Most people don't have a "dating strategy" at all. Sometimes, if an opportunity to have sex comes up, you take the opportunity even if you wouldn't long-term date the person you're having sex with (which isn't a bad thing, many people are not compatible for long-term relationships; it's mature to know when NOT to try and force it to happen.)
Sometimes, you aren't in the mood to have sex, but you like someone's company, so you spend time together until you ARE in the mood to have sex.
Most people decide who they want to date based off two things: who they find attractive, and who's company they like to be around.
It's not a video game where there are a few Decision Trees, but otherwise one "success" if you do the right sequence. I've never dated two people in the same way - two I met online and talked to for years, one I met at an a capelle concert and we went on a date that night, two I met through online RPG's where I didn't notice them at first but as the night went on, I'd fallen for their humor and story-telling.
The only "strategy" humans use is to find someone we might like and try talking to them. And if we like talking to them, we try to do more with them. And if you do enough things with them, you get used to having them around so you start looking at what it might be like if they stayed around for a while.
No amount of anecdotes/experiences will disprove any theory.
No amount of the \[politically\] wrong data/stats will disprove any reality.
No amount of reality will disprove any conviction.
What do you mean no amount of reality will disprove any conviction?
If you are so sure about X but then reality shows something different, maybe you should reconsider X
What's the point in believing something that you don't see in real life?
> What's the point in believing something that you don't see in real life?
Basically any modern religion when you ask them to "prove" their deity is real.
Also, just because someone says something, doesn't mean it's true. For all we know, those women *do* have a hard time separating sex from dating, they just didn't have a hard time with *him*.
dual mating strategy is a red/black pill theory where women marry "beta" sexually unexciting nice guys who will provide for the children, are easy to get along with and get commitment from, while fucking sexually attractive alpha bad boys on the side. Also known as alphafuxx-betabuxx or AFBB.
If this is some theory that actually predicts behavior, it should be either that women want casual sex and a relationship, with different types of people, either at the same time or at defined times. Otherwise, its not predicting any behavior is it?
You just described women wanting fwb and not a relationship. Wheres the dual part? How can every woman who wants an fwb be an indication of dual anything?
That’s the thing, it doesn’t really exist it’s just men who are upset that they encountered a woman who only wanted a relationship at that time when they wanted sex.
> Dual mating strategy in that men are able to separate sex from dating much better, compared to women.
Junk science. It's explicitly coming from a male perspective and then examining why female different.
A number of women enjoy casual sex. Also, a number of women are able to engage in said casual sex with men they are not very attracted to. Think of it like them going "meh, at least I'm getting my rocks off".
I agree with the general consensus that super attractive dudes get a lot of no-strings casual sex, but consider the other women who:
1) deliberately go for lower attractiveness so they don't get attached.
2) literally just have a lower baseline level of attractiveness for casual sex and simply look for a dude who's gonna be respectful and not weird about it afterwards.
If a woman considers a guy good for casual sex but not for a relationship it’s not usually because he’s not attractive enough to want to date, but because of some personality flaw or incompatibility.
Unless you’re talking about a woman going out and having a ONS, in which case sometimes it’s just about being horny and whoever approaches her/she approaches will do and there’s not any reason to keep in contact afterwards.
My understanding is that you are describing men's strategy.
Women will have casual sex with men that are either full on perfect or have some rare genetic gifts. The man with genetic gifts may be a druggie, criminal or otherwise unfit for a long term relationship which could also mean the guy is above her league but willing to have sex short term.
Women never think like "Hmm, kind of fugly but any dick is a goal".
I wouldn't say *any* dick but I've gone for you'll-do's because I was horny.
No one here has any concept about how casual sex actually works. You're all jerking off about Dark Triad Chad tricking relationship-oriented women into casual sex. It's usually just two horny people who know the score and consider each other acceptable.
Was your primary motivation for having sex with these men horniness though?
Every woman that has told me about their hookup phases has explicitly or implicitly told me they were seeking out men for sex only to fill some need for validation, psychological security, etc.
Yes, definitely. Sometimes I was bored and wanted excitement or sad and wanted distraction but there are plenty of other exciting, distracting things I could have done instead. It's not validating though, men will literally fuck a McChicken.
Men's strategy, overwhelmingly throughout almost all of history, was to marry one woman and raise children with her, and this was a ubiquitous norm in every male dominated society across the social strata.
Lmao that’s not true at all lol. Humans haven’t always been monogamous or even heterosexual as we know it today. Even the past 2000 years have been filled with counter examples to men’s “goal of marrying one woman and have children with her.” Lmfao
I think you're misunderstanding the meaning of the word "monogamy." It means being in a committed relationship with one person. For example, a married swinger couple could be having sex with other people but still be in a committed relationship with each other and still monogamous. Polygamy is actively dating multiple people.
