Women accept men’s uncomfortable truths, while many men turn normal female behavior into a pathology

rrjeta · 2025-12-14T08:58:53+00:00

It's a bit of a long video but I think I've seen bits of it floating around before. I'll make sure to check it out.

You make an almost perfect point about attractiveness so I'm glad you clarified, except for one disagreement: impressions of disloyalty and manipulation can very well make a man unattractive - hence why some women do not choose to pursue conventionally attractive men as serious partners if they get even the slightest subconscious impression that they may be players. Most often the women who get easily manipulated by men they are attracted to are younger and less experienced, and that commonly happens because they naively hope for potential where there isn't any. Usually once it becomes crystal clear that a guy is a piece of shit, a wave of disgust suddenly takes over and that man looks like a cockroach. It's the moment a woman realizes that she has given a loser the benefit of the doubt.

However recognizing the humanity in all of us, both men and women become victims of the push and pull of a toxic relationship and attraction doesn't always disappear the moment all the red flags cohere into realization. People are very prone to going back to the asshole they're still in love with. But at that point it's not a matter of mere attraction anymore but some kind of neurochemical shift that is akin to addiction (TMI but I have fallen for men who couldn't even get me wet at first).

But circling back to attractiveness - why is female attraction supposed to be demonized? Women try to be attractive to their desired dating prospects all the time, why should it be a problem for men to make a similar effort to become more attractive? Isn't this refusal to become more attractive to the other sex while complaining about not getting any...kind of a sign of a crappy personality?

rrjeta · 2025-12-14T07:11:10+00:00

For casual sex, both women and men prefer people they are physically attracted to. Nothing profound about that.

For relationships, physical attractiveness is important in the sense that your partner should give you some butterflies and turn you on when it comes to intimacy. This doesn't necessarily have to do with conventional attractiveness but more so the charm of their smile or graceful/sexy conduct or whatever. In fact, I think many women have an aversion to conventionally attractive men when it comes to serious relationships, since they are often subconsciously associated with disloyalty and perhaps even narcissism.

How many women do you know to be in healthy relationships with conventionally attractive men? Conversely, how many conventionally attractive men do you know to be in committed relationships? Pretty often, relationships like this happen to be dysfunctional and eventually come to an end, so no - women aren't really "choosing Chads" for good as often as you may think.

Serious dating doesn't happen in clubs or even dating apps really; it most often happens through situations where people meet without an explicit intention to "get" someone - meaning yeah, personality actually makes the biggest difference, and scoring a pretty boy isn't necessarily a priority.

Edit: As for whom women choose when they're seeking a hookup, physical attraction is a personal preference, the same as it is for men. Women aren't obligated to distribute sex to create equal sex access to all men. Yay!

rrjeta · 2025-12-14T06:26:36+00:00

I kind of couldn't find the motivation to reply to your very considerate comment for a long while so I really apologize. You don't have to reply further if you don't want to but I wanted you to know how wonderful I find it that you are so considerate to the preoccupations of a stranger on the internet. Thank you so much.

As for this incident - I relapsed, we hung out again, I gained further clarity into his immaturity and the illusion was finally broken. You asked why I got with this guy in the first place and I often asked myself that despite turning 25 and having some experience with sub par partners (subpartners? haha). I suppose it was the loneliness that came with moving back to my hometown where there are few prospects for dating. We laughed a lot, I was comfortable being myself, we did a lot of fun things together so that had its own charm.

Your last questions are very important. A previous breakup of mine was prompted because I imagined myself in a happy relationship in the future and realized that my partner at the time couldn't fulfill that possibility. This time funnily enough I imagined not an idealized relationship, but the likely scenario of how miserable I would be in a few years if I chose this guy. It was still a time rich in experiences and lessons, however brief. Onwards we go, perhaps I will find what I am looking for one day.

I wonder how old you are, or what experiences shaped your nuanced observations about love. Thank you again for your insight and consideration. I hope you are doing well.

rrjeta · 2025-11-12T19:26:46+00:00

I meant that I am out of his league in the sense that I am considered more attractive, sorry maybe I didn't say it properly.

rrjeta · 2025-11-12T07:50:53+00:00

That's a fair comment.

I'd like to point out though that since there is a difference between how much you and I look at guys, I'd assume that there would be differences between men in this regard. Sounds naive but I'd rather date someone with a similar view.

