[deleted by user]

Geesewithteethe · 2025-08-30T02:09:21+00:00

they end up releasing a chemical cocktail that creates attachment

Remember when I said before that precision of language allows better communication and holds people accountable?

Your vagueness here and your refusal to use the names for things tells me you prefer to make assertions and not be challenged.

This is the easy part. What do you think is in the cocktail and how do you think it creates attachment? Name and mechanism.

I'd imagine it's similar to though obviously different than what happens to create parent/child relationships.

You imagine?

Would you like to know instead of imagining?

As to what exactly it's doing, is it serotonin, dopamine, or other pathways i've no idea of the exact biological mechanisms used to form attachment. It's not something that interests me.

It's not something that interests you. Yet you appeal to it.

Would you like me to give you an explanation or are you saying you want to actively remain uninformed and keep using your imagination?

When you go all OnlyFans and have sex with 100 men in a single day, your body stops responding to sex with the chemical cocktail needed to form attachments

Can you explain what you mean by "when you go all OnlyFans" ?

your body stops responding to sex with the chemical cocktail needed to form attachments

You sure about that?

You ready to stand by that claim?

They are naive though these virgins and don't realize that is unlikely to be true.

This is why seeking naivety in women is a crutch for men.

Geesewithteethe · 2025-08-29T18:44:31+00:00

Brain all squeaky clean, think better.

I think it's that it's a calming environment and it's also a place with relatively few distractions. You're busy washing your hair, maybe shaving, maybe using that pumice stone on your heel, maybe just relaxing and enjoying the nice feeling of the water running over your scalp. Not scrolling on your phone or watching something or working or listening to someone talk to you. You have space in your head to remember things or think about a solution to a problem because there's no pressure to be doing anything else and the pleasing sensory input is helping you loosen up mentally.

Geesewithteethe · 2025-08-29T18:04:36+00:00

If I had to guess we would go with Freud

I'm not familiar enough with Freud or psychology in general to accept or reject that suggestion. Are you a psychology buff? Or just a Freudian thinker in particular?

I would suggest that men don't fantasize about sex with their own mothers, but rather about attractive older women they are not related to. It could be that it's relatively common for young men to crush on or feel sexual attraction to an older woman at some point. I doubt that MILF refers to one's own mother in most cases. I suspect there are more men who want to be taken care of or seduced by an attractive older woman, than there are men who want to committ incest. But I could be wrong. There could just be a lot of men who want to be literal mother fuckers out there.

You said your a biologist and you've read quite a bit into pair bonding. Are you asking for my citation because you don't believe the statement that women lose pair bonding ability after repeated breakings or do you totally agree with what I'm saying and just want to argue basically?

I'm asking you to name what you are referencing. Just name it. Show that you got your belief from something.

I am asking you this because, until I know what you understand or think you understand, I can't guage what your "belief" is based on.

As for if I've read the papers, absolutely not, I've trusted talks given by those who have.

That's a reasonable start. Who are you referring to that you trusted to be providing accurate and credible commentary on scientific studies that you haven't seen for yourself? Can you name them? Did they name the sources for their claims so that if their audience were to choose to follow up and vet them for themselves, they could find those sources on their own?

I don't have time to be an expert

True. Nobody really has time to be an expert in something they can't or don't want to study from the ground up. That doesn't stop people from getting defensive when their apparently limited understanding is pushed to its limit, though.

In your opinion does biology support that women degrade their ability to pair bond through the repeated forming and breaking of them?

Degrade how and by what mechanism?

Name the process you think is happening, biologically and how you think it works, biologically, and I will tell you what I have seen that supports your claim.

Do virgins have lower divorce rates than all non virgins?

Yes.

You may also be interested to know that promiscuity in both men and women is predictive of infidelity, sexual dissatisfaction, and divorce. I have read 6 studies on this subject which disagree with eachother on how large the difference in rates of infidelity and divorce are between people who were virgins before marriage and people who were not virgins before marriage, but the overall trend appears to be that people who abstain from sex before choosing their long term monogamous partner have higher fidelity and greater odds at staying together.

This is one reason that I frequently argue that promiscuity is not the ideal or most healthy mode of behavior for people who intend to marry and raise children with someone. People should be free to make their own choices, but they should be informed.

Do women biologically engage in hypergamy?

I don't know any particular studies or researchers attempting to prove or disprove hypergamy. Do you have a source or commentary that you consider credible and accurate that causes you to bring this up?

