the secret Hollywood way of saying 'she is cheating on him by banging lots of other guys'?
I've known so many women who start boinking strange the moment they're unhappy in the marriage. Good Christian women. Funny thing is they've always got a new BF while they're "working through difficult times." Meanwhile the dude is pathetically seeking social penance and "working out his problems."
disproportionately represented online and in the media, white and middle/upper class.
One of the problems with the Imp being back, is that you can't say too many Impish things. If I may share a personal story, I'm afraid that the average woman is as bad as they say. The story is, in fact, from the "religious" sphere so you might not be surprised. I had a cousin who married a big boobed chick, she was all that: fun, pretty, decent cook. They split a year after the wedding. Not particularly surprising.
What was surprising, was overhearing was hearing my own mother (8 years after the fact) explaining that the reason for my cousin's marriage dissolved was: he watched some porn. That the girls was fucking the Pastor didn't come up. Only way MY mom heard this fanciful story was from my cousins mom.
The "mothers" of my family are still blaming my schmuck cousin for his wife being a whore.
Of all word in tongue and pen the saddest are these: the Imp is right again.
It's almost like religion can't fix inherent female biology, brought by thousands of years of the most disloyal, duplicitous members of the class surviving to procreate.
And no, that's not a R16. Evolutionary biology acknowledges that the most likely women to reproduce and survive were those who could switch loyalties.
History is clear, for almost the entirety of history, the top males have access to multiple women and the rest don't get the chance to reproduce.
One of the innovations of Christianity and the precursor Judaism was that of enforced monogamy. The top achievers get the top women but the commitment is for life. No takebacks. The rest of men get a chance at reproduction if they participate in society and follow the rules.
This was a fantastic benefit for everyone in far reaching and complex ways.
For contrast look at the middle east where multiple wives are permitted, or the fatherlessness of some sections of the USA.
Women have always hated having to be faithful. They have been working together to tear down marriage and monogamy for more than a hundred years, only to find out that the alternative is worse.
Evolutionary biology acknowledges that the most likely women to reproduce and survive were those who could switch loyalties.
Enough of that pop culture "evolutionary biology" shit. You idea isn't biology, it's coming up with a vaguely scientific-sounding justification of contemporary female behavior. It's also unfeasible and unprovable, because to prove there is no such experiment we can carry out to prove how humans evolved.
The reality is that humans are extremely capable of adopting many vastly different types of behavior, mainly to adapt to their environment. In the current environment of Western societies, it is beneficial for women to adopt selfish duplicitous behavior, so they do so. But this doesn't mean that they can't be better people. They simply choose not to be better people.
Evolutionary biology is incorrect here. It's evolutionary psychology -- which is basically splitting hairs.
One of the hardest red pills I have ever had to swallow is that the vast majority of women (even my PhD wife) are logically deficient and rely on feelings. When you rely on feelings you can justify any of your actions because it "felt right/good."
Evolutionary biology is incorrect here. It's evolutionary psychology -- which is basically splitting hairs.
Yes, it's usually called "evolutionary psychology" but it's bullshit no matter what it's called. Actual evolutionary biology can be a useful science. Evolutionary psychology not so much.
One of the hardest red pills I have ever had to swallow is that the vast majority of women (even my PhD wife) are logically deficient and rely on feelings. When you rely on feelings you can justify any of your actions because it "felt right/good."
She isn't logically deficient then. She is morally deficient. You are married to a time bomb. Good luck!
it is beneficial for women to adopt selfish duplicitous behavior, so they do so. But this doesn't mean that they can't be better people. They simply choose not to be better people.
I wasn't disputing this. I simply said that it is their "default mode" to not be.
They have to try to be good people and they don't want to.
It's also unfeasible and unprovable, because to prove there is no such experiment we can carry out to prove how humans evolved.
Historical records show a huge amount of war between tribes in early humanity, and this would explain why women evolved to be disloyal. (Maybe why they're okay with killing kids - proving fealty to the new leadership by killing the old tribe's kids?)
You can also look at "war brides" of Nazi Germany or the fleeing women of Ukraine to see the same behaviors, so there was an "experiment" done in a way.
I wasn't disputing this. I simply said that it is their "default mode" to not be.
Not, you implied women 'evolved' to be duplicitous. This argument is always evoked by people pushing biological determinism.
Historical records show a huge amount of war...
Yes, I'm sure there are historical records in support of your idea. It doesn't prove anything because you are simply backfitting the data to fit what you have already decided.