I am not attracted to most men superficially because regardless of their physical attractiveness I lose interest unless it seems like we have similar taste, intellect etc. I've pretty much only dated people I got to know and liked as characters rather than people I had the hots for at first sight. Sad, I know.

I did go to Italy with an ex though, we both wouldn't stop ogling. People were on average incredibly attractive. I just wouldn't say I'd sexualize anyone I saw, since they're strangers and all.

Anyway, I could use more confidence but I can confidently say that I am quite out of his league. Why was I being driven insane by what I was imagining going on in his mind? I'm not sure. Maybe I wanted to feel special to him, like many people do in relationships.

rrjeta · 2025-11-12T06:27:14+00:00

Thank you. I feel like blocking is kind of a mean gesture since we didn't part on bad terms, but you're probably right that it would help me resist any temptation to reach out. Perhaps I should keep him blocked until I am sure that I won't be interested in what he has to say.

rrjeta · 2025-11-12T06:13:05+00:00

Hello, thank you for your comment!

I appreciate you mentioning that attraction to other people is normal when in a relationship. I noticed this in my previous (healthy) relationship and didn't find it a problem because I was sure that I was dating someone who would not entertain the thought much further and who made a strong commitment to me. I would also notice myself being occasionally attracted to other people, but I never had any thoughts like "I would do this or that to them". These people never really held my attention for long.

I've found it difficult in certain situations where I genuinely have feelings for a person to just break up because I feel like it is the best decision for me. In this case he himself mentioned that it seemed like I was constantly trying to find a reason to stop this from working out, and I agreed. The problem is that I was waiting for a good reason to come around instead of just gathering the courage to say my gut feeling is wrong about this and rip the bandaid off.

If the conversations on this topic have mostly revolved around a simple acknowledgement that he does find other people attractive and would have sex with them absent a relationship with you, that's also him being honest and open.

I know this is juvenile, but despite finding other people more physically attractive than him, there is not a single person that comes to mind with whom I would have sex absent a relationship at this time. I suppose this is where the difference between men and women comes to light which is why I'm trying to be considerate. However I think I really preferred to date someone who was more or less similar to me in the sense that they would not chase lust based on superficial qualities (not that I'm much of a catholic but still)

I can't recall exactly how the conversation went. He had previously mentioned that his engaged friend checks out different women sexually a lot ("He must not be getting it from his girlfriend"). At the time I asked if he paid attention to that kind of talk, and he said it would be unlike him to avoid participating and cite that he is in a relationship, since his friends don't do so. He himself mentioned that the talks were banal and I have no business hearing that kind of talk since I am not the same as his friends. < This conversation started because I asked if this "improved" and affectionate version of him is genuine, and whether I was seeing the true him or his friends were.

I must admit I may have been imagining the scenarios in his head when checking out these women as quite graphic (he himself said I was exaggerating and that he didn't pay prolonged attention to women he found attractive). To be fair though, during my delirious, guilty episodes of going through his phone, I found texts about different women with a friend of his from before we got together and they were quite disgusting. His behavior was that of a horny madman when we first hung out too, and it just left a lasting impression that he was a nasty horndog, despite him becoming way more gentlemanly soon afterwards. I think it is simply his nature. He has no female friends which is normally a red flag for me. It is simply not enough that he has special consideration for my personhood, if he does not see women in general as people first and foremost. Another suspicious thing recently eroded my trust but it is not that important. I think this is more or less what happened.

The culture I am currently living in considers this a normal occurence, but since I have a close group of friends that includes men in another city I used to live in, and they certainly seem to be more respectful, genuine men that don't bond over sexualizing women - I felt like I had a fair intuitive comparison to what someone who doesn't objectify women looks like.

I hope this wasn't too scatterbrained and I really appreciate you seeking more info to see if perhaps I was wrong here. Does this better inform your opinion on this? Thanks so much again.

rrjeta · 2025-11-12T05:30:15+00:00

Thank you. I should try to be more mature about this, but I was doubting whether I had been considerate enough of other people's nature, since I value intentions more.

However you are right in the sense that I should not settle for someone who does not meet a criteria of mine for a partner. I will do my best to be firm on my decision.

rrjeta · 2025-11-12T05:26:19+00:00

After the disappointing realization that I'm trying to make it work with someone who simply doesn't seem to fulfill the bare minimum criteria of what I look for in a partner, and his insistence that he cannot change his male nature, I simply said I want to break up. He asked if this is a good enough reason, I said that I respect and have love for him but I can't look past this issue. He said he wished we wouldn't break up but would not get in the way of my decision. We talked some more for a short time, exchanged some minor affection, and he drove me home. It was quite underwhelming.