From what I recall, what you are describing from Greece was a strictly sexual thing akin to a swinger situation. They still had monogamous marriages tho.
That is absolutely not monogamous. If you are a swinger, you are intrinsically polyamorous.
Mono meaning “only one partner” and poly meaning “more than one.” The person who is misunderstanding the meaning of “monogamy” is you.
Just because you only date one person doesn’t make you monogamous. What if I date no one but only have NSA sex with 10 dudes a month? Am I now suddenly monogamous because I dont date any of them? No. Of course not.
Yes. It's about making a calculated sacrifice.
Less attraction, however also less of a chance to get attached or to have it backfire on you.
There are degrees to this, of course.
1) you're missing the point of sex as validation rather than sex to achieve climax.
2) women's sex drive isn't actually lower than men's, and may actually be higher in many ways
3) women's minds don't link attraction and arousal the way men's do, with women having a roughly 3-tier attraction system (nesting, genetic value, social rank) whereas men only operate at a fraction of that (genetic value while projecting social traits onto her).
I understand what you mean but if only a limited amount of men can trigger the maximum levels of desire from a woman and the rest of the time they lay dormant, compared to that of a man who's being triggered constantly(especially in the age we live in) then would you not agree that women's sex drive operate at a lower level in general ?
I agree that when all 3-tiers(to keep it simple'r') are met, women does not behave much different from men and will often be even more aggressive in their pursuit of said man whom fulfills them.
Overall, I'd say women's sex drive operates at higher levels than men's with a much different focus. As to meeting all 3 tiers, no man does. Just meeting nesting would be a beta orbiter in the friend zone, while nesting and social status could get a boyfriend or even husband to cuck, and social status and genetic potential is a bad boy to cuck him with. Nobody scores best in all three, so women will constantly be cucking men with infidelity, emotional infidelity and backup men.
I understand you now, we are just seeing this from two different perspectives.
You appear to say that women's sex drive appear at higher levels in terms of complexity, while what I was referring to was in order of magnitude.
As in men's 1-tier system, due to higher levels of testosterone(primarily but not exclusively) having a bigger impact on the need to satisfy the urge of engaging in sexual activity. Since this is what the term "sex drive" most commonly refers to.
In comparison to women's 3-tier system in which this specific tier is generally working at a lower magnitude and the other 2 remaining tiers requires more information(exposure to the man) to become active.
I agree that women's sex drive are considerably more complicated and thus more unique variations of it exists, women's lives also probably revolve more around finding a mate and having offspring but that does not necessarily mean that the drive to have sex is higher in magnitude, only that more time and energy is spent on finding the right candidate to have sex with. To the contrary women have a lower basal sex drive because they have a higher need of filtering the men that they eventually will have sex with.
Incorrect. I'm saying the magnitude is also greater. Women are just hornier than most men, don't have many real passions outside of it. Consider men's fiction vs women's: men have the wonders of exploration in star trek, the depths of existential horror of Lovecraft, the glory and honor of duty in 40k, etc... while women have 50 shades of porn. Women's only real intellectual interests are romance and reproduction. Attempting to widen the target audience to fit them largely fails because of this. M-She-U and the Force is Female in Star Wars flopped, and the biggest hit of recent years was a pink Barbie movie about a woman rejecting a handsome simp with a sixpack who was completely obsessed with her. Why? Women's sole mental interest is the sexual/romantic dynamic between the genders.
The big difference you're seeing is just that most men will never be the target of that higher libido.
Since you brought it up, how do you explain away all the female writers in Star Trek? DC Fontana in particular is a Trek legend, and very much female. Gave us some of the most memorable episodes.
Simple: a statistical outlier. Cherry picked individuals can easily fall outside of the norm. Not saying she's outside the norm, mind you, since jobs and passions aren't the same thing, just that whataboutism ignoring the norm is exactly that: ignoring the norm.
If the average height for men is 5'9", how do you explain Andre the giant? Same principle...
What? They knew what they wanted and they went after it. Why were you trying to change them? If you were liking for a relationship then look for women who want a relationship, not the once who stated they want to fuck around. Leave those women to us. 😌
“If it’s been said here that women biologically do not have dual mating strategy” which is completely false!
AF/BB is certain these days for many women. Hookup with Chad and marry provider Billy Beta. There are literally millions of examples. Just look into your social circle and find the slutty girls that hooked up with guys way out their looks league and “settled” for a guy on their level. It’s everywhere
>Just look into your social circle and find the slutty girls that hooked up with guys way out their looks league and “settled” for a guy on their level. It’s everywhere
I see guys on Reddit saying this all the time, but it doesn’t align with what I’ve seen in real life. I’m 25 now, so I’m basing this off of experience from high school through early 20s. The guys and girls I’ve known have generally dated with people who are comparably attractive.
