Comments by "DavePazz" (@davepazz580) on "PsycHacks"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Comparing someone’s sexual history with an inanimate object, the cost, and discount codes and coupons is highly unorthodox and nonsensical.
Or in this case, a very accurate comparison and one most people will immediately relate to in the proper way...
In this case the person you are dating or pursuing. If you’ve decided to provide monogamy, their past sexual activities are irrelevant.
Except that's not how a man's mind works or how he goes about dating/relationships...
Men don't date or pursue a woman from day one with "providing monogamy" on his mind... whether he does or not in the future is totally dependent on the woman herself - if she is deemed valuable enough for such a desire long-term commitment, marriage, children, etc.
Men pursue women first and foremost for short-term sexual relations... that's all that's on his mind on day one.
If the woman comports herself as someone who is only into long-term relationships and commitment (and proves in with a god personal history, not just some casual words) then a man's mind may shift directions and want the relationship to go in another direction... but it doesn't come from him, it comes from her behavior.
So no, her past sexual activities are not "irrelevant" at all to this matter...
Based on your argument, a guy in his 20’s should feel a ways because he actually had to “date” the 20 something year old woman, but then feel slighted because he found out at 15 she kissed her high school boyfriend.
That's not his argument at all and you know it... unless you seriously think "kissing" a high school boyfriend is exactly the same as having full sexual intercourse.
Overly simplified but generally accepted as true.
Because it is true in fact...
my cost is not your price. A woman’s sexual orifice is not some item sold and traded on the stock market. Its not sold at a dealership. If HE feels some type of way, that is a projection. He should be setting the “value” on relevant information.
None of what you said here changes anything in the situation he laid out however... any man who is been investing himself so much in a woman would exactly feel like a schmuck in the hypothetical situation he used here.
It's no biggie however... in such real-life cases, the man will simply no longer take such a woman seriously and just stay totally casual with her from that point on and regard her as being disposable (like the last guy did).
in 1999 Apartment A rented for $600- in 2019 the same Apartment rents for $1,800. Same argument, different concept.
And still doesn't change anything from his example...
And if you attempt to apply any variable influence, then the SAME LOGIC should be applied to learning the person you see value in, has had a “1 night stand before” or “done more for less” these past actions are not perpetual…
They don't have to be "perpetual" for them to matter... that's not how this works.
this is sic’ advice and people are eating this up as good?! SMH
It is good because it accurately describes the situation from the most basic and logical viewpoint... one even you can understand.
Please clarify. Is the assumption they haven’t engaged sexually. How are we in a relationship and we haven’t had sex yet?
That depends on what stage of life one is in... if a man is dating older women past 30 and she has kids, then obviously a man isn't expecting her to be as pure as the driven snow.
By making the decision to date a woman that old, a man understand the ramifications of that decision...
But younger than that, it's not unreasonable to expect better behavior from a quality woman... at the very least, not expecting her to have jumped from dick to dick often.
Either way, it doesn't matter... as I said before, men don't actually have any expectations in dating beyond short-term sex.
Anything more that develops isn't going to come from his own "choice" for a serious relationship, it's going to come from a quality woman that demands a serious relationship and holds him to a higher standard (and she better have held all previous guys to the same standard to have any credibility on this today).
A man could go on dating endlessly never being serious and be totally fine for the rest of his life.
Men aren't women... I know, shocking right?
Based on the following segment, I presume the guy was doing all of the aforementioned and HAS NOT had sex with the person they are in a “relationship” with. This is asinine and hopefully self-explanatory.
Why do you presume that?
Makes absolutely no sense why you would...
It is all relative and irrelevant really. Even if two males were biding for the same conquest and got quoted two different prices, the males should be focused on their own conquest and conflating irrelevant things.
You totally missed the point of what he's saying here...
Whether the incident described was relevant or not (or how the guys would work it out) wasn't the point... it was just a simple analogy to understand the basic concept of value and how it can be affected.
