I found a huge collection of studies about women's sexuality on 4chan. I kept reading, some I've already read, and most of it was pretty interesting. So I decided to save and post here for redpillers.
A healthy reminder is that I found this on a 4chan imageboard, so they might be inclined to some bias.
So If you have some criticism or something to add about some of the studies, feel free.
Well... time to take some redpills.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24845881
Following recall of a conflict involving direct aggression and role-playing a reaction to it, compared with men, women reported their anger would dissipate less quickly and they would take longer to reconcile. Women also exhibited increased heart rate, but little change in cortisol, whereas men exhibited little change in heart rate but increased cortisol production. We interpret the results as indicating that women are less prepared than men to resolve a conflict with a same-sex peer.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160509085748.htm
"For their own partners, women focus on an attractive appearance that suggests good health and an ability to pass on their genes. At the same time, they prioritize qualities in their sister's partner that can provide direct benefits for the whole family," say the researchers. "This is consistent with our previous studies where we compared mothers' and daughters' choices," they add.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26098378
Hierarchical linear modeling indicated that wives' total narcissism and entitlement/exploitativeness scores predicted the slope of marital quality over time, including steeper declines in marital satisfaction and steeper increases in marital problems. Husbands' narcissism scores generally had few effects on their own marital quality or that of their wives.
http://pillse.bol.ucla.edu/Publications/Pillsworth&Haselton_ARSR.pdf
This one is an analysis of women's dual sexual strategy across several cultures. There are many interesting observations on this one, I'll leave one of them:
There is abundant evidence that women, as well as men, desire long-term committed relationships; but there is also an emerging literature revealing a hidden side of women's desires suggesting that women have also evolved to pursue short-term or illicit affairs. The purpose of this article is to review these lines of evidence and other recent findings pertaining to the evolution of women's sexual strategies
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1617143/
Here, we show that women in the fertile phase of their cycle prefer body odour of males who score high on a questionnaire-based dominance scale (international personality items pool). In accordance with the theory of mixed mating strategies, this preference varies with relationship status, being much stronger in fertile women in stable relationships than in fertile single women.
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royptb/367/1589/657.full.pdf
This one is arguing that monogamy developed as a form of social control and stability. Approximately 85% of human societies have allowed MEN to have polygynous marriage, yet Europe adoped monogamy.
Here, we develop and explore the hypothesis that the norms and institutions that compose the modern package of monogamous marriage have been favoured by cultural evolution because of their group-beneficial effects—promoting success in inter-group competition. In suppressing intrasexual competition and reducing the size of the pool of unmarried men, normative monogamy reduces crime rates, including rape, murder, assault, robbery and fraud, as well as decreasing personal abuses.
http://www.ibtimes.com/women-less-forgiving-toward-unattractive-men-study-1943420
The study of 170 college-age women revealed that unattractive men earned a “negative double bias” upon violating a social norm.
The Evolution of Bitchiness: Women engage in indirect aggression and slut-shaming, even in clinical research studies
In his book, The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating, Buss argues that women do this because, evolutionarily, women who are willing to have casual sex undermine the goals of women who want long-term relationships. "Slutty" women hint to men that it’s okay not to commit because there will always be someone available to give away the milk for free, as it were. Their peers' “derogation” is thus intended to damage the reputation of these free-wheeling females.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150624155436.htm
Being disgusted is a bigger passion killer for women than fear, according to new research.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4790313.stm
Study shows that once a women 'bonds' or knows she has fully secured her mates commitment she will lose interest in sex.
But women, he said, have evolved to have a high sex drive when they are initially in a relationship in order to form a "pair bond" with their partner.
But, once this bond is sealed a woman's sexual appetite declines, he added.
http://www.psy.unipd.it/~pbressan/papers/BressanStranieri2008.pdf
Because men of higher genetic quality tend to be poorer partners and parents than men of lower genetic quality, women may profit from securing a stable investment from the latter, while obtaining good genes via extrapair mating with the former
In this study, 208 women rated the attractiveness of men described as single or attached. As predicted, partnered women favored attached men at the low-fertility phases of the menstrual cycle, but preferred single men (if masculine, i.e., advertising good genetic quality) when conception risk was high.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00444.x/abstract
Using nationally representative data from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth, I estimate the association between intimate premarital relationships (premarital sex and premarital cohabitation) and subsequent marital dissolution. I extend previous research by considering relationship histories pertaining to both premarital sex and premarital cohabitation. I find that premarital sex or premarital cohabitation that is limited to a woman's husband is not associated with an elevated risk of marital disruption. However, women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship have an increased risk of marital dissolution.
