Are women sexist against themselves?

Post Reply New Topic

The truth that most people don't want to accept is that we are first driven by millions of years of evolution and then we are driven by conscious thought. MOST of what we do and what we want in a mate has nothing to do with conscious choice but with subconscious motivations.

You don't really think that's free-will your expressing do you?

Women date jerks because they are the most dominant and will give the strongest babies that will in turn breed spread her genes further in the next generation. A woman's mating choice has far more to do with evolution than it does with any social bull-crap.

As for why she'll pick a "nice guy" later in life that's simple: now that she has had the bad-boy's baby she needs some idiot who will stay with her. That idiot is the nice guy. "Cuckold" is another term for it.

If you want to understand women and the mating choices they make then you need to start reading about Evolutionary Psychology.

I'm the wrong person to ask. I don't date guys that I'm not friends with... I'm pretty much a living counterargument to ladder theory.

When I say friends, I don't mean "Oh, I met him last week, he's pretty nice." I mean that I've known him a year or more, our interests and personalities mesh well, and I consider him as being husband/father material. It sounds old-fashioned, but that's really what this whole "dating and mating" thing is for... finding someone you love and get along with, who loves you in turn... someone that you could see spending the rest of your life and having children with.

Otherwise, there's really no point in engaging in it. If all you're looking for is a meaningless sexual experience with no emotional commitment... to be perfectly crass about it, masturbation is the logical choice. You get your rocks off, but there's no possibility of disease, pregnancy, or unwanted emotional attachment and the drama it brings.



As you have probably already guessed from my general tone, I'm not normally a particularly sensitive woman. Even in real life, I've got the sort of personality that can bust you in the face from across the room, if I want it to. I'm pretty damn stubborn and strong-willed, lol.

I am engaged, and my fiance is every bit as stubborn and strong-willed as I am. If he were not, I'd inadvertently steamroller him all the time. I'd probably be bullying him a great deal, and not even be aware I was doing so. I don't want to cause emotional pain to those I love. At the same time, I don't want to have to live my life walking on eggshells whenever I'm around him, unable to relax and be myself for fear I hurt his feelings.



Not all women who refuse to be doormats are single.



1) Well, the first four that spring to mind are that you abide by the law, show some modicum of self-sufficiency, display good manners, and display tolerance towards people who differ from yourself demographically. (Race, creed, etc.)

2) Fifty years ago, it was a rare woman who looked beyond the boundaries of home and family for fulfillment, purpose, or meaning. It was ok to be emotionally weak, not know that much about handling money, to not want a career, etc. if you were female. Nowadays, we are expected to get out there in the work world and compete alongside the guys. We're expected to not only earn our own money, but not blow it all on shoes, manicures, and other frivilous things. We're expected to be a lot more like men than we used to be. As a woman who is not how she feels about this innocent question that pops up in social gatherings when people are trying to make conversation. "So... what do you do for a living?" If she's like the housewives I've known, she feels ashamed to admit that she's a housewife, and believes that other people look down on her for it.

3) Hmm... just off the top of my head - Stop hitting s**t and slamming stuff down when you're pissed! It looks like a little kid throwing a temper tantrum. Stop being so obsessed with sex to the exclusion of all else. (Something I've always wondered... are men really that obsessed with sex, or do they just pretend to be, so their masculinity doesn't get called into question by other men?) Stop pretending that the housework is "women's work", and pitch in more. A lot of women make these complaints I've noticed, lol.

Last edited by Hazelwudi on 04 Nov 2006, 4:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

Do you guys not go to bars? Now you'd be running the risk of STD's and the like, but I've known plenty of seriously loose women who would sleep with damn near any guy who crossed their path. If ordinary bars aren't doing it, try bars in college towns. If even that isn't doing it... goddamn...



In spite of what a creationist might say, our species did not spring into existence ex nihilo. In order to understand the present, you must have knowledge of the past. A lot of this goes back to evolutionary theory... the domineering big guys were usually the ones near the top of the tribal pecking order. Such a man was better able to protect and provide for a mate and children than other men.

I think this has to an extent become hardwired into the psychology of the females of our species. Even though someone with no more strength than a child can fire a gun just fine, and even though we get our meat from the butcher's case and don't need men to hunt and bring home the kill, many women still look for those physical characteristics.

Don't feel put upon. Evolutionary theory also postulates that male mating preferences have caused a permanent alteration in the anatomy of the female. Human beings are the only primate on earth where the adult females have permanently distended breasts. It is theorized that primitive males considered this proof that she was fertile and could adequately breastfeed children. Through mating selection, this eventually became a part of our genetic code.