Just about EVERYONE has experienced a fling, one night stand, etcetera
Typical feminist reasoning... no, not "everyone" has experienced such things.
these events are mutually exclusive, and this whole argument is selective thinking. At best.
That would be true for a man, but for a woman the implications are much different...
Every decision a woman makes that involves her most valuable asset (which is her body, as much as you don't want to accept that) is taken into account because it's a direct reflection of how she values herself as a partner and directly affects future credibility in this area...
I couldn’t finish. If that is the conclusion and message being given to the audience, this is misguided and shortsighted.
How would you know?
You aren't a man describing a man's point of view... please refrain from doing so.
PLEASE take heed and ask yourself SIMPLE (objective) questions! The content observed is not objective and is rooted in male pathology, and we see the outcomes…..
And your interpretation of them was female pathology...
When dealing with specific areas of expertise, it is important to recognize one’s own confirmation bias and call this out….
None of which happened here...
This is nothing more than a male’s point of view about how males see this subject, attempting to service it as valid and true, when it would not survive a peer-reviewed assessment from unbiased parties.
It doesn't need any of that garbage because it's just pure common sense anyone normal would see and understand... just accept facts.
It is difficult but it can be achieved. I Am disappointed and I hope woman are not accepting this a fact.
Why?
Because it would actually make them see how they are really perceived?
You're the one doing a disservice to women...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
As a female, my question is why would our past (whether it is us females or the males) matter when logically and realistically speaking, people grow, change and evolve over time?
Initially, the very same reason a person's work history matters to potential employers...
They have no idea who you are or what relevant skills you potentially bring to the table... if your job history shows jumping ship from job to job for no significant reason and with nothing real to show for it, that would be a red flag to them.
You can "grow, change and evolve over time" as much as you wish after you've been signed onto the job... but this doesn't negate the need to examine a person's work history.
Yes I do get that not all people want to become better versions of themselves, however some do and our past is only a fading memory of the stupid choices we made that we desperately no longer want to make.
That would be up to the individual whether to accept or reject that person up front... but even "stupid" choices can have long-term consequences.
One other question I just have to ask is, why would a married man of say over 15 years all of a sudden be concerned about his wife's past that he never asked her about prior to then?
After 15 years of marriage, that's a completely different situation than vetting someone you only recently met...
If her past is a cake walk compared to his (meaning she's been with less than 10 men and he has been with at least a hundred or more women) why would the value he places on her be any different than the value she places on him?
The 2 situations are completely inequivalent and totally unrelated to each other... men aren't women and women aren't men - a woman's experience in sex (from start to finish) is not at all the same as a man's experience in sex, there can be no direct comparison.
Also, men are not primarily valued for their bodies... they are valued and evaluated as partners based much more on his financial capacity and how good of a provider he can be, his social status, etc.
Women are primarily valued for their bodies (physical aspect)... that is the very first thing men evaluate in potential serious partners, so logically, how that body was used in the past will be inspected with far more relevance than how a man used his (assuming of course, that the man has led a "normal" life of dating... I don't mean a man suffering from a full-blown sex addiction and having paid hundreds of prostitutes for an abnormal fix).
Think about it, if most men would be appalled at a woman having been with dozens men, why wouldn't a woman feel the same way about the guy?
This thought assumes men and women are perfectly identical, have equal powers and are starting from the same place in the realm of sex... but they are not anywhere near to being close.
In my experience, once a woman is really interested in a man, she will expect him to have been with dozens of women before her... and she may even be disappointed if he hasn't.
The reason is that (unlike men), women need their attraction for a man to be "validated" by other women... in other words, no woman wants to be the only one who finds a certain guy attractive because this would imply there is something wrong with her judgement of evaluating a "valuable" man.