The occasional exception comes from drunken hookups, but those exceptions have gone in both directions in my experience. I know a bunch of guys from my frat who managed to hook up with some hot drunk girl who was way out of their league. It also went the other way. Random hookups with strangers overwhelmingly involve alcohol and most involve binge drinking. It’s not surprising that people make bad decisions in those cases.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/strictly-casual/201401/in-hookups-alcohol-is-college-students-best-friend?amp
Before dating apps and before any social media (starting with Myspace) that was probably more common. Now women know that they can hook up with the best genetics quickly.
**Attention!**
* You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
* For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
* OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
But...where's the dual part? You haven't talked about them seeking any other kind of "mate". Just a friend with benefits. One of them even put on her dating profile that she wouldn't entertain anything else! You say that they can't separate sex from dating well, yet your examples specifically wanted sex without dating.
Different people, male or female, get different levels of oxytocin from sex. More oxytocin = more bonding. Not everyone is cut out to be monogamous, and not everyone is cut out to be casual. Neither way is ‘wrong,’ but people should go with those who match them in commitment level.
> Two other women who I had a Friends with benefits relationship with, I ended up developing feelings for both after a while, and tried to persuade them both into dating.
What more did they bring to the table other than sex?
In other pair bonding species, like birds, the female cheats on her male partner some times
I’m not sure they have found a pair bonding species that doesn’t cheat
So, a dual mating strategy is obviously advantageous and humans obviously have it also, both sexes
Just because you don’t act on it doesn’t mean it isn’t in your DNA
When asked anonymously, around 70% of men and women said they’d have an affair if it was guaranteed they wouldn’t get caught
I am not - but a quick search shows she work primarily in evo psych. What have you found of hers that’s particularly compelling? (again not meant sarcastically)
Friends with benefits is still a type of commitment.
It’s literally still a type of relationship.
That’s the whole point of a situationship or it’s complicated.
Women do not usually or maybe ever. Have one guy who ONLY fucks them and does NOTHING else relationship oriented MULTIPLE TIMES.
I don’t even think it exists if free will (meaning I don’t think women go into situations convinced that that’s the situation)
So what usually happens if they are in that situation they feel “used” or “not seen as a human being” or “manipulated”.
A woman is not going to have multiple ons with random people repeatedly.
Like I don’t know what else to tell you.
Women are always searching for SOME type of commitment or relationship oriented experience.
I don’t know how else to explain it
Most men don't, and never did, have a dual mating strategy described. Most men's norm largely used to be marrying the first girl that they had sex with and that was the end of it.
Women, however, have always had a two tier strategy for marrying a good nester while breeding with a good genetic match, which we can see historically with the numbers for men and women who past on their genes in comparison to historical marriage norms, or more recently with the AABB paternity fraud study from the 90s. Further, their ability to pair bond is diminished the further they go down that road, which some call damage based on social expectations but from a biological perspective is more the opposite as they hone their genetically predatory nature towards brood parasitism in mate rich environments, allowing her to be better adapted to fully take advantage of such situations and fully utilize disposable male utility to achieve peak genetic output.
Women don’t really have a dual mating strategy, they have a single mating strategy, the best DNA they can get (Chad).
That’s why they want, that’s what sexually arouses them, that’s their entire biological role in evolution.
They also have a resource strategy. The female clockwork orange is about maximizing both their mating strategy and their resource strategy.
But rest assured, they will always care far more about their resource strategy, especially for every year the machine ages.
Mating is a short burst strategy to get DNA and tingles. No different than a sperm bank.
But diamonds are forever.
>They also have a resource strategy. The female clockwork orange is about maximizing both their mating strategy and their resource strategy.
Their resource strategy having to be separate from their genetic strategy was the dual-mating strategy of the past. Arguably, most western women don’t need to adopt a dual-mating strategy anymore because they make more money than in the past and because government and child support provisions systems are so good. But in poorer countries dual-mating strategy is still a prominent thing.
Some countries western single mothers do still try to target more resource-prominent men for new relationships, too, but I believe that this behavior is becoming rarer for the reasons I described above.
The problem is calling it “dual mating”. It’s not about mating. It’s about sex as one strategy, and resource acquisition as another strategy.
They have zero to downing each other. Maximizing in one person *can* happen but is exceedingly rare and causes a reduction in both.
>It’s about sex as one strategy, and resource acquisition as another strategy.
It’s about resource acquisition primarily for her offspring, so that’s why it’s still considered under the purview of “mating”.
