Is There an Ideal Way of Acting and Being in Male-Female Relationships?

[Laura]

I posted this over in the Sandra Brown thread, but it obviously belongs here. Yeah, it's long, but it is definitely worth it:

In this episode, my guest is Dr. David Buss, Professor of Psychology at the University of Texas, Austin, and one of the founding members of the field of evolutionary psychology. Dr. Buss describes his work on how people select mates for short and long-term relationships, the dynamics of human courtship, and mate value assessment — meaning how people measure up as potential partners. We also discuss the causes of infidelity and differences for infidelity in men and women. He explains how people evaluate and try to alter other people’s mate value as a means to secure and even poach mates. We discuss monogamous and non-monogamous relationships in humans. And we discuss what Dr. Buss calls “the dark triad”— features common in stalkers and narcissists that relate to sexual and psychological violence in relationships. This episode is sure to be of interest to anyone single or in a relationship who seeks to know how people select mates and anyone who is interested in forming and maintaining healthy romantic partnerships.

Timestamps: 00:00:00 Introducing Dr. David Buss 00:04:10 Sponsors: ROKA, InsideTracker, Headspace 00:08:33 Choosing a Mate 00:13:40 Long Term Mates: Universal Desires 00:18:31 What Women & Men Seek in Long-Term Mates 00:25:10 Age Differences & Mating History 00:32:20 Deception in Courtship 00:37:30 Emotional Stability 00:38:40 Lying About Long-Term Interest 00:41:56 Short-Term Mating Criteria, Sliding Standards & Context Effects 00:46:25 Sexual Infidelity: Variety Seeking & (Un)happiness & Mate Switching 00:54:25 Genetic Cuckolds, How Ovulation Impacts Mate Preference 00:57:00 Long-Term vs. Short-Term Cheating, Concealment 00:59:15 Emotional & Financial Infidelity 01:04:35 Contraception 01:06:22 Status & Mating Success 01:10:10 Jealousy, Mate Value Discrepancies, Vigilance, Violence 01:24:13 Specificity of Intimate Partner Violence 01:25:12 Mate Retention Tactics: Denigration, Guilt, Etc. 01:27:33 Narcissism, Machiavellianism, Psychopathy 01:33:25 Stalking 01:39:15 Influence of Children on Mate Value Assessments 01:43:24 Attachment Styles, Mate Choice & Infidelity 01:46:40 Non-Monogamy, Unconventional Relationships 01:54:00 Mate Value Self Evaluation, Anxiety About the Truth 02:02:12 Self Deception 02:05:35 The Future of Evolutionary Psychology & Neuroscience 02:06:56 Books: When Men Behave Badly; The Evolution of Desire, Textbooks 02:10:42 Concluding Statements, Zero-Cost Support: Subscribe, Sponsors, Patreon, Thorne

 

[Tycho]

Good, old Schopenhauer nails it pretty much. Nothing new under the sun....

Arthur Schopenhauer

On Women “1865

medium.com

 

[BHelmet]

Seems to me that most of the major problems in intimate relationships come from anxiety/control issues, in turn produced by childhood programs related to insecure attachment issues caused by crap parenting. Men with insecure attachment issues are attracted to the idea of a manual to control the course and outcome of their intimate relationships, which they believe and feel to be inherently 'dangerous' or threatening.

I’d modify this slightly by removing the reference to crap parenting for a number of reasons.

1. It puts causal blame on the parents while sidestepping personal responsibility which is ultimately a disempowering outlook

2. There is crap parenting that is overcome with amazing results

3. There is good parenting that generates crap results

4. Men with these insecure attachment issues can just as easily default to allow being controlled by a female rather than the other way around

I think there are all sorts of tangoes to be danced and to each his or her own. The reasons why we have been programmed in a particular way, do need to be seen in order to break free from those mechanisms.

As it is said, YMMV

 

[Tycho]

Regarding part of the interview around 1:10 i had to think about an excerpt of the "Law of One", citation:

Questioner: From the previous session the statement was made that much is veiled to the most apparently clear observation. Would Ra expand on what was meant by that statement? I assume that this means the veiling of all of that that is outside the limits of what we call our physical perception having to do with the spectrum of light, etc., but I also intuit there is more than that veiled. Would Ra expand on that concept?

Ra: I am Ra. You are perceptive in your supposition. Indeed, we meant not any suggestions that the physical apparatus of your current illusion were limited as part of the veiling process. Your physical limits are as they are.

