Men and women

[FDG]

The majority are. when you are born a pretty face is like you're born with a silver spoon in your mouth, they don't get an urge, especially a social urge, to be good at anything.

Not true. Completely dependent on the person. You are convicing yourself it´s like you say because you are envious of people born with a pretty face. However, there are people out there who are pretty, smart, nice, great to have a conversation with, strong, and better than you and me at everything they do. Just accept that. I know it´s hard, but it´s actually better to have friends who are better than you and who you can learn from than the opposite.

[FDG]

women and men cannot be friends, I'll give my full explanation later.

Well, you can have sex with a friend. It´s not forbidden or frowned upon. The feeling of being friends isn´t necessarily that different from the one of being lovers.

I could argue for example that the woman I married, is my best friend that I wanted to have exclusive sex with forever. Yes we positivist types are romantics...

I have a IEE female friend. We were intimate once (the chemistry was not that good). We remained friends since the intellectual chemistry was still good.

[misanthropex6]

Not true. Completely dependent on the person. You are convicing yourself it´s like you say because you are envious of people born with a pretty face. However, there are people out there who are pretty, smart, nice, great to have a conversation with, strong, and better than you and me at everything they do. Just accept that. I know it´s hard, but it´s actually better to have friends who are better than you and who you can learn from than the opposite.

"The majority are". read that part again. plus it's just instinctive logic, and my own opinion. furthermore, I expected some practical example because that just seems your tunnel vision regarding your life. You're the one envious of people born with a pretty face it seems.

[FDG]

"The majority are". read that part again. plus it's just instinctive logic, and my own opinion. furthermore, I expected some practical example because that just seems your tunnel vision regarding your life. You're the one envious of people born with a pretty face it seems.

No, because I do have a pretty face...

[Muira]

Well, you can have sex with a friend. It´s not forbidden or frowned upon. The feeling of being friends isn´t necessarily that different from the one of being lovers.

I could argue for example that the woman I married, is my best friend that I wanted to have exclusive sex with forever. Yes we positivist types are romantics...

I have a IEE female friend. We were intimate once (the chemistry was not that good). We remained friends since the intellectual chemistry was still good.

Friends don't fuck, you wouldn't bend over your homies, would you?

But bet if your IEE friend had a boyfriend, telling him about fucking you would be the last thing she'd reveal.

Friendships are supposed to be platonic, all else are different things because they overcross certain boundaries.

And again, a wife is more than a friend, far more intimate and far closer than some friend.


No nuance to the fact that men boast about helping their female friends with other guys, which they don't do the same for helping men? Or the fact that women are more likely to be raped by men she knows, usually a “guy friend” ? Or the fact that women have easier dating lives with no male friends because men tend to keep tabs on “female friends” to keep their possible relationship options open?

One thing leads to another, eventually one person will like or want to screw the other.

Now, men with a proper brotherhood usually don't feel the need for female friends.

[godslave]

Friends don't fuck, you wouldn't bend over your homies, would you?

But bet if your IEE friend had a boyfriend, telling him about fucking you would be the last thing she'd reveal.

Friendships are supposed to be platonic, all else are different things because they overcross certain boundaries.

And again, a wife is more than a friend, far more intimate and far closer than some friend.


No nuance to the fact that men boast about helping their female friends with other guys, which they don't do the same for helping men? Or the fact that women are more likely to be raped by men she knows, usually a “guy friend” ? Or the fact that women have easier dating lives with no male friends because men tend to keep tabs on “female friends” to keep their possible relationship options open?

One thing leads to another, eventually one person will like or want to screw the other.

Now, men with a proper brotherhood usuallydon't feel the need for female friends.

What's a friend in your opinion ?

[I am a frog]

Chad Ex-Soviet countries like Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan having more players on that list then Korea and Japan.

[I am a frog]

Hifumi in Persona 5 is best girl.

[Metanoia]

Friends don't fuck, you wouldn't bend over your homies, would you?

But bet if your IEE friend had a boyfriend, telling him about fucking you would be the last thing she'd reveal.

Friendships are supposed to be platonic, all else are different things because they overcross certain boundaries.

And again, a wife is more than a friend, far more intimate and far closer than some friend.


No nuance to the fact that men boast about helping their female friends with other guys, which they don't do the same for helping men? Or the fact that women are more likely to be raped by men she knows, usually a “guy friend” ? Or the fact that women have easier dating lives with no male friends because men tend to keep tabs on “female friends” to keep their possible relationship options open?

One thing leads to another, eventually one person will like or want to screw the other.

Now, men with a proper brotherhood usually don't feel the need for female friends.

It's supposed to be because it's only morally right and just but some people don't follow anything, even a simple moral guide. More like a bare minimum to not suffer consequences they don't want (like getting shot by a woman's husband if they get caught or having a child they most likely will be forced to take care of). Men and women are different in so many ways but whatever a man wants to do they have to take responsibility for it. Like you said before, women have inherent value but men have to build themselves.

[FDG]

Friends don't fuck, you wouldn't bend over your homies, would you?

But bet if your IEE friend had a boyfriend, telling him about fucking you would be the last thing she'd reveal.

Friendships are supposed to be platonic, all else are different things because they overcross certain boundaries.