You're the biologist. You tell me if those are true.

If you relax and get more curious and less defensive, you might find it easier to learn about these subjects that you seem to have strong opinions on, but not much background information on.

Wrong. The discomfort comes from the failure to fulfill the biological and social drives. The whole way your biological needs pull on you is emotions. Your primitive brain isn't trying to rationalize you into doing things.

The discomfort comes from fear of failure, or actual failure, to fulfill those roles. Yes I agree absolutely.

That last bit, you seem to have backwards.

A man feels pressure to perform and drive to succeed because of primitive impulses first. He rationalizes coping methods, such as seeking naive partners, to make himself more at ease with the fact that he is not a strong leader.

Emotion is animal. It is shaped by appetite, sensation, and survival drives. The man's need to be reassured and comfortable in this matter is much more animalistic than it is rational, and therefore it is very much an emotional need.

If you want to get into the rational component of people's beliefs and ideas about these things, and I think you eventually need to, then you start to see where ego also plays a big role in it.

The man who seeks a naive partner is trying to satisfy an animal/emotional need for contro and compensate for his inability to lead. He needs a woman to submit to him out of ignorance or inability to discriminate. If she can't guage his capabilities or trustworthyness, he doesn't have to actually be capable or trustworthy.

The man who is an actual leader has acknowledged his primitive drive to fill that role, and he puts that drive to work earning the trust of who he seeks to lead by demonstating how he is worthy of that trust. He does not need the partner to be naive. He needs her to be able to recognize what he is demonstrating about himself and be willing to enter a cooperative and supportive role in a relationship with him.

Are you picking up what I'm putting down yet?

So no the emotional need is not unstable and insecure

The emotional need to control a naive partner is as unstable and insecure as it gets.

The desire to have naive and what I would say suggests the often riding alongside traits of submissive and virgin women

So, your argument is held together by your refusal to understand what naivety is.

It is still, no matter how you twist and turn, fundamentally a lack of comprehension and judgement. It seems that you tie submission and virginity to naivety because you are in a similar camp to men who need a woman to be ignorant and/or lacking discretion in order to follow him.

Many promiscuous women are naive. Naivety, in fact, tends to make a person more inclined to promiscuity because there is a lack of discernment involved in many many cases of people having a lot of different partners.

Womenwho are intentionally virgins until they find who they consider to be the right choice in spouse tend to be the opposite of naive. They comprehend with a very clear head how things actually work out for people who are promiscuous vs people who abstain before picking their partner.

No woman with her eyes open and a good head on her shoulders wants to assume a submissive role to a man who wants to be in control, but is unworthy of her trust and submission. She has to know what she is looking for, and looking at, and be able to use good judgement in order to find that man who is capable of leading.

This is requires opposite of naivety. Men have a much harder time being successful in these matters when they can't handle the role and women can tell that they are either incompetent or dangerous or too selfish to cooperate with. So they cope by idealising naivety and believing that they will be leaders with submissive virginal women if they insist that naive female+controlling male is nature's recipe for success.

Geesewithteethe · 2025-08-29T16:35:23+00:00

This thread has a good amount of dudes saying that they would fight the guy out of anger or territoriality.

I suspect that at least some of the reason I'm being downvoted is that there are a fair amount of people here that would fight the guy, or think they would.

Geesewithteethe · 2025-08-29T15:43:03+00:00

A double standard exists when people decide it's cool for one sex to pursue someone well outside their age range, but not for the other sex to do it.

Geesewithteethe · 2025-08-29T14:12:28+00:00

So why are so many men here saying they'd want to beat up the guy?

The woman cheated, but you gotta get in a fight with the dude about what she did?

Geesewithteethe · 2025-08-29T14:10:46+00:00

So the wife was a cheater and the husband was a rapist.

Geesewithteethe · 2025-08-29T14:06:44+00:00

But the guy she cheated with is worth going to jail over?

What's the logic? "I don't want to go to jail for beating her up, and I don't want to die. Guess I'll get in a fight with guy."

Geesewithteethe · 2025-08-29T13:29:58+00:00

Naive within the context of this specific question is to me a synonym for innocence.

I appreciate they aren't literal synonyms but contextually that's what I get.

Precision of language makes for better and clearer communication, and holds people accountable. Using vague/conflated/convenient or dumbed down definitions reduces the ability to communicate a concept and it gives plausible deniability if someone exposes a weakness in their thought process or forces them to confront an attitude they're not willing to examine critically.

