Anonymous OP 14w

He’s a little brash but I’d recommend watching hoe_math for some insight on this. What women want makes sense on a biological level. It’s just really hard to control for without societal intervention (i.e. marriage and sexual modesty). Men’s sexual immoderation is mostly naturally taken care of by women’s higher sexual thresholds.

1

Anonymous #2 14w

Why would it need to be controlled?

3

Anonymous #3 14w

Controlled for* so that male and female sexual interaction is somewhat balanced. Otherwise you get a bunch of King Solomons with 500 wives and concubines and a bunch of men with zero wives or concubines. Those men miss that connection and try to find it elsewhere, so they can be dangerous when left to their devices. What men should be or shouldn’t be, as often comes up, is irrelevant to what men are. You can’t socialize biology out of men fortunately.

1

Anonymous #2 14w

Life seeks to more life and men are Mother Nature’s instrument to that end. The educated and theoretical mind often reduces male instinct to savagery and perversion; such a mind is sufficiently shielded from biology to care for much other than sociology. All human phenomena are socially derived and therefore have social solutions. They overestimate human agency as OP did.

1

Anonymous #2 14w

Humans can mate how they want. If women decide they would rather all be a wife to the same guy (which historically women in those situations were seen as bargaining chips and weren’t actively choosing those things themselves so that’s a horrible example) then that is their choice and if some men don’t get chosen back at all by the women they choose, then that’s not the women’s problem or fault if that man decides to be dangerous. Men with wives are also dangerous. It’s them choosing to do that.

1

Anonymous #2 14w

That is why we have laws saying you can’t rape and kill. And also, you are completely forgetting polyamorous relationships (NOT polygamy), gay & lesbian relationships, and asexual people in your strange theory.

1

Anonymous #2 14w

That isn’t something that should be up to us to try to control who other people decide (mutually) that they want to be romantically or sexually involved with.

1

Anonymous #2 14w

They think men as a whole or women as a whole can just change or should just change. They do this rather than understand the biological impulses behind these behaviors and use social duress to enforce change. Men shouldn’t change; women shouldn’t change. I feel that people assume that better looking guys are worse in other aspects because they think people can’t have the “whole package”. Not true. Some “assholes” are much better than some “nice guys” at the things that benefit women and humanity

1

Anonymous #2 14w

I meant to put “All human phenomena are socially derived and therefore have social solutions” in quotes to mock the idea.

1

Anonymous mother_russia 14w

I’m completely forgetting all minority sexual relations in my strange theory, yes. Those women likely chose the same guy for reasonable benefit - protection and wealth. That type of person will always exist. It is most certainly women’s problem, and men’s, if men decide to be dangerous. Most of the protections afforded to women are provided by men unfortunately. The laws are useful but obviously not bulletproof. There is always jealousy towards those who “hoard” anything or anyone of value.

1

Anonymous #2 14w

“Eat the rich” would become “eat the sexually successful”. Of course, this would likely never have any far-reaching impacts because most men are sensible enough to prevent that - but, I’m certain unstable mate pairing would have some consequence.

0

Anonymous #2 14w

Oh god I can’t even begin to unravel this. First, mates for humans are not chosen for protection and wealth solely or even most importantly those. Humans need other humans to survive but we have shown time and time again that sex isn’t required to live healthy lives and the different mating habits we choose are unique to us. And no, the protections afforded to women are not provided by men. In a society those physics able protect those unable, that’s just how it works, BUT with the invention of

1

Anonymous #2 14w

Guns and weapons, men no longer have this dramatic hold over women in power. Who cares if you can beat a woman arm wrestling? What matters more is if she has a gun and if you are wearing a bullet proof vest.

1

Anonymous mother_russia 14w

Yes those men choose to do those things, but I’d say it’s probably better not to make those things easier choices for the sole benefit of unbounded pleasure. To starve the man and behead the thief is hardly giving him choice. Nothing is ever anyone’s problem until it’s their problem. By that time of course, they’ve forgotten that it started being their problem long ago. There are benefits to seeking benefits for others, that’s why we developed empathy - male and female.

-1

Anonymous #2 14w

And also you are actively talking about women as if they are a resource to own and possess that other men will try to steal or take rather than living thinking humans who choose where they go. Like you genuinely are talking like laws of the beasts as if we are incapable of civility.

1

Anonymous mother_russia 14w

I’d wager men have more guns and experience with guns than women. Also, men would be the aggressors in this scenario.

1

Anonymous #2 14w

EW WTF?! Not being chosen by a woman to have sex is NOT the same thing as starvation. One is a need and the other is an urge. If a woman doesn’t choose to have sex with a man, he still deserves punishment for rape you creep.

3

Anonymous mother_russia 14w

With the inventions of sophisticated weapons, men still provide those protections in the form of [police, military (protection from bodily harm)], [builders, electricians, garbage and sewage workers (protection from nature)] etc. I did not say there were zero women in those fields, but they’re a minority.

1

Anonymous OP 14w

Hey OP, I blocked #2, but I checked out the guy he recommended you to watch. Please don’t. He’s just making up random theories about things not backed up by real information and using rage bait posts from women to back it all up.

1

Anonymous mother_russia 14w

Yeah okay not true. I played sports all my life. I. Personal expericne there would be 2 types of guys, the “player” who always had a gf, multiple times caught cheating, and could basiclly get any girl he wanted. The other guy would be the one who don’t disrespect girls(objectifying them, cheating on them, manipulating them) who wokld get complements by how nice they were and how great of a husband they would be, but have never had a gf before. It just don’t make sense

0

Anonymous OP 14w

So nothing of what you said actually addressed what I said, statistically cheating is pretty equal between men and women in our generation and the generations before us had much more cheating.

1

Anonymous OP 14w

Now also, have you considered the fact that part of people who are manipulators is that they are manipulating the girls they are with to seem like better people than they are??? As well as: maybe those girls were looking for hook ups/sex/a fun time rather than something serious like marriage? Maybe those girls were also cheaters and didn’t really care about his history?

1

Anonymous mother_russia 14w

I’m not talking abt just cheating. My point is that the saying the “nice guy always finishes last” is becoming more evident and is hard to live with. Often times being nice and a good person is not what ppl want to be around causing the genuine ppl to either change or keep living how they are and become lonely

0

Anonymous OP 14w

And of course on top of all of that, none of that proves it’s got any relation to the loneliness epidemic. You can be single and not be lonely or depressed even if you want a relationship. Dudes not getting a girlfriend is not equal to dudes have no meaningful connections or relationships with anyone.

1

Anonymous #2 14w

The person responding to you is incredibly unhinged Some of what you’re saying has validity but you need to be careful with *how* you present these points (provided your goal is mutual understanding) or else people like russia will become mentally unstable

1

Anonymous OP 14w

OP, watch the videos for yourself and decide for yourself if the information makes sense or not. Don’t listen to someone who is obviously biased and thinks in the most binary low IQ “im 100% right anyone who opposes my stance is 100% wrong and has no validity whatsoever”

1