Emerald

I've been on and off with this forum since it began. And truth-be-told, even though I've met some cool people, I never really enjoyed the vibes in the culture of this place... at least not since the very beginning. It definitely isn't the kind of culture that I would cultivate if I had my own forum as it's a pretty combative space... and my philosophy on curating social spaces is about creating a safe container that enables people to be more open and vulnerable. And yet, I feel quite drawn to coming back here... even though I find it to be a bit draining. And I've been reflecting on this in the past couple days. And I think I figured out what it is. To give some context, I have always had issues with being aware of and expressing anger. When I was a child, I discovered that anytime I ever tried to stand up for myself it was futile and just made things worse... and it would just add insult to injury. And eventually, I developed this coping strategy of remaining stoic and unemotional in the face of boundary violations and things that I dislike. And anger became my worst enemy. And this was very empowering because those who might try to engage in verbal abuse towards me would have nothing to grab ahold of. I would just sit there and watch them jump up and down like a yo-yo and cuss and scream and insult me at the top of their lungs... and watch them completely buckle under the futility of getting a reaction out of me. So this worked a lot better than what was before. As a child, it was just embarrassing and demoralizing when I would try to stand up for myself and it would backfire. So, as a pre-teen, when I decided towards a stance of never getting angry and never showing anger, it was like this shield where people didn't mess with me as much.... and people couldn't get a rise out of me. So, it was a powerful stance to disengage and have a perpetual poker-face in combination with coming across as cool and laid back. And it also came with certain cherished identities where people would see me as this really chilled out person who's easy to be around. And I would receive people unconditionally without push-back on anything... which helped me develop the ability for me to just hold space for people. And this parlayed into something very near and dear to my life's purpose, which is the ability to exercise deep levels of understanding and compassion for why someone is the way that they are... and to see it as always logically understandable as to why anyone is the way that they are. It's a very merciful viewpoint to hold in a very unmerciful world. So, it's quite valuable to many people. But in the less aligned elements of this coping strategy (despite its many positives) it can enable a lot of terrible behavior and leave you without defense. And it puts a gag on anger and disgust... and enables all sorts of boundary violations. It's like having no lock on the door of a home with lots of money laying around in it. And if someone comes in and steals the money, I can't even say anything about it because it would feel like I was being un-stoic, disempowered, and no better than cruel plebeian angry masses. So, it put me in a place where I'd have no choice but to simply quit while I'm behind. And it would temporarily make me feel like a loser and very (whatever the gender neutral term is for emasculation), but I'd reframe it quickly as some kind of stoic strength that proved me stronger and more dominant than them... like a priest that says, "Oh my poor child... you are lost." And that is always how I'd responded when anger comes up... ignore it, it's futile anyone, let's quit while I'm behind... then reframe it as some kind of stoic virtue. And of course, a lifetime of that builds a lot of rage. But that rage gets turned always inward because it's me allowing these things to happen. And I had even (as a teenager) developed a cosmology where the concept of right and wrong is completely relativistic (for others) but absolute (for me). And I pretended for a couple years to have no strong convictions and that I was perfectly moderate in all ways. My philosophy as a 12 year old was always to stay in the middle of the road... which I framed as a wisdom that arises from detachment but was actually a coping strategy to avoid confrontation. So, it placed me in this elevated space of stoic superiority, where I accepted all things and was exercising god-like forgiveness to others for their short-comings and trying to practice unconditional love, receptivity, and acceptance of that person.... but if I were to show some kind of flaw (especially anger or disgust towards that person), I'd be very ruthless with myself because "I should do better than others." It was like, the world can be as angry, frenetic, emotionally weak, terrible, and cruel as it wants to be... because it will only draw emphasis to my own state of stoic detached grace. And by contrast, I will be the winner. And then there'd be all these fears that I've harmed a person if I even have a mild expression of anger or disgust on my face... not only for fear of falling from my pedestal of stoic grace but for fear of subjecting others to cruelty... as I so hated the cruel and the pain they cause. So, I built lots of filtering mechanisms that have made my anger and disgust even unconscious to myself. And I check my facial muscles constantly in conversation to make sure that I'm not hurting that other person with unconscious micro-expressions... be remaining hyper-conscious of my micro-expressions. And it built out this entire superiority complex in my teens around being the one super-human who can accept others without anger or disgust. And this put me in very vulnerable positions in my relationships because I tolerated so much to maintain that superior identity. But being the graceful one who unconditionally loves the cruel one was the way that I had always coped. So it made sense that this pattern would show up in my life. And I was frequently the target of cruelty... which would strengthen my identity because I built a philosophy of, "Even if someone comes up and beats the crap out of me, I will not land even a single punch on them. I will simply absorb it