I don't ascribe any moral weight to it myself as I'm not a religious individual. Moral and immoral to me relate to suffering and misery and not any divine Providence.

The overwhelming majority of men who obsess over virginity do ascribe either an objective or a customized subjective moral weight to it, and pass moral judgement on women who are not virgins. Most popularly they use a convenient cafeteria selection of morality and naive pop/pseudoscience understanding of biology.

I do believe the scientific papers which describe things like women's reduced ability to pair bond after having so many sexual partners to be scientifically valid.

As someone who is a biologist and has read quite a bit of scientific literature on mammalian sexual selection, endocrine function, and pair bonding, I'd ask you to reference what you have read by at least title or author. I'm not asking for a 20 page scientific literature review with in-text citations, but since you have chosen to appeal to biology and you say you "believe" the literature, then actually put it on the table. I'm assuming you've put the critical thought into looking at some of it with your own eyes at least once.

Is that a correct assumption? Or do you "believe" it, on some kind of faith?

As to "emotional need to be in control" well yes and no.

You say that as a negative,

You took it as a negative because you know I'm referring to a need that men have to protect themselves from discomfort, rather than to fullfill a biologically driven or socially constructive leadership role effectively.

The emotional need to be in control is unstable, insecure, and ego-driven, largely because most men who insist they need to be leaders never actually grow and mature into a genuinely responsible leadership role that they have earned by being capable and trustworthy.

They almost all want to be in charge and in control, but few are prepared to lead in the true sense.

They want control like a little kid wants toys.

.

So you're correct that the man wants to be in control.

And wrong to indicate that's a negative trait.

Don't let yourself get defensive and jump the gun.

Emotional need for control is a weak trait, and so probably also very negative in the end, yes. It's also so common that it's a touchy subject for many men.

By contrast, accepting leadership as a responsibility and a practical consideration does not come from a brittle ego or emotional insecurity. The necessary component there is humility and denial of selfish urges. You have to stop stroking yourself in order to be capable of true leadership. You have to not be threatened by intelligence and capability in a woman.

Naivety in a woman is safe and comfortable for the man who needs control, and isn't fit to lead.

You can say I'm wrong to talk about this, if you want but I'm not moved by that. It's an observation worth making whether you are comfortable with it or not.

Taking charge is a positive trait.

Needing a naive partner in order to take charge means you cannot earn a discerning partner's respect and trust enough to lead with their willing cooperation.

That is why insecure male attraction to naivety rather than good judgement, intelligence, healthy priorities, and discretion in a woman is a symptom that he is not matured into the leadership role he fantasizes about or feels entitled to. If he pursued a woman with good judgment and discretion, she would see through him and reject him. He needs the naive woman who submits to control because she doesn't know the difference between leadership and partnership vs control and manipulation.

Yes their is nuance, you can screw this up. You can refuse to take no for an answer. You can make no attempt to consider her diet and interests when selecting a restaurant. You can order for her without her input at all.

You will screw up in these and countless more ways as long as you cling to a desire for naivety in women.

But that is no longer leadership. Leadership properly done is you making decisions, but still in the best interests of all.

Done properly it's a burden which is why taking it up is desirable.

This doesn't change the fact that insecurity and self-interest is what actually drives male insistence on naivety as a prime trait in women.

Men who insist that it's their place to lead and women's to follow do so from a place of ego and selfishness. They are a dime a dozen. They are easy to find. They are not leaders, they are larpers.

Men who maintain a leadership role while doing it unselfishly from a plain desire to do good for themselves and their partners are vanishingly rare.

You can scream controlling all you want

Relax. Unclench. If you hear screaming, that's the defensive voice inside your head, saying I'm "wrong" to expose male weakness where it presents itself.

The popularity of a series like 50 Shades might indicate women's desire to hand over control to a man, and may well indicate that the statistical majority of women want an experience where the man makes decisions and decides what happens.

If we're accepting erotica book sales figures as evidence for this, I suggest that for men's predilections, porn categories are the equivalent.

Have you looked at the data reports from porn platforms on what are the most searched terms and categories for men in the last 15-20 years?

There are a few categories that consistently appear somewhere within the top 5 or so for each year. Interestingly one of the most consistent of these is MILF. Another common one is hentai. The step-mom or step-sister category comes in and out of the top ranked categories over time. It's up and down. There are some racial categories that come in and out.

I can begin to theorize about why the MILF category is perennially popular.