If anything, this was selected for even more strongly than the "Conan-look" in guys. How many men have you seen that are big and brawny? Some, yeah... but definitely less than half. How many women have you seen that are completely flat-chested? Very, very few. Even the women who were dissatisfied with their endowments and had breast augmentation weren't completely flat-chested... they just wanted to turn their A or B cup into a C or D cup.



Not when the "nice guy" tends to let people walk all over him and is therefore usually low on the social totem pole, as it were. Whatever one might say about as*holes, they're usually at least at the midpoint of the pecking order, if not higher.



I could just as easily ask how it's my fault that you feel crapped on by women I've never even met.



The goal for a lot of women, as near as I can fathom, is to get a guy who is a brash and domineering as*hole to everyone but her. lol

Can you explain to me these two things on the basis of logic:

1)Why are women obeying ladder theory? This breaks down into two parts:

a)How can you get to know someone within short period of time to form judgement?
b)Once you did form judgement, but later saw evidence to the contrary, why are you sticking with the judgement that you have already made?

2)Why are women disliking men who are "weak"? I mean, if a man allows everyone to walk all over him, it will only affect HIM, not a woman he is with. So why should a woman take it personally or refuse to be with him on this basis?



I undersand why some people want to be single, and I have nothing against that. I am strictly focusing on women who DO look for a boyfriend, and asking why they are choosing some boys over others.



Well since i am living in clouds I am not sure what you are referring to, although I do think you made a good point. So can you tell me more concretely?

1)What are the demands of modern society?
2)How did women evolve?
3)What should men do to evolve?

That only proves my point. So if there are women who are willing to sleep with virtually anyone, how come nice guys can't approach them and get what they want? So for some mysterious reason nice guys are rulled out even by whores ...



As far as history goes, none of the young people today were even born back then so how is it relevent?



In this case she would try to put pressure on men to be nice. But for some reason she does just the opposite by choosing as*holes over nice guys.



How is it my fault if I weren't even born back then?



Okay if you are talking about violence, then again jerks are more likely to do that then nice guys are. So it won't explain why women won't go for nice guys.

I'm pretty sure I was talking about equality..


I only expanded more on the male side of things because I'm a man myself..


Yes, women have "evolved".. ... but you definately can't say men haven't... I mean thats a bit one sided..

If someone has a lot of aggression it doesn't just vanish with a choice, you can't just say "accept what you get" without at least trying to make a change or do something about it..

I already answered both posts Roman... reposting the query posts isn't going to help.

I read what you answered. In a nutshell, you said the following:

1)Women have their own life so they don't owe men sex or anything else for that matter

2)Women have been historically abused

I AGREE WITH BOTH POINTS. But they are irrelevent to what I am asking.

As for point 1, let me provide the following illustration. No one is allowed to insist that I eat apples rather than oranges or visa versa. However, this doesn't stop a biologist from asking a question just out of curiocity as to what is biology behind some ppl liking some fruits more then others. Same here. *IF* woman happened to like as*holes more htan nice guys, then it is her right to go for the ones she likes more. But that is NOT a question. A question is WHY did she choose to like as*holes more than nice guys ON THE FIRST PLACE.

As far as part 2, this would be a nice explanation of why women would NOT choose as*holes. But that only makes it more difficult to answer a question why DO they choose as*holes over nice guys.

You'll find my answers on this page, one being the 4th post from the top, one being the 5th. Did you just miss those two posts? If you missed them, read them. If you didn't, then I've already addressed your questions so there's no point in posting the exact same thing over again.

Okay I looked at it and it was quite informative. Thank you for informative answers!

Anyway, I guess you probably editted it given that you were answering my questions that I was yet to ask in the responses that followed. And I weren't reposting myself either because there was only ONE post where I asked these questions (rather than two) and that one post was AFTER your answers.

At the same time, I could no longer find any place where were you saying any of the things I was quoting you saying in my responses. So I guess while you were editting your post, you removed all the things I was quoting you saying and instead inserted your answers to my questions.

So probably what happened is that you wrote A in Nov 2, then I responed to it with B in Nov 3, and then, in Nov 4, you editted A into C, where C specifically adresses the quetions asked in B. BUt in Nov 5 I didn't know you editted it so when you said you already answered it I didn't know what you were referring to.

Anyway, in case you edit it some more, I just took a cut and paste of the whole page and emailed it to myself. That way I will have it, no matter what.

But thank you anyway for the informative post!

Closer to business, I guess my question is how come in pre-editted version you were saying that women think logically rather than emotionally. But after you editted you were talking about evolutionary theory of why women do what they do. So don't these two things contradict each other?

Okay this makes a lot of sense. In fact, prior to when I had my first girlfriend, this is exactly how I was viewing it, mainly because my own parents knew each other for few years before they were marrying so I regarded it as normal. My first ex made a first move on a second date and I was totally surprised. Then I was even more surprised when she was making a decision about marriage only a couple of months into a relationship.

