Ok Jow Forums, let me hear your arguments against this

Ok Jow Forums, let me hear your arguments against this.

I don't think women are capable of actually loving someone romantically, at least with any sense of loyalty. The desire for the best quality genes that they can get access to, combined with the investment of childbirth means that women are highly selective in mates. It just makes sense for women to be more selective, since a relationship is much more of an investment for women. Because of this, they will always seek access to higher quality genes if they are available, even if they currently have a mate. I'm not saying this is good or bad; it just seems logical for them. They might feel "love" for their spouse as a means of keeping them around long enough to mate and raise a child, but this is only until they gain access to higher quality mates.

Thoughts on this? Besides calling me an incel or something?

Attached: 1461901102398.gif (500x375, 371K)

What you say is true for 60% of women. False for 40%.

Why is there a difference? Not saying you're wrong, just curious

You mislabel women as logical. Most are impulse based. Most people in fact are. They aren’t thinking, “I must mate for superior genes” usually. They are thinking, “who can provide the best sex, most stable income, emotional fulfillment meant and connection? Who would I like and who would make a good father? What is best for me?” Some are capable of love and some aren’t. Feminism has also twisted gender roles so women pursue jobs until they’re older and are more likely to leave. Men can no longer provide the stability they once did so women must seek careers actually. But yea what you said is a pretty shallow understanding.

My thoughts:
It’s silly to apply a strict generalisation to 3.5 billion people
Your conclusion is based on feeling and intuition and not evidence anecdotal or otherwise. Life is more complicated than selecting for higher quality genes (define high quality genes).
You are intensely intellectualising this, but for what reason? To justify some behaviour of your own or what?

You lump all women as one thing. Are all humans one thing? No.

Women are humans capable of love and sadness and joy. They aren’t fucking chad machines or some dumb robots. They fucking feel and want and have doubts and have dreams and feel insecure or confident or serene or everything else.

A lot of women are morons but s lot of you on adv are morons.

Don’t underestimate women. I don’t

Then there’s the whole complicated aspect of the psychology of women wanting to have a husband who emulates their early life role models. This is why some seek out men who will abuse them because that’s what they know. There’s so many factors to understand what drives people. Loyalty and love comes from understanding what that is, which many people lack. It’s due to bad parenting and propaganda from media, as well as poor education on these matters. What do you think? I don’t think you are shallow just your understanding

People who hate themselves think fucking over others will make them happy. It never works.

You think women are inferior, yet you are unable to cajole or force this lesser life from into doing things you want.

Maybe...you need to re-evaluate your concept of intelligence you fucking moron

While I agree that people act on impulse, we would expect sexual behavior to follow a certain amount of logic, or at least be based upon optimizing genes. There's actually a name for this in biology (I forgot what it's called) and it makes sense; animals that pursue higher quality genes are going to most likely have higher quality offspring, and therefore their genes will be more likely to spread when competing with those that select any type of genes, at least with k-selected species. We would expect sexual behavior to be embedded in human consciousness through millions of years of evolution, rather than a conscious decision.

>You are intensely intellectualising this, but for what reason? To justify some behavior of your own or what?
It's a bad habit I have with everything. I think what led me to this conclusion was dwelling on my last relationship, which was really with someone else's fiancee. She told me she loved me, that she wanted someone smart and strong, etc. I didn't feel the same for her, and I'm still not sure if she was even telling the truth.

Men are no different. We’re both victims to our hormones.

Attached: ED143362-1192-4F87-9FC7-35A6B07A5F6C.jpg (300x204, 13K)

>Women are humans capable of love

>The desire for the best quality genes that they can get access to, combined with the investment of childbirth means that women are highly selective in mates
So what happens if the woman cannot carry children? This is the case with my wife. What would her next step be?

Love her. Adopt or not

Well evolution doesn’t care about quality. in the case of humans, those who fuck the most would carry on the most genes. Superior or quality is the wrong word. I did acknowledge that there are patterns to behavior, but it’s impulse not logical thought usually. Your language isn’t accurate.

Her sex drive is still intact. Why else would she be fucking her co worker as much as she does?

Attached: 332C58BB-61C9-4101-A6F7-0E6E708DEF67.jpg (1908x1146, 152K)

I’m not convinced human beings are really so logical in their actions. I agree that gene selecting sexual behaviours are embedded in us but the question is are they dominating sexual selection or merely influencing it. There are so many factors involved with sexual selection in the world of today that it seems naive to boil the entire process down to selection for ‘high quality’ genes. What determines gene quality also has to be defined before we can make a sensible argument.

