You really only have that single topic, do you?
No matter how a thread starts, you always find a way to bend it towards "Mechanus' lecture on how other boys should meet girls". It's a bit tiring, frankly.

It's not the only thing, but I do admit I think it's very relevant if people want to talk about existential matters- that is an important component of it. The species has evolved because these things are going on. This is the heart of it, if this design however or whatever you think is designing it has made it this way whether it's a simulation or not, the tinkering which apparently is in the design experimenting the way it does- nothing is more to the point than the way the species in this design replicates itself in that process. And mainly because so many males are in the dark about it, females know the score.

There is a discussion going on now that in the future, the males may go virtually extinct, the females having less need for them are doing what they can really to suppress the existence of males, perhaps the goal is asexual reproduction, if possible. It's really a fact that in the animal kingdom, the females, not the males, determine the conditions of the family, and by extension the tribe, and society at large- through the males that they select as leaders, doers, and simply partners to procreate with. When computers and machines replace men's labor, and women begin to do it as well in the labor force, men's worth plummets.

I think that's highly relevant, because generally, the female of the species sees the male as a potential threat, which he can be if he's not providing some use, he's a nuisance in the best case, and a threat at the worst. That's how females think of males, males consistently rank women more attractive than women rank them, in surveys it's shown that males overrate themselves in how they think their female friends view them, and I see a lot of trends pointing to an agenda which seeks to minimize males in society. Men find women much more attractive than the other way around.

Totally relevant, to overlook this I think is quite strange, frankly.

Good lord, the therapist is in da house...again...and again....and again. What SSnake said!

You really have interesting stuff to contribute at times, but for the love of god, can you please stop relating everything to women?!

Comments were moved from the alien Video game thread, in case anyone is wondering

Well I make the case in support of Briffault's Law:



Understand it is the female of the species which chooses the males to reproduce with and sets the conditions of the social associations. That's why I bring this up repeatedly, society is constructed by females through their association with males.

The male sex drive is generally stronger than the female, so the female takes advantage of that- either consciously or subconsciously as part of the long term mating and evolutionary 'strategy'

I'm sure you've all heard the quote- all of history is really just an attempt at impressing the opposite sex and so forth. Subconsciously, that's what men are doing with women ever in mind when they procure resources and territory and build things and whatnot.

So if you can imagine our species in its development, some pretty harsh truths would take place in the wild. The females probably were a lot more feral, they had to be prepared to abandon or even kill offspring that weren't going to make it or they couldn't feed or take care of, likewise, the lives of males could come and go at a whim, so to get too attached to a male when his life could end at any time was not a good idea. And that's thousands of years of evolution encoded into the female, she's different intellectually and emotionally than the male.

Read my first post in the 'Relationships' thread:


http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/4245650/1/Observations_and_advice_on_rel

Female selection routine fundamentally looks at those 'dark' traits that select men posses as sexy, that is to say, those they want to mate with on a primitive level (but not necessarily those for good relationships). The alpha males provide the genetic donors, the beta males provide the resources and security, the nice guys- the guys females take advantage of and manipulate.

This is wired into our species more or less. So like wild animals like lions, the females are just as nasty as the males, they're more physically powerful than our females, but mentally and emotionally our females our females are capable of suddenly taking men to the cleaners and suing the hell out of them, never mind years of fidelity and being together. Men generally don't attempt to financially decimate a woman the way they can do those things. If you've ever seen the movie The War of the Roses, they make that case perfect what happens when men even attempt to go up against the female capacity for revenge and ruthlessness.

Why so ruthless? When she perceives herself stronger than her male partner, the hypergamy instinct inside of her starts to think she 'bet' on the wrong male- the male who puts up with her demands and gives into everything her heart desires. He ceases to turn her on sexually and appears to be lower status than her at that point, she resents him. Multiply that over countless times over the ages to understand our species evolving.

I've seen the most outwardly sweetest girls drop the facade after getting to know them, and seeing that all that surface stuff is the hook to get me attracted to them and to care for them, then the female nature starts to show you what it really is. Once the male starts making concessions because his feelings are attached, they turn into something different than the fairy tales make them look like the pure ones.

So I say to men, if you have any love and respect for women, then it is your duty to give them what they actually want- not to be placed on a pedestal above you. This can be a tall order, because in relationships, they can keep at it and don't give up with the nagging and nit picking and general moodswings and constant tests they fling at you.

Overly attached girlfriend needs to be seen every few years.

The problem with marrying the first girl you date (assuming for life) is that you never get to experience the wonderful variety of girls/women, including the rare creepy psycho nutjob. Maybe not so pleasant in the moment but I'm sure the memories become very comical over time, especially when swapping female horror stories with your buds. You can relate and you get to say, "Been there, done that." I feel like I missed out.

My last serious relationship was with a psycho.I didn't know she drank like she did until it was too late.Total train-wreck. That was over 10 years ago.