However, because of the unique biases of each mind/body/spirit complex there are sometimes quite simple instances of distortion when there is no apparent cause for such distortion. Let us use the example of the virile and immature male who meets and speaks clearly with a young female whose physical form has the appropriate configuration to cause, for this male entity, the activation of the red-ray sexual arousal.

The words spoken may be upon a simple subject such as naming, information as to the occupation, and various other common interchanges of sound vibratory complex. The male entity, however, is using almost all the available consciousness it possesses in registering the desirability of the female. Such may also be true of the female.

Thusly an entire exchange of information may be meaningless because the actual catalyst is of the body. This is unconsciously controlled and is not a conscious decision. This example is simplistic.

Sorry if this is somewhat Off-Topic.

PS: Very interesting interview

 

[Joe]

I still think it's true for most women. What women in general want is pretty accurately defined by this "philosophy",

The "philosophy" doesn't explicitly say, but certainly implies, that in a man, women just want an emotionally stable, capable, kind and caring person. Sounds reasonable. I think the problem arises with what it says women in general want for themselves, which apparently isn't much more than one of those men.

The whole "philosophy" focuses on the pick up and dating game, but is largely mute on longer term/life-long relationships, where that question of what a woman wants in terms of life goals that no longer include getting a "manly man" because she already has one, comes up.

 

[Joe]

And in that sense, to bring caesar into it once again, maybe his one quote applies here once more: "Stay true to your own nature, and fear nothing"... So do not be afraid to face yourself, and that which you can change, but do not sacrifice your nature, because that's what makes you unique.

Very true, although getting to the point where you can, as you say, let your true nature shine through is a buncha work! Covered up, as it usually is, by lots of accumulated stuff over the years.

 

[Joe]

I would not call Sandra a snowflake. Is this the frequency we wish to anchor? I don't understand calling Sandra names, especially when she was participating here and she can read this thread since one of her posts was moved into here.

People show a lot of respect and tolerance for Jordan Peterson and Tucker Carlson despite their very large blind spots, such as having a buddy buddy meal with Netanyahu, and those guys don't post on the forum. Sandra posted here and less than a week later, multiple card carrying members in good standing are calling her names. It's very strange and alarming to me.

Don't worry Hlat. We give Peterson stick for his failings too, while recognizing his insights and achievements. The same applies to Sandra. Calling her a "snowflake" was a bit OTT, I admit, because I didn't and don't have enough evidence to draw that conclusion. Although I leave open the possibility that she might be one. I don't think she's very interested in this forum in general, or the work we do, outside of the interest we had in her work about 10 years ago, and I suspect, but don't know, that she would be horrified if she read some of our posts on certain topics. She might call you names if she read some of your posts. I suppose we'll never know. But for now, I would like to withdraw my statement that she's a "snowflake", for the reasons given.

 

[Joe]

Some of the posts here have had an impact on me that I thought was absolutely impossible.
They made me question my gender (female). I started to compare/measure and I almost, just like that, slipped and ended up in the CAPITAL LETTERS+ camp.

Can you expand a bit more on which posts and why they had that effect? I'm genuinely interested.

 

[Andromeda]

Can anyone think of any other examples of where 'truths' about most women from a man's perspective are actually truths about most human beings from other human beings' perspective?

1. Women want a man to be honest.
2. Women want a man to treat them courteously.
3. Women want to be with men who make them laugh.
4. Women want men who don't generate, and can cope with, drama.
5. Women want to be around men who can be themselves.
6. Women want to know a man has "got their back".
7. Women want their relationship with a man to be mutually beneficial.

I would actually guess that there are VERY few 'truths' about women in this context that are exclusively, or even predominantly, about women rather than about most human beings. Excepting, of course, the obvious biological differences and the basic fact that women are generally more emotional and men are more rational overall.

I think a lot of it is talked up to create a false divide and to titillate. Not very conducive to empathy.

I would also guess that, excepting a few of the 'scientific' studies, the science is as doctored and interpreted to fit demand as in any other field. And holy Caesar, who is in charge of evolutionary psychology? Many of the theories going fit better into 2D rather than 3D. Much less anything higher.

The emotional nature of women can be quite a force to reckon with for a man, and I agree it is impossible to 'withstand' when a man is feminized, or 'acts like a women'.

It can also be even more impossible to withstand if that man goes too left brained and doesn't work on empathy. Besides the ups and downs of women's emotions due to hormonal cycles, when a woman is feeling emotional one of the worst feelings on top of that can be not having their emotions understood. Being just a 'rock' for a woman is generally not enough.