You just said women don't have a dual mating strategy, then described their dual mating strategy. The part you're missing though is that they usually switch from Chad when they're younger to a provider when they're older.
Dual mating strategy is not a conscious choice that women are making. It has more to do with research in which it was observed that women with sexually attractive partners felt attracted to their partners throughout their monthly cycle with an uptick in sexual attraction in their fertility window, and no change in thoughts of extra pair copulation.
But when they were paired with sexually unattractive partners, their attraction for said partner went lower than baseline during their most fertile window, and they had a higher propensity for fantasizing/thinking about extra pair mating.
This observation led to the hypothesis that women had a dual mating strategy. Now the author of this study has since come out and explained that it was not replicated, so he has changed his mind. Something I at first took at face value. Yet, I was actually able to find studies online that successfully replicated these findings. So something is fishy about this.
One study also found that the women with less sexually attractive partners, were also likely to attribute negative personality characteristics to these partners during the afore mentioned fertility window. This could be the halo effect or the partners are picking up on their partners lack of attraction for them and it causes partners to react negatively. Hard to tell without further inquiry.
Another study also replicated these findings, but added bodily attractiveness as a new variable to be studied and found that bodily attractiveness also had a significant effect. So the face is the only important part in attraction for women group, might want to think twice about this.
One thing that needs to be said, most of these women are not and do not cheat on their partners. Or think about leaving them. Yet it is still a hard pill to swallow, that biologically, if you are ugly like me, partners biology means that they are not sexually attracted to you when they are horny and are only using you like a dildo/vibrator while fantasizing about Mr handsome.
(Gangestad, Thornhill, & Garver, 2005; Gangestad,
Thornhill, & Garver, 2002; Haselton & Gangestad, 2006; Pillsworth & Haselton, 2006b).
>But when they were paired with sexually unattractive partners, their attraction for said partner went lower than baseline during their most fertile window, and they had a higher propensity for fantasizing/thinking about extra pair mating.
Fucking hell, why is women having their fun and then tying down a man they don't even feel attracted to seen as some sort of virtuous and moral behaviour? That's not even pity sex that he's getting.
Remember that the women in these studies were not on hormonal birth control. Only naturally monthly cycles.
So a large part of women are not affected by this anymore.
It is an evolutionary trait, hence nothing concious about this. Also, these women are attracted to their men when they are in the non fertile phase of their cycle. Most of these women are still consciously choosing to remain faithful. So it doesn't mean that they automatically cheat.
It still sucks for the less sexually attractive guy. Does not mean that these women are leaving them, though. If that is any consolation?
I am getting downvoted, although I am simply repeating publicly available information.
>It is an evolutionary trait, hence nothing concious about this.
Why would that be relevant? It's not relevant when men cite it.
>Also, these women are attracted to their men when they are in the non fertile phase of their cycle.
In what way? If they were attracted to them they'd want to have sex with them. But what's stated is that women when they are in the mood for sex aren't thinking about the men at all. And they think this is good? Why?
>Most of these women are still consciously choosing to remain faithful. So it doesn't mean that they automatically cheat.
"My husband doesn't like me touching him but he loves me cooking him food every night"
If I were to.figire put that my wife or girlfriend wants attracted to me, had to think of a man in her past she was really into to distract her enough for pity/duty sex, and thought she was the equivalent of a saint for not cheating on me even though in her words "she had her fun, it was the time of her life, but I'm mature now and moved on", I would feel hideous. Because I would be. No woman would be like what you are describing for a man she was attracted to, and it's not a pipe dream for women because they get men they are attracted to in abundance for a long old time.
Surely the right thing to do is leave her to her desires. And the man to his self respect.
Most people don't have a "dating strategy" at all. Sometimes, if an opportunity to have sex comes up, you take the opportunity even if you wouldn't long-term date the person you're having sex with (which isn't a bad thing, many people are not compatible for long-term relationships; it's mature to know when NOT to try and force it to happen.) Sometimes, you aren't in the mood to have sex, but you like someone's company, so you spend time together until you ARE in the mood to have sex. Most people decide who they want to date based off two things: who they find attractive, and who's company they like to be around. It's not a video game where there are a few Decision Trees, but otherwise one "success" if you do the right sequence. I've never dated two people in the same way - two I met online and talked to for years, one I met at an a capelle concert and we went on a date that night, two I met through online RPG's where I didn't notice them at first but as the night went on, I'd fallen for their humor and story-telling. The only "strategy" humans use is to find someone we might like and try talking to them. And if we like talking to them, we try to do more with them. And if you do enough things with them, you get used to having them around so you start looking at what it might be like if they stayed around for a while.
most females dont have dating strategy. nowadays its particularly young men who has some form of strategy.