Humans might not be one thing, but they are a single species that has been guided by achieving biological fitness. The lens through which we view sexuality might be culturally constructed, but the drive for sex is not, and I suspect that the drive ultimately leans towards optimizing genetic quality, like it does with every other animal in existence.

>Then there’s the whole complicated aspect of the psychology of women wanting to have a husband who emulates their early life role models.
I've heard this before. Is this from Freud?

I asked very nicely for an actual argument. Please do not turn me into your incel strawman

Pretty much that too

Yea Electra and Oedipal complexed. While I don’t see it as the rule I do think there is an influence. That was my wording though.


One example is sickle cell. It makes the human inferior and causes problems, but it protects against malaria. They survived due to this, but their genes are inferior. I mean if by quality you mean what reproduces then yea.

This is true for r selection, but not k selection. To understand why, consider the amount of investment a women puts into a child, with the eight months of being sick and incapacitated, unable to hunt, fend off predators or survive on your own. Even if she survives these eight months, the birth itself may very well (until more recently) kill her. Following this, it will take years of time and resources to raise a child that (again, until recently) is likely to die before it can attain biological fitness. These hurdles make it absolutely necessary that the pregnancy is worth the risk; it's only worth it with the best genes possibly attainable.

When I say quality, I don't mean what we would consider "good." Rather, I mean traits that are more likely to lead to biological fitness, such as healthiness, youth, social intelligence, and so on.

Jokes aside, your wife still has this biological programming, even if she doesn't have the equipment.

I think you're right in that it's a somewhat grey area. Despite saying that it is biological, I'm just as uncertain. I feel more confident in saying it's biological however due to the fact that it's a behavior encouraged by natural selection. The first part of this reply has what I would consider to be a working definition of "genetic quality"


The only two times in my life when I felt like I loved someone with my entire heart, and I opened my heart up to them... Was the only times I lost great friends. They said they love my brain, but they don't get sexually attracted to me. (No landwhale or anything, I'm just not their type.)

After the first time, I closed myself off for a decade.
After the second time, I'm thinking of suicide.
It's too much to take.

This is not to argue with you, cause I think most of my female friends don't give a shit about love when dating, and I myself had long relationships in the meantime without being fully involved romantically.

This is just to say I am capable of lovd, but I wish I wasn't. It sucks.

>thinking men are any better
men are the most impulsive, easily angered, and easily swayed retards to walk this earth. it's all about balance.

Your sense of superiority is laughable when we are so easily led astray by our dicks.

t. a man older than the dipshit on here, who's actually had a relationship

And I would say it is an influence, but not the only one. The human sexual drive can be complex just as the rest of our desires. Humans have more complex sex drives as well as bonds with one another than other animals. I just think you are oversimplifying

I said most people are. I also was trying to explain to a certain extent what some factors could be in women specifically as that is what op asked. Men would have some similar and some different drives. I did not imply women were inferior just different

Neither women nor men are logical for the most part. I mean when you generalize it’s hard to not sound sexist. I said nothing that implied men were better but I can see how you might think I did due to the opening sentence.

That user said most people act on impulse, not just most women. Are you sure you're not describing yourself?

I really need to read Freud's books. I've been putting it off for too long now.

Hmm. Maybe I'll have to come back here after I dig around for some actual data on this. I think a big part of answering this would be looking at cultural universals to see what is most likely biological.

Like I said, I think women are capable of love until they find a better mate. Every spouse is ultimately temporary, if (and only if) they can obtain a better one. Or at least, that's what I suspect. Some anons are suggesting that sexuality might be more cultural than biological. In either case, I don't doubt your emotions.

Op is speaking in earnest. This is what he actually thinks. He is probably just jaded. Do you really think that being toxic and getting mad will solve anything? Give him constructive criticism sillies not attacks. That doesn’t help him come closer to understanding. This is targeted at a few specific posts

Genetics is just one of those things which tempts us with oversimplified explanations. We see one piece of evidence which supports a pre-existing belief and suddenly we have a theory for how the entire population of Earth operates. Maybe it’s the function of natural selection being so self-evident that causes us to believe that the rest of genetic behaviour will be the same.

Talk to a girl from time to time user, we aren't another species, the fuck

I loled

You... give birth to living creatures. We have nothing in common. Though just by the nature of what men are I want to fill up your pussy with my throbbing rock hard cock.

Attached: 82459CEF-6FF9-498D-8F1C-31A207842140.gif (246x136, 748K)

Thanks to everyone who responded ITT. I have to get off now (I share the computer with a few others) but I'll read your replies in the morning

I think I'm going to just spend an unhealthy amount of time researching this and then come back two weeks later with a more solid conclusion. Overall I still think women are biologically compelled to seek out better mates.

Actually, you're the same species.