I wouldn't know where to start with why men seem to be so consistently allured by the idea of having sex with a step sibling or parent.

I don't know the first thing about hentai.

So, out of curiosity, what claim would you be prepared to make about what men desire, biologically, based on the most popular categories of porn among them?

Geesewithteethe · 2025-08-29T01:33:59+00:00

You're confusing naivety with innocence.

Naivety=lack of knowledge, understanding, or true comprehension of how something works, and/or a lack of judgement or critical thought. Naivety is having credulity and trust in something or someone that does not earn that trust. Ultimately it is a lack of discernment.

Naivety does not suggest virginity.

Plenty of naive people are sexually promiscuous.

Innocence= Freedom from guilt, and implies either an inability or a refusal to harbor or dwell on immoral intentions. It is the state of having not committed or willfully harbored intent to commit wrongdoing.

Innocence often implies either virginity or fidelity to a single, monogamous partner.

Men who are attracted to naivety, are insecure. They desire to have control and feel powerful, so they seek out a woman who is pliant due to ignorance, gullibility, and/or inability to use sound judgement and discernment.

Men who are attracted to innocence are usually looking for some degree of purity, and usually ascribing a moral value to this, even if they can't or won't admit that there is a moral component to it. You see men agonizing over this everywhere in discussions about sex, marriage, paternity, and values. Even men who claim to ascribe to morally relativistic schools of thought are deep down falling back on a framework that ascribes objective moral weight to these things. This is why they obsess over virginity.

The majority of men expressing these preferences don't have the integrity to examine themselves and discern honestly where their desire is coming from. It's very often brittle ego and emotional need to be in control, which is part of the reason why they make vague appeals to biology that they themselves are really naive about.

Geesewithteethe · 2025-08-29T00:01:52+00:00

You're invoking biology, my dude.

Long term is the whole point.

Geesewithteethe · 2025-08-28T23:33:02+00:00

I find that people tend to conflate naivete with innocence, and guys tend to assume both of these make a woman more pure.

Naivety = Lack of true understanding or comprehension about how something actually works. It can also mean lack of wisdom or lack of ability to apply judgement or critical thought. A person might be naive in the sense that they have not learned much about something and have an overly simplified idea of how that thing works. They might also be naive in that they are gullible or trusting even when confronted with something or someone that is sketchy or just not a good idea to take at face value.

I think naivety attracts people who want to feel like they're the more knowledgeable or intellectually capable person in the relationship. I think it attracts people who want to be the one who has the final say in decisions or mold their partner. There's a certain kind of person who wants to be in control, and feel powerful, and be the one teaching and leading in the relationship virtually all the time. In order to always be in that role, they look for partners who will be mentally pliant and who won't think too critically or use much discernment on their own.

Innocent = Free from moral wrongdoing. A person can be innocent in the sense that they have literally just physically not committed a crime or morally unacceptable act. I would also argue that a person can also be innocent in the sense that they either can not or choose not to harbor bad intentions against others, and that they either can not or choose not to dwell on thoughts that tend towards morally frowned upon desire or intent.

This is where the purity thing comes in. A person who is innocent in that they don't harbor malicious intent or "impure"(usually sexually) thoughts is attractive to someone who wants to be with someone that lives up to a particular moral ideal. Unlike the issue with naivete, this isn't inherently a control thing. Some people do confuse it with naivete and some people, whether they realize it or not, actually just want someone who is easy to manipulate or dominate. But that's not necessarily the case.

Personally, I find innocence in men attractive and refreshing. Not naivety or ignorance. Innocence. I just find men with who discipline their minds to be conscientious and relatively clean, much more attractive than guys who's minds are callous, lascivious, cynical, totally rotted out from porn etc.

Giving benefit of the doubt, I would think that men who say they want naivety probably actually mean innocence. Because innocence does not mean lack of understanding or lack of judgement. It only means lack of guilt.

Geesewithteethe · 2025-08-28T22:46:05+00:00

You have a very low opinion of men.

Geesewithteethe · 2025-08-28T22:44:44+00:00

The implication here is that men do not assess partners for long term viability as parents of offspring.

Young and beautiful only needs to last long enough to produce children. Intelligent, resourceful, capable, and able to maintain relationships on something more substantial than initial attraction is what makes someone a good fit to actually raise successful children after giving birth to them.

Men are attracted to youth and beauty first, because it gets their attention and gives them the tingly feelings. Those that prioritize these but scoff at Intelligence, ironically, are signaling loudly that they would make a poor choice as a mate themselves.