and stay stoic." Mind you, a lot of this broke down under the sheer weight of living life... especially when I entered the work-force at 16. But that foundation that I built between age 12 and 16 is still there. And I still have a hard time with knowing what to do with my anger. I've seen the value of integrating it now since my early 20s. But I haven't gotten over the fear of being the cruel sadistic woman who harms with abusive words and facial expressions... which is the origin point of this whole mess. I don't want to hurt anyone... which I feel is very easy to accidentally because I interpret people as very very sensitive, and like I exist as a tiger among bunny rabbits. And one wrong move (even a subtle facial expression that reflects a tiny bit of anger) and I will unintentionally split the bunny rabbit in half... even if I make the slightly wrong facial express or use the wrong word. That person will totally implode. And I don't want to be the 'cruel inferior plebeian' who is too weak to be stoic and kind. So, that's the context. But on this forum, there's actually space for this disowned part of me that is sadistic, angry, and cruel... and who delights in defeating others. And I don't need to show my facial expression or see theirs. So, I don't feel like I'm tip-toeing around bunny rabbits. Plus, my most effective and sharpest sword is my intellect. And on here, I can have all sorts of intellectual duels with people. So, what I do is that I channel my sadism, anger, and cruelty and I hook it up to my intellect... which is an effective weapon, and not futile like my childhood expressions of anger. And with my intellect, I can still maintain the image of stoicism because it's a cold process. And I can channel my sadism, anger, and cruelty through the stoic mask of my intellect. Then, I have certain rules for dueling that both cloak my sadistic tendencies and mitigate the harm of them, which are... I must remain intellectually honest I must not use ad hominem attacks I must not grand-stand or posture in empty ways (i.e. "You just don't get it the way that I do." or "Well, you're Stage Blue/Red? Green, so..." or (posturing myself like the authority who knows something the other person doesn't) "That's for you to figure out on your own." I must genuinely try to help the other person understand I must not use logical fallacies I must state the source of where my insight is deriving from so as to give my explanation the proper amount of authority in the eyes of the reader (i.e. a scientific study, an insight that I got, what makes logical sense to me, my friend experienced this, etc.) I must clean up what I've written to take off any personalized harsh edges... and keep my edginess purely in the intellectual dismantling of the topic at hand. And so, in this space, there's a ton of nerdy guys getting into combative intellectual arguments with one another to prove who is the most intellectual or the most correct. And I know that I can out-do most of them because of my fealty to intellectual honesty and reconciliation of many perspectives. So, this forum is like a big intellectual dick-measuring contest... and I have a really big one. And I like to win. And it's like bumper-cars... if you're going to participate, combativeness is par for the course. But in cases where the person has a cruel or ignorant perspective that muddies the water around or enables the plebeian cruelty that endemic in this world, I really take the gloves off. In my typical response to this, I receive that person entirely and seek to understand why the person had developed that perspective. But in this setting, I can just dismantle it... and defeat their perspective. And instead of doing the emotional labor of holding space for a person to be exactly where they are... I can actually express, "This viewpoint is a problem, because it would lead to x, y, z outcomes." So, I get to draw firm lines in the sand. But the sadism piece of this is also present, as there is a desire to cause some pain to those who have a more cruel perspective... or who act as enablers to cruel perspectives. And I recall once, when I was in an argument that was in-kind to arguing against cruelty, I was laying on the couch. And suddenly an image of myself came into my head of this queen that looks a bit like Helena Bonham Carter's version of the Queen in Alice in Wonderland... but much rougher and colder than that. It was this stoic, cold, sadistic mean queen. And she had a look of sheer hatred and disgust on her stony face. Her forehead was high... which fashionable ladies used to pluck their hairline to give themselves a really high hairline and around the renaissance. Her face was powdered. And she had thin black lips. And she was laying in the same position as me and on the same couch as me. She had medium-short curly reddish hair. It was like this image was showing me this part of myself. It's like, this forum is the only space where I can be her... but also hide her under the guise of the intention of intellectual helpfulness. So, at the top level, I can genuinely be trying to help... and I always am. But I am so angry about human cruelty, that there is this cold death mother drive that's somewhat akin to the idea of, "I brought you into this world... and I can take you out... that is if you can't play nice with your sibling or the family pets and you're destroying the house." It's like this, if you can't play nice, let's just set the world on fire and be done with it. And I can really channel that on here... especially when people are advocating for cruel/foolish perspective and/or perspectives that muddy the waters to enable cruelty and foolishness to continue unchecked. And it's like I made myself into a dormant volcano of cruelty where I hold it all in to cope with cruelty and defeat the cruel ones by denying them an outlet. But I have had no outlet for that cruelty and anger because the stoic method also gives me the same kind of powerlessness... but the forum gives me an outlet. And it's like I can keep running through the process that I needed to happen when I was a child... to have my anger actually win me the fight that I was in the right about.