MGTOW forever!

Ok, TerribleTwo, spill it out, why did you recall this video exactly?

I only had one serious girlfriend before I met my wife, we dated for 3 years. I dated maybe 2 or 3 others. All of it was a slog at best and a nightmare at worst. I wish I'd had more good dates before I met my wife, but my track record was pointing at "everlasting torment" so...
I'm not sorry at all.




The Jedi Master

Thanks Ajay

Try living with your elderly mother and 5 months and counting menopausal wife, who have no problem being a tag team opponent. The solution is really simple though (EDIT: other than living outside like my father does):

1. Your own space, man cave office bedroom � no women allowed unless in workout clothes (including baggy pajamas, apparently) or lingerie.

2. Headphones w/MP3 player. This one is most important because you can be anywhere in your house and not hear a damn thing except your tunes!

If one doesn't have at least one scar from dating a Crazy Chick, one didn't do dating right.

If one is over the age of 30 and still dating Crazy Chicks, one is doing dating wrong.

Tru dat, Dart!!

Yeah if you don't date the crazy chicks first, you don't have as good a perspective to appreciate the good one when you find her.

The crazy chick memories are also good motivation to put the work in with the good one to overcome the rocky patches that life throws at you if you stay together for a long time.

All women are 'crazy' opportunistic solipsistic creatures because they had to be- imagine in pre-civilized cultures how females have lots of kids because many don't survive, having to make the decision to abandon or kill the ones who wouldn't make it. Imagine the males who come and go out of their lives, abandoning them or getting themselves killed. Furthermore, imagine countless times a tribe or group invades and wipes out the men of another group, then take all the women for war brides and sex slaves and things like this, and women had to change loyalties, abandon attachments just like that on a whim. Women evolved differently than men, who have more idealistic notions about women making for a soul mate and partner at home.

In order that one gender�s sexual strategy to succeed, the other gender must compromise or abandon its own, that is to say, the sexes are attracted to different aspects of the other, one must give way or no association takes place at all. For example, women are inherently the more solipsistic of the two sexes- her physical attractiveness is virtually the sole criterion that attracts a man (I'm not talking about relationship bonding, I just mean initial attraction which brings the two together in the first place), whereas Nature has put it in man to be attracted to that physical appearance. That's why women spend more time self absorbed rather than impressed by others outside of themselves (or why they aren't as concerned with how handsome a man is compared to other characteristics), it doesn't work if both sexes are equally solipsistic, one has to be the one who attracts and one has to be the one who is the attracted. Mutual attraction for the same reasons is not how it works.

The flip side of this is men, not per se through their physical appearance but through their status, or at least the appearance of their status attracts women- so men attract women when they are career driven, or have engaging hobbies or something like this.

This is how it's been going on in the history of our species, the only thing that changed are the messages deluding us about how it works and hiding it from plain sight. We tell ourselves otherwise because we like to have these quaint ideas about romance, then paint the 'few' women who don't conform to these ideas as the bad apples or the crazy ones- they are all the same to some extent, just as to some extent men all behave a certain way as well.

I know cognitively wealth and/or social status can turn women on sexually, I don't know what it's like to actually experience something like that, I am not wired the way women are.

If you think in the evolution or our species, it's not hard to see why this is: in order for women to have children in pre-civilization, they simply can't do it alone. They would not survive on their own getting through pregnancy and taking care of themselves at the same time, they need help from others. So, through the evolution of our species, Nature has devised it so that males are attracted to these women so that they can provide for them (again, it doesn't work in the reverse- women are not attracted to men for the same reasons), hence, that explains the solipsistic nature of women. They live life and go through it differently- there's always an ample supply of males lining up for access to her, always an entourage of male orbiters waiting around, offering help or being friendly waiting for their chance with the woman- because she's good looking, the men don't do that with women they aren't really attracted to.

What the women are really turned on a primitive level is that ever elusive, unattainable, detached, mysterious alpha male. All the others are the beta male orbiters that they give their attention and resources to in exchange for sexual access to her from time to time, i.e., the beta males are the relationship guys who provide the resources and the home and security, the alpha males are the ones they want to slip away with and have tawdry affairs with, then return back to the beta males again. Think the difference between Luke Skywalker and Han Solo, respectively.


To be fair, they think men are crazy in the way they behave: men are much more horny all the time in ways women won't understand, they have sex on the brain a lot more of the time. I read something about a female body builder whose testosterone levels were raised and that made her more randy like men, and she said: "I can't understand how you men can live like this all the time."

Very true. I have friends who are dating women who have crazy adult aged daughters. The apple doesn't usually fall far from the tree. I do remember a few crazy girls from my youth. Got a couple of scars.

My brother used to say the secret to a successful marriage is a detached garage. If they actually have to go outside to get to you, they will bother you less.

If those scars from dating crazy women occurred during sex, is that necessarily a bad thing?