EDIT: Just one more, this is a pretty good one. Especially for Europeans.
http://faculty.washington.edu/hechter/KanazawaPaper.pdf
The evolutionary psychological perspective on wars suggests that the ultimate cause of all intergroup conflict is the relative availability of reproductive women. Polygyny, which allows some men to monopolize all reproductive opportunities and exclude others, should increase the prevalence of civil wars, but not interstate wars, which did not exist in the ancestral environment. The analysis of the Correlates of War data supports both hypotheses derived from the evolutionary psychological perspective; polygyny increases civil wars but not interstate wars. The evolutionary psychological perspective implies that women should be far less resistant to alien rule than men, because they have the option of marrying into the conquering group; however, this sex difference should disappear when women are no longer reproductive. The analysis of the Eurobarometer data from 15 European Union nations strongly confirms this prediction.
EDIT 2: Just one more, from the user /u/SummertimeMelancholy . Some motivation for the next workout.
http://psp.sagepub.com/content/early/2007/06/19/0146167207303022.short
Evolutionary scientists propose that exaggerated secondary sexual characteristics are cues of genes that increase offspring viability or reproductive success. In six studies the hypothesis that muscularity is one such cue is tested. As predicted, women rate muscular men as sexier, more physically dominant and volatile, and less committed to their mates than nonmuscular men.
[deleted]
aznredpill 7y ago
Superb. I'd give you gold but I'm broke
vandaalen 7y ago
Give back to the community by providing good content.
d0lphinsex 7y ago
Give silver. Gold feeds this SJW site.
[deleted]
afkb39sdfb 7y ago
The mods should sticky this /u/bsutansalt
[deleted] 7y ago
This should be move to the sidebar.
vorverk 7y ago
This is fantastic.
It would be great to have an online TRP database to fill in more and newest research of human behavior aligned with TRP.
SheriffBart42 7y ago
People crap on monogamy because studies and biology disprove that it is really not part of our nature. Then use that as a justification to rack notches. Which I've done, by the way.
However, I think monogamy or at least its illusion allows for paternal investment in children and provides the tranquility we call civilization.
We all must make sacrifices of our base nature to achieve something higher. Whether it's not eating a dozen donuts every day or hoarding a dozen bitches in your harem.
We all know real monogamy isn't going to happen. But that's why I said we need, at least, it's illusion to thrive as a civilization... Maybe.
[deleted] 7y ago
Monogamy exists in the animal kingdom. Not like marriage but as in two opposite gender mates sticking together and looking after their young. In some species the pair bond lasts until death.
Given this, it won't be farfetched to claim monogamy has existed before apes even evolved to humans.
Donald_Fuck 7y ago
Unfortunately it's becoming harder to lock down western women into monogamy and a huge financial gamble.
_rasalghul 7y ago
Great post. Savings for future reference.
peterforallmankind 7y ago
Yes, commenting to save this link as necessary.
Just_in78 7y ago
I like to think of 4chan and TheRedPill as two sides of the same coin... Uninhibited places to discuss whatever the hell they feel like (with more anonymity and topical freedom on 4chan).
Both places are often seen with their hands on the same knowledge, however they do different things with that knowledge. A lot of those on 4chan seem to be the armchair philosopher types you see here, and I'm sure there's a good amount of users from 4chan that have visited this place before or actively visit.
Certain boards of 4chan can be found wallowing in the pity that this sort of knowledge can inspire, however entertaining and acknowledging it regardless of the pain it causes because they're rationally minded- seeking the truth but doing nothing to change their current path. They might lay the blame on a social conspiracy in /r9k/ and/or their parents, or tongue in cheek blame it on the Jews in /pol/ while the serious ones are seen blaming it on a degenerative society and the spread of liberalism.