The titles says it all. If you tend to use pick-up as a means of getting your sexual needs met whilst avoiding building actual friendships and acquaintance-ships with your peers... that's going to cause you problems. If you do decide to do pick-up (or even dating apps), it should be a supplement to your social circle... not a replacement.

That's interesting. The way I was interpreting it as a defense where you're trying to get the last word and "win" the interaction. And I would typically think of it as a sign of insecurity, and a fear of showing weakness. But I guess I was wrong.

Why do you always do this?

Silly reaction. There are women with boyfriends, you know?

Have fun being pretending to be someone else so that women will like you, then. But women will pick up on the neediness and lack of sovereignty behind the act... and the fact that you're taking her lead to determine how you should behave and socialize. Women don't tend to like it when men aren't independent-minded enough to act according to their own will. And it's quite repellent when a guy is trying to follow her lead on how he should behave just to earn her validation.

Don't start larping as a douchebag to try to get women to like you. That's just another way of being desperate and needy and saying, "What kind of asshole to I need to pretzel myself into to get women to like me?' The reality is that the woman you talked to had a boyfriend. And she probably enjoyed the flirtation and didn't want it to go further. So, she tried to diffuse it with a compliment because she didn't want you to get the wrong idea. And "You're sweet" is definitely a compliment. So, don't interpret this as "If only I were a douche, I'd get women". because that's not true. The woman had a boyfriend either way. Instead, just stop trying to mold yourself into what you think women want you to be... and just be yourself.

I'm not just talking about serial murderers. Probably half or more of people have been in a relationship with a toxic and abusive partner. And it's more often women who are on the receiving end of abuse... though many men also experience abuse. The statistics are the 1 in 3 women have been in an abusive relationship... and 1 in 4 men have been in an abusive relationship. So, when I'm talking about being predatory... I'm not just talking about the extremes. I'm talking about the mundane guy who will drag a woman's life down into the ground. And for an attractive woman, she will attract a lot more opportunistic men who are just trying to prove themselves good enough by getting her validation. They won't actually be interested in her. Honestly, probably around half or more people are going to be terrible partners. And women (and especially beautiful women) have to ruthlessly sort out those options... or she'll end up with a partner who will be a drain on her life. And that's not the extremes like serial murderers... as serial murderers are rare. It's more like avoidants, bread-crumbers, moochers, guys who can't keep a job, emotionally abusive guys, physically abusive guys (this sometimes actually does end in murder... it just doesn't make the national news), guys with anger issues, impulsive guys, misogynists, cheaters, gamblers, addicts, petty criminals, sex pests, beauty diggers, immature guys, irresponsible guys, dead-beat dads, power abusers, and other common types of negative partners. And these are very mundane examples. Most women have had a relationship with a guy who has qualities on this list. And probably half or more of guys fall into the categories on this list. (Half of women are often shitty too, just sometimes in other ways) So, women are very wise to be ruthless in their selectivity. And attractive women are especially visible to men who want to use her for sex, status, and validation without caring about her. And this tends to lead to many of her "leads" to getting into a relationship simply looking to extract value... and not just have a good relationship. So, the more beautiful a woman is, the more she needs to be able to protect her time, energy, and focus from predatory guys.

That's also a good point. If humans were put in a situation where agency was completely removed but all necessities were provided, there would probably be some really negative effects of that.