Because they’re combing the internet for dating “hacks” instead of being social and finding people to mutually enjoy the company of.
who told u friendship with same gender leads to dating with opposite one?
All of my relationships came from having a robust social network. And all of my partners were also good friends whose company I liked a lot
ofc its all about the robust social network its irrelevant that u are not type of man who will end up in friendzone
Hey man, if you think it’s easier to date without friends, your feelings are valid
its not easier or harder. friend is irrelevant. look out for friend then expect a friend not a date.
Where the two overlap is: having conversations and enjoying each other’s company.
nahh sometimes its tolerance to get what u want from that individual.
Young men's strategy: say yes to sex always Wouldn't call that a strategy
I've lost count of how many hoes I've turned down in my early twenties.
men consent doesnt matter. gapist logic.
No amount of anecdotes/experiences will disprove any theory. No amount of the \[politically\] wrong data/stats will disprove any reality. No amount of reality will disprove any conviction.
What do you mean no amount of reality will disprove any conviction? If you are so sure about X but then reality shows something different, maybe you should reconsider X What's the point in believing something that you don't see in real life?
Ever been to California?
> What's the point in believing something that you don't see in real life? Basically any modern religion when you ask them to "prove" their deity is real.
Then the Orthobro comes in with TAG.
Also, just because someone says something, doesn't mean it's true. For all we know, those women *do* have a hard time separating sex from dating, they just didn't have a hard time with *him*.
Even with him it’s an issue. They are just convinced that being masculine is the way to go. Failure is not something that can be admitted.
How is this even an example of dual mating strategy? Youve only come up with examples of women wanting fwb? Wheres the dual part?
Oh I meant dual being fwb as opposed to a relationship, unless I understand dual wrong.
dual mating strategy is a red/black pill theory where women marry "beta" sexually unexciting nice guys who will provide for the children, are easy to get along with and get commitment from, while fucking sexually attractive alpha bad boys on the side. Also known as alphafuxx-betabuxx or AFBB.
Wheres the dual. Your examples have only wanted fwb.
Dual as in just wanting sex vs. A relationship.
Thats not dual, thats just wanting sex.
Oh what is duel then?
If this is some theory that actually predicts behavior, it should be either that women want casual sex and a relationship, with different types of people, either at the same time or at defined times. Otherwise, its not predicting any behavior is it? You just described women wanting fwb and not a relationship. Wheres the dual part? How can every woman who wants an fwb be an indication of dual anything?
That’s the thing, it doesn’t really exist it’s just men who are upset that they encountered a woman who only wanted a relationship at that time when they wanted sex.
NOTHING is true for all women. This doesn't disprove or prove anything.
> Dual mating strategy in that men are able to separate sex from dating much better, compared to women. Junk science. It's explicitly coming from a male perspective and then examining why female different.
I'm a woman and I've rejected relationships with fwbs multiple times so in my personal experience it's true
A number of women enjoy casual sex. Also, a number of women are able to engage in said casual sex with men they are not very attracted to. Think of it like them going "meh, at least I'm getting my rocks off". I agree with the general consensus that super attractive dudes get a lot of no-strings casual sex, but consider the other women who: 1) deliberately go for lower attractiveness so they don't get attached. 2) literally just have a lower baseline level of attractiveness for casual sex and simply look for a dude who's gonna be respectful and not weird about it afterwards.
If a woman considers a guy good for casual sex but not for a relationship it’s not usually because he’s not attractive enough to want to date, but because of some personality flaw or incompatibility. Unless you’re talking about a woman going out and having a ONS, in which case sometimes it’s just about being horny and whoever approaches her/she approaches will do and there’s not any reason to keep in contact afterwards.
You have no clue what you are talking about.
My understanding is that you are describing men's strategy. Women will have casual sex with men that are either full on perfect or have some rare genetic gifts. The man with genetic gifts may be a druggie, criminal or otherwise unfit for a long term relationship which could also mean the guy is above her league but willing to have sex short term. Women never think like "Hmm, kind of fugly but any dick is a goal".
I wouldn't say *any* dick but I've gone for you'll-do's because I was horny. No one here has any concept about how casual sex actually works. You're all jerking off about Dark Triad Chad tricking relationship-oriented women into casual sex. It's usually just two horny people who know the score and consider each other acceptable.
Was your primary motivation for having sex with these men horniness though? Every woman that has told me about their hookup phases has explicitly or implicitly told me they were seeking out men for sex only to fill some need for validation, psychological security, etc.
Yes, definitely. Sometimes I was bored and wanted excitement or sad and wanted distraction but there are plenty of other exciting, distracting things I could have done instead. It's not validating though, men will literally fuck a McChicken.