And again, a wife is more than a friend, far more intimate and far closer than some friend.


No nuance to the fact that men boast about helping their female friends with other guys, which they don't do the same for helping men? Or the fact that women are more likely to be raped by men she knows, usually a “guy friend” ? Or the fact that women have easier dating lives with no male friends because men tend to keep tabs on “female friends” to keep their possible relationship options open?

One thing leads to another, eventually one person will like or want to screw the other.

Now, men with a proper brotherhood usually don't feel the need for female friends.

Wait a second. Now I got a glimpse of your mind. But not everybody's mind is so full of complexes. Me and my IEE (female) friend were both single and around 20. We had an intense intellectual friendship since months and one day we felt like having an intimate moment...that's it...bend over your homies? So that's what sex is to you? Beding people over? What if I just like her as a human being because she was smart and funny ?
I also wrote that friends may not be so different from lovers while you used the word 'fuck' which is completely different.
I sincerely hope for you that you will one day overcome your mental barriers regarding other people.

I mean, you honestly think most men go around trying to rape their female friends? You do understand that being friends with someone means that you...like them? Do you normally beat and rape people you like?

You could argue that I am a bit over the top in my idealism, but surely you are also over the top on the other side of the spectrum.

[FDG]

It's supposed to be because it's only morally right and just but some people don't follow anything, even a simple moral guide. More like a bare minimum to not suffer consequences they don't want (like getting shot by a woman's husband if they get caught or having a child they most likely will be forced to take care of). Men and women are different in so many ways but whatever a man wants to do they have to take responsibility for it. Like you said before, women have inherent value but men have to build themselves.

I don't know if you guys in the US have a different concept, but there exists in Italy the fact that if you are 20 and single (not in a relationship) it is beyond doubt that you are allowed to engage in consensual sex with another adult that is single. This does not mean in any shape or form that you are trying to exploit him or her. If you talk about morality, of course I think you cannot date multiple people at once. However I completely fail to see the problem in having sex with a friend that you have known since over a year.

[Metanoia]

I don't know if you guys in the US have a different concept, but there exists in Italy the fact that if you are 20 and single (not in a relationship) it is beyond doubt that you are allowed to engage in consensual sex with another adult that is single. This does not mean in any shape or form that you are trying to exploit him or her. If you talk about morality, of course I think you cannot date multiple people at once. However I completely fail to see the problem in having sex with a friend that you have known since over a year.

In the context of straight relationships, a woman has more to lose than a man if she wishes to engage in casual sex. Even if she doesn't believe in those things, it's not like it doesn't take the fact away. Self respect, her value, etc. Everyone should have inherent worth, but the world doesn't see it like that even if you want to believe otherwise. It's reality. A woman has more to lose, has to risk opening up to someone and potentially hurting her body in the process yet it's outlandish to think she's not crazy for wanting more. I guess to me women should be treated like women and not something to be used for purely pleasure. I don't think it's fair personally. But you know, as grown adults, that's your business. I try to be mature. We have different values.

[FDG]

In the context of straight relationships, a woman has more to lose than a man if she wishes to engage in casual sex. Even if she doesn't believe in those things, it's not like it doesn't take the fact away. Self respect, her value, etc. Everyone should have inherent worth, but the world doesn't see it like that even if you want to believe otherwise. It's reality. A woman has more to lose, has to risk opening up to someone and potentially hurting her body in the process yet it's outlandish to think she's not crazy for wanting more. I guess to me women should be treated like women and not something to be used for purely pleasure. I don't think it's fair personally. But you know, as grown adults, that's your business. I try to be mature. We have different values.

She was a friend and we had known each other since many months and talked and met exensively, you're talking as if I had met someone casually on the street and raped her.
You do understand that she wanted it too, i didn t assault her? Hurting her body? Idk what you are talking about. So men naturally want to hurt the body of most women? Is that how you really think? Then you must change your thinking.
For comparison, i am now with the same woman (my esi wife) since 13 years and happy. However she definitely wanted sex much earlier than the IEE i was talking about - like on the second date. Now we're married and happy. So fuck you and your hypocritical values. You are the one who is not mature enough to understand that you can have relationships without having a stick up your ass about everything.

[Metanoia]

She was a friend and we had known each other since many months and talked and met exensively, you're talking as if I had met someone casually on the street and raped her.
You do understand that she wanted it too, i didn t assault her? Hurting her body? Idk what you are talking about. So men naturally want to hurt the body of most women? Is that how you really think? Then you must change your thinking.
For comparison, i am now with the same woman (my esi wife) since 13 years and happy. However she definitely wanted sex much earlier than the IEE i was talking about - like on the second date. Now we're married and happy. So fuck you and your hypocritical values. You are the one who is not mature enough to understand that you can have relationships without having a stick up your ass about everything.

Dude I'm not going to argue with you. Everything I said wasn't directed towards you or your relationships, I actually don't care what you do. Why should I judge? I'm human too. I like what you like and I'm the same. I'm just saying how the world sees it, not everyone is like you or I. Women have their reasonings for doing certain things, and their experiences are totally different from a man's life. Not saying you are like that but many people are (whether they're a man or woman). Women fear a lot of things, so sex is a vulnerability that most don't take lightly. You don't have to worry about pain of a childbirth or even death, or the powerlessness feelings it comes with being a woman. Or the heartbreak. Men who leave or use a woman. I mean that's why most women want marriage for security purposes, even if love is there. There's too much to lose and risk

[MEGANLYNX]

More men die from heart-break than women.