So I guess the bottom line is that I agree with you that it should be done in "old fashioned" manner, and I simply don't understand this "system" I am supposed to be part of where it is otherwise. And the fact that I am insulted by "ladder theory" might be a colorary to my disagreement with the whole "system" of moving fast; it is simply happened to be the most offensive part of the "system" which I don't understand to start with.



Okay, as far as I am concerned I don't believe in sex before marriage so I am not talking about sex. When I say that I want it to be more than friendship, I am referring to "relationship". So I guess my deal is that I am reading all these dating tips and mentally replacing hte word "sex" with the word "relationship". Since relatinship is, by definition, long-term, your question that there is no point in something short term isn't relevent.

However, there is something far more serious I would like to ask. Namely, how can LONG TERM decisions be based on a couple of days encounter? How come women choose within first few days whehter or not someone is a candidate for LONG TERM relationship? So if I had bad day, I can ruin my whole LIFE because I get into "friend's zone" which disqualifies me from any possibility of marriage in future.



Okay if such is the case, then how come women are willing to be FRIENDS with week men, as long as it isn't a relationship. If what you said is correct, then even being friends with them would put you in a danger of having to walk on eggshells in order not to hurt their feelings. Of course you can say that may be they aren't close enough friends so they don't have to do it daily. But this brings me to Anne, a girl who LJBF-ed me a year and a half ago. She wanted to meet with me every single day, she was cooking for me, etc. So obviuosly it wasn't burdensome for her to "walk on the eggshels" in order not to hurt my feelings. But when I asked her for a relationship she said she doesn't want to be in a relatinship with me because I weren't confident enough.

And by the way speaking of the fact that I don't believe in sex before marriage, this raises a question as to what is a difference between the close friendship that I had with Anne verses a relatinoship anyway? The only possible answer is that being in a relatinoship with someone is a way of giving someone a "title" as someone "confident" or whatever. And this really pisses me off because I really don't think it should be about titles at all.



But the point is that when I look for a relationship I never insist on a TYPE of relationship I am looking for. I simply say "hey I want to be in a relationship" and they say "no way, because you aren't confident enough".



Nice guys meet part 1, don't they




Yes I understand



Like I said I don't believe in sex before marriage



I have no idea about other men. As for me, it is right, if you replace the word "sex" with a word "relationship". I basically want to be "in a relationship" in order to be able to say that I am not a loser.



Again this doesn't seem to be relevent to "nice guy" thing. On the contrary, I have read a number of dating tips that told me that if I am going to offer women help to do stuff then I will be "nice guy" for doing that which will put me into LJBF category.

I don't go into bars. I am looking for something genuine and long term, hopefully leading to marriage.

However, when I was reading dating tips by David DeAngelo, he kept talking about guys who go into bars and are NOT able to find any women to talk to. So obviusly something must be going on that would prevent all these desperate women from talking to the guys.



So didn't you just contradicted your previous statement that women make choices on a basis of logic and not emotion?



But the question is why is it important on the first place as to what kind of social status the guy has? I mean it isn't about woman, it is about THE GUY. So the only way to make sense of it is to say that women decided to be coaches of some sort where they would "give credit" to guys based on their social status in a form of "relationship".



I never said it was your fault. I simply wanted you to explain to me the logic of other women. For this purpose, I can go to ANY source, whether it be a woman or a man (in fact there was at least one other thread of mine where I was talking to A MAN so that he could explain to me why women did what they did -- see here: http://www.wrongplanet.net/modules.php? ... highlight= )



Are you sure "but her" part is correct? Because on some of the dating tips I was told that being nice *TO HER* is going to turn her off as well.

You're welcome. When it comes to editing, I'm a total grammar nazi. lol.

The first one was written the date you see at the top of the post, and edited for grammar that same night, less than an hour after it was originally posted.

The second one was reread a couple days later, then added to then because I realized that I'd left bits out.



The problem I see is that there's basically two types of women operating under two fundamentally different sets of assumptions. The oldschool, evolutionary "find the overbearing, musclebound brute, he can probably hunt well and is high in the tribe's heirarchy." set of assumptions were functional once, in very primitive times. However, a lot of it really isn't anymore, at least not in modern, first-world societies.

Basically, our society is changing faster than a lot of the people in it, men and women alike. As such, there are people who still rely on the primitive, animalistic patterns which are now dysfunctional, but there are also intellectually-oriented people who have largely abandoned them. It takes a high valuation of cognition... on logic and rationality... to abandon those old, biologically hardwired formulas and rely instead upon a comparatively johnny-come-lately ability to the animal kingdom... rational thought.

