In your comments, you made a statement about homophobia. What makes you an expert on homophobia? I'm a homophobe and proud of it. I was assaulted by fagots when I was . It is attitudes like yours that encourage the fagots and got me an countless others assaulted. Take responsibility for your behavior and think, or at least try, before you speak. Fag don't have to be fags. That's the biggest lie going. Have you done research on the subject or are you a gullible fool believing what your told? What don't you believe me? If you disagree, then show me the objective, concrete scientific evidence that you supporting your position. Write a scientific paper and have it published in a peer reviewed journal or write a book or make a video. I have the evidence. Would like to engage you in a face-to-face debate but it'll never happen. Actually, with your attitude, you're a molester by proxy by encouraging the fags. You owe me and the countless others who have been molested an apology. As I said, take responsibility for your behavior.

People make the mistake that females because they are generally more selective in who they mate with are also more think strategists than males. From the naturalist's point of view that may be true. Females must be more oriented towards infant care than males. The risk of pregnancy and severe limitations on the number of offspring they can produce as well as dependency during late pregnancy and nursing does mean that females have a greater vested interest in a slower lifestyle and relationships. At most however that dependency only lasts for a year or two and coincides with the "two year itch. It seems to be an instinctual pattern that favors serial monogamy that doesn't exclude copulation with males outside the pair bond. Pair bounding and copulation choices if consistent with other animals don't seem to even be the same instinct. The question becomes on what time scale should a predisposition for promiscuity be measured and is it rational to exclude differences in self or more exactly fitness strategies be excluded from comparing males to females.

The above is just a way of framing intersexual conflict much of which is cryptic not only to the observer but to to the observed. We only experience instincts (emotions) for the most part as physiological changes and are not as popularly imagined a sort of robotic code . They are best described as predispositions and since a lot of cryptic intersexual conflict takes place at the cellular level it takes place even below the instinctual level. Intersexual conflict is a necessary aspect of any species and especially dimorphic species. Without it you would have run away sexual differentiation.

Females both at the individual and group level must be vested in female interests. This is especially true in a dimorphic species where the males are significantly physically stronger. I'm this framework no morality need apply. For the sake of argument however just assume that morality does applies in a civilized environment and is defined by group fitness.

One of the stumbling blocks when discussing human behavior is the propensity to think humans differ in kind not degree from our closest relatives. It is tied to the convoluted and never demonstrated theory of emergent properties. I think it is disputed by the mere existence of a common ancestor. Instead of taking a deep dive into that discussion assume that it is acceptable to frame differences as a matter of degree. The reason for doing this is that there are only abstract red lines to say when a property is sufficient to categorize anything.

To begin with all apes are think strategists any discussion of what qualifies as a think strategy is therefore relative. Because humans mature slowly they are unavoidably more think strategist than their relatives. The same applies to difference between humans. When we say some are think strategists and some r strategists it is an arbitrary red line based on degrees of behaviors not kind.

The above sets the framework for how fitness strategies vary between civilized and precivilzed people. In an easy but unstable environment fitness is enhanced by a fast lifestyle or relatively r strategy. Civilization however requires a harsh but stable civilization an environment where a think strategy enhances not individual fitness but group fitness. Civilization is built on abstractions and the manipulation of abstraction and one of those real abstractions is morality.

To keep the tie to biological reality I'm going to define morality as that which produces the highest possible fitness and the least misery over extended periods of time. Excess fitness can and does occasionally cause increased misery over the long run. Not only In terms of environmental degradation and wild population swings but congestion has it's own miseries. This definition of mortality also is complicated by the fact that civilization tends to enhance group not individual selection. Cooperation, specialization, stability, contributions of nonnreproductive members, production and storage of resources, and a host of other characteristics of civilization are also characteristics of eusocial species. Analogously civilization makes humans a eusocial species.

It's in this framework of being eusocial that we must consider sexual conflict. In a civilized environment the rules that increase individual fitness must be superseded by concerns of group fitness. The question of group conflict and preferred political structure somewhat of a separate issue. We can say however that political structures that do not meet moral objectives as defined above are suboptimal. A focus on think strategies and a rejection of the fast lifestyle associated with r strategies would be a good starting point for the discussion.

I understand that the woman in the video would never make an attempt to honestly consider any contrary points of view. It could be however that people in our institutions would. We didn't get where we are at in a day and changing course will require the reformulation of our institutions over decades.

Sounds like sour grapes to me. If a relationship works it works. If it doesn't it doesn't. It's the same for everyone. Maybe a little hyper analysis at the beginning of a relationship instead of after it would have saved you from playing the blame game? Turn down the bitter.

Who would of thought that a man wouldn't like a masculine woman shaming them for not doing exactly what she wants. Go fucking figure.

She is having a mental breakdown