[FDG]

Dude I'm not going to argue with you. Everything I said wasn't directed towards you or your relationships, I actually don't care what you do. Why should I judge? I'm human too. I like what you like and I'm the same. I'm just saying how the world sees it, not everyone is like you or I. Women have their reasonings for doing certain things, and their experiences are totally different from a man's life. Not saying you are like that but many people are (whether they're a man or woman). Women fear a lot of things, so sex is a vulnerability that most don't take lightly. You don't have to worry about pain of a childbirth or even death, or the powerlessness feelings it comes with being a woman. Or the heartbreak. Men who leave or use a woman. I mean that's why most women want marriage for security purposes, even if love is there. There's too much to lose and risk

I'm sure in that case, the person I am talking about, having known me for months, evaluated that I would have been a responsible father if that happened. It's not impossibile.

You think we don't care about the powerlessness or the potential for death by childbirth. Completely wrong. If my wife or anyone i had dated would die from childbirth i would be devastated and so would be most decent men. I can tell you that it is something that many men actively think about.

[kuno]

More men die from heart-break than women.

Men also tend to fall in love quicker than women do, according to this VICE article! Men are the true saps and romantics

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

"women and men aren't meant to be friends"

I agree, and I think this extends to gay men and women too for some reason. I think the Will and Grace 'gay best friend stereotype' is fake as hell. I'm sorry if that hurts ppl's feelings, cuz I know people have this image of me as a sassy gay best friend. But it's just an image or play obviously it's not real.

Or maybe I just don't believe in the concept of 'friendship' period- it's not that gender related lol. I don't wanna comb each other's hair or bro fist each other etc. I DIDN'T COME HERE TO MAKE FRIENDS. /reality tv show drama queen. j/k

To be fair, I've misogyinstically projected bad experiences I had with women on all women and that was wrong of me, all it takes is one mary sue sweetheart to melt my cold woman-hating heart. Then the woman does something I don't like and I hate all women again. God forgive me lol. But then other women will be like 'ugh I hate Janice too' or whatever, and it makes me feel validated.

The ideal of women getting along and being empowered is so blue pill and fake and dumb, of course the ppl puporting that lie seem to have issues with sexual abuse and underage sexual attractions and all sorts of disorders.

seriously JOSS WHEDON- how can u say u support women then bully and mock a woman for getting pregnant. Not to be a cunservative but isn't that like one of the main perks of being a woman in the first place? Yet you cruelly derided their wombs cuz you wanna live in a tomb.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Men don't have to worry about being sexually assaulted by a woman but we have to worry about it from other men. If they aren't worried about it, they should be. If they think they are safe or exempt from this just by being str8- that's also stupid as well obviously as it's based on gender not sexual orientation. They are being too naive and careless.

dumb str8 guy: "Aw look, a harmless and nerdy gay guy. I think I'll smoke a joint with him and help cheer him up."

Dahmer smirks evilly.

[VewyScawwyNawcissist]

i wonder if men have a natural inclination to give more to women, bc women are weaker and they also have natural inclination to assume themeslves as victims and thus deserving better. men have some kind of responsibility that women often don't seem to empathize with and are thus often emotionally abusive, ofc men are emotionally abusive too, but i have rarely if ever, if im not mistaken, seen the genuine make issues discussed and empathized with in an overt way, bc the men are often so deep into their toxic masculinity and patterns or whatever they themselves are often dishonesta bout what has happenned to them, so how do you empathize with someone who actually doesnt tell you whats exactly wrong, even if they pretend they do, while they are a threat to your life, physically stronger and generally more likely to murder you? this itself maybe doesnt make it only harder for women to support men, but also for other men to support men, but maybe both men and women are more likely to try to help other women, and i dont hold these thoughts with rigid assertion or to impose them, bc idk. also i thougth men and women can be friends no less than men and other men for the most part but again im not sure and idk if its bc my brain isnt working or some kind of other flaw.

[FreelancePoliceman]

i wonder if men have a natural inclination to give more to women, bc women are weaker and they also have natural inclination to assume themeslves as victims and thus deserving better. men have some kind of responsibility that women often don't seem to empathize with and are thus often emotionally abusive, ofc men are emotionally abusive too, but i have rarely if ever, if im not mistaken, seen the genuine make issues discussed and empathized with in an overt way, bc the men are often so deep into their toxic masculinity and patterns or whatever they themselves are often dishonesta bout what has happenned to them, so how do you empathize with someone who actually doesnt tell you whats exactly wrong, even if they pretend they do, while they are a threat to your life, physically stronger and generally more likely to murder you? this itself maybe doesnt make it only harder for women to support men, but also for other men to support men, but maybe both men and women are more likely to try to help other women, and i dont hold these thoughts with rigid assertion or to impose them, bc idk. also i thougth men and women can be friends no less than men and other men for the most part but again im not sure and idk if its bc my brain isnt working or some kind of other flaw.