What I was saying is this... there are women out there who have abandoned the primitive (and now largely dysfunctional) patterns in favor of logic... how come it seems that comparatively few men have? How come there are a number of women out there who don't go for Conan the Barbarian style men, but so few men out there who can even keep their eyes on the face of an attractive woman when she is talking, rather than using the opportunity to stare at her breasts?

Last edited by Hazelwudi on 05 Nov 2006, 6:06 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Authors of typically write in such a manner that they think their readers will be able to relate to it... including authors of dating advice. For good or ill, the notion that sex should wait until marriage is definitely a minority view these days, so you can expect that to not be an a priori assumption on the part of the author.

I have much the same problem when I read magazines like Cosmopolitan. Although I don't have a problem with sex before marriage, I frown on promiscuity. I don't have a "main man" and then one or more other men I'm stringing along. The writers like to assume that women who read Cosmo do, and their articles and advice tend to reflect that.



The only real solution I could give you is to pursue more stable women who are intellectually evolved enough to not go by the "ladder system" in the first place.

I'm going to be brutally blunt, here. You probably won't like it, but I'm going to say it anyhow. Younger men have a very unfortunate tendency to chase empty-headed "playboy bunny" type women whose cognitive processes are primitive at best. It doesn't matter if he has absolutely nothing in common with her. It doesn't matter if she won't even consider him for a romantic relationship. He's blinded by T&A into thinking with the wrong head, do you follow?

If you want a woman who does not go with the ladder system, then forget about those women and find a female geek to be happy with.



Friends come and go, but marriage is a more permanent arrangement. Spouses don't just come and go... at least not without a lot of financial and legal wrangling, hehe. Perhaps the prospect of walking on eggshells for the rest of one's life is a daunting one.

I have to ask... why don't you feel good about yourself? At base, that's what confidence is... it's feeling yourself competent and capable enough to handle the things likely to come your way.



Well, usually both partners want to know where the relationship stands. Is this "it", or should they keep looking? Do both partners see it the same way? If she thinks that they're friends and he thinks they're dating, he's going to feel crushed if she pursues another man. But from her point of view, she's free to pursue another man, because she doesn't see herself as romantically involved. The titles help clarify expected behavior, for both parties.

You're going to have an ... interesting ... time of it these days if you don't believe in sex before marriage. The social norms have definitely shifted away from that in recent decades.

I'm curious though, why don't you? Is it a religious thing, or a confidence thing, or what?



When people in this culture use the term "relationship" in that context, it's automatically assumed that they're speaking of a romantic relationship, not a friendship sort of relationship.



Some of them. Others still live with their parents or otherwise neglect to display self-sufficiency. I'm not saying you do, but there are some who do.



While I can understand that motivation, it's perhaps not the best reason to be romatically involved with someone, you know? Ideally, this should be someone you love and want to spend the rest of your life with, not a way to prove something to yourself?



Admittedly, the "helping out around the house" thing applies a lot more to people who are already married (or at least living together) than people who aren't. To do that too soon might well come across as ingratiating.

I never cruised the bars either, but I understand it's a popular thing to do. *shrugs*



I'm damned if I know what that might be, considering the number of total hobags I've seen who would sleep with virtually anyone. lol.



Like I said in another post, some people are operating on the oldschool primitive methods which have been drummed into the species by evolution over thousands of years, and some people have moved beyond it. What you want is a more modern woman, one who has moved beyond it and therefore decides based on logic.



In the old evolutionary model, his social standing would increase her social standing vicariously, once the two became a couple. It would also insure that any children born to the two of them would have a high social standing, because of their father's social standing. This sort of thinking isn't quite as entrenched as it once was, but there are still remnants of it around. Think of the the "gold-digger" who runs after rich men because she wants the lifestyle the man can provide to his mate and his children. Wealth is largely the way social status is determined in this culture, particularly for men.



I was being silly, you don't have to take it personally.



Not unless she has serious psychological problems, imo. What's more attractive? A guy who shows up for a date with roses, or some drunken lout who shows up empty-handed then punches her in the face? No sane woman wants the latter, lol.

The trick is in being nice to her but still coming across as confident and secure with yourself.

I wasn't referring to grammar. I was simply trying to explain why it appeared that FIRST you responded to me quoting my questions and THEN I posted questions in the NEXT POST which appears as if I was repasting them or somehting. So I was trying to say that I never repasted anything, so probably you simply responded to me by editting your original post as opposed to posting a brand new one. But thats okay, as long as I finally read it, lol.



Okay if there were two kinds of women with comparable numbers in each group, then things would of been paradize to me becaue every second woman would of been an option. So the fact that it takes approximately HALF A YEAR or even A YEAR of daily searches on a dating sites to find a woman implies that 99.9999% of women are operating on ladder system.