Those aren't common patterns in humanity though. It's very rare that a mom kills her kids. And it's rare if a man is only interested in grooming himself and not in having sex. Most men are deeply interested in sex.

You're not getting my perspective AT ALL. I literally said that all murderers should default to life sentences. So, I don't understand why you're talking about releasing a mass murderer.... as that's the opposite of my perspective. What I'm saying is that the philosophy needs to shift behind how we conduct the justice system to where we ONLY focus on justice... and not revenge or punishment. And the death penalty doesn't fit with that philosophy. Do you understand what I'm saying now?

That's not exactly true. While a less attractive woman can absolutely be targeted by a predatory man... attractive women are FAR more likely to be targeted simply because they draw more attention in general. Being an attractive woman can be a bit like being the goose that lays the golden eggs. EVERYONE and their father wants a piece of you. Also, predatory men are often very misogynistic and deeply resentful of beautiful women's power over them. So, there can also be a revenge driver that bitter men can have SPECIFICALLY for very beautiful women. That's why attractive women have to be EXTRA good at sorting and shielding their time, energy, and attention from those who just want to use her beauty for their own selfish purposes. It's also why women who have been assaulted can tend to dress down and gain weight... as attractiveness can feel and be very unsafe. It's genuinely safer to look plainer as a woman, as it draws less attention to you. Honestly, think about who's most likely to be sexually exploited and brought into the sex trade... young attractive women without a solid social circle. Also, when it comes to predation... it doesn't necessarily always mean being predated upon by some other species trying to eat you. For humans, there are common predatory social dynamics where a sizable minority of men will try to extract value from a woman without any care about her wants, needs, safety, or anything else. As apex predators... the main threat to the women of this species doesn't come from outside of the species, it comes from the men of the species. And attractiveness doesn't keep a woman safe at all. If anything, women who are more Feminine and attractive can tend to be less respected than a plainer woman who's more Masculine. That's always what I experienced anyway. The more Masculine you look and behave, the more respect or indifference you get from those kinds of men. The more Feminine you look and behave, the more those men see you as an object and want to exploit you for their own purposes. They see you more as a symbol for their own validity or sex drive than as a person.

That's definitely not true. Even in nature... blandness and drabness are actually great evolutionary strategies, as they help to avoid predators and ensure that the animal will go on to reproduce. For example, in a stream with few predators... the fish with the very attractive bright colors will be more likely to survive and reproduce. But in a stream with many predators... the blandest fish will be the most likely to survive and reproductive. And funny enough, the same logic applies with women. The more attractive you are as a woman... the more men you will attract. And many of those men will ONLY be interested in predating upon your beauty for their own selfish benefit. And the most attractive women are the most susceptible to predators... just like the very colorful fish are the most susceptible to predators. And the less attractive you are as a woman... the fewer men you will attract. But a lower percentage of that pool of men will be approaching you from a predatory mindset... as you don't have much beauty or status to be siphoned off of you. And that dodges a bullet. So, many women actually do dress themselves down... as it can be a repellent for predatory beauty diggers. So, plainness and unattractiveness actually serve great benefits. Also, if you look around at the world, probably only 20-30% of women really doll themselves up. Most women tend to feel more comfortable blending in a bit more. You just may not notice them as much... and it may feel like all women doll themselves up because those are the only women you're focused on. And I've only met one unattractive woman who struggled to attract and meet men. And hers was more of a self-esteem and not putting herself out there issue in combination with her appearance. But I've known MANY unattractive women. And all of them have had boyfriends and husbands. (I've also met plenty of uggo guys who never struggled to find a partner) But even beyond human beings, natural selection always sorts for the fittest in the environment... and sometimes the fittest will be the most attractive and other times the fittest will be the one who repels predators the most.

