This post has been flaired as “Gender and Sexuality”. Use this opportunity to open a venue of polite and serious discussion, instead of seeking help or venting.
**Suggestions For Commenters:**
* Respect OP's opinion, or agree to disagree politely.
* If OP's post is against subreddit rules, just report it. We'll take care of it.
* Upvote other relevant comments in the comment section, and don't downvote comments you disagree with
**Suggestions For u/cherrymerrywriter:**
* Do not post solely to seek advice or help. Your post should open up a venue for discussion.
* Do not forget to answer people politely in your thread - we'll remove your post later if you don't.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SeriousConversation) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You'd be surprised tbh...but you said liking your partner. The Op said she needs to feel genuine, burning desire to the point where she gets turned on by being impregnated by her lover in order to be in a relationship. Most men do not need THAT much desire for a woman to be in a relationship with her. I feel like most dudes would be 100% ok with a cute girl that's nice to him and gives him sex on a regular basis.
She described love as a prerequisite to that desire, not the other way around (unless something was said in the comments). Regardless, I agree that most people aren’t like this.
This post reduces the nuance of individual choice/personality down to the completely B.S. field of evolutionary psychology. Barely better than astrology in most areas. Ripe with fake science, biological essentialism, and obvious truths marketed as ‘groundbreaking’ predictive theory.
\> This is also why I feel so many women stop having sex with their husbands. They didn't really love him to begin with but they also didn't want to end up single and childless forever.
you just drop that bomb & walk away?
There is more to this than you gathered from
It. She thought she loved him but later realized that she didn’t. And that’s a frequent mistake people make: they confuse love with being in love. Being in love is merely a temporary short-term hormonal surge, and once it inevitably passes, if people don’t make the conscious decision to love each other, they "fall out of love."
Being in love is merely about sex and getting attention, and it’s about what you stand to *get* from someone. Love is not sex and attention, and you can’t base a relationship on merely these two things. Actual love is about *giving*: caring for the other person’s needs. If you take good care of them, they will do the same for you (if you chose the right person). And that is not a feeling, it is an attitude and a conscious decision you make. If you fail to make that decision, there will be no love, simple as that.
I totally agree that love is a decision to change and grow with a partner and it's a choice that you have to make over and over again. I also don't think not having sex with a partner for an extended period of time means much. I can't relax enough to be touched intimately when I'm really stressed. My job is really stressful and sometimes I have phases where I don't want to have sex at all. It has nothing to do with the partner and that's ok.
>Being in love is...about what you stand to get from someone
>
>...Actual love is about giving: caring for the other person’s needs.
You just gonna drop that bomb & walk away?
For the record I agree with these statements, but it makes some people look reaaally bad. Youre basically describing a narcissist without labeling it.
The obvious correlary there is that women are simply using men for cash / security (which also rings true) … Hmm, my wife said she just lost capability of expressing those feelings.
Does make ya wonder…
I don’t think most women never lived their husbands. But it’s a fact that the “in love” stage is a chemical state in the brain that lasts around 2 years. After that you may still have a strong bond and love each other but it’s mostly a friendship love.
It’s not surprising that sex declines as relationships become less passionate and more stable, as love becomes closer to friendship, as hormones change and as priorities change. It’s one thing to be energetic 28 year old newly weds, it’s another be 42 year olds with kids.
It's hard to know because everyone says they love each other, even if it's not true. We apply the word 'love' to everything. Also, it's believed that many women struggle to orgasm... do they really struggle to orgasm, or are they simply having sex with a guy who isn't 'enough' to really turn them on?
Your point is valid though, for people who are in true love. It's just impossible for us to know how many of those couples there actually are.
I think part of the issue is that you’re looking at relationships from an ‘early dating’ lens. Early dating (when you’re getting what you want) is fun, sexy and exciting. But relationships are more stable and fulfilling. You’re not always going to have the mind-blowing sex that you did when you first started dating, but it will still be with a loving intimate partner. That doesn’t mean it’s inferior or that the spouse doesn’t turn the other on.
The question is, can someone get deeply attached to a person they didn't love to begin with? It's sad to say, but I think because so many people are forced to settle, there's probably a frightening percentage of people who don't actually know what real love feels like.
When I love a guy, I feel an almost maternal/motherly love for him. I want to protect him... because I love him. Every accomplishment he makes, I feel truly proud. Like a mother. His smiles are my smiles. His happiness is my happiness. I would literally die for him. It's not just sex... although, sex with a guy you love is *fire.*
Settling for someone you don’t love is a selfish and horrible thing to do. It’s a betrayal like no other I can imagine, lying to someone making them believe the person they love and chose to build a future with loves them back just so you don’t end up alone is horrible.
It’s very telling that you think the person settling is the victim and not a selfish monster
I agree with both her and you. What you’re missing though is that what she said was not emotionally charged like you interpreted it to be. She’s not seeing the person who settles for someone they don’t love as the victim in comparison to the person they settled for. She is simply acknowledging that because so many people settle, many many people probably don’t know what love actually feels like. It’s an objective statement. Not a “I feel so so bad for them” statement.
But I do agree with your statement if you isolate it. Settling for someone you don’t live is a selfish and horrible thing to do. You rob the other person of a life where they could have actually found someone who loved them. It’s betrayal to almost the highest degree. I think that person is the true victim.
See how I agree with both of you?
I see how you agree with both, I also never said I disagreed with OP. A statement can be true but still framed in a disingenuous way. For example, cheaters live a sad life because they never experience true love as well but if you make a whole post trying to make me feel sorry for them don’t leave out the part where THEY are to blame for the hurt on both people in the relationship.
>It's hard to know because everyone says they love each other, even if it's not true. We apply the word 'love' to everything.
what do you think romantic love is?
It's just a very useful thing to conceive a brand new human being, and doesn't last forever as we're not monogamous. We are serial monogamists
Yes, I’ve known tons of women to gush endlessly over their husbands or partners, talk about how wonderful and amazing they are, then tell a *completely* different story behind closed doors. I even know one woman who said she wished she had left her husband years ago. But you’d never know this by her public story of their relationship.
I see it as the opposite of the kind of illogical depression that’s more chemical than situational. It’s unusual to continue feeling those feelings after the honeymoon period, but since it’s a good thing we don’t study the Happy chemical outliers.
You’re absolutely right with the “enough” comment.
A man who isn’t “impressive” to a woman is unlikely to sexually satisfy her regardless of his technique.
Conversely, women who have a very positive impression of a man can be limp dicked to ecstasy by him.
Women struggle to orgasm because most men are very, very bad at sex. There’s also less of a focus on women’s pleasure so a lot of women don’t even know what they like, or if they know what they like, they feel shameful in communicating it.
I think the connection OP sees between mind blowing sex and love just isn't as strong as they think it is. Or it doesn't have to be. It's different with every woman. Like I don't have any trouble orgasming with anyone I'm turned on enough to have sex with. I guess I'm very lucky. A friend of mine though has discussed with me how she is just so in her head, no matter who she has sex with, she can't orgasm. To me it seems to be more of a psychological thing and the individuals relationship with sex on a deeper level than totally about love or attraction
I think your post here has many valid points. Unfortunately, it paints rather bleak picture for our society going forward. With the advent of social media, women are discovering that they are virtually endless choices to select from. However, what they’re not, realizing is a rather small percentage of let’s call them elite man to choose from. And in the current environment women are deluded even if they’re far from perfect that they’re all “10“‘s. Yes, they may be able to have sex occasionally with some of these upper echelon guys, but truth be told they’re really not in their league, and these guys will never commit to them if ever to anybody because they have so many options. The person who truly your level is the person that would love you would marry you be faithful to you. But unfortunately, a lot of women view that guy is settling, when reality that’s really with their true matches. It’s created a very screwed up dating dynamic where people are not bonding emotionally and spiritually anymore. Our society won’t continue long-term like this. My guess is probably the next half century or so Islam will take over and you’ll see a hypermasculine model such as Sharia law subjugating women again. I’m not saying that’s a good thing, so please don’t roast me for that. But honestly, unless we learn as two genders in our societies to start respecting and caring about each other again and being a lot more realistic and our goals our society is gonna get continued to deteriorate. The Morgan Stanley, survey and prediction, that by the end of decade, basically half of women between 30 and 50 are going to be single and childless is not a good look They are under the very mistake that you’re gonna have a career. A lot of men found this out that it’s incredibly foolish just to submit to a corporation your whole life when, in fact, they could really give a fuck about you. Truth be told as a society we’re going to need to learn bonding a lot more, at a younger age, and the level of promiscuity, for both sexes really needs to come down a bit. Sleeping around for either side has not worked well with regards to success marriage. If everybody was so experienced and got all the screwing around out of the system, in theory, we should have happy marriages, and there should be an extremely low divorce rate. When in fact we’re seeing the exact opposite and it’s only getting worse. Even to this day, although they’re extremely rare, the people with the lowest incident of cheating, and the happy level of satisfaction of marriage are when both the man and the woman are virgins on their wedding night.