I think men and women can be friends, but there are usually problems. I had many female friends when I was a kid. Usually they would strike up conversations first. As I grew older girls started seeming closed off and distrustful toward me and men generally. You get a sense they're constantly trying to evaluate you and they're slightly defensive. Even when a girl is interested in or in a relationship with a guy I see this kind of reservation and "calculating"-ness that's not there the same way if they interact with their female friends. I don't think I've really changed much myself. With many men though I think there's something similar when they interact with women. People start seeing the other sex as an "other." Sexuality starts tainting everything.

[MEGANLYNX]

I don't really fear women, I treat them equally shitty and maybe even less, unless they are pretty, but also I treat most guys shitty as well. Well, not shitty, I just try to not speak to anyone if that is not needed. I will act nice or intimidating, whatever I feel like or find exciting enough.

[MEGANLYNX]

So I started this thread trying to spark a discussion about the differences in intellects between men and women.


People starts talking about board games, rape culture, dating, prettiness etc etc

[DogOfDanger]

women have 3 points higher verbal IQs on average, men have 3 points higher performance IQs on average.

If you don't understand what chess means in both metaphorical and cultural way, well, I'm sorry do you have male brains cuz you don't sound scientific.

what elo are you?

[DogOfDanger]

I'm sure in that case, the person I am talking about, having known me for months, evaluated that I would have been a responsible father if that happened. It's not impossibile.

You think we don't care about the powerlessness or the potential for death by childbirth. Completely wrong. If my wife or anyone i had dated would die from childbirth i would be devastated and so would be most decent men. I can tell you that it is something that many men actively think about.

You're focusing on consequences, which on the surface - in your case - seem to be very minimal... that won't always be the case, and you can't always predict the outcomes. You also describe just the most minimal encounter, only with 1 woman who you knew well... But forgetting about consequences, which can be controlled... and forgetting about extent, what about the moral evaluation of the attitude itself? This casual, non-committal, ambivalent attitude. It's not easy to separate this attitude about sex from other things such as your approach to relationships, the way you approach love... your deepest emotions. What's missing from the attitude, to me... is true passion, true love and intoxication and the complete absorption with the other. The kind of emotion that seeks total commitment. To me this inner spark seems like the most important thing there is to live for, and without that... life has just become this mundane, modern materialist malaise. It is this spark that drives people to get out of bed in the morning, to go to the gym and grind every day, to go to work and tolerate all the stress and problems there... it's not just materialism we should live for. But to claim that this core part of ones being can be casually dispensed with without real consequence... I think it's nonsense, and it is antithetical to my whole way of thinking and being. And sexuality can't be trivialized, we're discussing the process responsible for bringing fourth all life, survival & reproduction... one could make a case there's nothing more important to an organism. Also, when we speak of evolution we're inevitably speaking about instincts, and a conversation about consequences doesn't really speak to the core instincts.
In studies that compare the personalities of religious traditionalists against the general population surprisingly one of the most outlying personality traits of the traditionalists is a high level of romantic idealism. To some degree that may be self-selecting, but the traditional values are also geared at preserving this idealism, which is related to innocence vs. experience. Because the reality is you lose that idealism over time, as happens with repeated casual encounters. Once you've lost the spark within you what do you have left to live for? Money?
If you look at society... with the broad use of porn, plummeting birth rates, no fault divorce, hookup culture, yet simultaneously people are dating much less than they used to - all of these things are direct consequences of the sexual revolution, this ambivalent attitude toward sex. And there are broader consequences to this - breakdown of the family, children being raised without 2 parents. This has worked to extinguish the spark within society... what has followed is nihilism, widespread mental illness, addiction... and just a very mundane, materialist existence - the gears of society turning onward.
So there clearly are broad social consequences... when you factor in human nature and psychology I think it becomes clear that there are often consequences for individuals. But beyond any of that I think the attitude just isn't good, in the sense it conflicts with psychology and human nature.
I think pretty much everyone is effected by this ambivalence nowdays, with a few rare exceptions - my argument is not based on false pretenses, I'm really speaking to the principle of the matter. And if collectively and as individuals we're going to be a bit off, a little bit insane so to speak, at least let us all remain conscious of the fact, at least we can try to cling to sanity.

[DogOfDanger]

Men also tend to fall in love quicker than women do, according to this VICE article! Men are the true saps and romantics

I think we have to interpret such a statistic within the context of society. Women typically get petitioned frequently / are the ones doing the rejection, it makes them ambivalent... and often egocentric. Alot of that is a function of secular society & its values. For example, in a society that accepts casual sex women will more frequently be advanced upon without reciprocity, and burdened with rejecting all these excess advances ... and they have to do that, they have self-preservation instincts and they invest much more in an encounter.

[DogOfDanger]

The mature way of loving is to "love" as adults should understand it. It is to acknowledge that sexual desire is the implicit and legitimate part of love dynamics between two adults. To me that translate as the following : when an adult say that he or she is in love with another it means that he or she wants (or wants to continue) to have sex with him/her. To me the implications of that realisation were huge. I was so naive (even If at that point I already experienced real passionate romance like in the movies but what I thought to be special was in fact true "adult" love).