In the end, it's a completely pointless and unnecessary argument. All that matters is observing their behavior now and pointing out how this is bad behavior. There is no need to try to tenuously link that behavior to "evolution"; that simply detracts from the main point.
I've known so many women who start boinking strange the moment they're unhappy in the marriage. Good Christian women. Funny thing is they've always got a new BF while they're "working through difficult times." Meanwhile the dude is pathetically seeking social penance and "working out his problems."
One of the problems with the Imp being back, is that you can't say too many Impish things. If I may share a personal story, I'm afraid that the average woman is as bad as they say. The story is, in fact, from the "religious" sphere so you might not be surprised. I had a cousin who married a big boobed chick, she was all that: fun, pretty, decent cook. They split a year after the wedding. Not particularly surprising.
What was surprising, was overhearing was hearing my own mother (8 years after the fact) explaining that the reason for my cousin's marriage dissolved was: he watched some porn. That the girls was fucking the Pastor didn't come up. Only way MY mom heard this fanciful story was from my cousins mom.
The "mothers" of my family are still blaming my schmuck cousin for his wife being a whore.
Of all word in tongue and pen the saddest are these: the Imp is right again.
Haha.
That used to be about /pol/, but they haven't been right since 2016.
You know, Imp, I do mostly agree with you. I think a lot of us do. But only 85-95% -- and that last little bit feels like a huge gulf.
You are who you are and you don't (and shouldn't) apologize for that -- but I do wish you could temper your rhetoric a bit. You would accomplish more.
It's almost like religion can't fix inherent female biology, brought by thousands of years of the most disloyal, duplicitous members of the class surviving to procreate.
And no, that's not a R16. Evolutionary biology acknowledges that the most likely women to reproduce and survive were those who could switch loyalties.
History is clear, for almost the entirety of history, the top males have access to multiple women and the rest don't get the chance to reproduce.
One of the innovations of Christianity and the precursor Judaism was that of enforced monogamy. The top achievers get the top women but the commitment is for life. No takebacks. The rest of men get a chance at reproduction if they participate in society and follow the rules.
This was a fantastic benefit for everyone in far reaching and complex ways.
For contrast look at the middle east where multiple wives are permitted, or the fatherlessness of some sections of the USA.
Women have always hated having to be faithful. They have been working together to tear down marriage and monogamy for more than a hundred years, only to find out that the alternative is worse.
To be fair, they literally had to punish cheating women by bludgeoning them to death with rocks in order to enforce monogamy.
That was a joke; no reddit /s here. Fuck R16.
Enough of that pop culture "evolutionary biology" shit. You idea isn't biology, it's coming up with a vaguely scientific-sounding justification of contemporary female behavior. It's also unfeasible and unprovable, because to prove there is no such experiment we can carry out to prove how humans evolved.
The reality is that humans are extremely capable of adopting many vastly different types of behavior, mainly to adapt to their environment. In the current environment of Western societies, it is beneficial for women to adopt selfish duplicitous behavior, so they do so. But this doesn't mean that they can't be better people. They simply choose not to be better people.
Evolutionary biology is incorrect here. It's evolutionary psychology -- which is basically splitting hairs.
One of the hardest red pills I have ever had to swallow is that the vast majority of women (even my PhD wife) are logically deficient and rely on feelings. When you rely on feelings you can justify any of your actions because it "felt right/good."
Yes, it's usually called "evolutionary psychology" but it's bullshit no matter what it's called. Actual evolutionary biology can be a useful science. Evolutionary psychology not so much.
She isn't logically deficient then. She is morally deficient. You are married to a time bomb. Good luck!
I wasn't disputing this. I simply said that it is their "default mode" to not be.
They have to try to be good people and they don't want to.
Historical records show a huge amount of war between tribes in early humanity, and this would explain why women evolved to be disloyal. (Maybe why they're okay with killing kids - proving fealty to the new leadership by killing the old tribe's kids?)
You can also look at "war brides" of Nazi Germany or the fleeing women of Ukraine to see the same behaviors, so there was an "experiment" done in a way.
Not, you implied women 'evolved' to be duplicitous. This argument is always evoked by people pushing biological determinism.
Yes, I'm sure there are historical records in support of your idea. It doesn't prove anything because you are simply backfitting the data to fit what you have already decided.
In the end, it's a completely pointless and unnecessary argument. All that matters is observing their behavior now and pointing out how this is bad behavior. There is no need to try to tenuously link that behavior to "evolution"; that simply detracts from the main point.