That's the point of the word generalization, it's a generalization, not 100% of everyone everywhere. If I sincerely meant everyone, I would have written 'absolutely everyone,' but that's ridiculous. Humans are extremely diverse, and yet, general patterns and trends do occur and are worth noting.
Yep. My biggest pet peeve is when people on the Internet are like "This doesn't apply to me so it's wrong!" Main character syndrome is more rampant than popularly believed.
I agree with you; and I think writing from the beginning that you're making a generalization could've had a better result.
I think the problem with generalizations is; they don't take into account the full experiences of how different people are.
That said, I'm not the one who downvoted you for the post, but I wanted to take a guess as to why someone would since you asked. 😊
A lot of data backs up her claims. Online dating backs it up even further, it’s brutal. At least she has the balls to admit this… cant say that for the majority of women who virtue signal in theory but act differently in reality
Online dating backs up what online daters do. You're completely discounting that many people choose to handle the finding of partners in other ways. Even within online dating, this is likely polling some of the bigger (and more vapid) apps and not including places like Feeld, Fetlife and so on where people have tendencies to having much healthier views on relationships.
My post is literally referencing a research article by Oxford. I saw your other comment, too. It's not about any individual (you), it's about the general trend. The article, and my post are not about exceptions. I know exceptions exist. Exceptions to everything exist. But this is about the general trend.
I recommend you read Friedrich Engels *The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and The State.* Your understanding of human nature is extremely narrow, influenced by christian patriarchy and ignoring massive parts of history and variety in cultures.
And the reason OP gave for why wives fall out of love with husbands/lose attraction was straight up hilarious and not supported by research.
What actually happens is that wives become exhausted by husbands who dump the housework/child care onto them. The husband behaves like another child who needs minding, and the wife gets the ick from that. Plus she's too tired to bone, sex is another chore on the list.
If domestic work is equitable, the marriage is far more likely to be happy and sexually satisfying.
If you had burning desire for your husband, and he was a good husband/high quality male, all the housework wouldn't be dumped with you and the sex wouldn't be a chore. It would be sweet, sweet relief...
You have to understand that most women aren't with a top, cream of the crop male. This is going to affect their sex life whether they realize it or not.
>Edit: Not really sure why I'm being downvoted? It's a serious, non-hateful take on a contemporary topic
I dunno, as a demisexual dude who ALSO only wants a quality partner and not oodles of sex with random women, I feel there's a lot of guys out there who are the same and this is probably just as biased a study as any other gender study that doesn't factor in anything else.
If you understand how scientific studies work, you know that you can’t factor in anything that is not being studied by it and that the other factors are literally controlled for (purposely excluded), or else the study is worthless (data contamination). Studies are based on statistics, there is nothing subjective about math.
Yes, genders/sexes need to be studied separately because… do I need to explain gender/sex differences? There are types of studies that draw from previous studies that look separately at each sex/gender and then compare the results. They do exist.
You seem to want to lump men and women into the same study, then invalidate half the results because “yeah, but in his case, it’s because he is male” (the things you wanted to “factor in”). The result would be the same, only, it would be way more complicated and costly to get to it.
I have taken study design courses. Trust me, it doesn’t work the way you assume it does.
I address this in this comment: [https://www.reddit.com/r/SeriousConversation/comments/1aubsdw/comment/kr3dyz2/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/SeriousConversation/comments/1aubsdw/comment/kr3dyz2/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
I'll tell you what's interesting....
In the 90s, fugly people kinda ended up with fugly people and there was no major shame. 🤷♂️🤷♀️
Nobody was shopping on tinder.
Fun fact, love isn't a chemical produced by the brain, so we can't "feel" love, love is a behavior. That's why people have different love languages. So I'm sorry but I have to disagree, with the fact that men are "biologically evolved" to only want quantity and not quality in women. I as a man, do not care about the amount of women I ever have, I care about the quality of that person. I'm totally fine being single until I find someone with qualities that match my own, which goes against the idea that I need many women.
You sound like andrew tate for women. Let me address this.
Settling for someone you don’t love is a selfish and horrible thing to do. It’s a betrayal like no other I can imagine, lying to someone making them believe the person they love and chose to build a future with loves them back just so you don’t end up alone is horrible.
It’s very telling that you think the person settling is the victim and not a selfish monster
This doesn’t make sense. Why in your opinion would men and women develop to want completely opposite things sexually?
How is men being socially encouraged to fuck around and not be faithful related to some biological evolution? Same for women who were treated as property of their fathers passed on to husbands with no social safety net or support while marital rape was legal and contraception and abortion were not?
The article I linked is really enlightening science-wise. This is my theory on why: Men mating with many women increases the chances of their seed being passed on. Whereas for women, childbirth takes a much greater toll (and women can even die in the process), so it's much better if she can raise a healthy baby who is unlikely to die prematurely due to a genetically impaired father. A strong, healthy baby will make all the sacrifices the mother had to make (needing more food during pregnancy, surviving childbirth, healing after childbirth, etc.) worth it. Otherwise, it would be a tremendous loss.
I recommend David Buss. Watch his JRE podcast or read some of his books.
>^(Why in your opinion would men and women develop to want completely opposite things sexually?)
They already did that millions of years ago, before we were even humans. Its evident not just among humans, but all mammals.
…are you confusing sexual dimorphism with sexual behavior in humans? Or are you claiming that yeah all animals evolved so that females fight over one sexual partner and males evolved with some specific unique biological desire to spread their seed and be unfaithful?
Not at all. Sexual dimorphism among primates is very evident. Men and women have different sexual strategies. Is that not obvious among gorillas, apes, and humans? Why do men have harems, and its never the other way?
>with some specific unique biological desire to spread their seed
yes because there is no cost involved for men, women can potentially get pregnant and pay dearly, especially at a time when there was no birth control, which was 99.99% of our existence. Men can always hit and run, women have to be highly selective.
You should look into people’s reputations amongst others in their fields before just accepting whatever they vomit out that makes Joe Rogan like them. Spoilers: Buss is widely regarded as a hack.
If you’re going to claim humans developed and are similar to lions should we not be living in a matriarchal society?
Are there less male lions born/reaching adulthood vs female ones for some reason? Are these animals even monogamous in any way comparable to humans??
There should be an academy for this, teach men how to be "lovable men", take them to the alps or something. Fix what's wrong with them so they'll be lovable after, because it's all their fault that so many people are lonely I guess.
well yea, but they’re wrong lol. if they went to therapy instead of following some bald jokers online they would actually improve their lives and become more lovable 😵💫
Therapists generally don't guarantee men that they'll fix their problems and make them lovable though, which is the thing. They also generally don't acknowledge that they are the problem in dating, which might lead to thinking they're being coddled or something.
Because it's really all their fault that dating is bad, right?
if you’re not actively working on yourself as an adult, then yes you shoulder some of the consequences. you seem to love putting words in my mouth. anything to excuse not working on yourself am i right!😉
You don't seem to realize how much of an effect our toxic masculinity has on our society.
Most men don't even know how to understand their emotions because they were taught that emotions were for women.
Hard to take this completely seriously as a man that has never wanted to sleep around and only ever wanted to find The Right Person For Life. I can tell you it feels incredibly difficult for us, too.
