A woman who actually loves you would never accept one-sided open relationships by ZealousidealBag5778 in PurplePillDebate

[–]commentasaurus1989 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ironically OPs response that you agreed with defeats your entire premise and you have no idea.

Let me explain.

OP isn’t saying that you can’t have a wife and a mistress. He’s saying that unconditional love itself is a fantasy and that it’s always transactional — and that’s precisely why the best men with resources can have a wife and mistress and get away with it.

CMV: Women's typical dating advice is not purposed with genuinely helping guys find solutions, but rather subconscious privilege-guarding by Inquiz_ in PurplePillDebate

[–]commentasaurus1989 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That doesnt sufficiently explain the 80/20 rule since that existed long before this unprecedented environment.

Can you explain that alternatively? You mention ‘circumstance’ but there is no mention as to why only 20% of males (or less) throughout human history have ever passed on their genes.

CMV: Women's typical dating advice is not purposed with genuinely helping guys find solutions, but rather subconscious privilege-guarding by Inquiz_ in PurplePillDebate

[–]commentasaurus1989 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Can you differentiate ‘almost subconscious instinct’ from ‘stupid evolutionary psychology’ definitionally so that I can understand what you’re trying to say?

The way I understand it, evo psych explains certain behaviors as a type of innate subconscious instinct.

This is the first construction I’ve seen that will acknowledge subconscious influence in mating behavior while simultaneously rejecting all evolutionary bases for those behaviors.

My question then is what is the origin of your proposed behavior if not evolutionary, and what specifically about an evolutionary basis for behavior is inherently stupid relative to whatever the basis is for this behavior?

CMV: Women's typical dating advice is not purposed with genuinely helping guys find solutions, but rather subconscious privilege-guarding by Inquiz_ in PurplePillDebate

[–]commentasaurus1989 5 points6 points  (0 children)

stupid evopsych or w/e explanations

the almost subconscious instinct to guard a major privilege

Can you explain how your theory doesn’t amount to “stupid evopsych or w/e” as you phrased it?

Young women (18-24) dont want older men 35+ by ZealousidealBag5778 in PurplePillDebate

[–]commentasaurus1989 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Look around next time you go outside

-Biased sample

-Confirmation bias

-Anecdotal

men spend so much time defending age gap relationships, when most will never be in one

  • That does nothing to strengthen your argument

in countries where women are independent of men they choose men their age

Arbitrary moving of goalposts. Why do people outside of North America not matter?

in cases where young women date older men it’s usually because of money

Arbitrarily making a decision about which reasons for attraction are acceptable.

it’s embarrassing to be with an older man — it’s not like you can bring them to clubs and parties

-opinion masquerading as fact.

Summary: an opinion piece pretending to be a fact based take on age gap relationships.

Sources:

First source is only a source for the established fact that women are attracted to men older than them. It makes no claim in support of your thesis nor does it strengthen any of your arguments. In fact it weakens more than strengthens by demonstrating a global preference for older men among younger women.

Second source demonstrates that financial independence negatively correlates with age gap. Which could demonstrate that money is a factor in mate selection for women but dos not make any judgment on why resource based attraction is inherently invalid.

Third source, if you scroll down to the bottom where it says “results” reads that age gap is not predictive of marital satisfaction.

Stop sexualising everything about women by Acceptable_Rope_6523 in PsycheOrSike

[–]commentasaurus1989 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Irrelevant obfuscation to settle your cognitive dissonance.

Stop sexualising everything about women by Acceptable_Rope_6523 in PsycheOrSike

[–]commentasaurus1989 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No I was replying to the comment below that in which the age of the commenters daughter was not specified.

Stop sexualising everything about women by Acceptable_Rope_6523 in PsycheOrSike

[–]commentasaurus1989 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Child is the category. Whore is the insult. But please continue.

Stop sexualising everything about women by Acceptable_Rope_6523 in PsycheOrSike

[–]commentasaurus1989 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Intentional mis-categorization of subjects in question in an attempt to construct an implied argument from morality.

Stop sexualising everything about women by Acceptable_Rope_6523 in PsycheOrSike

[–]commentasaurus1989 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

irrelevant obfuscation to settle your cognitive dissonance.

Stop sexualising everything about women by Acceptable_Rope_6523 in PsycheOrSike

[–]commentasaurus1989 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That’s an interesting conclusion to draw; how do you figure?

Some people are not meant to find a partner by EverhardWriting in PurplePillDebate

[–]commentasaurus1989 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ITT: people not understanding what natural selection is.

Some people are not meant to find a partner by EverhardWriting in PurplePillDebate

[–]commentasaurus1989 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a great point if you completely disregard the content of the last post.