I once heard that the death penalty actually costs more for taxpayers than lifelong incarceration. Double-check that... as I only heard that once in passing. But I think the source was legitimate. Those are exactly my thoughts. The issue is that people mix-up the concept of justice with the concept of revenge. And those are two different values. And if the justice system serves the value of revenge, it mission drifts from the actual pursuit of justice. And that's how we end up with the very rudimentary and corrupt justice system we have. Instead, if we kept our eye on the prize, which is 'public safety' and 'taking away the burdens of freedom away' from murderers and others who use their freedom to commit life-altering violence... then we're actually on-mission. And I think the justice system that would result from that would be a lot more well-developed and nuanced. Right now, our justice system basically functions like a trash can that we throw any criminal into... and we mix drug users in with child molesters and killers. And it makes zero sense. So, I think there should be different types of sub-institutions for different types of crimes. Like for drug users, they shouldn't have to be locked up at all... or to pay probation. Instead, they should just be required to seek help for the addiction... and have resources given to them. For small-time drug-dealers, there should be short periods of time at a holding facility with non-violent offenders... where they have to learn about the harm that their drugs cause to people, to try to get them to reconsider what they're doing. And then, of course, mandatory confiscation of their drugs. For violent non-lethal crimes and more established drug dealers, they should have their own holding facility that's heavily focused on rehabilitation. Then, there should be a totally different facility for intentional murderers (excluding manslaughter), rapists, child molesters, and other crimes where the default understanding is life-imprisonment... except in rare cases where there's a clear change in ethos for those who murdered because they were involved in gangs and other things like that. And these facilities should all be built in a way that is less stimulating with calming colors and is going to be less likely to lead to agitation and conflict... as that's a better environment for rehabilitation and will reduce violence somewhat. Then, I think most of the budget for the justice department should go to researching the true root causes of specific types of criminal behaviors... and (where possible) to proactively put resources to preventing the external circumstances that are more likely to produce that kind of behavior. For example, if we know that poverty tends to lead to a greater likelihood of engaging in crimes like theft, drug dealing, and gang violence... then some of the justice resources should go to remedying the issue of poverty. Right now, because we think about justice and revenge as the same thing... we're only thinking about prison, probation, and fines as the source of justice. But those are just punishments... and they don't actually prevent criminal from committing crimes. They just deter non-criminals. So, our focus needs to be totally different to actually have an effective justice system that actually optimizes for a safer society. And the death penalty doesn't belong in that paradigm... unless there is a region where there's literally no maximum security place to keep a dangerous criminal.

You're deeply misunderstanding and strawmannirg my perspective. I'm not advocating a light sentence at all. I think that murderers and rapists need to be permanently sequestered away from society (life sentences)... not as a punishment, but as a means of keeping society safe and as a means of taking the burdens of freedom away from the criminal for their own good. So, I'd say that my perspective is actually a harder line than those who have a more punitive view of justice. The only exception to the life-sentence rule is if the person shows clear signs of rehabilitation... like a young gang member who kills someone and then genuinely grows past that phase in their lives. So, I'm advocating for changing the principles that the justice system operates off of by removing an ethos of revenge and punishment.... and instead serving the ACTUAL value of justice as a means of doing the right thing by the victim, the criminal, and society at large.

The reality of relationships is definitely more fair and beautiful than those hyper-sexed fantasy paradigms. The issue with those kinds of paradigms is that it focuses solely on truths that feel hot and sexy and hyper-polarized... and doesn't focus on what actually sustains a relationship. Let's say that there are several layers of how relationships and attraction operate... The compatibility layer The friendship layer The community layer The resonance layer The romance layer The animalistic layer And the paradigms that young men learn from often have to do with the animalistic layer. And on that layer, everyone is nothing more than the sum of their parts: women are only beauty and men are only power. .And everything is one giant transaction of mutual usery. And it's hyper-objectifying where beauty is exchanged for power. And it's something that tends to make men both aroused and empowered... as men tend to "win" the animalistic layer because men are stronger, taller, and have an evergreen reproductive cycle. (And women will tend to sort men who over-index on this layer because of that) But that layer is also disturbing for men.... because it leaves them with the question, "If there are stronger, more successful men... why don't all the hypergamous women just join his harem?" or "Why aren't all the hot 20 year olds with 50 year old rich men?" But that's not how people operate. And it jut creates a confirmation bias loop where the man will only seek out evidence that seems to confirm those paradigms... as he's turned on by them but also dehumanized and objectified in them, and his worth is challenged in them. It's honestly brilliant marketing on the part of such authors and coaches. It definitely pushes men's emotional and sexual buttons. But it tends to leave men in a bind where they're not actually understanding what women really see in him when she sees him in that more holistic way. And they're trying to hyper-optimize themselves along objective lines because of that misunderstanding to try to increase power and status to prove themselves worthy of beauty. But women tend to be more holistic in the way they view a man... seeing him as greater than the sum of his parts. And she can intuitively feel for each of the layers listed above... with the animalistic layer being just one ingredient. But that ingredient is meaningless and gross if the rest of the "dish" isn't good. The animalistic layer is like butter. In small quantities, it enhances the quality of dish. But you don't want to eat butter by itself. And there's definitely such a thing as too much butter. Honestly, if you want to understand how people really pair bond, you just have to look at ordinary people, and you will tend to see an equality among spouses. And it's not novel or hot or sexy. Of course, you might go "Well those are average people. I don't want to be average." But we are all average people, at the end of the day. We're all very ordinary. And that's where the magic is. And you can find very attractive people in awful relationships... and uggos in wonderful relationships. You just have to look more at real people's relationships and marriages... and less at over-sexed paradigms that are heavily focused on excitement and hotness in the initial dating phase.

