Women Are Innately More Valuable Than Men
Posted: October 30th, 2012, 10:59 pm
Happier Abroad Forum Community
Our Message: You Can Transform Your Life and Solve Your Problems by Escaping America for a Better Life & Love Overseas! Discover Friendlier People, Social Connection, Saner Cultures, Lower Cost Living, Healthier Food, Greater Freedoms and More!
https://www.happierabroad.com/forum/
Women Are Innately More Valuable Than Men
https://www.happierabroad.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=16206
Page 1 of 2
Posted: October 30th, 2012, 11:42 pm
This is highly interesting insight.
A lot of human sexual behavior makes far more sense when looked at from the perspective of evolutionary biology. Some recommended reading:
Why Is Sex Fun?: The Evolution Of Human Sexuality
Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality
Sperm Wars: Infidelity, Sexual Conflict, and Other Bedroom Battles
The Evolution Of Desire
The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature
Spent: Sex, Evolution, and Consumer Behavior
The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature
Why Women Have Sex: Understanding Sexual Motivations from Adventure to Revenge (and Everything in Between)
What's Love Got to Do with It?
The Disposable Male: Sex, Love, and Money: Your World through Darwin's Eyes
The Myth of Monogamy: Fidelity and Infidelity in Animals and People
A lot of human sexual behavior makes far more sense when looked at from the perspective of evolutionary biology. Some recommended reading:
Why Is Sex Fun?: The Evolution Of Human Sexuality
Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality
Sperm Wars: Infidelity, Sexual Conflict, and Other Bedroom Battles
The Evolution Of Desire
The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature
Spent: Sex, Evolution, and Consumer Behavior
The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature
Why Women Have Sex: Understanding Sexual Motivations from Adventure to Revenge (and Everything in Between)
What's Love Got to Do with It?
The Disposable Male: Sex, Love, and Money: Your World through Darwin's Eyes
The Myth of Monogamy: Fidelity and Infidelity in Animals and People
Posted: October 31st, 2012, 5:15 am
Evolution didn't force vaginamony (perpetual fees for services no longer availableFalcon wrote:This is highly interesting insight.
A lot of human sexual behavior makes far more sense when looked at from the perspective of evolutionary biology.
) or force providing for someone else's kids. Take those out of the equation and the slags can have at their liberation & empowerment. No problem. 
Posted: October 31st, 2012, 7:27 am
Posted: October 31st, 2012, 9:09 am
.
Posted: November 1st, 2012, 12:13 am
I'm not for monogamy, since it's against nature, but I think it's going to far to call it "socialism". A better term IMO would be "regulated" mating. Kind of like the old homestead laws, when the frontier was open. Every homesteader only gets so much land, and he has to work that land and live on it, for so many years, in ordr for it to become his forever. Still a matter of personal initiative, but with boundaries or limits.Ghost wrote:Interesting ideas, fightforlove.
I guess the way sex/sexuality is in 21st century America, it is "trickle down sex," i.e., if you aren't an "alpha," then you better work hard and maybe some sex will come your way if you are lucky.
And then monogamy could be called "sexual socialism," i.e., a "redistribution of p***y" so that beta males and non-hot men will have access to a woman, his own biological children, and a place in society.
Not to say I choose these terms, and these metaphors are far from perfect. I could just as easily describe mid-20th and 21st century America's ways with sex as "Sexual Terror" (as a reference to the French revolution) as Roger F. Devlin did, and frame it in terms of a (well intentioned?) revolution gone horribly wrong.
Anyway, women are the "more important sex" reproductively. They have a limited number of chances to procreate. Men have unlimited. Men have an unlimited demand for something that is limited in supply. And although there is birth control, artificial insemination, etc., the instincts caused by biological facts of our (much longer) past dictate how we behave towards despite the technology. And there's no changing human instinct. There is only directing or channeling it (i.e., monogamy.)
