"Settle and seek"

[Nutz]

I was reading this thread and STR8UP's post and it really hit home for me. I'm wonder if there's any academic research that might support this as a natural aspect of human mating. I'd also like to hear your accounts that support this as being normal or common in society.

 

[STR8UP]

Academia is just catching up, but here is a good summary of how it all works

http://novaresources.blogspot.com/2009/04/general-theory-of-human-mating.html

Under the system of marriage, many women were forced to marry men with whom they did not wish to mate. This is because women had been previously accustomed to mating with only the top dog, most dominant and high-status men. Under the regime of marriage, each of those men could only take one wife, leaving them inaccessible sexually (at least legitimately) to most women. This clearly impeded the wired, Darwinian mating strategy of the human female, whereby women prefer to mate only with the best they can find who will agree to mate with them. Of course there were benefits for women in marriage as well: a woman received the undivided support, attention and parental investment of one man, rather than a portion to be shared with co-wives. But that material benefit, as helpful as it was, likely could not in itself balance out the sexual attractions women had for high status, dominant men. And so it was that women developed a dual strategy: find the best unmarried man to marry who will invest in her children, while finding the best married man to mate with to provide strong genes – the cuckolding strategy.

Any guy who has experienced the effects that high status or superior game have on women knows the real deal. Women are opportunistic creatures who are prisoners in a unnatural system (modern marriage/monogamy) that goes against their biological imperatives.

If you want a healthy dose of the raw truth, read roissy's blog here

Guys like me don't need a textbook to tell us what women are really like. People love to use the whole "quality" debate either out of ignorance or to allow themselves to continue living the fantasy. Sometimes I think these guys are better off for not having seen the wizard behind the curtain, but then I watch another one of my friends get his balls chopped off just to go right back for another round because "she just wasn't a quality woman....the next one will be better". It is then that I realize that ignorance is not necessarily bliss.

BTW....there IS academic research on this subject and I probably even have some bookmarked, but I don't feel like looking it up. Most guys here will dismiss it anyway.

 

[scottfall]

I think accepting this "reality" lessens the importance of meaningful relationships in ones life. This idea excuses serial dating as the higher evolutionary dating model while totally ignoring the role relationships play in society. We are all here to procreate and under the pretense of serial dating a woman will end up with 10 kids by 10 different men because each one was more alpha than the last. Serial dating also leaves one feeling unfulfilled romantically because no man or woman is ever enough.

The serial dater is someone that is low quality. This is the person you have to stay away from.

Monogamous relationships are built on love, trust, support and understanding. You love your partner through the good times and the bad, this is hard for the serial dater to understand because the bad times are when you launch and find the next good time.

 

[STR8UP]

My problem with the quality debate is that posters think a quality woman will never leave them; even if they get old and fat, or lose their job and sit around on the couch all day. A good woman is only going to give you so much time to pull it back together. Oh, she cheated on me, she's low quality. Fvck, it is a HIGH QUALITY WOMAN who will leave your ass if you can't keep it together. The female has options that are better than you; you just aren't good enough anymore.

Take like the light switch vs. oven analogy. Men can be turned on at the flick of a switch, women usually take some warming up. On the back end it's quite the opposite. A woman's attraction can be snuffed out like a candle in the wind (you become complacent, lose your job and become depressed, turn into a needy loser) whereas a man doesn't just look at her one day and say "she's not hot anymore".

Basically, the MAN is the one who has control over the destiny of the relationship. That doesn't mean that the outcome will be positive 100% of the time, but it does mean that your woman is only as "quality" as you give her reason to be.

A lot of this rests on the criteria that makes us attracted to the opposite sex. Men will remain attracted as long as she's hot and the sex is always interesting. Women will remain attracted as long as you maintain a strong, masculine frame.

What it all comes down to though is that YOU, as a man, are the only one that really has the potential to make or break a relationship. YOU have the reins. You can't hand them over to her and then call her "low quality" when she drives the carriage over the edge of a cliff.

 

[Interceptor]

So is it possible to pick the right partner, or is it impossible to pick the right partner, if all women is hos???

So, can we trust ourselves and our discernment or do we have no discernment to speak of?
Is it even a reality? Can good woman discernment skills even be developed?
or is it another pollyanna illusion??


Is it the woman's responsibility to make our decisions for us, or is it our own?

If we know she's no good for us, why do some men continue the relationship?

If we know she IS good for us, how can that be, since all women is b*tches and hos???


If we make a bad choice, is it ok to blame the woman, or all women for it???

 

[SXS]

Under the system of marriage, many women were forced to marry men with whom they did not wish to mate. This is because women had been previously accustomed to mating with only the top dog, most dominant and high-status men. Under the regime of marriage, each of those men could only take one wife, leaving them inaccessible sexually (at least legitimately) to most women. This clearly impeded the wired, Darwinian mating strategy of the human female, whereby women prefer to mate only with the best they can find who will agree to mate with them. Of course there were benefits for women in marriage as well: a woman received the undivided support, attention and parental investment of one man, rather than a portion to be shared with co-wives. But that material benefit, as helpful as it was, likely could not in itself balance out the sexual attractions women had for high status, dominant men. And so it was that women developed a dual strategy: find the best unmarried man to marry who will invest in her children, while finding the best married man to mate with to provide strong genes – the cuckolding strategy.

That is not quite exact. Many kind of primates do not have that kind of "mating strategy", and also its just simplistic to assume that without considering the culture of the individuals. In my country I have seen natives with VERY WEIRD beliefs and behaviour related to mating, and I would say that culture who offers the determinant factor in human behaviour.
If we are going to consider only the biologic factor, I think both men and women are meant to have many partners, as many as possible.
I have seen an article recently written by an Professor at my university, and he basicly concludes that humans have a big size of testicles due to competition in producing sperm. Mainly, big primates like gorilas, who compete by size of the body, and have small testicles(smaller than humans) because they take control of a family and do not allow other males to mate with any of his females. On smaller chimps and others primates, the females have many partners, so they compete with sperm production, therefore, the ones with big testicles will pass their genes ahead. So if we consider that human have an average size of testicles, being big, but not as big as those kind of chimps, you can conclude that humans would be a mid term between the two of them.

Also, I dont think "atraction" is a huge factor on long term relationships. The real emotional spark will be over after a few years dont matter what. What he or she does after that is what determines how "quality" someone can be, and it is the difference between a divorce and a successfull marriage.

 

[MatureDJ]

We are all here to procreate and under the pretense of serial dating a woman will end up with 10 kids by 10 different men because each one was more alpha than the last.

The problem here is that the alpha male will not bother with a mother (unless of course it was as simple for him to ail her as opening up a can of beer.)

 

[Nutz]

Academia is just catching up, but here is a good summary of how it all works

http://novaresources.blogspot.com/2009/04/general-theory-of-human-mating.html

I finally read through all of that. Absolutely top notch stuff IMO.