And, on that topic, I think that just as men can be expected to work on their emotions to be better able to be there for their women and life, women should be expected to be able to be rational for the benefit of their men and life. It's actually insulting to expect less.

On the far end of either side of the spectrum you have Amber Heard and Anthony Fauci. I think people should aim for the middle ground.

I would say that being a man with a put together life, who's emotionally stable and physically capable is attractive to the vast majority of women.

Yeah, maybe. With many exceptions depending on karmic lessons, trauma history, and familial programming. Guys heads are often turned by hourglass figures too. That doesn't form the basis of many relationships.

Also, I have to say that I don't really understand people getting offended by this stuff.
I hear generalizations about men all the time and I never get offended. It either applies to me personally, or it doesn't. I don't feel the need to defend the entire male sex. It seems that many men have been offended by this, too, which indicates that men have been indoctrinated into feminism just as much as women. It's kind of like those white Americans who are so anti-racist they're more black than Malcolm X.

I find much of it morally repugnant because I sense an insidious current intended to subvert genuine masculinity in a time where it is in crisis.

All the problems that came in previous relationships for me were 100% about childhood programs. Those programs were all about neediness and dependence, putting the woman on a pedestal and needing her to do the same with me; compromising myself and what I am inside out of fear of being rejected for it. This manosphere stuff got me out of that.

I am truly glad that it helped you, T.C. But I would bet that there is a lot more hurt caused by following that road than not. I'm sure that at the beginnings of the feminist movement, there were many women who felt greatly liberated/empowered and could say something similar to what you wrote above. And maybe for good reason on some of their parts at the time too.

I understand that there are different 'levels' in the manosphere, and that not all of it it total rubbish, but for the most part, it seems equal to feminism.

There are two flavors of philosophy in the manosphere.

One presents the uncomfortable truths about human biology and the mechanicalness of sex, and life in general, as a jumping off point for further growth.

I would like to know what some of these 'uncomfortable' truths are. So far I have only seen some basic truths, mostly not even news, and some really perverted interpretations of what they mean and what you should do about them.

 

[Joe]

That said, "value" can come in many forms, and most people tend to value you about the same as you value yourself, regardless of looks or money or whatever else the manosphere obsessed over.

Very important insight right there. Thanks for that.

 

[Joe]

It also became clear that the women on the forum are fully able to stand up and speak their minds if they perceive that someone is doing them injustice, whether true or not. I can also see that I in my post indirectly give women far too little credit for taking care of themselves in the dating scene.

So in your attempt to "defend women on the forum", you were actually being sexist!

 

[Joe]

I think you absolutely nailed it. My attitude towards relationships pretty much turned inside out once I got a handle on my attachment issues. Unfortunately, the sort of information that's in the book "Healing Developmental Trauma" isn't exactly mainstream knowledge, although it would be great if someone could translate this into the context of modern dating "how-to" guides and get such knowledge to people who are seeking intimate relationships as a cure for their deep insecurity. Such a book would likely be highly profitable, too.

There are actually quite a number of mainstream books that deal with that topic. Two examples:

Amazon.com

Amazon.com

The 2nd one is by Adam Lane Smith, and he has a good twitter acct.

https://twitter.com/TheBrometheus

 

[Beau]

Here's an example of the thinking one of the "leaders" of the men's red pill movement, who is himself a married man.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1653442566896103425

 

[Andromeda]

Here is an example of what women have classically found attractive. (Not me, personally, but I think it has a popular vote)

And for men.



Really, it has not been a secret. And, if you want to go to the next level and discuss basic and general emotional attraction, it is still mostly as superficial and obvious. Just watch some older movies.

 

[Joe]

I’d modify this slightly by removing the reference to crap parenting for a number of reasons.

1. It puts causal blame on the parents while sidestepping personal responsibility which is ultimately a disempowering outlook

Well, by saying "crap parenting", I wasn't assigning blame but rather recognizing what happened. What you do with that determines whether it's blame or not.

2. There is crap parenting that is overcome with amazing results

True, as long as you don't use it become an eternal victim who never changes.

3. There is good parenting that generates crap results

True.

4. Men with these insecure attachment issues can just as easily default to allow being controlled by a female rather than the other way around

Absolutely, the idea of insecure attachment issues is that they mess up close relationships in all manner of ways depending on the person(s).