Posted: November 1st, 2012, 12:23 am
Falcon, what do any of those sources say about the type of WOMEN that a man should be targeting?Falcon wrote:
A lot of human sexual behavior makes far more sense when looked at from the perspective of evolutionary biology. Some recommended reading:
Why Is Sex Fun?: The Evolution Of Human Sexuality
Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality
Sperm Wars: Infidelity, Sexual Conflict, and Other Bedroom Battles
The Evolution Of Desire
The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature
Spent: Sex, Evolution, and Consumer Behavior
The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature
Why Women Have Sex: Understanding Sexual Motivations from Adventure to Revenge (and Everything in Between)
What's Love Got to Do with It?
The Disposable Male: Sex, Love, and Money: Your World through Darwin's Eyes
The Myth of Monogamy: Fidelity and Infidelity in Animals and People
Let's say that Olaf the Viking is going on a raid, and wants to steal a woman or three.
Let's say that he can sail to Amazonia, which is heavily defended. Because of their defenses, he is pretty sure that he can steal one and only one (1) woman who will bear him three (3) warrior sons.
OR...
He can sail to Tranquillia, where the pickings are easy, and he can steal three (3) women, who will EACH give him three (3) sons - though they may not be such great warriors. Maybe each of these sons will be only half-effective at war-making and conquering. According to evolutionary biology, which strategy should he choose? Where should he sail to?
Posted: November 1st, 2012, 6:55 am
Some of these books have been exposed as pseudo-science, but The Red Queen (written by a biologist and science writer) has held up well and sounds interesting. One of the scientific claims is that a woman is more likely to get pregnant from sexing with an adulturous lover than with a faithful husband. They refer to it as "good genes" shopping. I'd be curious to learn about how they biologically validated this.Falcon, what do any of those sources say about the type of WOMEN that a man should be targeting?
Posted: November 1st, 2012, 11:06 am
.
Posted: November 1st, 2012, 4:23 pm
Both of them work. They're different evolutionary strategies.Jester wrote:Let's say that Olaf the Viking is going on a raid, and wants to steal a woman or three.
Let's say that he can sail to Amazonia, which is heavily defended. Because of their defenses, he is pretty sure that he can steal one and only one (1) woman who will bear him three (3) warrior sons.
OR...
He can sail to Tranquillia, where the pickings are easy, and he can steal three (3) women, who will EACH give him three (3) sons - though they may not be such great warriors. Maybe each of these sons will be only half-effective at war-making and conquering. According to evolutionary biology, which strategy should he choose? Where should he sail to?
Genghis Khan did the Tranquilia option, and he's been greatly successful. Some others did the Amazonia option, which has worked well too.
Posted: November 1st, 2012, 5:23 pm
Men, I don't care about how these American women have become.
That's why I banged me a Costa Rican escort yesterday evening who was a '10'.
That's why I banged me a Costa Rican escort yesterday evening who was a '10'.
Posted: November 1st, 2012, 5:55 pm
Good topic because it gets to the heart of the matter. I'm going to post my thoughts when I get more time.
Posted: November 1st, 2012, 8:52 pm
You know this sounds really sexist, but I don't think most women should work. Don't bring out the pitchforks yet, hear me out. The fact the women now have decent incomes skews the standard attraction and relationship protocols that have existed for eons across history. When wealth between the sexes is equalized, I feel women naturally concentrate on more superficial features in men. It is no coincidence that the PUA industry teaches you how to be superficially charming and "alpha" to attract women.
Posted: November 1st, 2012, 8:56 pm
Falcon wrote:Both of them work. They're different evolutionary strategies.Jester wrote:Let's say that Olaf the Viking is going on a raid, and wants to steal a woman or three.
Let's say that he can sail to Amazonia, which is heavily defended. Because of their defenses, he is pretty sure that he can steal one and only one (1) woman who will bear him three (3) warrior sons.
OR...
He can sail to Tranquillia, where the pickings are easy, and he can steal three (3) women, who will EACH give him three (3) sons - though they may not be such great warriors. Maybe each of these sons will be only half-effective at war-making and conquering. According to evolutionary biology, which strategy should he choose? Where should he sail to?
Genghis Khan did the Tranquilia option, and he's been greatly successful. Some others did the Amazonia option, which has worked well too.
Posted: November 2nd, 2012, 4:07 am
