Thread 82257226

Hourly reminder, women are not built to be attracted to men, not even to chads.
https://concealedovulation.substack.com/p/women-are-not-attracted-to-men-a

>>82257226 (OP)
What made her like this?

>>82257226 (OP)
>women are not built to be attracted to men
if you haven't read my shit you will definitely love it

Cupid was right, men are just tools

>>82257226 (OP)
Shits like this make me to appreciate more the porn industry

>>82257264
agree with monogamy point, related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxQdLhOQf5c
agree with better immune system/survival prospects of women, related:
>A high adaptive value of grand-mothering is suggested by eight mammalian species in which females contribute to caring for their grand-offspring, because females lifespans in those species averaged 43% longer than males, compared to only 8% longer in related species without grand-mothering (Peron et al., 2019).
and https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0140525X21002417/type/journal_article
agree with social coalition focus of women, women tend to favor group consensus and group cohesion way more and dislikes direct competitive activities, stronger preference doesn't mean uniformity though
this and others: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123417000138
but I don't think that suggest men are necessarily outgroup, a lot of women do crazy shit for their men and are happy to kill or be killed for their current love interest. it's not men vs women, just general ingroup vs outgroup, slightly stronger in women than men

agree with the love/attraction/admiration difference but I'm agnostic to whether women can love like men do, it's possible to love without built in attraction I think.

I don't think frame of females won in evolution makes much sense

The rest not so much. Idk much about biology but technically every cells in existence are originally supposed to be about some bacteria eating or shitting some other bacteria in some weird way but top level animal function don't have much to do with them but I get the point if taken metaphorically but are missing all the ways evolution fucked men up too in more than one ways and not just because of women as women lacked much choice in past. The explanation is too general for me, I'd need separate explanation for each point believe all points.

>>82257612
>The explanation is too general for me, I'd need separate explanation for each point believe all points.
here's a summary, I am currently trying to put this into a preparedness/deterministic framework, it is by no means complete and the mechanism itself while completely feasible, is only theoretical. I can't do shit until I catch the eye of some chinese or indian med/pharma student with wet lab access.

>>82257697
Interesting, thanks for sharing. I guess it's possible, although I don't get how there would be aversion without bodily exchange or pheromone detection or something. Internal bodily process shouldn't be so hypertuned to detect it from face and body shape of males seen visually.

>>82257447
Men have always existed as utility for women. For security and to give them children. A woman can only ever love her children. Think about how many poems, songs, sculptures, etc that have been made by men concerning their love of women. The opposite doesnt exist. The only pure love is a man loving another man. Sorry to tell you all

>>82257796
>Internal bodily process shouldn't be so hypertuned to detect it from face and body shape of males seen visually.

Why not? Evolutionary pressure is evolutionary pressure. If it's a prolonged exposure to a specific pressure then eventually it manifests as a phobia and those are polygenic traits. If the cytokine flood mechanism exists then it would be an infinitely stronger pressure than the pressures we had to develop a fear of spiders and if it's real, it's a polygenic trait just like every other prepared behavior. If studied enough, almost all prepared phobias can be reduced to very simple things like genes involved with regulating serotonin transport in response to specific stressors such as the mere sight of spiders, or in my theory, male presence.

I mean, did you know that 11 month old babies can understand the concept of retribution by instinct just as soon as their brains develop enough complexity and synaptic density for the required processes? All things considered, that's a very complicated concept and it's still a prepared behavior found in the genome somewhere. What I'm proposing is a much simpler feeling and a much simpler mechanism than that.

>>82257226 (OP)
I believe this to be true, women not being attracted to men is an evolutionary advantage. It leads to sexual selection of men. Men need other things to be considered a mate than just being a man. We are not inherently sexual like women are.

>>82257924
I meant to say inherently sexually arousing.

>>82257867
Female love exists but it's in a different form than guys, they feel it as a sense of safety in danger related to a person. Women has some weird shit going on where they have a background level of danger detection at all times normally. Their love story is always about developing a sense of safety around some guy, usually someone they are not attracted to or currently attracted to. Attraction like guys are attracted to women are closely related to increased danger in their head.

But I don't think women loves their children tho lel, it's more a cute property to keep alive to the degree it remains cute and loyal to them. Mother child relationship is very transactionary. They might keep up the larp long, but it's not love.

>>82257924
>It leads to sexual selection of men
I don't think women's choice of who they want to get pregnant with were much considered most of the time in the past directly, the outcome was most likely decided by male male competition or male run rules of female distribution, so women's selection couldn't have passed down.

>>82257993
I do believe there were alliance formed between men and women, women and women, men and women in our evolutionary past. Male alliances were the most crucial because they held the authority on violence.
I can well imagine a situation where a low status man would be scorned by the tribe and get no women.

>>82257226 (OP)
Nah they are horny and want to fuck but after riding the cock train for so long they become more picky. Same would happen to you if you could fuck any stacy you wanted

>>82258036
In recently living tribes parents and mostly male parent decide who goes with who but it's not in 100% of the tribes seen, so I guess female choice reflection is possible
pic source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.05.007

Low status being kicked out can be just purely male sexual selection too though. At any given time there are far more reproductively capable males than females, assuming women had 0 choice and price is high for each, any trade between men of the women would be distributed to high status to low(given young enough to compete) leaving low status with no women since ratio is not 1:1.

>>82258153
women are horny for women at best and not by much, not to men, pic from the post

>>82257264
>>82257612
Confucius and superstition convinced billions of people across thousands of years in East Asia to commit female infanticide

I think people are just ideological and superstitious especially the lower you go on the IQ curve and you can get captured by the perceived dominating ideology easily. Like, if I'm a girl and all my youtubers and tiktokers and jewish college professors and my mom and dad all think feminism should be enshrined and that men are the problem in the world, I'm not going to meet it with tremendous resistance.

>>82258190
>convinced billions of people across thousands of years in East Asia to commit female infanticide
That was about survival and it was mostly prevalent in times of extreme scarcity and social engineering such as the one child policy era where they had the best deal out of producing a male offspring. It was prevalent in india as well, it's this whole "jugaad" mindset of simple solutions born out of desperation.
In any case, not exactly neutral environment to insert my theory into and I don't really agree that it was superstition that drove that mentality, it was actually them being purely practical even if the morality of it doesn't measure up to our standards.

>>82258160
Fair enough, even if the primary matchmakers are parents it's advantageous that women are not sexually excited by men.

>>82258340
The practicality of it borders superstition. I wasn't even talking about the one-child-policy era, I only was introduced to Asia's infanticide problem by reading the entry for Buddhism in the Catholic Encyclopedia, which I believe was around a little bit before the great depression.

Anecdotally speaking, a Chinese international student, an early proto-Zoomer the same age as I, told me a story once that her grandparents had tried to kill her when she was a baby by dressing her in a winter coat and dehydrating her in the summer. She was rescued by her father by chance since he came back for something he forgot, and they naturally estranged from that point.

I think the simple answer makes more sense. Low IQ people are usually idlers and/or dunces, don't read, and there's no saving them from themselves, and they often are superstitious and susceptible to being captured by ideologies.