Maybe I missed some context from previous discussions you guys had in other threads. But my point still stands that I don't like arguments that involve empty grandstanding and ad hominems like... "What a bleak, self centered life." and "Ego, folks." - to comments that he made where he was just matter-of-factly rebutting previous arguments that you made. Plus a bunch of other things Inliytened said competing with him about his bodycount... when he was only mentioning the number of women he's slept with because Inliytened brought it up in the first place. It just made you guys look silly and unserious. So, if Lordfall was also arguing dishonestly, I didn't see that on this thread.

Justice is about keeping society safe. So, I think the murderers and rapists should not be allowed in mainstream society unless they are truly rehabilitated (which would be rare). The only reason why the death penalty would make sense as a form of justice is if the society isn't developed enough to have maximum security prisons to keep dangerous people sequestered away. Like, if you're living in a tribe with no such facility and someone in the tribe is a murderer... then the responsible thing to do is to kill them. That's what's necessary to neutralize the threat. But I don't think justice should be thought of as a punishment. And I don't think that the death penalty even makes sense as a form of punishment. I see justice as being about doing right by the victim, the criminal, and society at large... You do right by the victim and society by removing the threat and ensuring that the crime cannot happen again. But to do right by the criminal, you must remove the burden of freedom from them... as they are not capable of wielding freedom responsibility without causing harm.

As I said, statistically, romantic partners tend to be each-other's looks-match. But also.. romantic partners tend to statistically have equivalent levels of education and socio-economic success... and have similar values. There also tends to be a relative equality of age among partners... where the average age difference between male and female partners is 2 years. And I feel like all your theories are looking at romantic relationships unrealistically where there are these huge imbalances that are very uncommon in real life... where the woman is hot, young, and poor and the man is old, average/ugly looking, high-status and rich. But somehow magically, this is the most desirable and satisfying arrangement for both partners. That's why you were like, "Why aren't all the 20 years olds with 50 year old men?" which indicates to me that you don't have a realistic picture of how human beings actually tend to pair bond. So, if we're taking an actual realistic non-fantasy perspective on human dating/relationships/marriages... If Sarah is an average looking educated women with a good job and good social skills... she's quite likely to find an average-looking educated man with a good job and good social skills. And if Sarah is a kind person with high self-esteem, she will likely be attracted to and attract a kind man with high self-esteem. And while it's true that women are attracted more to personality than looks, that doesn't mean that looks isn't her initial filter. If I'm a 6, there's no world that exists where I'm attracted to a 3 in looks... even if he's perfect 10s across the board in all other areas. So, looks is a hard stop for most women... even though women are generally slightly looks-hypogamous. So, what's realistic is if Sarah and Joe have about the same level of attractiveness... and he'll probably have similar values and qualities to her, whatever they happen to be. If she sucks or has low self-esteem... her partner will probably suck. If she's awesome and has high self-esteem... her partner will probably be an amazing person. Also, women are attracted to personality first... and accomplishments second. So, if there's a guy who has "confidence, status, financial stability, social skills, and charisma" but he has a terrible personality or doesn't treat her well, if Sarah has high self-esteem and is good at sorting, she's going to throw him in the trash pile where he belongs.

@yetineti @Inliytened1 You guys are just making yourselves look silly. It's like you're trying to sling mud at @LordFall in ways that don't fit him or line up with what he's saying or doing. And it reflects more poorly upon the two of you as you're both emptily grandstanding and schooling him on things he has more experience with.