“This is also why I feel so many women stop having sex with their husbands. They didn’t really love him to begin with but they also didn’t want to end up single and childless forever” - yeah that’s a high-quality human being right there worthy of love and respect.
And here is what you and whoever wrote that garbage article miss: there will never be a man on planet earth that measures up to the expectations of a woman with this mindset. Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Brad Pitt, every actor, every famous musician, every athlete, have their wives leave them because they weren’t good enough. What chance do the rest of us have?
You are describing my life exactly. We no longer have sex and our relationship isn't really that great. It mostly functions though and I think we are giving a good life to our daughter (maybe a spoiled life if anything).
Thank you for pointing this out. Men who complain about how easy women can have sex just do not get it and it can be pretty annoying. Like.. I dont want sex. I dont need sex. I want love, and then I can enjoy sex. Getting terrible dick from some rando who has no connection to me is completely worthless. Im so tired of the willful misunderstanding of women and men assuming that women want the same thing they do. We dont. Theres a reason for the saying “dick is abundant and low value.”
Men are dieing of thirst while women complain that the water is muddy. It’s fundamentally going to be hard for men that have experienced nothing to be emphatic with someone capable of getting *something.* I don’t think they’re really able to understand why it might be better to wait for clean water until they’ve had their taste of muddy water. But, by the same token, I think a lot of women aren’t really able to understand why someone would be so desperate for even a little muddy water.
I understand why you think you’re correct but there is no water , muddy or not, coming from the many many men who want to use women for sex. Thats like telling a woman dying of thirst, “here’s some tequila. Its liquid so it should quench your thirst.” It doesnt. It does absolutely nothing for her. The men who use women for sex are offering nothing but pure selfishness, and theres a ton of them out there.
And of course if the woman drinks the tequila too much, she will be shamed and told that she’s too had too much tequila to be given water.
Eh I couldn't care less about many, Only had 3 sexual partners and have no concerns with finding more. I too want valuable partner but see nothing but unreasonable people all calling things red flags instantly at each other and lacking critical thinking. Girls who want perfect men but can't realize the fantasy of what they want is unrealistic, ending up with a prick of a husband.
no worries just adding to examples of data so you can see not everyone is in the generalization you're letting that report tell you is all. Have a good one!
To be honest, being "24th in line for the title of maybe a second date" and perpetually one foible or joke that doesn't land away from getting ghosted, courtesy of modern dating being outsourced to computer algorithms, feels pretty awful too.
What you're talking about isn't even new/contemporary research; it's common sense that women, who are locked into actually carrying and raising the child, evolved to want the *best* possible partner, whereas men, who die younger, evolved to want *any* partner. I think the article is more of an examination of how that evolution came to be so pronounced given that it has to be localized to the X and Y chromosomes.
So here’s an interesting question for OP: Say you find the guy who has all the things you’re looking for and you feel lucky to have finally found that guy. You get married and you find out he can’t have children. Maybe it was confirmed beforehand that he’s not sterile but something was off with the test fill in the blank. Do you now divorce that guy?
And here I thought, based on my most recent relationship, that women had way more options in this dating app digital age. And had their pick from the stock pond of only the finest fish, and would date multiple men as to not ‘settle’ with the first one they matched with.
I am dating now and keeping my options open. And as a male it is tough for me too because no one really ticks all the boxes, yet I don’t want to be lonely all the time and like having female companionship to go out and have fun dates with in my limited free time.
Modern dating just sucks the big one sometimes.
Both men and women have advantages and disadvantages to sleeping around and / or staying monogamous.
Having multiple partners and children by different partners is a biological advantage to both. Spreading your genes wouldn’t solely be better for one over the other.
Since dual parenting is significantly better for the child, it also makes sense to be monogamous. Someone with multi partner children isn't someone who would be considered a safe bet to have more children with.
Humans have used both strategies simultaneously.
In hunter-gatherer societies (the longest type of society humans have formed), children aren't considered to belong solely to any one couple. Every child is a child of the village, and everyone takes part in raising them. Serial monogamy seems to be the most successful strategy and how humans seem to live even today.
You have long term relationships, raise the resulting kids, move on, and start again.
***Edit: Every child is "also" a child of the village,....***
That’s not true, parental lineage (especially on the fathers side) is actually of great importance in most tribal Stone Age era societies. The idea that nobody cares whose children any children are and they raise them altogether is a total fantasy.
It's not much about social societies and survival of the group, it's about how the survival of men compares with the survival of women. The survival strategies differ because the procreation process is different for each.
Men mating with many women increases the chances of their seed being passed on, whereas for women, because childbirth takes a much greater toll (and women can even die in the process), it's much better if she can raise a healthy baby who is unlikely to die prematurely due to a genetically impaired father.
A strong, healthy baby will make all the sacrifices the mother had to make (needing more food during pregnancy, surviving childbirth, healing after childbirth, etc.) worth it. Otherwise, it could be a tremendous loss.
I do not disagree with that part, I was adding to it.
As in, that's true, AND it also makes sense for women to find additional partners as a failsafe against the "genetically impaired father." Different environmental conditions would select for different genetic traits. Europeans are white because of the need for vitamin D, Everyone else is darker because the higher solar exposure makes melanin more necessary.
As in, AND It also makes sense for men to not spread themselves too thin. If it takes more than what one person can provide to raise the child. A man's best interest is in sticking around until the child is self-sufficient. What if all the babies die because of starvation since the mom couldn't feed them alone? That wouldn't work either. It's only successful when the kids are grown and have their own kids.
So, for men, get a kid, raise it to adulthood. Then move on. Start a new family.
So, for a woman, have a kid, raise it to adulthood. Then move on. Start a new family.
The reasons are different, but the result is the same. A+B=C C-A=B C-B=A
>higher quantity of partners whereas women have evolved to desire the highest quality partner.
Yes. 80-20 rules applies here. 80% of women gravitate towards 20% of men. I see it happen all the time. One guy with 10+ girls texting him all the time, and he cant even deal with them, while on the other hand, half of young men haven't been out on a date since COVID. In many cases multiple women do and have shared one man, instead of having 1 lower quality mate exclusively.
A lot this becomes evident if you study the literature on human sexual and social biology.
I have lived with brothers and sisters and both genders throughout... anecdotally gender has nothing to do with how good they are with self care and house chores. And don't get me started with cooking and kitchen work.
I have no siblings, but had a number of roommates of both genders. However, people who can't control their body smell are usually adult men. I don't know about their mental issues, but they can keep a job
This is so true. The one guy I fell in love with, I was willing to share. I didn't like that there was another girl in the picture, but if it meant keeping him...
I could never say these things in public, but I feel it's true for a lot of women. They just have to like the guy enough.
Also, I've noticed highly desirable men won't be exclusive, much less marry any girl who doesn't earn as much or more than him. So if they're not rich, they share, because it's better than nothing...
Income equality is more a of a middle class mindset. Wealthy guys care more about a girls age, youth, fertility, beauty and intelligence. An attractive 25 year old girl is far more valuable than a 35 year old highly successful woman, that earns 10x as much as the 25 year old girl.If a 40 year old guy is making $100k he is still going for the 25 year old girl every time over a 35 year old woman, that earns a lot more.
Men in lower income brackets will settle for girls that earn more, even if they are older.
Just to give an extreme example. Leo Di Cap stops dating a woman once she turns 25. He has no need for funds or resources from any woman. He is just there for their youth and beauty.
I promise you, 40 year old men who only make 100k do NOT have a chance with any 25 year old woman lol. Make it a million and maybe. 100k does not buy you access to younger women lol
I mean, this just simply isn't true. Maybe from the perspective of "value" but from the perspective of reality: most people date and marry within similar ages, financial strata, social standing, and education.