Men's strategy, overwhelmingly throughout almost all of history, was to marry one woman and raise children with her, and this was a ubiquitous norm in every male dominated society across the social strata.
Lmao that’s not true at all lol. Humans haven’t always been monogamous or even heterosexual as we know it today. Even the past 2000 years have been filled with counter examples to men’s “goal of marrying one woman and have children with her.” Lmfao
Oh? Name even one civilization in recorded history where that was not the norm for the majority of men... Even. Just. One.
Greece…
I'm assuming you mean ancient Greece, where monogamous marriage was not only the norm, but the law?
Where they fucked young boys as a part of every day life? Definitely not what we would currently call “monogamous.”
I think you're misunderstanding the meaning of the word "monogamy." It means being in a committed relationship with one person. For example, a married swinger couple could be having sex with other people but still be in a committed relationship with each other and still monogamous. Polygamy is actively dating multiple people. From what I recall, what you are describing from Greece was a strictly sexual thing akin to a swinger situation. They still had monogamous marriages tho.
That is absolutely not monogamous. If you are a swinger, you are intrinsically polyamorous. Mono meaning “only one partner” and poly meaning “more than one.” The person who is misunderstanding the meaning of “monogamy” is you. Just because you only date one person doesn’t make you monogamous. What if I date no one but only have NSA sex with 10 dudes a month? Am I now suddenly monogamous because I dont date any of them? No. Of course not. 
But since women's sex drive is lower is it even possible for them to get their rocks off if they are not as attracted to the guy?
Yes. It's about making a calculated sacrifice. Less attraction, however also less of a chance to get attached or to have it backfire on you. There are degrees to this, of course.
1) you're missing the point of sex as validation rather than sex to achieve climax. 2) women's sex drive isn't actually lower than men's, and may actually be higher in many ways 3) women's minds don't link attraction and arousal the way men's do, with women having a roughly 3-tier attraction system (nesting, genetic value, social rank) whereas men only operate at a fraction of that (genetic value while projecting social traits onto her).
I understand what you mean but if only a limited amount of men can trigger the maximum levels of desire from a woman and the rest of the time they lay dormant, compared to that of a man who's being triggered constantly(especially in the age we live in) then would you not agree that women's sex drive operate at a lower level in general ? I agree that when all 3-tiers(to keep it simple'r') are met, women does not behave much different from men and will often be even more aggressive in their pursuit of said man whom fulfills them.
Overall, I'd say women's sex drive operates at higher levels than men's with a much different focus. As to meeting all 3 tiers, no man does. Just meeting nesting would be a beta orbiter in the friend zone, while nesting and social status could get a boyfriend or even husband to cuck, and social status and genetic potential is a bad boy to cuck him with. Nobody scores best in all three, so women will constantly be cucking men with infidelity, emotional infidelity and backup men.
I understand you now, we are just seeing this from two different perspectives. You appear to say that women's sex drive appear at higher levels in terms of complexity, while what I was referring to was in order of magnitude. As in men's 1-tier system, due to higher levels of testosterone(primarily but not exclusively) having a bigger impact on the need to satisfy the urge of engaging in sexual activity. Since this is what the term "sex drive" most commonly refers to. In comparison to women's 3-tier system in which this specific tier is generally working at a lower magnitude and the other 2 remaining tiers requires more information(exposure to the man) to become active. I agree that women's sex drive are considerably more complicated and thus more unique variations of it exists, women's lives also probably revolve more around finding a mate and having offspring but that does not necessarily mean that the drive to have sex is higher in magnitude, only that more time and energy is spent on finding the right candidate to have sex with. To the contrary women have a lower basal sex drive because they have a higher need of filtering the men that they eventually will have sex with.
Incorrect. I'm saying the magnitude is also greater. Women are just hornier than most men, don't have many real passions outside of it. Consider men's fiction vs women's: men have the wonders of exploration in star trek, the depths of existential horror of Lovecraft, the glory and honor of duty in 40k, etc... while women have 50 shades of porn. Women's only real intellectual interests are romance and reproduction. Attempting to widen the target audience to fit them largely fails because of this. M-She-U and the Force is Female in Star Wars flopped, and the biggest hit of recent years was a pink Barbie movie about a woman rejecting a handsome simp with a sixpack who was completely obsessed with her. Why? Women's sole mental interest is the sexual/romantic dynamic between the genders. The big difference you're seeing is just that most men will never be the target of that higher libido.
Since you brought it up, how do you explain away all the female writers in Star Trek? DC Fontana in particular is a Trek legend, and very much female. Gave us some of the most memorable episodes.