The immature way of loving is the "romantic love" i.e. the kind of love that does not imply sexual fantasies or actual sexual desire towards the other person. It's a longing "innocent" and "pure" love in which sex is like a stain. I think it's the kind of love kids have in their schoolyards.

You're going further than merely coupling love with sex, you're dispensing with romantic idealism. Romanticism desires monogamy, this is not repressing sexuality altogether, it seeks a means of fulfillment.

There's a natural need and desire for intimacy and stability. It's efficient - how can two people operate efficiently together long term if they cannot have intimacy, if they don't get along...?
Sexual instincts evolved not only to produce as many offspring as possible, but to bring about conditions that ensure the offsprings long term survival. In species where the offspring take a long time to mature (such as humans, but many large mammals) this means a stable family unit, which means a long term, monogamous relationship... monogamy which is intimacy and idealism. Many large mammals, including humans, are monogamous. Go read about wolves and monogamy. The desire for monogamy is by far the norm in human societies... For example, it's a waste of food and resources to haphazardly produce more offspring than you could provide for / for which you can ensure the offsprings maturity, but this becomes more true as the amount of resource invested increases.
Romantic idealism isn't something instilled into people from movies, it's an intrinsic part of love and the instincts... movies aren't that powerful. Nature is what's truly powerful.
You're just focusing on the sexual-reproductive aspect but ignoring the survival of offspring aspect which requires intimacy, stability, and so on.
The fuck-fest view of nature is not supremely rational - it ignores observation of human societies the world over, misunderstands evolution, and even discounts your own experience when you were younger.

I think what you're characterizing as "mature" love is just you coming to terms with aging. As people age they lose their fertility, and lose the idealism that drives them to establish the conditions suitable for starting a family. It makes sense that the instincts would align with the biological clock... But your attempt to characterize those youthful impulses as somehow lesser seems to me as really just an aging persons way of rationalizing / coming to terms with what evolution sees as the ultimate failure... failure to establish a stable family, basically.

PS. Although I've used it a lot here, Irl the word "Love" is a taboo word to me. I just almost never overtly use it when I talk because it's kinda embarrassing. I prefer to substitute it with the word "like"..

And why is this...? Is it because you are unable to feel love in a way that other people do?

[VewyScawwyNawcissist]

I think men and women can be friends, but there are usually problems. I had many female friends when I was a kid. Usually they would strike up conversations first. As I grew older girls started seeming closed off and distrustful toward me and men generally. You get a sense they're constantly trying to evaluate you and they're slightly defensive. Even when a girl is interested in or in a relationship with a guy I see this kind of reservation and "calculating"-ness that's not there the same way if they interact with their female friends. I don't think I've really changed much myself. With many men though I think there's something similar when they interact with women. People start seeing the other sex as an "other." Sexuality starts tainting everything.

i didnt trust girls as a kid in general observing them from afar bc i thought they were careless and irresponsible. there were some i vibed with, i recall 2 rn, and both of them were taken away. first one i dont even know if its a real memory or smth my mind somehow has conjured up. my IEE sister would harass me with her female friends as a type of play. looking back what i thought then seems to be a common general criticism for them now but the men are manipulative entitled gaslighters too

[godslave]

You're going further than merely coupling love with sex, you're dispensing with romantic idealism. Romanticism desires monogamy, this is different than repressing sexuality altogether because it seeks a means of fulfillment.

As a reminder, as I said in my very first sente of this post, I was talking about an realization I got after having read an article on a "psychology" oriented website that I suspect to be of Freudian obedience. It is true that what I said seemed a bit reductionist and might trigger people to whom a certain rigor is the Alpha and Omega and expected from everybody. I will edit the initial post and add the little detail I just mentioned for more clarity.

There's a natural need and desire for intimacy and stability. It's efficient - how can two people operate efficiently together long term if they cannot have intimacy, if they don't get along...?

humm, your choice of words is interesting. It seems like you are approaching this topic from an anthropological point of view and that's find.

Sexual instincts evolved not only to produce as many offspring as possible, but to bring about conditions that ensure the offsprings long term survival. In species where the offspring take a long time to mature (such as humans, but most large mammals) this means a stable family unit, which means a long term, monogamous relationship... monogamy which is intimacy and idealism. Most large mammals, including humans, are monogamous. The desire for monogamy is by far the norm in human societies... Go read about wolves and monogamy. For example, it's a waste of food and resources to haphazardly produce more offspring than you could provide for / for which you can ensure the offsprings maturity, but this becomes more true as the amount of resource invested increases.
Romantic idealism isn't something instilled into people from movies, it's an intrinsic part of love and the instincts... movies aren't that powerful. Nature is what's truly powerful.

Okay, so you're basically saying that monogamy is a survival imperative that result from sexual instincts development. You're also saying that monogamy means "a stable family unit". You've gone ahead and declared that "most large mammals including Humans are monogamous".

Now, I presume that when you're talking about monogamy you are referring to social monogamy and not about genetic monogamy. however, you defined monogamy as "intimacy and idealism" and then you said that "most large mammals" are monogamous which made me a bit confused because I don't understand how mammals who are not humans relates to the very abstract notion of idealism. I mean maybe nature itself has some kind of conscious and after all, we just assign words to describe natural phenomenon so the idea of natural idealism might as well exist, I don't know, but I digress..