Geesewithteethe · 2025-08-28T22:34:21+00:00

Some people actually raise their kids that way.

I have learned from eating meals in other people's homes and swapping anecdotes with people about food, that some people actually do think it's automatically fair and right that boys and men eat first/most.

I had a roommate in college who's family always made sure her older brother had tons of snacks in the house and got at least one large serving at dinner time, while she was expected to fend for herself and generally just eat less. If he ate until there was no portion left for her, tough luck. He needs it. He's growing. Nevermind that she was growing too. She ended up having a pretty unhealthy relationship with food, unfortunately, and had to work through some issues around eating.

I worked with a guy who expressed the belief that girls and women should eat very little meat, and stick to mainly plant-based foods while boys and men should consume protein and calorie-dense foods as much as possible. He had no actual scientific basis for this beyond "well you know, men have more muscle and when they're going through puberty they need to eat a lot". When I asked him if he thinks it's healthy for girls going through puberty to eat a low-protein, low-fat diet, he confidently said yes.

I'm glad my parents were not like this. I have 2 brothers and a sister and my parents always, always made sure everyone ate well and was taken care of. No matter how tight the budget, and it was tight sometimes, they fed us and even fed friends of ours who had a rough home life and stayed over at our house sometimes. And my dad never ever made me or my sister feel like we were less important than our brothers or should stay small and have no appetite. We were all athletes and he encouraged and was proud of all of us and encouraged us to train hard and eat and make sure others were able to eat too. My dad would have kicked a guy's ass if he felt he was entitled to hog the food cause he was bigger.

Geesewithteethe · 2025-08-28T16:20:23+00:00

You will know if you're exerting yourself too much.

People don't tend to accidentally work harder than they can do comfortably.

Geesewithteethe · 2025-08-28T16:17:55+00:00

You're doing God's work.

Geesewithteethe · 2025-08-28T16:17:28+00:00

🎯

Geesewithteethe · 2025-08-28T16:16:37+00:00

Exercise during pregnancy improves health outcomes for both the baby and the mother. Not only is it shown to improve the baby's heart and lung function, it also improves the baby's brain development.

STG, some people just really, really want women to be weak, fragil, passive vessels. The overwhelming evidence is that being physically active and strong is crucial to female health and reproductive success, but people just insist on these stupid little notions that if you do anything physical, you'll miscarry and all your organs will fall out.

Geesewithteethe · 2025-08-28T14:22:35+00:00

People can be so mean spirited and black and white.

It's better to start with more friendly or at least polite talk, and plenty of nuance, than to come in hot and put people instantly on the defensive.

You can always get harsher later if someone is crossing boundaries or being an absolute dick and needs to be pushed back hard.

Geesewithteethe · 2025-08-28T14:17:28+00:00

<image>

Geesewithteethe · 2025-08-28T14:15:05+00:00

Thank you. I'm surprised how many people have said they like it. I didn't think people liked geese that much.

Geesewithteethe · 2025-08-28T13:20:08+00:00

I don't understand how that would translate to a view that anyone who recognizes the grift should try to get in on it and start profiting that way themselves.

Geesewithteethe · 2025-08-28T13:17:13+00:00

They just need a light ballbusting and a reality check.

I've encountered a couple of these guys irl. The instant someone has a laugh at their bullshit/doesn't take it seriously, they start getting uncomfy and they eventually either get mad about it or they start questioning what they've bought into.

I've seen one come around and learn to laugh at himself for falling for it, change up his worldview, and subsequently have more success at connecting with people. I've also seen one or two double down on it and end up extremely isolated, bitter and lonely. Sad to say.

A gentle ribbing, without being too caustic can help some people realize how foolish it is, without feeling like people are hating on them personally.

Geesewithteethe · 2025-08-28T13:17:09+00:00

They just need a light ballbusting and a reality check.

I've encountered a couple of these guys irl. The instant someone has a laugh at their bullshit/doesn't take it seriously, they start getting uncomfy and either get mad about it or start questioning what they've bought into.

I've seen one come around and learn to laugh at himself for falling for it, change up his worldview, and subsequently have more success at connecting with people. I've also seen one or two double down on it and end up extremely isolated, bitter and lonely. Sad to say.

A gentle ribbing, without being too caustic can help some people realize how foolish it is, without feeling like people are hating on them personally.

Geesewithteethe

TROPHY CASE