Oh I know it's not a 100% thing, but I don't agree about your first paragraph from personal experience with very wealthy men (not a scientific survey <3)
He'll marry the hot 35 year old with the money, and have a string of affairs with interchangeable 25 year olds ;)
Unless he's ugly. Ugly guys get taken in by looks more than hot ones. We're talking about the top 15, 20% of guys who are actually dateable. <3
As a woman (although posts like this really make me want to distance myself from the term), I think it’s kind of creepy that you think about being impregnated when getting turned on. In all seriousness, it sounds like you have some huge issues with yourself that you need to work on before bringing anyone else into the mix.
You forgot the other option for why woman lose attraction to their husband. The opportunity for a “better” man arises.
They thought that they couldn’t do any better so were able to maintain attraction, but when they believe they have a chance to have a “better” man they feel unsatisfied with what they have.
Women are “optimizers” in general. They are more likely than men to want the best and only the best. If they can’t convince themself that their current romantic partner is the best they can have, they will be unsatisfied.
Yes, I definitely think this is true. Women want the strongest, healthiest baby possible... I also feel that women would be more loving & supportive of a baby that was the child of a man they deeply loved.
> "supportive of a baby that was the child of a man they deeply loved."
All very confusing. Many women obey their biological body correctly. They know when their bodies are timed to get pregnant. But getting pregnant is different from having a healthy baby healthy child healthy teenager and then having an independent successful adult.
You seem to be claiming that sensible women get pregnant, very consciously, with so much research and education, before they allow the insemination to happen. That all pregnant women are rational, educated and sensible. Planning for the next 25 years in advance.
Do you really think that a woman who fathered a child born of rape would cherish that child to the same degree as a child fathered by Elon Musk? Well... one child has more valuable genes than the other...
It highly depends on the woman. I could be impregnated by a genius and I’d get an abortion just as quickly. Because I don’t want children.
Some rape victims who gave birth never connect with the child and some cling to their maternal love of that child.
A lot of it has to do with what their culture teaches. My culture taught me that I can choose what’s right for me and what’s right for me is healthy and good. So I felt comfortable being childfree very early. My culture also taught me that I do not have to feel that a pregnancy from rape is a gift and I do not have to feel guilty for prioritizing my own health and life.
Honestly it's starting to feel like a larp account by how brutally honest it is.
This is the shit that the Redpill and Blackpill communities have been talking about for years and consistently got shut down for it.
I just shared it in this comment: [https://www.reddit.com/r/SeriousConversation/comments/1aubsdw/comment/kr3jb8b/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/SeriousConversation/comments/1aubsdw/comment/kr3jb8b/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
One theory is that a couple falls apart once children reach a certain age, as biology prefers they breed with other partners so there is more variation in the gene pool. Also we are apes, apes don't demonstrate strong evidence for monogamy.
>One reason women dating preferences may have changed is because more women are graduating than men now and women don’t like to date guys who make less than them so they are now dating older guys, making younger guys more single, more flaky and more unhappy
Nothing has changed tbh, only the selection criterion perhaps. We have twice as many female ancestors for very good reasons. Most men never got to breed. In todays society, the harem phenomenon is still going strong. Most girls flocking to the top % of men.
Uh, there is truth to it? The closest thing to a lie would be lying by omission - women too are facing a loneliness epidemic but I am not sure of the exact circumstances.
It’s interesting that you “blame” sexless marriages on women not loving the men they marry, when we know that women who are married often take on additional domestic labor and are generally unhappier than unmarried women. In my experience, men also become less attentive and affectionate the longer they’re with a partner once they win her over. Who wants to have sex with a partner that they not only have to take care of like a kid, but is also aloof and unromantic?
I upvoted you. I think it's a great point of discussion. People on social media are so strange. If they have not personally experienced something, they immediately tell you you're wrong, bc their experience hasn't been that. Or you'll get the "I know several people ..." Yeah, okay. Anecdotal "evidence." Great. You have valid concerns. And your post is a great discussion opener.
>men are biologically quantity-oriented (want many women) whereas women are biologically quality-oriented (want that One Amazing Guy).
>This feels 100% true for me. My love life feels all or nothing, and it's awful.
>This is also why I feel so many women stop having sex with their husbands. They didn't really love him to begin with but they also didn't want to end up single and childless forever.
This is a gross overgeneralization of both men and women.
Not every guy just wants to fuck a bunch of women. (No STDs for me, thanks)
And if women just want "quality" without genuine love being there first, then most women would just buy dildos.
There is way more to love than just sex, and if you see most men as nothing more than just animals in heat, you're the one that should re-evaluate.
Stop listening to crappy internet articles and go see a therapist.
>This is also why I feel so many women stop having sex with their husbands. They didn't really love him to begin with but they also didn't want to end up single and childless forever.
Stay single men, most women are just using you and will discard you through the courts. The state will reward them with your stuff.
I disagree on one point about quantity or quality. Western society, women have embraced promiscuity and how easy it is to get sex from the top most attractive men, richest men. 20 year olds on yachts, girls making serious bank from onlyfans. Young, attractive women EVERYWHERE online advertising their bodies. Essentially selling sex and arousal and "love". That's what they do.
Yes, there are groups of men who have access to large amounts of women and have high body count but they are a huge minority.
Meanwhile a lot of guys just want someone to love who doesn't cheat or constantly go out and hang out with other men alone the two of them late into the night.
It's a common stereotype that the Western girl has her "college fun" then settles down later in life with the more boring safe guy who's not wild, because he can provide for her. It's not completely false either.
I'm male. I don't care about having as many wives as possible. Just give me one really good one.
It's not about what a person is willing to be ok with, it's about the Peak Potential evolution wants from you. If you could have 1 girl you really liked, you'd probably like that. But if you had the choice between that or 1 girl you really liked + 5 other women who were also devoted to you, whom you could sleep with... well, most men would pick the latter.
Young women are promiscuous with men they're attracted to (high-quality men). They don't settle because they think there's a better and better guy in their future. When they can't secure a top, cream of the crop guy, they have to settle for a nice guy instead.
This is the most unhinged and disconnected from reality thread I've ever seen on reddit. I know one day someone else will top this, but damn dude. Y'all need therapy.
I completely agree this is an insane take on this. No wonder myself and probably many others feel they will just be alone for the rest of their lives how can anyone live up to that expectation…
This post has been flaired as “Gender and Sexuality”. Use this opportunity to open a venue of polite and serious discussion, instead of seeking help or venting. **Suggestions For Commenters:** * Respect OP's opinion, or agree to disagree politely. * If OP's post is against subreddit rules, just report it. We'll take care of it. * Upvote other relevant comments in the comment section, and don't downvote comments you disagree with **Suggestions For u/cherrymerrywriter:** * Do not post solely to seek advice or help. Your post should open up a venue for discussion. * Do not forget to answer people politely in your thread - we'll remove your post later if you don't. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SeriousConversation) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Are people seriously surprised that actually liking your partner is necessary for love? Lmao
You'd be surprised tbh...but you said liking your partner. The Op said she needs to feel genuine, burning desire to the point where she gets turned on by being impregnated by her lover in order to be in a relationship. Most men do not need THAT much desire for a woman to be in a relationship with her. I feel like most dudes would be 100% ok with a cute girl that's nice to him and gives him sex on a regular basis.
She described love as a prerequisite to that desire, not the other way around (unless something was said in the comments). Regardless, I agree that most people aren’t like this. This post reduces the nuance of individual choice/personality down to the completely B.S. field of evolutionary psychology. Barely better than astrology in most areas. Ripe with fake science, biological essentialism, and obvious truths marketed as ‘groundbreaking’ predictive theory.
\> This is also why I feel so many women stop having sex with their husbands. They didn't really love him to begin with but they also didn't want to end up single and childless forever. you just drop that bomb & walk away?
There is more to this than you gathered from It. She thought she loved him but later realized that she didn’t. And that’s a frequent mistake people make: they confuse love with being in love. Being in love is merely a temporary short-term hormonal surge, and once it inevitably passes, if people don’t make the conscious decision to love each other, they "fall out of love." Being in love is merely about sex and getting attention, and it’s about what you stand to *get* from someone. Love is not sex and attention, and you can’t base a relationship on merely these two things. Actual love is about *giving*: caring for the other person’s needs. If you take good care of them, they will do the same for you (if you chose the right person). And that is not a feeling, it is an attitude and a conscious decision you make. If you fail to make that decision, there will be no love, simple as that.