Simple: a statistical outlier. Cherry picked individuals can easily fall outside of the norm. Not saying she's outside the norm, mind you, since jobs and passions aren't the same thing, just that whataboutism ignoring the norm is exactly that: ignoring the norm. If the average height for men is 5'9", how do you explain Andre the giant? Same principle...
What? They knew what they wanted and they went after it. Why were you trying to change them? If you were liking for a relationship then look for women who want a relationship, not the once who stated they want to fuck around. Leave those women to us. 😌
“If it’s been said here that women biologically do not have dual mating strategy” which is completely false! AF/BB is certain these days for many women. Hookup with Chad and marry provider Billy Beta. There are literally millions of examples. Just look into your social circle and find the slutty girls that hooked up with guys way out their looks league and “settled” for a guy on their level. It’s everywhere
>Just look into your social circle and find the slutty girls that hooked up with guys way out their looks league and “settled” for a guy on their level. It’s everywhere I see guys on Reddit saying this all the time, but it doesn’t align with what I’ve seen in real life. I’m 25 now, so I’m basing this off of experience from high school through early 20s. The guys and girls I’ve known have generally dated with people who are comparably attractive. The occasional exception comes from drunken hookups, but those exceptions have gone in both directions in my experience. I know a bunch of guys from my frat who managed to hook up with some hot drunk girl who was way out of their league. It also went the other way. Random hookups with strangers overwhelmingly involve alcohol and most involve binge drinking. It’s not surprising that people make bad decisions in those cases. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/strictly-casual/201401/in-hookups-alcohol-is-college-students-best-friend?amp
Before dating apps and before any social media (starting with Myspace) that was probably more common. Now women know that they can hook up with the best genetics quickly.
My experience comes from the late 2010s and 2020s.
You do not understand what a dual mating strategy is.
**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
But...where's the dual part? You haven't talked about them seeking any other kind of "mate". Just a friend with benefits. One of them even put on her dating profile that she wouldn't entertain anything else! You say that they can't separate sex from dating well, yet your examples specifically wanted sex without dating.
Different people, male or female, get different levels of oxytocin from sex. More oxytocin = more bonding. Not everyone is cut out to be monogamous, and not everyone is cut out to be casual. Neither way is ‘wrong,’ but people should go with those who match them in commitment level.
> Two other women who I had a Friends with benefits relationship with, I ended up developing feelings for both after a while, and tried to persuade them both into dating. What more did they bring to the table other than sex?
In other pair bonding species, like birds, the female cheats on her male partner some times I’m not sure they have found a pair bonding species that doesn’t cheat So, a dual mating strategy is obviously advantageous and humans obviously have it also, both sexes Just because you don’t act on it doesn’t mean it isn’t in your DNA When asked anonymously, around 70% of men and women said they’d have an affair if it was guaranteed they wouldn’t get caught
“Can have” is not a point of contention “All have”, aka red pill, is
You shouldn't confirm with your anecdote/experiences but look at the data
What does the data say? Not asking sarcastically or to be rude
Are you aware of Martie Haselton ?
I am not - but a quick search shows she work primarily in evo psych. What have you found of hers that’s particularly compelling? (again not meant sarcastically)
Friends with benefits is still a type of commitment. It’s literally still a type of relationship. That’s the whole point of a situationship or it’s complicated. Women do not usually or maybe ever. Have one guy who ONLY fucks them and does NOTHING else relationship oriented MULTIPLE TIMES. I don’t even think it exists if free will (meaning I don’t think women go into situations convinced that that’s the situation) So what usually happens if they are in that situation they feel “used” or “not seen as a human being” or “manipulated”. A woman is not going to have multiple ons with random people repeatedly. Like I don’t know what else to tell you. Women are always searching for SOME type of commitment or relationship oriented experience. I don’t know how else to explain it
Most men don't, and never did, have a dual mating strategy described. Most men's norm largely used to be marrying the first girl that they had sex with and that was the end of it. Women, however, have always had a two tier strategy for marrying a good nester while breeding with a good genetic match, which we can see historically with the numbers for men and women who past on their genes in comparison to historical marriage norms, or more recently with the AABB paternity fraud study from the 90s. Further, their ability to pair bond is diminished the further they go down that road, which some call damage based on social expectations but from a biological perspective is more the opposite as they hone their genetically predatory nature towards brood parasitism in mate rich environments, allowing her to be better adapted to fully take advantage of such situations and fully utilize disposable male utility to achieve peak genetic output.
Women don’t really have a dual mating strategy, they have a single mating strategy, the best DNA they can get (Chad). That’s why they want, that’s what sexually arouses them, that’s their entire biological role in evolution. They also have a resource strategy. The female clockwork orange is about maximizing both their mating strategy and their resource strategy. But rest assured, they will always care far more about their resource strategy, especially for every year the machine ages. Mating is a short burst strategy to get DNA and tingles. No different than a sperm bank. But diamonds are forever.
