Posted on 05/19/2013 7:39:13 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
But at least you’re not bitter! ;-)
“The type of woman you want to attract isn’t going to be into a 30-year-old mama’s boy, who still lives at home and wets his bed.”
Will she be into the 80-year-old guy who lives in the home and is wetting the bed again?
Only a small percentage of men are alpha-male leaders.
Once those men are taken, what are the rest of womankind to do?
(I already know how this works, but I wonder if the author and other women have thought of it)
Hey, at least the alpha genes are getting perpetuated!
It's worse than that: for many (if not all women) this may be an inclination set by generations of natural selection: make babies with the sexy bad boy, then find a "nice guy" to marry and help you spend your resources raising the other guy's kids.
(Or sometimes marry the "nice boy" first, then have sex on the side with the sexy bad boy during the time of the month when pregnacy is the likely result)
I'm not saying women consciouly plan this strategy, only that evolution has imbued them with behavioral responses to situations such that the sum of those behaviors can lead them into playing-out such a strategy for reproduction.
Mate-poaching, polygyny and lesbianism?
Which also means “safe men” get to carry all the emotional baggage too.
Couple things here.
If you look at the birthrate prior to the sexual revolution and the birthrate after I have to ask you something.
Is this is more successful strategy than getting married young to a good husband and having a large family?
The problem is that it’s a terrible strategy. What if you don’t find ‘that good man who’s also single’? What then? You’re left a single mom - which is why we have so many of them. What happens to the children - they end up in poverty and that’s not a great outcome.
Whereas - if the woman waits, THEN gets married to a good man - stays married to the same man - what happens to her children after? They are more likely to see themselves better rather than worse off than their parents.
I am not convinced by the sexual revolution’s attempt to claim ‘evolution is in favor’. It makes sense that they would claim it - but I think the consequences are clear. More STDs, poorer relations and fewer children.
You’ll have to ask Doug Giles. He will probably say, “Yes.”
If your self-esteem depends on a woman's behavior towards you, then it isn't self-esteem to begin with.
I lived in Oklahoma for 7 years and went to the All-Nations PowWow. There’s nothing wrong with long hair, in the right context.
As a gal would you put up with a guy cancelling on you right before a planned date?
Would you give the guy a second chance?
Doubt it. And why? Because it’s all about respect. Someone cares enough to set up plans with you - you show up. If the guy cancels the first thought is this - “I guess he really wasn’t that interested anyways”.
Again - respect is not hard, treat people the way you would want to be treated.
I think her standards are a step up from those of most teenage girls. I agree with her on “dress nicely,” and it goes without saying that if a man wants to be in a relationship with a camping-and-hunting girl, he should like those activities himself.
Indeed. Who are these women who are into hairless chests and silky-smooth faces, anyway? Male lips that have seen a mud-pack should not be kissing female lips. They should be kissing other male lips, baby!
However you interpreted what I said, do not take it to mean that modern social mores are more in line with our evolved behavior.
The opposite is true. What is considered the traditional behavior of men and women is the healthier behavior for men, women, and society.
And it is healthier because it recognizes and seeks to manage the natural tendency of ungoverned passions to run amuck and destroy a society from within, as ours has been destroyed.
Nothing shallow about any of that.
I’m arguing something much more deeper and profound. I am arguing that we do better when we are married and stay married. Not just because that’s what the bible teaches - but evolutionary - because that’s how we were made.
The licentiousness - has always been a poor deal. Since Adam it was a poor deal. It is about using what was made for what it was not made. Why does sex feel good - because of the necessity of children. Why does man try to cut himself off from the responsibility to just enjoy the pleasure? Is contraception an evolutionally sound idea? No - not at all. It’s about one of the most negative inventions out there if the idea is to have children and continue on the species.
If your goal is to pass your genes on the strategy is not hard. Get married young. Stay married. Have children. Raise them. It’s been the strategy forever. It’s what works and it’s what we are made for.
The rest of this? Where does it come from?
“Okay, but remember that Katniss eventually falls for Peeta, the soft-hearted artistic guy who decorates cakes, moons around after her like a lovelorn puppy, and has a tendency toward self-sacrifice”
That’s why it’s FICTION.
I think you have it wrong or perhaps just too optimistic. The feminist movement has had a major impact in our country.
I have two boys in their teens and 2nd year of college. Even the girls in church have a chip on their shoulder and think they are owed something just because they are girls.
Perhaps its different in other parts of the country.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.