This explains why a man who goes to a bar or nightclub alone is treated by the women there as if he is totally invisible all night... but if the exact same man goes in with several women surrounding him, the other women at the nightclub suddenly become very curious about him and soon find excuses to go over and find out more about him and begin to initiate conversations.
Generally speaking, women like to feel as if they have won a "competition" for a man who was with other women and rejected all of them for long term commitments (despite them all giving him sex) and settled for just her instead.
Men have no such inclinations and need no such validations with the women they find attractive (since all women a man find initially finds attractive has equal sexual value)... so this thought of yours is baseless.
Women know that men (in general) have always objectified women in the aspect of sex (although not necessarily in a narcissistic way), but there is so much more value in the woman besides her sex appeal as is in the man.
Yes, but those don't become relevant until after the initial attraction has taken place...
Explain the logic on how he can be so beside himself after what she did even though that was her only slip up, but yet he has no ability to show up for her emotionally knowing he literally ripped her heart out?
Because as I said above, there is no "equivalence" in the two actions whatsoever (the numbers don't change anything)... we need to get over this silly idea that sex is attained, experienced and related to in a 100% identical way between men and women because this is not the case at all.
It just doesn't make logical sense to me.
And it will continue to not make any sense to you until you first understand that men aren't women and women aren't men...
It's like saying "I don't understand why this square peg isn't fitting into this round hole"...
2
-
My thoughts on your analogy of the "work place" is, is this the way men in general feel across the board when they are "vetting" a future mate?
This goes back to how men approach the dating/mating game vs. how women do it... because each one has different overall objectives, it's going to lead to some different mindsets here.
Generally speaking, men view "dating" as a means to its own end... in other words, a man can be perfectly satisfied and totally fine with either a steady girlfriend or having access to multiple quality women to date pretty much indefinitely.
The only thing that will make a man to shift mental focus on marriage and children/building a family is coming across a woman that displays the qualities to properly fill that role in his life... if she's a complete asset to his life, makes his life better instead of worse, has a respectable sexual background (i.e. not known by everyone in his social circle as the one every guy has had before him) then he will want a more serious committed relationship and feel safe enough to trust her to be a good mother for his kids.
But if no such woman comes into his life, a man can be perfectly happy just casually dating and being totally uncommitted for the rest of his life... I know women won't be able to relate to this mindset, but men and women aren't the same.
This is why I compared this process to a workplace employer looking for qualified candidates to fill a specific job... if the candidates don't meet his requirements, he won't feel the urge to commit - he'll either still date her casually or start dating others eventually.
That's a cut-and-dry version of the process... of course, emotions do enter the picture as well and other factors could play into this - but I just laid out the basic premise.
Oftentimes this does plague men more than women,
Yes it does, and the reason for that is the basic fact of biology... men are hardwired to be more sexually "random" than women because a man's natural reproductive "strategy" is to inseminate as many suitable females as possible in order to pass on his genes.
This strategy isn't necessary in today's world for the most part, but the hardwiring of a man's hormones and brain will forever be aimed in this direction... so as you can imagine, it would be very easy for a man to lose control of himself and allow this very vital function of his being take over until it becomes an addiction.
Recently I saw a video about a female competitive bodybuilder who started taking testosterone (male hormones) in order to enlarge her muscle size... she definitely grew bigger muscles from these drugs, but they had an unintended (and unexpected) side effect - her libido started going through the roof.
She found herself at her normal workplace now suddenly sexually desiring her co-workers, something she never had done before or even imagined... even at the gym, she started thinking about sex with random strangers almost all of the time, and she couldn't explain it - she wanted to get these thoughts out of her mind, but she couldn't and it started bothering her.
Well, welcome to the world of a man... and imagine that men have even far more male hormone than what this woman was given and it's something men are just born with in our systems.
That woman later said "I don't know how you guys do it... I couldn't imagine going on for years like this."
Men really don't get enough credit for showing the restraint we must have just to go about our normal days...
and it truly does suck for the woman who was bamboozled by the man who has this problem.
