something_else

I mean it isn't a clear cut line, but yea, it's one aspect of it.

Emotional repression in the short term to deal with an immediate threat is valuable. In the long run it will eat you alive.

Yes, I'm always very clear about this. Though a lot of the girls I end up with casually are also pretty sexually open so I get the sense they enjoy talking about sex and past experiences as well with no strings attached. I think that you may be applying your own experience to other women prematurely. I think on average women do need more of an emotional dynamic to enjoy sex than a man does, but that can come in many forms. A lot of men can literally put their dick inside any woman and cum without a care in the world, but I agree that women need at least baseline chemistry to even consider it. If the chemistry is playful and fun it can create the emotional stimulation required even if it's short term. Similarly, I also struggle to have mechanical sex when there is zero chemistry or emotional dynamic of any kind, but that chemistry or dynamic doesn't have to come from a deep long term connection.

This is great advice if you’re already vaguely put together. If your life is a mess it’s better to learn to fit in to society first before you try to break out. The ideal is to be just familiar enough to new people that they feel comfortable but just unique enough that you’re interesting. A lot of people try to go straight for unique and interesting without learning to calibrate first I.e. fit in, and that’s usually a mistake.

That's essentially exactly what I said in the rest of my response outside of the small section you quoted.

Hunting and warfare are quite different. Like I said, men's strength adaptations were probably more for war with other humans/tribes rather than specifically for hunting. Humans have never relied on their strength for hunting, even the strongest human would lose to a lion in a physical fight. Our strengths when it came to hunting were stamina, being able to throw things, and being able to use tools, all of which a pre-historic woman could do effectively too. That's a perfectly reasonable evolutionary hypothesis, and I suspect there's some truth to it. But it assumes hunting was sufficiently dangerous that the reproductive costs of women participating outweighed the benefits of the additional food they could provide. We don't actually know that, hunting deer and small animals probably wasn't very risky. And even if it explains why men generally hunted more, it doesn't establish that women were excluded from hunting altogether. Also, there's another flaw in this argument. Men aren't nearly as disposable as you're making them out to be. If a tribe lost 20% of its men, it's not like their partners would suddenly just jump into bed with other men. Humans formed pair bonds even back then. Men also contributed to childcare and providing resources, so losing them would have real consequences beyond just their ability to reproduce. It's not like tribes would happily send men off to die just because they were easier to replace reproductively. They likely had to balance the risks and benefits of hunting for everyone, not just women.

You're so sure you know how everybody else should be living and how they're thinking. Dude, live your own life and stop trying to insist everybody else should live life and think how you do. Have some empathy.

I agree with the overall sentiment of the criticism here, but I am inclined to play devils advocate a bit, for fun. One thing worth remembering is that a lot of our understanding of prehistoric human behaviour is reconstructed from fairly limited evidence. Evolutionary explanations can become plausible-sounding stories that reflect our more modern cultural assumptions. The underlying point this person is trying to make is "we don't actually know as much about how early humans acted as we all like to think we do" bundled in a controversial enough wrapper that it will garner attention. There almost certainly were women who hunted back then. The most successful way to hunt as a pre-historic human was probably endurance and throwing spears, which women aren't inherently disadvantaged at. We assume men developed strength for hunting and providing, but it's also possible men developed extra strength for intra-species competition like fighting other men, and war. Small Stage Purple tribes would likely have a lot of variance between them because there isn't a massive underlying social structure spanning empires that you would get from something like Stage Blue civilisations. Some tribes may have distributed hunting between men and women, some may have restricted women from hunting, some may even have been matriarchal. The truth is we don't actually have that much evidence either way, because it's all pre-historic. By the time we have access to historical record we're already hitting Stage Blue where the variance starts to coalesce into modern social hierarchies and distribution of labour.

This is 100% already, or going to become, a cult.

@Emerald I think women do fantasise about sex with a guy even if it’s casual. But as you say, casual sex is freely available and so the standards for fantasising about a guy casually are way higher than they would be for a relationship. There often has to be some hot power dynamic, or he has to be really hot, or charismatic. I think this gives rise to a lot of the incel beliefs that women only want the top X% of men, because in a casual sense that’s often true. Girls who are having casual sex often go after the guys that still present a bit of a challenge for them to ‘get’ casually, which will be the guys who have other options. Obviously this is a heuristic and not universally the case. But I’ve had quite a bit of casual sex and still find that women who are open to it fantasise a lot about it with me, or other guys they’ve hooked up with. One of the more interesting things about casual sex for me is that with that casual dynamic, women seem pretty willing to share thoughts on sex snd dating, and past sexual experiences. Compared to a guy they’re interested in dating where I get a sense they’d be less willing to do that.

Yea, exactly. I’m not even sure porn is that much of a net negative. Stuff like infinite scroll algorithms on social media are orders of magnitude worse and probably easier to regulate

Banning VPNs would be absolutely wild. There are so many legitimate use cases for them, for example many companies use them for security.

No! I disagree. I don’t know it. You can’t just assume other people feel the same way you do about a topic.

That’s not an articulated argument, that’s a statement and vibes.

You really haven’t. It’s all very vibes based rather than a properly articulated argument