Comments by "Sammy B" (@sammyb1651) on "Why WOMEN MONKEY BRANCH: an examination of female mating behavior" video.

Most men in relationships unwittingly find themselves in female p!ssing contests between their partner and her friends. Sometimes overtly, but virtually always indirectly. As a male partner, your quality of life is attached to her emotions-and these fluctuate depending on whether she's up or down in the p!ssing contest hierarchy. It's practically inevitable. The only way to avoid this is to insist that you won't accept responsibility for her happiness. Unfortunately that will typically be framed as some sort of "abuse". Which of course, it isnt.
25
@patriziapiccardo2428 It doesn't need figuring out. It's called being a statistical outlier and it doesn't invalidate the general experience (which runs completely counter to it). Incidentally you took nothing? You mean you left the kids?!?!
13
"Men do it too!" Bang on schedule! snore
7
The business analogy was a bit meaningless. At the end of the day it's as simple as this: they remain in one relationship right up until the switch occurs because they believe they derive a net benefit from the relationship. Whatever criticism they may have of it upon the break up. Think about it-even though they believe they're about to achieve more with the switch up-logic dictates they still believe they were getting a net benefit from the original relationship otherwise they wouldn't have remained there right up until the switch occurred. Women seldom walk away from something to nothing. The take away to anyone with a brain has to be that women derive more net benefit in a relationship than men do. Generally speaking. Every man knows this instinctually though because-if they are in a relationship-they're almost certain to be with a woman who displays far greater needs than they do. In other words the relationship is likely to be much more about her than it is about him. That's all there is to it. And it's THAT factor you should focus on to remain sane. Focussing on the switch is heartbreaking. There may be some learning experiences in it but overall it's better to reflect positively on the reasons she chose to stay with you in the first place-because you're likely to have a far more accurate image of yourself if you do.
6
@ec6621 There's some truth to this but it's not as clearcut as you make it. Women will often use the argument: "you should just get me!" Ie "I shouldn't have to explain it" (to you. You should just do/know what I want). I believe that's the case because, if indeed they were to have to verbalise everything they wanted every time they wanted it, it would be abundantly clear how unreasonable and demanding she was-to the extent it would no longer have any plausible deniability. Ergo she doesn't want to have to verbalise it. So they will still also not communicate many things adequately if they feel its in their interests to keep them tacit. On balance.
5
@ec6621 No, sorry. That simply won't do I'm afraid. It's a nice thought but at the end of the day it's because she has far, FAR more needs in the relationship than the man does and to constantly have to verbalise all these needs ad nauseam reveals that, together with her overall unreasonableness. Thus she'd prefer it for him to anticipate everything (and to some extent will try to train him to do so) You have to remember that women are stunning and brave now (in addition to being very direct, as you've stated above) so we can't also simultaneously treat them like little pre-verbal babies too and anticipate their every need just because it suits them to do so. You understand all this of course so I won't labour the point further.
5
In response to your opening remark: You'e incorrect-they do it far more often. You appear to have a personal anecdote and thats fine (didn't bother reading it), but we're dealing with population level phenomena. The fact you're able to cite an exception doesn't disprove the rule/the norm.
5
@stalechipz450 In essence, yes. It's the mans fault for not successfully re-negotiating all the terms she's communicated (both directly and subtly). Nothing (new) to see here!
4
@fiveleavesleft6521 "Commitment phobic" is just (yet another) shaming tactic from them to get what they want. An otherwise "commitment phobic" man may well still enter a relationship if he sees sufficient benefit in it for him. And there's nothing wrong with him insisting on some value coming his way in return if he's offering enough. Gynocentrism has made that sound like an extremist position of course. But it isnt. It's extremely moderate and reasonable. I share your hope that RP content will find a broader audience and help future generations!
3
@ec6621 Consider how many needs women have/bring to a relationship Consider how many needs men have/bring to a relationship. Notice which number is considerably higher There's the basis for the unreasonableness. You can deny that of course but then we're just in the realms of outright silliness.
3
@ec6621 You can colour me unsurprised.
3
@ec6621 They're definitely not extremes and so your point demonstrably fails. Women's relationship needs significantly outstrip mens at population level. I don't intend to rehearse the argument however as you've ceased to engage honestly. We're at the point of diminishing returns. Cheerio.😊
3
HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE collars!
2
@stalechipz450 I strongly suspect its the former/genuinely pity them if its the latter.
2
@ec6621 Nope. Once there is a huge imbalance they become unreasonable by definition. You're using the 'negotiation' analogy. Hint: that's typically when you'd step away from a "negotiation". The exception would be if you're contemplating a relationship between an adult and child/adult and invalid. In that instance an imbalance wouldn't be unreasonable. But then I know you're not comparing a woman to a child or an invalid. So your point fails and I refer you back to my original comment.
2
@DNA350ppm Shall we be reasonable people and agree that an overwhelming abundance of anecdotal evidence vs a few exceptional anecdotes to the contrary is a sufficient standard of proof? Bearing in mind this isn't a court of law or a PhD submission? You might also want to consider that "research" into topics that threaten to make females look anything less than pristine is usually strongly discouraged/suppressed.
2
Of course, but thats a universal truth. It isn't gendered. Everyone could improve by being more stable. She could also be highly unstable (its very frequently the case) but we don't examine that aspect. If we're honest men would do FAR better to examine exactly what sort of unstable creature is coming swinging their way to begin with!
1
@jaythenihilist4689 I am a man and yes, I agree with all of that. It's observable fact. My post didn't contradict anything you said.
1
@DNA350ppm You sound like a pleasant and thoughtful person to be fair and I appreciate a lot of what you wrote there. It's received with gratitude. Those stated philosophies can represent good actionable advice and it can still remain the case that women "monkey branch" far, far more frequently than men however. They're not mutually exclusive. I actually don't think it's a particularly controversial or contentious point btw. It's just an observable reality.
1
@DNA350ppm In fairness, our understanding of the world relies on observations and pattern recognition. Darwin didn't have any published reports to go on when he noticed patterns in different bird species. The patterns were there to be observed nonetheless and now form the basis of our evolutionary theory. Monkey branching in females is an observable reality. I can't provide the reports you deem to be necessary but that doesn't invalidate the ample evidence that is available if you merely choose to look.
1