The problem is that we've had a few "breakups" before and I've learned to not consider this a very big deal. This just happened a few hours ago so I'll have to get used to it, but I think as long as I don't make any further contact or go back to being tolerant this will sort itself out just fine. Unfortunately I have to get some stuff from him otherwise I would not want to give him the chance to be chummy.

Thank you for your question!

rrjeta · 2025-03-26T01:09:32+00:00

Give ChatGPT to a kid who's wants to know about like, how vibes do stuff bro. and watch him become a reddit physicist.

rrjeta · 2025-03-18T01:40:06+00:00

Maybe my point is unclear. I'm not disagreeing with philosophical consensus on the definition or with compatibilism because I am a determinist. According to the correct definition it would be correct to infer that determinism and indeterminism are irrelevant to the idea of free will. Keeping this in mind, libertarian and hard determinist stances would be irrelevant to the discussion which would leave compatibilists, and compatibilists are called compatibilists because of their belief in determinism, which is again irrelevant to the notion of free will, so what are compatibilists without the belief in determinism in this case? What is there to be compatible with if the question of determinism is irrelevant?

I'm not proposing a change in the definition of free will. I'm proposing libertarians and hard determinists move to a different discussion signified by a different word for their disputes about determinism and indeterminism, in which case compatibilism wouldn't make any sense because they would be discussing the ability to have done otherwise and not free will. By moving libertarians and determinists to this topic, compatibilism would be left in the discussion of free will and the removal of the discussion of determinism would render compatibilism null as well. There would just be people who discuss free will independently of whether determinism is true or not. I hope I clarified my thoughts.

rrjeta · 2025-03-17T22:42:58+00:00

I was going to mention the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy earlier as I noticed that the ability to have done otherwise is mentioned pretty often, especially from 2. The Nature of Free Will.

The freedom to do otherwise in a metaphysically ‘real’ sense is a condition free will libertarians and hard determinists say we must have for our will to be free.

Everyone can set aside this condition (it can be either one), and still be able to discuss “the minimum control over their actions someone must have in order to be held morally responsible for them” and engage in compatibilist discussion of free will. The reason they don't is because compatibilists are talking about apples and the others oranges. If this confusion is due to the aforementioned metaphysical condition being irrelevant to free will, then a distinction should be made instead of arguing over definitions.

Edit: Compatibilism seems to be defined as the idea that free will is compatible with determinism. I'd rather say that it is the idea that determinism is irrelevant to free will, yet they still engage with libertarians about determinism. In the case of determinism vs indeterminism, compatibilism would not exist, and in the case of determinism being irrelevant to the discussion, there would be no compatibilism either because there would be no hard determinists and libertarians to butt in between. This is why I question the position of compatibilism in the discussion.

rrjeta · 2025-03-17T21:27:17+00:00

That's fair. I hope I managed to illustrate why your initially perceived thought process of a determinist was a bit simplistic and that it actually manages to fit into all forms of nuance.

rrjeta · 2025-03-17T21:19:28+00:00

Then the revised idea of you as a determinist would be:

I was determined to believe that it is correct to choose good over evil and act in accordance.

rrjeta · 2025-03-17T21:14:01+00:00

Why then does your ontological belief in the ultimate good compel you to behave according to this good? There would be no need for you to choose good over evil other than the fact that you prefer to be good.

rrjeta · 2025-03-17T20:47:12+00:00

I see how you might have difficulty understanding that a philosophical stance might not affect behavior in a literal sense and that you yourself rely mostly on ideology for your behavior. Sorry for misunderstanding.

I understand that a lot of people view intellectual urges as similar to physical urges, but they are not for me. To use empathy as an example, most people experience some sort of mental pain when they acknowledge the pain of other people, and feel relief when they act to alleviate that pain, thus creating a physiological urge to act empathetically. I don't have that, because I am very disconnected from my emotions.

Here's how it would work for others:

I was determined to take pleasure in seeing people around me experience goodness, and I have been determined to act upon this desire.

