this. Why are we entertaining this line of thinking other than male sex drive. We aren't necessary even making sense here, because Andrew Tates are clear outliers not the norm, how are they proving evolution favors the pump and dump people, if most people today just don't do that.you would see this if you lined up all your ancestors - you have way more mothers than fathers (this has been shown in genetic studies). That means you are the descendant of males who tried to maximize the number of offspring.
pretty sure i have show an argument? im surprised this is even supposedly controversial, i thought these were well-known facts.I ain't saying having more kids and having more women is necessary bad strategy, but one needs to show some argument for this.
Sure so there seems to be more females to males ratio.pretty sure i have show an argument?
Sure so there seems to be more females to males ratio.pretty sure i have show an argument?
From that you argued that men have higher success rate having more sex.
------ which is what you claim?
I mean if you believe that then that is fine.
so the reproductive fitness of a male is very much connected to simply the number of mates.
I mean if you believe that then that is fine.
so the reproductive fitness of a male is very much connected to simply the number of mates.
I am just here trying to separate male masculine LARPing and actual fact.
I know, I get it, I don't think you are that type of person.im not saying this is how every man should live his life
Biological is flimsy concept to begin with, I suggest watching the other half of video that woman did in manosphere where she went over some very obvious concepts that were wrong. More importantly the science of biology is probably not as "sciency" as we like to think. 3 variables in physics vs 245 variables in biology, makes for very confusing science. Our modern science usually knows how to deal with few variables it gets hard core when its 4 or more., i just think that if one is looking for solutions in these things one needs to accept certain realities of human biology and sexual dynamics
Tapping into body, being present. Its not something that can be explained. Its something you learn by practice. I learned to do it and its hard. Especially for cerebral people who treat their bodies like appendages.I'm not even sure what alternative im supposedly arguing against - "tapping into one's body"? what does that even mean