I've made some research and found some articles that actually tend to go against the idea that "Most large mammals are monogamous" :

"Not a single mammal species has, thus far, been definitively shown to be truly monogamous. (Nevertheless, individual pairs of mammals may be truly monogamous.) Scientists now estimate that only about three to five percent of the approximately 4,000+ mammal species on Earth practice any form of monogamy."



"These results suggest that the special hormone receptors may influence species-to-species differences in social structure. In addition, individual variation in these special receptors among human males may help explain some of the individual variation among men in their attitudes towards commitment, monogamy and marriage."


source : Animal Attraction: The Many Forms of Monogamy in the Animal Kingdom

This is from a 2013 article and it already points to the exceptionality of monogamy in more than 4000 mammal species. I presume that among those species they are "large mammals" however, It didn't precise to percentage of monogamy within that specific category.

I've read somewhere about a theory claiming that love in human being "chemically" last for two years and that there was a physiological reason for that. If I remember correctly the level of oestrogen in males increases just after the birth of his child. That augmentation allegedly is causing the male attachment to the baby and as a consequence the instinct of protection of the male's progeniture is "activated''. I've read that this oestrogen level in men after birth of his child, last for two years until the baby reaches the milestone of two years old. That said the article aforementioned seems to go against that theory (?), but keep in mind that like I said, it's from 2013 (and also a little biased (?)) :

However, theories about the evolution of monogamy that are based on its support for fatherly caregiving are countered by the fact that the males of some monogamous species do not typically help care for their young--even though the reverse is apparently true: All species in which males typically help care for their young are monogamous, as far as we know.

Wikipedia's article on the topic (fwiw) tends to support the idea of monogamy in mammals being not majoritary, far from it. There are plenty of recent studies and article on the topic.

Romantic Idealism is an artistic and intellectual movement of the second half of 19th century as far as I'm concerned. As a matter of fact I really like it. Of course when I talked about living a love story like "in the movies" It was just an expression. That said, I have to confess that I'm a sucker for movie adaptations of novels from the romantic era.

You're characterizing love by its sexual-reproductive aspect but ignoring its long term survival aspect which requires intimacy, stability, and so on.
The fuck-fest view of nature is not supremely rational - it ignores observation of human societies the world over, misunderstands evolution, and even discounts your own experience when you were younger.

No, I didn't "characterizing love by its sexual-reproductive aspect" that would be a very reductionistic thing to say about romance.

The fact that I haven't talk about those aspects doesn't mean that I ignore them in the absolute .

I don't see nature as you seem to think I do. That's indeed very reductive. You're talking to a sentimental man. I don't discount my romantic experiences, on the contrary I cherish them, so much so that I remember them with parsimony in fear of alternating those memories. As you know, the more you remember something of your own biography the more the phenomenon of memory alteration occurs, and our brain fills in the blank thus left with false memories.

I think what you're characterizing as "mature" love is just you coming to terms with aging. As people age they lose their fertility, and lose the idealism that drives them to establish the conditions suitable for starting a family. It makes sense that the instincts would align with the biological clock... But your attempt to characterize those youthful impulses as somehow lesser seems to me as really just an aging persons way of rationalizing / coming to terms with what evolution sees as the ultimate failure... failure to establish a stable family, basically.

Well, that's interesting. At this point you must have realized that I actually don't think that my past romantic passions were lesser than the "mature" way of approaching sexuality. That said, you know that not having a family and/or not having children for a modern human being is not relevant at the scale of the world population.

You are evoking one of the two fundamental principles of nature that are essential to the sustainability of any life form namely survive and reproduce. Now, I don't know how evolution "sees" my situation but applying those principles to assess the success or failure of one individual is not necessarily relevant in the context of the sustainability of the homosapiens species at the global level. So if my little person disappeared without having made any contribution for the survival of the species I belong to, that would not make a difference at all. In fact, it might well be for the better in terms of natural selection, who knows ?

It says enough that you've reduced sex to something as trivial as eating carrots. But in reality sex is far more consequential and evolutionarily significant than something like eating. Eating a burrito does not have a lifetime worth of ramifications... or necessitate a stable relationship to lead to a positive outcome. Eating a burrito doesn't drive evolution the way sex does. Eating a burrito does not effect a person emotionally the way sex does... eating a carrot does not produce a person the way that sex does.
Honestly who wants a romantic partner that considers them equal in value to that of a burrito?
Someone should make a romantic movie based on that premise, it might be interesting

That was very funny . I was about to special quote the red part because it's actually a great line ! As for burrito not affecting a person emotionally the way sex does, well that's debatable (I had to google what a burrito is and it looks delicious !).

And why is this...? Is it because you are unable to feel love in a way that other people do?

No, I am a sentimental man, I feel love at least as much as other people do. The reason why I have some taboo words basically ties to my childhood. My father is very conservative man, when my older brother and I were young we didn't use certain words because they were "taboo" inappropriate (that's an unhealthy thinking pattern I know). My father didn't like the word "love" to be said cause in his mind it was inappropriate and shameful to use hear it, let alone say it. As a matter of fact, I suspect that in his mind it was synonymous of "sex", he was raised with particular values but even among his side of the family he comes across as pretty conservative.