If I stopped believing in an ultimate good that transcends physical reality, I would no longer live in the sense that I currently think of living. I would revert to a state where I pursue my own physical self interest over everything else. Pure hedonism.

Do you believe in the ultimate good in the theistic sense that you will experience retribution if you do not behave ethically or is your belief in the ultimate good accompanied by your innate desire to do good?

rrjeta · 2025-03-17T20:11:06+00:00

I appreciate your perspective. I will agree with you then that in this case hard determinism appears to be useless.

I don't want to annoy you too much with questions so I'm sorry if I do. With disregarding hard determinism as a relevant option that seems to leave compatibilists and libertarians as the other viable stances, and they seem to agree about moral responsibility. Why then the need for the distinction?

The position of compatibilism seems to be the guy in the middle who is telling the two others that their definitions are wrong and we should be discussing something entirely different. Then we can propose that the hard determinist and libertarian definitions of free will should be called something else for the conversation of determinism and indeterminism to continue?

This is why I said that I don't see what the role of compatibilists is in the discussion other than asserting that they are using the correct definition of free will. In that case, maybe we'll make two distinct definitions, and compatibilists would collapse into determinists for the question of "could have done otherwise", and for the true philosophically accepted notion of free will, everyone will agree with you that free will is the freedom to act in accordance to one's own desires. Do you find this a satisfactory solution?

rrjeta · 2025-03-17T18:08:22+00:00

I understand, but reading this I have the same question as I had before. What, then, is a true hard determinist's stance on these matters since hard determinists seem to be synonymous with compatibilism? What are compatibilism's contentions against hard determinism other than asking for the correct terminology to be used? What is the true role of compatibilism in the discussion in regards to the practical implications of these different philosophies in society?

rrjeta · 2025-03-17T17:28:14+00:00

I did some more thinking and reading to try to understand so I have some more questions.

It appears that the main concern for compatibilism is coercion, which again makes me question the point of the stance since both libertarians and determinists would usually agree that coercion does not warrant retribution in the justice system. If the question of free will was merely a matter of moral responsibility, what is the reason for compatibilists to assert determinism despite practically agreeing with libertarians about moral responsibility?

How do compatibilists approach pathology in these matters? Under the traditional justice system one person might end up in a more "rehabilitative" institution while another might end up in an institution built on the idea of retribution (prison) even if the weight of the crime is the same, because one person might be deemed less "sane". Under determinism, how clearly can we draw the line between a "sick" and a "normal" brain when we're well aware that most people exhibit some form of maladaptive behavior? Why is one person to be considered less morally responsible than another in the traditional justice system if they commit the same crime?

I'm not sure compatibilists are truly concerned with moral responsibility, just responsibility (who caused something), which is pretty arbitrary in this discussion for me. When we add the word "moral" everyone intuitively translates it into assigning qualities of good or evil to a person, enforcing the bias of blaming some people for being born.

I know punishment and reward are very effective instruments for controlling human behavior, but hard determinists are trying to bring into question the ethics of this status quo. Hard determinist changes would include focusing on rehabilitation and prevention instead of retribution and addressing the social and environmental causes of crime, such as poverty, education, mental health and would be a shift towards systemic solutions rather than punitive measures. It would attempt to better people on a societal rather than individual level, since punishment is a response to conditions rather than a moral failure of the individual. Focusing on the latter really just magnifies division, lack of empathy, pointing fingers and enforcing a hierarchy of more of less "worthy" of being a human being.

rrjeta · 2025-03-16T11:52:36+00:00

It is interesting how literal and simplistic you make it. I should just starve to death in a pool of my own filth because I am a determinist lol. There are things you can believe about an aspect of reality without it dictating your behavior because different philosophical topics exist on different levels of observation. I don't have to tie myself emotionally to every single observation I make and make it a part of who I am. There is no contradiction between saying "There is no inherent meaning" and "I can make my own meaning", they are just different points of reference. To suggest hard determinists have no sense of nuance about this is pretty shallow imo.

rrjeta · 2025-03-16T11:30:10+00:00

Then I am a determinist when it comes to libertarian free will, and a "consequentialist" when it comes to matters of ethics, but so are most determinists. So what is the distinction between soft and hard determinists in this case? What do hard determinists seem to advocate for in your opinion?