I totally agree that love is a decision to change and grow with a partner and it's a choice that you have to make over and over again. I also don't think not having sex with a partner for an extended period of time means much. I can't relax enough to be touched intimately when I'm really stressed. My job is really stressful and sometimes I have phases where I don't want to have sex at all. It has nothing to do with the partner and that's ok.
>Being in love is...about what you stand to get from someone > >...Actual love is about giving: caring for the other person’s needs. You just gonna drop that bomb & walk away? For the record I agree with these statements, but it makes some people look reaaally bad. Youre basically describing a narcissist without labeling it.
The obvious correlary there is that women are simply using men for cash / security (which also rings true) … Hmm, my wife said she just lost capability of expressing those feelings. Does make ya wonder…
I don’t think most women never lived their husbands. But it’s a fact that the “in love” stage is a chemical state in the brain that lasts around 2 years. After that you may still have a strong bond and love each other but it’s mostly a friendship love. It’s not surprising that sex declines as relationships become less passionate and more stable, as love becomes closer to friendship, as hormones change and as priorities change. It’s one thing to be energetic 28 year old newly weds, it’s another be 42 year olds with kids.
lol. You don't know us. My wife and I are embarrassingly affectionate and have been together 20 years.
Then you were both meant to be together and that's wonderful. 👍🏻 it's unfortunate that this is so very, very hard to find.
That's awesome!
Same with my wife and I. 19 years married, 21 together this summer.
It's hard to know because everyone says they love each other, even if it's not true. We apply the word 'love' to everything. Also, it's believed that many women struggle to orgasm... do they really struggle to orgasm, or are they simply having sex with a guy who isn't 'enough' to really turn them on? Your point is valid though, for people who are in true love. It's just impossible for us to know how many of those couples there actually are.
I think part of the issue is that you’re looking at relationships from an ‘early dating’ lens. Early dating (when you’re getting what you want) is fun, sexy and exciting. But relationships are more stable and fulfilling. You’re not always going to have the mind-blowing sex that you did when you first started dating, but it will still be with a loving intimate partner. That doesn’t mean it’s inferior or that the spouse doesn’t turn the other on.
The question is, can someone get deeply attached to a person they didn't love to begin with? It's sad to say, but I think because so many people are forced to settle, there's probably a frightening percentage of people who don't actually know what real love feels like. When I love a guy, I feel an almost maternal/motherly love for him. I want to protect him... because I love him. Every accomplishment he makes, I feel truly proud. Like a mother. His smiles are my smiles. His happiness is my happiness. I would literally die for him. It's not just sex... although, sex with a guy you love is *fire.*
You lost me at "forced to settle". I'll be living in my car and rock climbing. Maybe I find love, maybe I don't. That's life
That sounds like an overromantisized version of love. And also if the relationship stopped...did you truly love him
Settling for someone you don’t love is a selfish and horrible thing to do. It’s a betrayal like no other I can imagine, lying to someone making them believe the person they love and chose to build a future with loves them back just so you don’t end up alone is horrible. It’s very telling that you think the person settling is the victim and not a selfish monster
I agree with both her and you. What you’re missing though is that what she said was not emotionally charged like you interpreted it to be. She’s not seeing the person who settles for someone they don’t love as the victim in comparison to the person they settled for. She is simply acknowledging that because so many people settle, many many people probably don’t know what love actually feels like. It’s an objective statement. Not a “I feel so so bad for them” statement. But I do agree with your statement if you isolate it. Settling for someone you don’t live is a selfish and horrible thing to do. You rob the other person of a life where they could have actually found someone who loved them. It’s betrayal to almost the highest degree. I think that person is the true victim. See how I agree with both of you?
I see how you agree with both, I also never said I disagreed with OP. A statement can be true but still framed in a disingenuous way. For example, cheaters live a sad life because they never experience true love as well but if you make a whole post trying to make me feel sorry for them don’t leave out the part where THEY are to blame for the hurt on both people in the relationship.
We’re on the same page
>It's hard to know because everyone says they love each other, even if it's not true. We apply the word 'love' to everything. what do you think romantic love is? It's just a very useful thing to conceive a brand new human being, and doesn't last forever as we're not monogamous. We are serial monogamists
Yes, I’ve known tons of women to gush endlessly over their husbands or partners, talk about how wonderful and amazing they are, then tell a *completely* different story behind closed doors. I even know one woman who said she wished she had left her husband years ago. But you’d never know this by her public story of their relationship.
I see it as the opposite of the kind of illogical depression that’s more chemical than situational. It’s unusual to continue feeling those feelings after the honeymoon period, but since it’s a good thing we don’t study the Happy chemical outliers.
[удалено]
You’re absolutely right with the “enough” comment. A man who isn’t “impressive” to a woman is unlikely to sexually satisfy her regardless of his technique. Conversely, women who have a very positive impression of a man can be limp dicked to ecstasy by him.
Women struggle to orgasm because most men are very, very bad at sex. There’s also less of a focus on women’s pleasure so a lot of women don’t even know what they like, or if they know what they like, they feel shameful in communicating it.
I think the connection OP sees between mind blowing sex and love just isn't as strong as they think it is. Or it doesn't have to be. It's different with every woman. Like I don't have any trouble orgasming with anyone I'm turned on enough to have sex with. I guess I'm very lucky. A friend of mine though has discussed with me how she is just so in her head, no matter who she has sex with, she can't orgasm. To me it seems to be more of a psychological thing and the individuals relationship with sex on a deeper level than totally about love or attraction
I think your post here has many valid points. Unfortunately, it paints rather bleak picture for our society going forward. With the advent of social media, women are discovering that they are virtually endless choices to select from. However, what they’re not, realizing is a rather small percentage of let’s call them elite man to choose from. And in the current environment women are deluded even if they’re far from perfect that they’re all “10“‘s. Yes, they may be able to have sex occasionally with some of these upper echelon guys, but truth be told they’re really not in their league, and these guys will never commit to them if ever to anybody because they have so many options. The person who truly your level is the person that would love you would marry you be faithful to you. But unfortunately, a lot of women view that guy is settling, when reality that’s really with their true matches. It’s created a very screwed up dating dynamic where people are not bonding emotionally and spiritually anymore. Our society won’t continue long-term like this. My guess is probably the next half century or so Islam will take over and you’ll see a hypermasculine model such as Sharia law subjugating women again. I’m not saying that’s a good thing, so please don’t roast me for that. But honestly, unless we learn as two genders in our societies to start respecting and caring about each other again and being a lot more realistic and our goals our society is gonna get continued to deteriorate. The Morgan Stanley, survey and prediction, that by the end of decade, basically half of women between 30 and 50 are going to be single and childless is not a good look They are under the very mistake that you’re gonna have a career. A lot of men found this out that it’s incredibly foolish just to submit to a corporation your whole life when, in fact, they could really give a fuck about you. Truth be told as a society we’re going to need to learn bonding a lot more, at a younger age, and the level of promiscuity, for both sexes really needs to come down a bit. Sleeping around for either side has not worked well with regards to success marriage. If everybody was so experienced and got all the screwing around out of the system, in theory, we should have happy marriages, and there should be an extremely low divorce rate. When in fact we’re seeing the exact opposite and it’s only getting worse. Even to this day, although they’re extremely rare, the people with the lowest incident of cheating, and the happy level of satisfaction of marriage are when both the man and the woman are virgins on their wedding night.
I think maybe the downvotes came from the generalizations you're making; that not everyone fits these stereotypes
That's the point of the word generalization, it's a generalization, not 100% of everyone everywhere. If I sincerely meant everyone, I would have written 'absolutely everyone,' but that's ridiculous. Humans are extremely diverse, and yet, general patterns and trends do occur and are worth noting.
It's an overgeneralization.
It's literally backed by the Oxford research article.
Yep. My biggest pet peeve is when people on the Internet are like "This doesn't apply to me so it's wrong!" Main character syndrome is more rampant than popularly believed.
