Comments by "DavePazz" (@davepazz580) on "PsycHacks"
channel.
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Most crimes take considerable effort, yet are morally condemned, and rightfully so.
"Crimes" are another matter entirely since you are dealing with legal issues there... you can't compare this to the world of male/female sexual dynamics, which is more like an every-day human "competition" (in a manner of speaking).
So, not only does it need to take more effort for men to have lots of partners, but it must be seen as something desirable.
It can never be seen as anything but desirable for several reasons...
1. Men don't control access to sex, women do... which means a man with many sexual partners is one that has had his sexual value legitimately "confirmed" by women.
For men, you could walk around all day long feeling great about yourself... but unless a woman (or women) is actively finding you to be sexually attractive enough to sleep with you, you will not feel all that sexually confident.
Sexual confidence for men only comes from validation from women, and that can only be proved through sex...
2. Men are naturally hard-wired to desire multiple women, to be able to "spread his seed" as far and as wide as possible... for this goal to be accomplished (and to be motivated enough to attempt), it has to feel fantastic to sleep with multiple attractive women.
Otherwise, all men would find just one woman and all their sexual desire centers would just shut down... that's not how normal, healthy men are.
Which is what I don't get: because when women have many partners, it is seen as a negative signal that she is unlikely to be able to form lasting relationships.
This is because for women, the reproduction "game" has an entirely different goal...
Whereas a man can keep producing new, fresh sperm every single day and can (theoretically) impregnate multiple women at once (and without suffering any kind of physical alteration or incapacitation in the process), women can only carry (and have) one man's child at a time and her number of eggs can never change.
That a woman can have a random guy's child is not the "challenge" (as women control access to sex), but to have a valuable man's child is the challenge... one with abundant resources and social influence, assuring her and her child the best possible chance at not only safe survival, but a more comfortable life with less stress.
So a "valuable" man not only has abundant resources and status, but is also actively desired by many females... in fact, most women will not become attracted to any man unless she can clearly sense other females are in pursuit of him as well.
But the same would have to be true for men, at least in perception.
No... the difference is men don't actually need a "relationship" the way women do - men don't "need" women the way women need men.
The way men approach the dating/mating game is like this: Try to meet and go out with as many attractive women as possible, sleep with who you can (thereby gaining sexual experience which boosts personal confidence) then decide which woman is actually enriching your life and making you feel good about being exclusive with only her beyond the sex.
If no such woman comes into your life who "stands out" from the others, no big deal... just keep dating new women as before, no harm done.
The way women approach the dating/mating game (or at least, how they should approach it), is also to go out with as many apparently suitable men of a higher status than she is (remember: women require more than a man with a pretty face and body to feel they are getting something "valuable") but not sleep with any of them unless she gets a clear indication the man is valuing her personally and she sense a real connection beyond sex.
If no such man comes into your life, she has to start lowing her standards a bit because her market value begins to drop with every passing year (unlike men) and focus on making it work with someone she would not have considered years previously, because she will run out of time.
See, men can lead perfectly happy, satisfying lives by simply dating multiple women for life... but women cannot ever be happy or satisfied by dating multiple men for life- she needs that one valuable man willing to devote himself exclusively to her to feel she is validated as a woman.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Men can't be "promiscuous" because men don't control access to sex... women do.
Therefore, it's up to women to sexually "civilize" men, not the other way around... that's not how this works.
You don't seem to understand what the dynamic of not any controlling sexual access implies... it means men have no real choice but to take whatever opportunity for sex happens by from an appropriate, eligible and free woman.
There is absolutely no downside to this, it's all upside and advantageous... why on Earth would you think a man would turn down sex under these circumstances?
It's like comparing how an average man eats in modern society to a man living totally alone in the wilderness or someplace remote... a man in the city obviously has full control over his diet, how much food, the quality of food, how often he eats, etc. he can choose not to eat at any given moment because his food situation is well in his hands.
But a man in a wilderness with no such control over his food cannot afford these luxuries... his eating pattern may be erratic, he may have to go for quite some time with no food at all, and possibly find some random food source he will have to devour quickly, he will me far less picky about choosing among much fewer edible choices, etc.
What a man desires in a woman has nothing to do whatsoever with what a woman desires in a man... they are independent things unrelated to each other.
It would be as idiotic as claiming a woman somehow can't desire a man making $200k a year unless she herself is also making that much... or that she has no right to desire a 6'2" man unless she herself is also 6'2".
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2