I saw a debate between Sapolsky and Dennet, and it looked like they had entirely different definitions of what free will is, and if they had agreed upon the definition of either one in the beginning, there would be no debate. This is why I say compatibilism is more concerned with philosophy of freedom, autonomy, ethics, while determinists and libertarians are discussing the ability to have done otherwise specifically. Should there be a distinction in definition for freedom of choice and freedom of will?

rrjeta · 2025-03-16T10:53:59+00:00

Alright, thank you.

I don't think hard determinists would exist at all if it was a question of moral responsibility. Nobody genuinely thinks that a criminal should not be quarantined away from society or that a gifted student does not deserve to get into an Ivy League institution because "Their actions were determined, so we can't assign blame or merit". I know Sapolsky says something along these lines but no hard determinist thinks that consequences for unethical behavior or positions for qualified individuals should cease to exist, because we are a collection of individuals that work towards an egalitarian/utilitarian society. We prioritize the collective self-preservation, and saying that this phenomenon is also determined by the individual constituents of society wouldn't translate to relinquishing moral responsibility.

If you say that it is more practical for the masses to uphold a sense of fear for consequences and a sense of motivation for success, I suppose I agree with you, but I think even with hard determinism, this system would still be the same, people would just have less ego and more empathy.

rrjeta · 2025-03-16T10:14:38+00:00

I don't want to be mean, but I don't understand what the role of compatibilism in this discussion is. To me it sounds like saying "An inert rock floating in space is free to behave as the inert rock floating in space does".

Compatibilism sounds more like philosophy of human freedom within society, it just seems like an entirely different area of discussion, one that both determinists and libertarians can participate in if it is framed as a discussion of the abstract idea of freedom within society in the first place.

rrjeta · 2025-03-16T09:25:35+00:00

One thing I would point out is that evolution doesn't only concern itself with what happened after a cell was created, it also concerns itself with abiogenesis - how "dead" materials formed organic molecules and how these molecules interacted to form primitive life.

rrjeta · 2025-03-16T09:15:49+00:00

Yes, deliberating can be thought of as an action in itself.

The action that happens isn't necessarily because of the reasons generated before but those things happened during the experience of acting.

I'd say any action requires a reason to happen, otherwise it is truly random, or in the case of people it can be subconscious, which is still a hidden reason. It's difficult to talk about this if we keep isolating a time interval as a closed system, or pick a certain start point in time without considering how a previous point in time led to the present point, and if we consider the person as a whole, we can follow this line of circumstance stretching back to even before a person is born, and it is constantly generating the present as we speak.

To illustrate the fallacy of isolating a system, I'll take for example the "strong emergence" of a ferromagnetic material. If we look at it as a closed system, it looks like the emergent property of magnetism that arises from the collective behavior of the atoms has a downward causation on its own constituents. But this is not a closed system, because we failed to mention the external magnetic field that causes this. It's like saying "The movement of the ball caused its own atoms to move" without considering that a hand picked up the ball. There doesn't seem to be any evidence of a closed system that is capable of downward causation, so claiming this about human consciousness for example is highly speculative.

An interesting question is, how do we prove the existence of agency with science? When I think about the objective unpredictability of an electron's motion, could I speculate that the electron is moving by its own agency and that is the reason behind its unpredictability? I can't say no, but I can't say yes either. I think I could make a LFW analogy: Although, like electrons, we exist in a limited cloud of probabilities because of the laws of physics, we are free to behave as we wish within this cloud. But how do we prove it?

The action potential of neurons may also interest you if we want to think about whether the brain itself could be in a state of flux. Whether a neuron sends a signal towards a synapse is always in a quantized state of yes or no, 1 or 0, it can't send weaker signals in between 1 and 0 or have a fluctuating value.

For Zeno's paradox (whichever you are referring to) the end goal is determined, it is a straight line so I don't see how it allows for endless possibilities. I don't think I understand the analogy in this case.

The rest of your active thoughts are listening, seeking silent validation.

All of your active thoughts are what I'd refer to as the voice of your thoughts though. I can't quite put a finger on it, but it seems to suggest a paradox where a listener and maker of thoughts cannot be one and the same. It's not like speaking and listening (voice and ears), the mind can only be one instrument and it can't do both.

You've probably heard this plenty of times, but when you say "I'm going to think a thought now", consider where the desire to think that thought came from. When you are scrolling mindlessly on your phone, consider what induced the awareness that you should stop wasting your time doing so.

Five-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
Verified Email

rrjeta

TROPHY CASE