It's quite normal to expect honesty in a relationship... and it's also quite normal to want/need to feel special in a relationship. And if someone lies to their partner in a way that gives them an illusion of specialness, it's normal for the revelation of that lie to hurt... even for someone who doesn't have sexual or other insecurities. For example, if a guy that I was with told me that I was the only woman that he ever felt sexually open with... that would mean something to me. And if I found out it was just something he said because he knew I wanted to hear it, that would upset me a bit and make me wonder if I could trust him. And mind you, I've never have insecurities or jealousy about the previous partners of any of my romantic partners. I actually find talking about the past sexual experiences he's had to be intriguing, as it's like exploring him as a sexual being outside of the familiar dynamic. So... as someone who doesn't feel insecure at all about my current or past partners' past sexual partners... I would be quite upset to be lied to. And I'd be even more upset if that lie gave me the illusion that I gave him a special breakthrough experience. Also, women tend to be aware that men love to feel effective and like to feel like they're being invited into vulnerable territory. In fact, I once heard a sex worker or cam girl on a podcast talking about creating the illusion of a wall of sexual vulnerability that she has never gone past. And that sets up a scenario where the man can feel like he's gotten her to open up, be vulnerable, and push past her usual sexual blocks. And I think it's fine if a sex worker does that, as her client should be aware that she's creating an illusion of intimacy to increase his pleasure. But in an actual relationship, it's quite unkind to pretend to have sexual walls that you don't... so that the guy can feel like he's the only one that ever broke through them. That's why I said, it's not just that she lied about having had sex with a few guys before. It's that she used that lie to orchestrate a one-sided illusion of specialness and intimacy.

All this is a bunch of conspiratorial thinking that soothes your own pain. But it really doesn't make any logical sense if you actually investigate the premise you're operating off of. Your thesis is that female promiscuity is leading to fewer women wanting kids... and fewer women wanting kids is causing society's downfall. But the reality is that women have already been liberated sexually and otherwise for a very long time (since the 60s or thereabouts). And Feminism was just as strong of a force (if not stronger) back in the 60s and 70s. And young women in 2026 are having less sex than women 10+ year ago. So, male and female promiscuity has wained down from previous generations that were desiring children. Sociologists even call it a "sex recession". In fact, the most promiscuous generation (for both men and women) were the baby boomers... specifically baby boomers born in the 50s. But it's only in the past 10 years that young men and women are less likely to want kids and that men are a bit more likely to want kids than women. 10+ years ago... most young people eventually wanted kids... and women and men were about equally likely to want them. So, there has been a change there. (though it's a big leap to say that change will lead to society's downfall) But you're interpreting that change as flowing forth from women's sexual liberation and promiscuity... which doesn't make sense with any of the facts. Realistically, I think the reason why fewer young people are coupling up and wanting kids are because humans aren't connecting as much in person anymore. So, I'm guessing that fewer young people are wanting kids because there's more online interactions and fewer in-person interactions. Perhaps it's even because young men and women are having less sex than young men and women a decade ago... as that tends to be where kids come from.

I don't know if women are more resilient than men, in general. In break-ups, I do think women are a bit more resilient because we generally allow ourselves to feel sad and grieve and feel the heartbreak... while men might just feel like he should move on without wallowing in his feelings because of taboos agains men having/showing feelings and vulnerabilities. So, women will grieve and cry for a few months and eventually move on. But a guy who doesn't let himself grieve and cry will stay stuck and may struggle to move on. That's more about whether a man lets himself feel his sadness or not though. A man who lets himself grieve will also be resilient.

That's one angle to look at it from. And that's the one that I said was more internal to him... and something to work through. As you said... women are sexual beings. And there are zero men with magical unique penises that are the only ones capable of pleasing a woman. And even if they were, women would still be a lot more interested in intimacy and connection. But even beyond that, she did lie to him and gave him the impression that he had a uniquely transformative role to open her up to her sexual side. And because that was a lie that created shared meaning, that's going to add layers of confusion and grief on top of the baseline insecurity that already existed. If a man had lied to me and made me feel special to him, and I found out it was a lie and he was just telling me what he knew would make me feel special... my trust would be shaken and I'd wonder if he really cares about me in particular or if he just says empty words. So, I think (even outside of the insecurity men often feel) there are extra layers to this one. And it's important not to lump the two issues together.

That sounds like something that's more about a specific woman... and not something that's universal among women. So, I couldn't answer why a specific woman might move on quickly.