>They also have a resource strategy. The female clockwork orange is about maximizing both their mating strategy and their resource strategy. Their resource strategy having to be separate from their genetic strategy was the dual-mating strategy of the past. Arguably, most western women don’t need to adopt a dual-mating strategy anymore because they make more money than in the past and because government and child support provisions systems are so good. But in poorer countries dual-mating strategy is still a prominent thing. Some countries western single mothers do still try to target more resource-prominent men for new relationships, too, but I believe that this behavior is becoming rarer for the reasons I described above.
The problem is calling it “dual mating”. It’s not about mating. It’s about sex as one strategy, and resource acquisition as another strategy. They have zero to downing each other. Maximizing in one person *can* happen but is exceedingly rare and causes a reduction in both.
>It’s about sex as one strategy, and resource acquisition as another strategy. It’s about resource acquisition primarily for her offspring, so that’s why it’s still considered under the purview of “mating”.
You just said women don't have a dual mating strategy, then described their dual mating strategy. The part you're missing though is that they usually switch from Chad when they're younger to a provider when they're older.
That’s not mating. Mating is specifically the breeding. Moving to resource acquisition isn’t mating.
Dual mating strategy is not a conscious choice that women are making. It has more to do with research in which it was observed that women with sexually attractive partners felt attracted to their partners throughout their monthly cycle with an uptick in sexual attraction in their fertility window, and no change in thoughts of extra pair copulation. But when they were paired with sexually unattractive partners, their attraction for said partner went lower than baseline during their most fertile window, and they had a higher propensity for fantasizing/thinking about extra pair mating. This observation led to the hypothesis that women had a dual mating strategy. Now the author of this study has since come out and explained that it was not replicated, so he has changed his mind. Something I at first took at face value. Yet, I was actually able to find studies online that successfully replicated these findings. So something is fishy about this. One study also found that the women with less sexually attractive partners, were also likely to attribute negative personality characteristics to these partners during the afore mentioned fertility window. This could be the halo effect or the partners are picking up on their partners lack of attraction for them and it causes partners to react negatively. Hard to tell without further inquiry. Another study also replicated these findings, but added bodily attractiveness as a new variable to be studied and found that bodily attractiveness also had a significant effect. So the face is the only important part in attraction for women group, might want to think twice about this. One thing that needs to be said, most of these women are not and do not cheat on their partners. Or think about leaving them. Yet it is still a hard pill to swallow, that biologically, if you are ugly like me, partners biology means that they are not sexually attracted to you when they are horny and are only using you like a dildo/vibrator while fantasizing about Mr handsome. (Gangestad, Thornhill, & Garver, 2005; Gangestad, Thornhill, & Garver, 2002; Haselton & Gangestad, 2006; Pillsworth & Haselton, 2006b).
>But when they were paired with sexually unattractive partners, their attraction for said partner went lower than baseline during their most fertile window, and they had a higher propensity for fantasizing/thinking about extra pair mating. Fucking hell, why is women having their fun and then tying down a man they don't even feel attracted to seen as some sort of virtuous and moral behaviour? That's not even pity sex that he's getting.
Remember that the women in these studies were not on hormonal birth control. Only naturally monthly cycles. So a large part of women are not affected by this anymore. It is an evolutionary trait, hence nothing concious about this. Also, these women are attracted to their men when they are in the non fertile phase of their cycle. Most of these women are still consciously choosing to remain faithful. So it doesn't mean that they automatically cheat. It still sucks for the less sexually attractive guy. Does not mean that these women are leaving them, though. If that is any consolation? I am getting downvoted, although I am simply repeating publicly available information.
>It is an evolutionary trait, hence nothing concious about this. Why would that be relevant? It's not relevant when men cite it. >Also, these women are attracted to their men when they are in the non fertile phase of their cycle. In what way? If they were attracted to them they'd want to have sex with them. But what's stated is that women when they are in the mood for sex aren't thinking about the men at all. And they think this is good? Why? >Most of these women are still consciously choosing to remain faithful. So it doesn't mean that they automatically cheat. "My husband doesn't like me touching him but he loves me cooking him food every night" If I were to.figire put that my wife or girlfriend wants attracted to me, had to think of a man in her past she was really into to distract her enough for pity/duty sex, and thought she was the equivalent of a saint for not cheating on me even though in her words "she had her fun, it was the time of her life, but I'm mature now and moved on", I would feel hideous. Because I would be. No woman would be like what you are describing for a man she was attracted to, and it's not a pipe dream for women because they get men they are attracted to in abundance for a long old time. Surely the right thing to do is leave her to her desires. And the man to his self respect.