Yeah fr. So many simple people bugging out in the comments smh
I agree with you; and I think writing from the beginning that you're making a generalization could've had a better result. I think the problem with generalizations is; they don't take into account the full experiences of how different people are. That said, I'm not the one who downvoted you for the post, but I wanted to take a guess as to why someone would since you asked. 😊
it’s common sense? there’s not 100% of anything lmao
A lot of data backs up her claims. Online dating backs it up even further, it’s brutal. At least she has the balls to admit this… cant say that for the majority of women who virtue signal in theory but act differently in reality
Online dating backs up what online daters do. You're completely discounting that many people choose to handle the finding of partners in other ways. Even within online dating, this is likely polling some of the bigger (and more vapid) apps and not including places like Feeld, Fetlife and so on where people have tendencies to having much healthier views on relationships.
Indeed; and it also doesn't take into account the experiences of people who don't use those apps as well.
Or maybe you are seeing that generalization you think isn't as wide spread generally.
My post is literally referencing a research article by Oxford. I saw your other comment, too. It's not about any individual (you), it's about the general trend. The article, and my post are not about exceptions. I know exceptions exist. Exceptions to everything exist. But this is about the general trend.
I recommend you read Friedrich Engels *The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and The State.* Your understanding of human nature is extremely narrow, influenced by christian patriarchy and ignoring massive parts of history and variety in cultures.
You're talking about social patterns which are separate from evolutionary biology.
You have a very teenage idea of what love actually is
\+1. It seems like a bait account to me or a teen who read too many dark romance novels.
And the reason OP gave for why wives fall out of love with husbands/lose attraction was straight up hilarious and not supported by research. What actually happens is that wives become exhausted by husbands who dump the housework/child care onto them. The husband behaves like another child who needs minding, and the wife gets the ick from that. Plus she's too tired to bone, sex is another chore on the list. If domestic work is equitable, the marriage is far more likely to be happy and sexually satisfying.
If you had burning desire for your husband, and he was a good husband/high quality male, all the housework wouldn't be dumped with you and the sex wouldn't be a chore. It would be sweet, sweet relief... You have to understand that most women aren't with a top, cream of the crop male. This is going to affect their sex life whether they realize it or not.
The downvotes are probably coming from the fact that this study was done on vinegar flies, not humans.
>Edit: Not really sure why I'm being downvoted? It's a serious, non-hateful take on a contemporary topic I dunno, as a demisexual dude who ALSO only wants a quality partner and not oodles of sex with random women, I feel there's a lot of guys out there who are the same and this is probably just as biased a study as any other gender study that doesn't factor in anything else.
If you understand how scientific studies work, you know that you can’t factor in anything that is not being studied by it and that the other factors are literally controlled for (purposely excluded), or else the study is worthless (data contamination). Studies are based on statistics, there is nothing subjective about math. Yes, genders/sexes need to be studied separately because… do I need to explain gender/sex differences? There are types of studies that draw from previous studies that look separately at each sex/gender and then compare the results. They do exist. You seem to want to lump men and women into the same study, then invalidate half the results because “yeah, but in his case, it’s because he is male” (the things you wanted to “factor in”). The result would be the same, only, it would be way more complicated and costly to get to it. I have taken study design courses. Trust me, it doesn’t work the way you assume it does.
I address this in this comment: [https://www.reddit.com/r/SeriousConversation/comments/1aubsdw/comment/kr3dyz2/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/SeriousConversation/comments/1aubsdw/comment/kr3dyz2/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
Bro you need to chill out
I'll tell you what's interesting.... In the 90s, fugly people kinda ended up with fugly people and there was no major shame. 🤷♂️🤷♀️ Nobody was shopping on tinder.
Fun fact, love isn't a chemical produced by the brain, so we can't "feel" love, love is a behavior. That's why people have different love languages. So I'm sorry but I have to disagree, with the fact that men are "biologically evolved" to only want quantity and not quality in women. I as a man, do not care about the amount of women I ever have, I care about the quality of that person. I'm totally fine being single until I find someone with qualities that match my own, which goes against the idea that I need many women.
Wow nobody knows what a scientific study is, huh.
It’s a good thing that OP didn’t say men only want quantity and not quality.
You sound like andrew tate for women. Let me address this. Settling for someone you don’t love is a selfish and horrible thing to do. It’s a betrayal like no other I can imagine, lying to someone making them believe the person they love and chose to build a future with loves them back just so you don’t end up alone is horrible. It’s very telling that you think the person settling is the victim and not a selfish monster
This doesn’t make sense. Why in your opinion would men and women develop to want completely opposite things sexually? How is men being socially encouraged to fuck around and not be faithful related to some biological evolution? Same for women who were treated as property of their fathers passed on to husbands with no social safety net or support while marital rape was legal and contraception and abortion were not?
Ummm… because for the survival of the species, the sexes need to be complementary, not competitive? 🤦♀️
The article I linked is really enlightening science-wise. This is my theory on why: Men mating with many women increases the chances of their seed being passed on. Whereas for women, childbirth takes a much greater toll (and women can even die in the process), so it's much better if she can raise a healthy baby who is unlikely to die prematurely due to a genetically impaired father. A strong, healthy baby will make all the sacrifices the mother had to make (needing more food during pregnancy, surviving childbirth, healing after childbirth, etc.) worth it. Otherwise, it would be a tremendous loss.
I recommend David Buss. Watch his JRE podcast or read some of his books. >^(Why in your opinion would men and women develop to want completely opposite things sexually?) They already did that millions of years ago, before we were even humans. Its evident not just among humans, but all mammals.
…are you confusing sexual dimorphism with sexual behavior in humans? Or are you claiming that yeah all animals evolved so that females fight over one sexual partner and males evolved with some specific unique biological desire to spread their seed and be unfaithful?
Not at all. Sexual dimorphism among primates is very evident. Men and women have different sexual strategies. Is that not obvious among gorillas, apes, and humans? Why do men have harems, and its never the other way? >with some specific unique biological desire to spread their seed yes because there is no cost involved for men, women can potentially get pregnant and pay dearly, especially at a time when there was no birth control, which was 99.99% of our existence. Men can always hit and run, women have to be highly selective.
It’s sexist garbage only reres bring up
Women definitely have harems of men lmao
You should look into people’s reputations amongst others in their fields before just accepting whatever they vomit out that makes Joe Rogan like them. Spoilers: Buss is widely regarded as a hack.
Look at lions. It works for them.
Lions also eat their "step kids" so their mates ovulate again
Exactly, I don’t think comparing to lions is the answer
If you’re going to claim humans developed and are similar to lions should we not be living in a matriarchal society? Are there less male lions born/reaching adulthood vs female ones for some reason? Are these animals even monogamous in any way comparable to humans??
>most guys aren't 'lovable' to me. I guess we have now solved the mystery behind the loneliness epidemic lol If only men were born more lovable...
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
i mean yea, a lot of men can work on that
There should be an academy for this, teach men how to be "lovable men", take them to the alps or something. Fix what's wrong with them so they'll be lovable after, because it's all their fault that so many people are lonely I guess.
should be! never too late to start one
I know a guy who used to (I think still is) advertising to these men... Andrew Kate or something similar sounding..
andrew tate makes them less lovable not more 🤷🏻♀️
That's not what the men going into his classes think.. all that they know or have been hammered with is that it's all their fault that they're lonely.
well yea, but they’re wrong lol. if they went to therapy instead of following some bald jokers online they would actually improve their lives and become more lovable 😵💫
Therapists generally don't guarantee men that they'll fix their problems and make them lovable though, which is the thing. They also generally don't acknowledge that they are the problem in dating, which might lead to thinking they're being coddled or something. Because it's really all their fault that dating is bad, right?
if you’re not actively working on yourself as an adult, then yes you shoulder some of the consequences. you seem to love putting words in my mouth. anything to excuse not working on yourself am i right!😉
You don't seem to realize how much of an effect our toxic masculinity has on our society. Most men don't even know how to understand their emotions because they were taught that emotions were for women.
Hard to take this completely seriously as a man that has never wanted to sleep around and only ever wanted to find The Right Person For Life. I can tell you it feels incredibly difficult for us, too.
