Comments by "Rose S" (@roses6564) on "Dr. Shawn T. SMITH (relationship gatekeeping, male depression, and ethical conduct)" video.

  1.  @masterTigress96  Same for women.
    4
  2. Yes, it is. Because of your emotions are not that of an ameoba, they will indicate multi-dimensional compatibility - physical, intellectual, emotional, spiritual - which is the foundation of lifelong happy relationships, above and beyond economics.
    3
  3.  @perpetualprocrastinator  I butted in because I firmly believe I am making a good point worth expressing. The channel is open to both sexes, as confirmed by the content creator. Even if it wasn't, my posting would still be within the range of YT free speech. This means you need to deal with it as needed by either: 1) ignoring post 2) rolling eyes and moving on 3) providing some cogent rebuttal of what you didn't like to hear 4) dicking around as you did above. Either way, it's still a free world.
    2
  4.  @MrJasonSlade  And yet, there it is.
    2
  5.  @FearlessUntamed  On point. The crowd, male or female, needs easy answers that scratches their victimhood itch.
    2
  6. Are you sure all men were meant to reproduce?
    1
  7.  @dvkdvkful  So you start with an ad hominem, then show a weak attempt to explain what exactly is "stupid" about what I posted, then fail with aplomb. Interestingly, men love to invoke biology until it doesn't suit their interest. A woman's bio-clock is a thing (hurry up!), but a woman's natural bio-selectivity and the need to find fulfillment in a relationship are just "ugly hypergamy." You're implying women need to adopt whatever model of "success" male biology dictates (show up naked and bring food). It never occurs to you that their definition of a successful relationship is dictated by FEMALE biology, not by the male one. From her perspective, he must inspire the cat - and it's the cat who decides what kind of milk is good, as this psychologist put it. Never mind your clumsy hypothesis, considering there huge intrasex variations for both males and females. This means not all men need the same thing from a relationship, just like not all women do. Shockingly, cerebral men need a lot more than food and sex from a woman, but the mass of male moronery out there wouldn't know. Have you considered that a woman can't be "problem free" just by being in a relationship where he approves because she shows up naked and brings food? Men want what they want. So do women. The sexes need to find a way to deliver what the other wants, else they write themselves out of the gene pool. Good.
    1
  8.  @user-yf4hv8vr3q  So you tell women "I only want you for sex" then turn around and wonder why women don't want to be with men like you. Genius.
    1
  9. I love it where Dr. Taraban paused and ponders over how reasonable it is to expect a woman to "lower her standards" to secure a relationship. On behalf of the Pink Team, many thanks for this moment of good will, Dr. Taraban. This is a rare occurrence among men as they almost never seem to consider the long term implications of being married to a wife who ...well, settled for them to get with the program. I even heard a man saying that it's all fine by him as long as she stops looking. Whoa.. For the sake of accuracy, how about another expression to replace "lowering standards"?, because this doesn't adequately capture this reality of the female condition. How about "going against her heart?" Suffering from a bout of settleitis? "Standards" paint all women like these ferocious Ivy League admission officers who will only accept the most brilliant applications when in reality most of them are nothing but uneventful community colleges. Fair enough. Except this is not what happens in most cases of "settleitis." It is more akin to a sense of spiritual and emotional deflation...insufficiency, a mismatch. The absence of inspiration predicts a lack of fulfillment in the relationship, which can't be explained with the quantifiable criteria men insist on. Her heart is simply not there, something internal about the man doesn't inspire her or even puts her off. He doesn't make her heart sing. And before men protest "yeah, that means he's not loaded," this is absolutely 100% wrong. I'm aware of at least several cases where the woman tortured herself into dating a man who was made all the sense in the world on paper: great career, money, well-situated FOO, prospects, security, the works. Yet he was not compelling to her at the personal and chemistry level. In the end she couldn't pull it off. Ironically, these "irrational" female instincts are razor sharp seismographs signaling a poor natural match in some way. When women ignore their instincts as encouraged by the social template, it almost never works out well in the long run. It is entirely possible for a woman to "settle" when she marries up and high. He is simply not what her soul needs. This is what most women mean by "settling." The reservations almost always signal some kind of PIES incompatibility (physical, intellectual, emotional or spiritual misalignment), which will eventually rear its ugly head. When it comes to settleitis, BELIEVE ALL WOMEN. Feel free to encourage them to "lower their market standards" realistically, according to what they bring to the transaction table; but no man should be so foolish as to encourage women to go against their heart. It comes with serious long-term consequences.
    1
  10.  @Jayar_  No, because many do settle for the long term, as society and natural pressures prevail more often than not. Fear of ending up a cat lady, fear of missing the reproduction boat, desire to fit in because all of her friends are getting married etc. Women know it instinctively but go against their instinct as encouraged traditionally.
    1