So, I was raised in a family where love scenes in movies are not appropriate to watch, so we would always change tv channel in this case. I am nothing like my father, nothing. However, I still have some stigmata that translates as some kind of uncomfortability saying words like "love" esp within the presence of family members. It's like a pavlovian reflex. Also, I've never called my moth "mom !" or my father "dad !". Same for my older brother but none of my other siblings have that kind of issues. I'll try to use the word "love" more from now on, maybe that will change something in me.

Anyways, I see that you have some humour which is a good thing and has oriented the tone of my answer. Thank you for your time.

[DogOfDanger]

I mentioned large mammals, not all mammals... you'll also notice I edited the word "most" to "many" at some point. Those 5% of mammals that do practice some form of monogamy tend to be the large ones... The larger the mammal, the longer it takes the raise the offspring, the larger resource investment ... the greater propensity toward monogamy. Incidentally human children take the longest of any species to reach maturity.
There are also different forms of monogamy, and degrees of monogamy. For example, bears practice serial monogamy. Wolves often practice more prolonged monogamy.
What really matters is that there's a trend for it in larger mammals, this points to it being an evolved behavior for the reasons I described, which means there's an instinct for it. If there's a human instinct for it you can't easily dispense with romantic idealism the way you are aiming to, since that idealism can be traced back to an instinct. In other words this is not something that is learned from movies or taught by society, it is not some patriarchy conspiring to control and oppress women, etc.. It is just the instilled way to raise a human offspring for the 12 or so years it takes for it to reach maturity.

"Not a single mammal species has, thus far, been definitely shown to be truly monogamous"
This doesn't sound like a very insightful or realistic standard. What is the standard here - "all members of said species in all conditions are seen to be monogamous"...? Is that what we'd need to show before we could ever say a species is monogamous? And what form of monogamy? Humans don't even meet this standard... nonetheless you cannot just ignore that monogamy is the norm in human society, there are exceptions but the majority of human cultures throughout history have practiced monogamy, and they mostly developed independently of one another. The fact there are exceptions does not dispense with the norm, it's still a widely observed behavior, so there must be some underlying instinct for it.
Fish eat their young but that makes some sense for them, they spawn thousands of them... I wouldn't necessarily expect monogamy in other animals to match human monogamy in timespan.


In these conversations about instincts we should not speak as if instinct will never go awry, doesn't get repressed or overridden by circumstances, or conflict with other instincts... For example, there are cases where animals commit incest, but we know that incest is not the evolutionary ideal... they do this under certain conditions of deprivation.

Here's a good article - Study suggests monogamous wolves make better parents | The Spokesman-Review

"The longer wolf couples are together, the more likely their offspring are to survive into adulthood, according to new research from the University of Idaho.
According to the study, which will be published in the journal Behavioral Ecology, for each year a wolf pair stays together, the odds of their pups surviving into adulthood increased 20%."

Well if something is of such a clear evolutionary benefit why don't all wolves do it? Same trend is true with humans, btw - why don't all humans just have 2 parent households and vaula, problem solved, your kids will do great, you will live long and prosper and your genes will carry onward. Well probably because there are many struggles people face, circumstances don't always make it easy to live up to the evolutionary ideal, you may never meet the ideal partner you're looking for... or even someone tolerable. But even so we cannot say that the ideal does not exist, we can see that it does.

[DogOfDanger]

"individual variation in these special receptors among human males may help explain some of the individual variation among men in their attitudes towards commitment, monogamy and marriage"

I could try to argue this is evidence for a physiological basis of monogamy as well, but... it's very dubious to suggest that a brain structure explains, i.e. ultimately causes, an attitude... there are structures in the brain that trigger along with certain emotional responses, but to infer causality is very difficult. For example, imagine that a receptor could cause lower levels of anxiety during arousal... lower social anxiety may then in turn enable a person more easily involve themselves in hookup culture. Hookup culture may then promote certain social values such as non-monogamy... all the brain structure explains here is the lowered state of anxiety. Biology loosely expresses itself within a social context, given the societies prevailing values and norms... this is just one way of connecting brain structure > behavior, you could come up with countless others... the relationship between brain physiology and behavior even gets into philosophy. But we really can't speak as if correlation with a brain structure suggests there's some mechanical causal relationship.
When looking at a correlation between a behavior and some brain structure there is usually no good way to interpret that, which is why you just have these very muddy vague statements like "it could help explain, one day..." - usually written by some journalist.
Sure there could be a deeper explanation but we can't make any presumption about what type of explanation that may be, the connection could be completely trivial and incidental, but it's probably indirect and not causal.
Also... your thoughts physically grow your brain over time. So then how can you ever know the direction of causality - who's to say that the attitude toward monogamy did not influence the growth of those hormone receptors?