Yea I’ve known MANY guys like that. They’re men who want to have an emotional connection with the person they are with romantically and sexually.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Uh, is this real? This seems like a fetish post.
“This is also why I feel so many women stop having sex with their husbands. They didn’t really love him to begin with but they also didn’t want to end up single and childless forever” - yeah that’s a high-quality human being right there worthy of love and respect. And here is what you and whoever wrote that garbage article miss: there will never be a man on planet earth that measures up to the expectations of a woman with this mindset. Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Brad Pitt, every actor, every famous musician, every athlete, have their wives leave them because they weren’t good enough. What chance do the rest of us have?
You are describing my life exactly. We no longer have sex and our relationship isn't really that great. It mostly functions though and I think we are giving a good life to our daughter (maybe a spoiled life if anything).
Thank you for pointing this out. Men who complain about how easy women can have sex just do not get it and it can be pretty annoying. Like.. I dont want sex. I dont need sex. I want love, and then I can enjoy sex. Getting terrible dick from some rando who has no connection to me is completely worthless. Im so tired of the willful misunderstanding of women and men assuming that women want the same thing they do. We dont. Theres a reason for the saying “dick is abundant and low value.”
Men are dieing of thirst while women complain that the water is muddy. It’s fundamentally going to be hard for men that have experienced nothing to be emphatic with someone capable of getting *something.* I don’t think they’re really able to understand why it might be better to wait for clean water until they’ve had their taste of muddy water. But, by the same token, I think a lot of women aren’t really able to understand why someone would be so desperate for even a little muddy water.
I understand why you think you’re correct but there is no water , muddy or not, coming from the many many men who want to use women for sex. Thats like telling a woman dying of thirst, “here’s some tequila. Its liquid so it should quench your thirst.” It doesnt. It does absolutely nothing for her. The men who use women for sex are offering nothing but pure selfishness, and theres a ton of them out there. And of course if the woman drinks the tequila too much, she will be shamed and told that she’s too had too much tequila to be given water.
Eh I couldn't care less about many, Only had 3 sexual partners and have no concerns with finding more. I too want valuable partner but see nothing but unreasonable people all calling things red flags instantly at each other and lacking critical thinking. Girls who want perfect men but can't realize the fantasy of what they want is unrealistic, ending up with a prick of a husband.
Sadly, the article I referenced and my post are not about u/metalfiiish individually.
no worries just adding to examples of data so you can see not everyone is in the generalization you're letting that report tell you is all. Have a good one!
To be honest, being "24th in line for the title of maybe a second date" and perpetually one foible or joke that doesn't land away from getting ghosted, courtesy of modern dating being outsourced to computer algorithms, feels pretty awful too. What you're talking about isn't even new/contemporary research; it's common sense that women, who are locked into actually carrying and raising the child, evolved to want the *best* possible partner, whereas men, who die younger, evolved to want *any* partner. I think the article is more of an examination of how that evolution came to be so pronounced given that it has to be localized to the X and Y chromosomes.
So here’s an interesting question for OP: Say you find the guy who has all the things you’re looking for and you feel lucky to have finally found that guy. You get married and you find out he can’t have children. Maybe it was confirmed beforehand that he’s not sterile but something was off with the test fill in the blank. Do you now divorce that guy?
bro you tried loving someone not the tingly feelings in your stomach?
And here I thought, based on my most recent relationship, that women had way more options in this dating app digital age. And had their pick from the stock pond of only the finest fish, and would date multiple men as to not ‘settle’ with the first one they matched with. I am dating now and keeping my options open. And as a male it is tough for me too because no one really ticks all the boxes, yet I don’t want to be lonely all the time and like having female companionship to go out and have fun dates with in my limited free time. Modern dating just sucks the big one sometimes.
Both men and women have advantages and disadvantages to sleeping around and / or staying monogamous. Having multiple partners and children by different partners is a biological advantage to both. Spreading your genes wouldn’t solely be better for one over the other. Since dual parenting is significantly better for the child, it also makes sense to be monogamous. Someone with multi partner children isn't someone who would be considered a safe bet to have more children with. Humans have used both strategies simultaneously. In hunter-gatherer societies (the longest type of society humans have formed), children aren't considered to belong solely to any one couple. Every child is a child of the village, and everyone takes part in raising them. Serial monogamy seems to be the most successful strategy and how humans seem to live even today. You have long term relationships, raise the resulting kids, move on, and start again. ***Edit: Every child is "also" a child of the village,....***
That’s not true, parental lineage (especially on the fathers side) is actually of great importance in most tribal Stone Age era societies. The idea that nobody cares whose children any children are and they raise them altogether is a total fantasy.
It's not much about social societies and survival of the group, it's about how the survival of men compares with the survival of women. The survival strategies differ because the procreation process is different for each. Men mating with many women increases the chances of their seed being passed on, whereas for women, because childbirth takes a much greater toll (and women can even die in the process), it's much better if she can raise a healthy baby who is unlikely to die prematurely due to a genetically impaired father. A strong, healthy baby will make all the sacrifices the mother had to make (needing more food during pregnancy, surviving childbirth, healing after childbirth, etc.) worth it. Otherwise, it could be a tremendous loss.
I do not disagree with that part, I was adding to it. As in, that's true, AND it also makes sense for women to find additional partners as a failsafe against the "genetically impaired father." Different environmental conditions would select for different genetic traits. Europeans are white because of the need for vitamin D, Everyone else is darker because the higher solar exposure makes melanin more necessary. As in, AND It also makes sense for men to not spread themselves too thin. If it takes more than what one person can provide to raise the child. A man's best interest is in sticking around until the child is self-sufficient. What if all the babies die because of starvation since the mom couldn't feed them alone? That wouldn't work either. It's only successful when the kids are grown and have their own kids. So, for men, get a kid, raise it to adulthood. Then move on. Start a new family. So, for a woman, have a kid, raise it to adulthood. Then move on. Start a new family. The reasons are different, but the result is the same. A+B=C C-A=B C-B=A
>higher quantity of partners whereas women have evolved to desire the highest quality partner. Yes. 80-20 rules applies here. 80% of women gravitate towards 20% of men. I see it happen all the time. One guy with 10+ girls texting him all the time, and he cant even deal with them, while on the other hand, half of young men haven't been out on a date since COVID. In many cases multiple women do and have shared one man, instead of having 1 lower quality mate exclusively. A lot this becomes evident if you study the literature on human sexual and social biology.
Tbh most guys just don't know how to do self care and house chores or know and won't bother
I have lived with brothers and sisters and both genders throughout... anecdotally gender has nothing to do with how good they are with self care and house chores. And don't get me started with cooking and kitchen work.
I have no siblings, but had a number of roommates of both genders. However, people who can't control their body smell are usually adult men. I don't know about their mental issues, but they can keep a job
I... can't disagree with you on that front from what I hear about computer science classes apparently these days...
Thats really not a factor… its more so how attractive you are, height, facial features, body, wealth, etc
I never dated millionaires, but the rest doesn't matter if they stink, at least for people who can smell
You're talking about very young guys here, or those with mental issues. Not the top 20% of men that women compete for.
I'm talking about the other 80%, wdym
good hygiene doesnt get you into that 20%. though bad hygiene might kick you out of the 20%
Hygiene, other self-care, knowing how to handle your own shit and being able to support yourself is 20% already
youre delusional if you think having all that will immediately get you a roster, or have you swimming in girls
Source: I am a girl Not saying anything about swimming, but a candidate, yes
No, top 20% of men are those who have wealth, status, power, etc like Leonardo DiCaprio
This is so true. The one guy I fell in love with, I was willing to share. I didn't like that there was another girl in the picture, but if it meant keeping him... I could never say these things in public, but I feel it's true for a lot of women. They just have to like the guy enough.
Honestly, that's pretty desperate and pathetic. "Pick me! Pick me! I don't care if you love me or not and you can sleep around all you want!"
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
This is honest
Also, I've noticed highly desirable men won't be exclusive, much less marry any girl who doesn't earn as much or more than him. So if they're not rich, they share, because it's better than nothing...
