The assertion that men are more prone to violence, putting women at greater risk when contemplating a sexual encounter with a stranger, and, thus, causing women to be cautious and skeptical of those encounters, should be non-controversial. It is certainly beyond the pale to deny that dynamic exists, no matter preposterous attempts to lay blame. Whereas, he has not yet addressed my request for clarification directly, if your summary is accurate, then my claim that he seems to walk close to the misogynistic line is off-target -- rather, he steps over the line unabashedly!
Now separate this consequence from women's selectivity and perhaps id have to walk back my water analogy. Whom women choose outside of cultural and societal expectations is the primary contributing factor to the violence they tend to endure, because the violence factor is not that of random men but rather those whose assocation with the woman is a full function of her personal selectivity as opposed to some overarching sociocultural expectations which also tend to hold men responsible when they choose violence. The most dangerous individual to a woman is her unmarried, live in domestic partner. My water analogy stands because on a sociocultural basis, women have a statistically proven safe water source, that they opt out of because they care less about the overall long term health consequences of their decisions and preferences and more about the short term feeling and aesthetics associated with their preferences and proclivities, and on a minor note I think women have a somewhat natural urge to resist against what has been prescribed for their success and safety if they weren't the ones that came up with idea in the 1st place...hence why you'll happily complain about the carcinogens and plastics you encounter in your self imposed selection of bottled water, instead of reconciling your boredom and dissatisfaction with a proven public water source.
Cherry pick and virtue signal all you want, there's a reason you chose to only quote the 1st part of that whole statement when it just pre iterated the gender benign statistics of whom poses the most danger to any individual woman at any one time. It's not misandry to tell men an unchecked remphasis on the sexual aesthetics and availability of a woman are the prime contribution to him enduring infidelity, golddigging or paternal fraud later on, is it?
Effectively isn't this question this thread "posed" is, "Har har, aren't straight men whiny dummies for not being able to handle the consequences of their socioculturally unchecked sexual decisions?" Or am I reading the question and the self given answer wrong?
And the assertion I make is that the physical, psychological, and emotional traits of men most predisposed towards, prone to, or most able to act on this violence tend to make up the top hierarchies of whom women select for sexually on a short term basis.
I think your assertion is accurate, but I think it either inadvertently or purposely, avoids how the sausage is made so to speak, and rests on a conveniently precarious haunch that avoids other factors at play.
I believe you are confusing a woman's attraction to masculine traits of provision and protection with their revulsion for aggression and hostility. A man must also be reliable and kind to be considered an attractive mate because it indicates he will be committed and focus his masculinity to benefit the woman and offspring.
Again great considerations made by older, more matured women when it comes to marriage and long term commitment; I would posit that whom women choose when young and fertile is much more accurately aligned with their mate preferences as opposed to the euphemisms offered which tend to more align with an avoidance of known consequences.
I don't think it's confusing at all, women do not have revulsion for aggression and hostility in general, they simply do not want to endure the consequences of it, or are banking on the benefits of it for "protection" against outside aggression and hostility. Which is why their unchecked mating and dating strategy when they have the most leverage resembles nuclear deterrence and not nuclear disarmament. One could avoid most of the worlds aggression and hostility by collectively positively incentivising(by way of preferential access to sex and intimacy) men whom aren't aligned in that way: most women, however, opt to take a bet the aggression or hostility they are primally attracted to will never be used against them....
So I ask you nuclear disarmament or nuclear deterrence, which strategy do you think up the chances of you having to endure a nuclear conflict of some sort?
Keep in mind this thread is referring to NSA sex, which falls under the short term, non committal variety of sexual mating, I sorely doubt if you polled 1000 women about their short term, non committal sexual experiences, that reliability and kindness would be a common descriptor of those men.
Woman: Be here at 10pm sharp. I wanna fuck.
Man: *shows up at 10pm sharp*
Reliability: check
------------
Man: Can we fuck tonight, please?
Woman: Sure.
Later...
Man: I had a great time. Thanks!
Woman: Me too. Bye!
Kindness: check
---------
A true NSA arrangement honors the art of minimalism. It's not difficult.
...and as a matter of NSA sex, the women engaged are still attracted to the same masculine traits I describe, no matter their intent for a future. Have you no experience with women in real life to know this already?
elklindoxxx
Superior Member
My partner and I go with other couples and it's highly desirable that they show up on time and arrive ready for sex. And also when we have couples over we make sure that they are well treated.
We want good couples to come back again.
Similar threads