[FDG]

You're focusing on consequences, which on the surface - in your case - seem to be very minimal... that won't always be the case, and you can't always predict the outcomes. You also describe just the most minimal encounter, only with 1 woman who you knew well... But forgetting about consequences, which can be controlled... and forgetting about extent, what about the moral evaluation of the attitude itself? This casual, non-committal, ambivalent attitude. It's not easy to separate this attitude about sex from other things such as your approach to relationships, the way you approach love... your deepest emotions. What's missing from the attitude, to me... is true passion, true love and intoxication and the complete absorption with the other. The kind of emotion that seeks total commitment. To me this inner spark seems like the most important thing there is to live for, and without that... life has just become this mundane, modern materialist malaise. It is this spark that drives people to get out of bed in the morning, to go to the gym and grind every day, to go to work and tolerate all the stress and problems there... it's not just materialism we should live for. But to claim that this core part of ones being can be casually dispensed with without real consequence... I think it's nonsense, and it is antithetical to my whole way of thinking and being. And sexuality can't be trivialized, we're discussing the process responsible for bringing fourth all life, survival & reproduction... one could make a case there's nothing more important to an organism. Also, when we speak of evolution we're inevitably speaking about instincts, and a conversation about consequences doesn't really speak to the core instincts.
In studies that compare the personalities of religious traditionalists against the general population surprisingly one of the most outlying personality traits of the traditionalists is a high level of romantic idealism. To some degree that may be self-selecting, but the traditional values are also geared at preserving this idealism, which is related to innocence vs. experience. Because the reality is you lose that idealism over time, as happens with repeated casual encounters. Once you've lost the spark within you what do you have left to live for? Money?
If you look at society... with the broad use of porn, plummeting birth rates, no fault divorce, hookup culture, yet simultaneously people are dating much less than they used to - all of these things are direct consequences of the sexual revolution, this ambivalent attitude toward sex. And there are broader consequences to this - breakdown of the family, children being raised without 2 parents. This has worked to extinguish the spark within society... what has followed is nihilism, widespread mental illness, addiction... and just a very mundane, materialist existence - the gears of society turning onward.
So there clearly are broad social consequences... when you factor in human nature and psychology I think it becomes clear that there are often consequences for individuals. But beyond any of that I think the attitude just isn't good, in the sense it conflicts with psychology and human nature.
I think pretty much everyone is effected by this ambivalence nowdays, with a few rare exceptions - my argument is not based on false pretenses, I'm really speaking to the principle of the matter. And if collectively and as individuals we're going to be a bit off, a little bit insane so to speak, at least let us all remain conscious of the fact, at least we can try to cling to sanity.

Now you argumented more deeply and I agree with you. With this specific girl, there was a strong intellectual spark so we extended that to the physical but it didn´t work. I did say that I´ve been with my current wife for 13 years so yeah, I resonate with your main point. But it can´t really be that you cannot "try" a sexual relationship with a friend to see if evolves in something else or not.

[DogOfDanger]

I think through the process of courtship, which is traditionally a long process, it will become clear whether you have sexual chemistry... and if you managed to pursue that process all the way to its end you probably do have chemistry. That or you allowed yourself to go along with a process that you'd rather have escaped from, which... you do need to be careful about. Perhaps this can be confusing but I think in time it becomes clear. A platonic relationship that just suddenly takes a turn for sex - you probably will not have any idea in that case. But then again... the fact the relationship was relatively platonic up until then is probably an indicator there's not great sexual chemistry.
Though it sounds a bit sentimental but the good relationships I've had I've always known almost immediately that there was something special about the person. But that is just my experience ...
It's not that I don't understand why people do this, I do, but I'm still speaking about what we as individuals and as group should aspire toward because this is ultimately very significant.

[Bethanyclaire]

women have 3 points higher verbal IQs on average, men have 3 points higher performance IQs on average.

Men are not smarter than women. Fact.

[DogOfDanger]

Did you believe that post suggested otherwise, or are you just making a proclamation...?

Sex differences in intelligence - Wikipedia

"it has been found that female subjects tend to perform better on tests of verbal abilities and processing speed while males tend to perform better on tests of visual-spatial ability and crystallized intelligence.^[7][12] For verbal fluency, females have been specifically found to perform slightly better, on average, in vocabulary and reading comprehension and significantly higher in speech production and essay writing.^[13] Males have been specifically found to perform better, on average, in spatial visualization, spatial perception, and mental rotation.^[13] None of these findings, however, suggest an advantage for either sex in general intelligence,^[12] nor in fluid intelligence.^[7]"

[MEGANLYNX]

You guys base your thinking on stuff written on Wikipedia?

[MEGANLYNX]

Men are not smarter than women. Fact.

Why do you think that is a fact?

[DogOfDanger]

You guys base your thinking on stuff written on Wikipedia?

When the article has a long list of 61 citations of mostly primary sources and the article was obviously written by a person who studies the topic, yes. There are 6 citations in that sentence... did you look at any of them before you made your comment? Of course you didn't.

[MEGANLYNX]

When the article has a long list of 61 citations of mostly primary sources and the article was obviously written by a person who studies the topic, yes. There are 6 citations in that sentence... did you look at any of them before you made your comment? Of course you didn't.

Why is it a problem that I did not look at those citations?

[DogOfDanger]

Why is it a problem that I did not look at those citations?

Well because you discounted the information due to it being "a wikipedia article", and yet there are primary source citations, obviously.