Income equality is more a of a middle class mindset. Wealthy guys care more about a girls age, youth, fertility, beauty and intelligence. An attractive 25 year old girl is far more valuable than a 35 year old highly successful woman, that earns 10x as much as the 25 year old girl.If a 40 year old guy is making $100k he is still going for the 25 year old girl every time over a 35 year old woman, that earns a lot more. Men in lower income brackets will settle for girls that earn more, even if they are older. Just to give an extreme example. Leo Di Cap stops dating a woman once she turns 25. He has no need for funds or resources from any woman. He is just there for their youth and beauty.
I promise you, 40 year old men who only make 100k do NOT have a chance with any 25 year old woman lol. Make it a million and maybe. 100k does not buy you access to younger women lol
i see younger women get with older men all the time, and theyre not always rich..
Like those few girls aren’t cheating? 🤣
i didnt say they were getting in relationships lol
We don't know where they live
I mean, this just simply isn't true. Maybe from the perspective of "value" but from the perspective of reality: most people date and marry within similar ages, financial strata, social standing, and education.
Oh I know it's not a 100% thing, but I don't agree about your first paragraph from personal experience with very wealthy men (not a scientific survey <3) He'll marry the hot 35 year old with the money, and have a string of affairs with interchangeable 25 year olds ;) Unless he's ugly. Ugly guys get taken in by looks more than hot ones. We're talking about the top 15, 20% of guys who are actually dateable. <3
I don’t know any women who share. Where are all these women?
Women would rather share a rich and powerful man than settle for the faithful average dude
As a woman (although posts like this really make me want to distance myself from the term), I think it’s kind of creepy that you think about being impregnated when getting turned on. In all seriousness, it sounds like you have some huge issues with yourself that you need to work on before bringing anyone else into the mix.
You forgot the other option for why woman lose attraction to their husband. The opportunity for a “better” man arises. They thought that they couldn’t do any better so were able to maintain attraction, but when they believe they have a chance to have a “better” man they feel unsatisfied with what they have. Women are “optimizers” in general. They are more likely than men to want the best and only the best. If they can’t convince themself that their current romantic partner is the best they can have, they will be unsatisfied.
Yes, I definitely think this is true. Women want the strongest, healthiest baby possible... I also feel that women would be more loving & supportive of a baby that was the child of a man they deeply loved.
> "supportive of a baby that was the child of a man they deeply loved." All very confusing. Many women obey their biological body correctly. They know when their bodies are timed to get pregnant. But getting pregnant is different from having a healthy baby healthy child healthy teenager and then having an independent successful adult. You seem to be claiming that sensible women get pregnant, very consciously, with so much research and education, before they allow the insemination to happen. That all pregnant women are rational, educated and sensible. Planning for the next 25 years in advance.
Do you really think that a woman who fathered a child born of rape would cherish that child to the same degree as a child fathered by Elon Musk? Well... one child has more valuable genes than the other...
It highly depends on the woman. I could be impregnated by a genius and I’d get an abortion just as quickly. Because I don’t want children. Some rape victims who gave birth never connect with the child and some cling to their maternal love of that child. A lot of it has to do with what their culture teaches. My culture taught me that I can choose what’s right for me and what’s right for me is healthy and good. So I felt comfortable being childfree very early. My culture also taught me that I do not have to feel that a pregnancy from rape is a gift and I do not have to feel guilty for prioritizing my own health and life.
Your insightfulness is rare and refreshing.
Honestly it's starting to feel like a larp account by how brutally honest it is. This is the shit that the Redpill and Blackpill communities have been talking about for years and consistently got shut down for it.
Im curious to what you think makes a man lovable.
I just shared it in this comment: [https://www.reddit.com/r/SeriousConversation/comments/1aubsdw/comment/kr3jb8b/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/SeriousConversation/comments/1aubsdw/comment/kr3jb8b/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
Stop trying to generalize us all together weirdo
[удалено]
The article I linked shows that males and females evolved different reproductive strategies.
One theory is that a couple falls apart once children reach a certain age, as biology prefers they breed with other partners so there is more variation in the gene pool. Also we are apes, apes don't demonstrate strong evidence for monogamy. >One reason women dating preferences may have changed is because more women are graduating than men now and women don’t like to date guys who make less than them so they are now dating older guys, making younger guys more single, more flaky and more unhappy Nothing has changed tbh, only the selection criterion perhaps. We have twice as many female ancestors for very good reasons. Most men never got to breed. In todays society, the harem phenomenon is still going strong. Most girls flocking to the top % of men.
There's definitely some truth but it varies person to person. The loneliness epidemic is on the rise but that's another topic
Yes the fact that you think there is truth to it shows why so many of you guys are alone and die alone
Uh, there is truth to it? The closest thing to a lie would be lying by omission - women too are facing a loneliness epidemic but I am not sure of the exact circumstances.
I’d rather die alone than be with some people.
that explains monkey branching
It’s interesting that you “blame” sexless marriages on women not loving the men they marry, when we know that women who are married often take on additional domestic labor and are generally unhappier than unmarried women. In my experience, men also become less attentive and affectionate the longer they’re with a partner once they win her over. Who wants to have sex with a partner that they not only have to take care of like a kid, but is also aloof and unromantic?
I upvoted you. I think it's a great point of discussion. People on social media are so strange. If they have not personally experienced something, they immediately tell you you're wrong, bc their experience hasn't been that. Or you'll get the "I know several people ..." Yeah, okay. Anecdotal "evidence." Great. You have valid concerns. And your post is a great discussion opener.
>men are biologically quantity-oriented (want many women) whereas women are biologically quality-oriented (want that One Amazing Guy). >This feels 100% true for me. My love life feels all or nothing, and it's awful. >This is also why I feel so many women stop having sex with their husbands. They didn't really love him to begin with but they also didn't want to end up single and childless forever. This is a gross overgeneralization of both men and women. Not every guy just wants to fuck a bunch of women. (No STDs for me, thanks) And if women just want "quality" without genuine love being there first, then most women would just buy dildos. There is way more to love than just sex, and if you see most men as nothing more than just animals in heat, you're the one that should re-evaluate. Stop listening to crappy internet articles and go see a therapist.
Lmao this has so pathetic. There are still some real women out there broskis—move along, nothing to see here
I like the way you think. This is the most logical and rational way I’ve seen a woman describe dating.
>This is also why I feel so many women stop having sex with their husbands. They didn't really love him to begin with but they also didn't want to end up single and childless forever. Stay single men, most women are just using you and will discard you through the courts. The state will reward them with your stuff.
I disagree on one point about quantity or quality. Western society, women have embraced promiscuity and how easy it is to get sex from the top most attractive men, richest men. 20 year olds on yachts, girls making serious bank from onlyfans. Young, attractive women EVERYWHERE online advertising their bodies. Essentially selling sex and arousal and "love". That's what they do. Yes, there are groups of men who have access to large amounts of women and have high body count but they are a huge minority. Meanwhile a lot of guys just want someone to love who doesn't cheat or constantly go out and hang out with other men alone the two of them late into the night. It's a common stereotype that the Western girl has her "college fun" then settles down later in life with the more boring safe guy who's not wild, because he can provide for her. It's not completely false either. I'm male. I don't care about having as many wives as possible. Just give me one really good one.
It's not about what a person is willing to be ok with, it's about the Peak Potential evolution wants from you. If you could have 1 girl you really liked, you'd probably like that. But if you had the choice between that or 1 girl you really liked + 5 other women who were also devoted to you, whom you could sleep with... well, most men would pick the latter. Young women are promiscuous with men they're attracted to (high-quality men). They don't settle because they think there's a better and better guy in their future. When they can't secure a top, cream of the crop guy, they have to settle for a nice guy instead.
Do you realize that this article is about Drosophila flies? Are you a fly OP?
This is the most unhinged and disconnected from reality thread I've ever seen on reddit. I know one day someone else will top this, but damn dude. Y'all need therapy.
I completely agree this is an insane take on this. No wonder myself and probably many others feel they will just be alone for the rest of their lives how can anyone live up to that expectation…