This is an area I'm not too personally familiar with... men who are true sexual addicts often can't hide this fact from anyone who knows them well enough beyond a very casual level.
If a man struggles with this issue, as a man, what would you say is the reason for this?
I'm no expert, but like all addictions, a large reason for it is trying to escape the real world (with all the responsibilities of that) and the search for control of an alternate, fantasy world... such men are forever searching for that climactic "high" they simply aren't capable of having or experiencing in real life.
Also keep in mind that men don't control access to sex, women do... and the burden of having to "work" to "earn" sex from a woman the proper way (i.e. to become attractive enough so she will grant you sex) is just too much for some men to handle - so they turn to means that bypass a woman's control of access (prostitution, online porn, etc.).
Sexually addicted men will eventually lose control of their lives and no longer be fully in control of their own... which is why I do find it difficult to believe such a man would be able to marry anyone while having this addiction and have that partner be totally "fooled" into thinking he's perfectly normal.
I always differentiate between sexual addicts and "normal" men who are simply attractive and have been with multiple partners in their past, because some women want to conflate them as to being the same... but they are far from being the same.
I mainly ask bc this has been my situation unfortunately.
Am sorry to hear this...
I do get that women do not put as much emphasis on a man's body the way a man does a woman's body. But still, how can there be no direct comparison?
I will say they can be directly compared when the day comes that media featuring male models in g-string underwear is consumed 100% by women...
But as it stands, the facts are the media featuring scantily clad women is consumed almost entirely by males (clearly indicating the importance a woman's body has to a man) and media featuring scantily clad men is consumed almost entirely by gay men... not by women.
This, again, tells me that women don't' place that much importance on a man's body... making any such comparisons between the two useless.
Now... I don't mean to imply that a man having a good physique or being in shape isn't important, it most certainly is (mostly for other reasons not related to attracting women though).
To me, and this is my opinion, a man who views women in that way are quite shallow compared to the men who can overlook a woman's past.
This goes back to the often-heard red pill talking point about women being "celebrated" for having "standards", but men are condemned for having standards of their own... or more specifically, for having standards that don't match identically to what women find important in a man.
I could just as easily claim it's "shallow" for a woman to not overlook a man's financial capacity or his social status... the majority of single women aren't going around happily pairing up with "average" earning men these days, the majority are only going after the top 20% of high-earning men.
But even then she still has value bc she is a human being.
Value in general terms (what a great person you are) is not in any way, shape or form tied into your sexual value... I don't know why women have such a hard time understanding this distinction.
Like someone once famously said: "Mother Teresa was a saintly human being, as valuable and as good as it can possibly get for a woman on Earth... now tell me, which man is sexually excited by Mother Teresa and would want to date her??"
When we say "value" in these spaces, we are not referring to a woman's "personal" value as a human being... that is a totally separate issue from dating market-place value and they are totally unrelated.
But yet these women are also seen as valuable to some men.
This is a situation I can't personally fathom... it sounds more like a "hoe/pimp" situation than the more conventional type of relationships we discuss here.
What these men accept or tolerate in the women they frequent with is not the experience of the vast majority of men (nor would they even want to aspire to that), I can assure you...
To me, a man who has been with dozens of women (and worse a 100 or more) is a major turn off.
If it was due to a sexual addiction, then of course... I wouldn't blame you.
And as I said earlier, true sexual addicts are not going around attracting/seducing women every day into sleeping with them (they lack the means to do this)... whatever body count these men obtain came from prostitution.
I agree porn is destructive and not advisable for men to turn to...
As for your last paragraph, you have to look at it from the typical man's point of view...
It's wonderful that you are now long past the stage of being "competitive" for men... however, most men are still in the stage of wanting to attract more women in order to have a bigger selection of partners - so these facts about attracting women can't be ignored.
And no, this isn't in order to become a "player"... sadly, this is just to have a "normal" dating life these days.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2