Anyway I digress. I wouldn't dismiss a source just because it's quoted on 4chan. Users there aren't exactly gentleman and scholars, but a lot of the information that certain boards end up arguing over or discussing end up leading them to the same answers one might come to here. What they do with those answers is a different topic for a different day.
103342 7y ago
You are totally right. Just for the record I found it on /pol/.
To be honest, I don't really browse 4chan too much anymore. Mostly because there is too much porn and I usually use the internet on my phone.
But also because the boards are incredibly repetitive in content and too much shitpost, TRP suffers from the same problem of being repetitive, and it is understandable in both cases.
But usually it is exactly these sites that offer incredible insights, mostly because they don't have a filter of political correctness.
DocWattz 7y ago
Thanks for sharing your observations. I've always appreciated 4chan but never quite understood why.
Just_in78 7y ago
The almost complete anonymity there is quite the feature to be admired-freedom from consequence (unless you're posting kiddie porn or something and the mods decide they want to let the authorities know).
Usually it's just used for shitposting, but there are also some top quality conversations and stories to be shared and discussed there, unfiltered and uninhibited. The emergence of gamergate from the video game board is a great one, and there are a number of different collaborative efforts that have taken place over the years.
It's a real look into the minds of the young men (and sometimes women) with nothing better to do than screw around on an anonymous image board... A real horrorshow. Many would be quite surprised how much the politics board there has been influencing the political climate this election season.
I consider 4chan to be an observable form of humanity's true, unhindered, and most beautifully ugly side. There's something to be appreciated about unfiltered and almost completely unrestricted humanity at its finest.
Board culture and the philosophy/psychology behind users and their behavior and interactions are definitely worth more study than the one or two studies a couple groups did 5 or 6 some years ago.
[deleted] 7y ago
[deleted]
[deleted]
Syltelabben 7y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGEO6ig8WsM
Here is a video from RSD Tyler showing this in action.
Johnny_Cocaine 7y ago
I gotta call bullshit when he "guessed" what that one girl was crying about. He already knew. Because if you see a chick crying, her getting thrown out of her friends group is not one thing that comes to mind. TYPICALLY, you would think that she just broke up with her boyfriend and/or she just got cheated on.
But he gives 2 options, knowing one is right, to give him more value to the viewer, when he is in fact right. I wonder what else is scripted. Well, maybe not scripted, but edited to make him look good.
[deleted] 7y ago
The guy getting beta shamed, according to Tyler, is actually a really in shape, good looking dentist. The video shows the importance of confidence in your approach
somebullshitrp 7y ago
Thanks. This is a great set of links to research that should be more well known by everyone here.
Keninishna 7y ago
Also don't forget the study where women are attracted to the dark triad http://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/The-Dark-Triad-Personality.pdf
JamesSkepp 7y ago
Belongs in Sidebar.
Amazing post.
SummertimeMelancholy 7y ago
OK from these good ones are:
Women's Sexual Strategies: The Evolution of Long-Term Bonds and Extrapair Sex - in general anything Martie Haselton touched is good. Here have another: http://psp.sagepub.com/content/early/2007/06/19/0146167207303022.short - Why Is Muscularity Sexy? Tests of the Fitness Indicator Hypothesis
Narcissism and Newlywed Marriage: Partner Characteristics and Marital Trajectories
Others are all LRM work. Didn't check them one by one though I'm pretty sure-from the journals and authors- that they're not worth the paper they're printed on.
103342 7y ago
Could you expand on why you don't consider them trustworthy?
[deleted] 7y ago
[deleted]
SummertimeMelancholy 7y ago
Thanks for good explanation. As an addition:
VHRM - Very High Ranked Monkey. Top 5 in a particular field ranking
HRM - High Ranked Monkey; Top 5-15 in a particular field ranking
MRM - Mid Ranked Monkey; Top 15-50 in a particular field ranking
LRM - Low Ranked Monkey; Anything below 50 in a particular field ranking
[deleted] 7y ago
How will this hold in the future though?
As a European, the people i have met that went to the Ivy´s have been not very intelligent. But they all studied furiously, many of them taking 1 extra year of prep-school.
The Ivy´s also tend to be the breeding grounds of quasi-science like the huge growth of the " - studies" like Gender-studies, Race-Studies, Equality-Studies. None of which have any academic merit.
I find the professional arena to be a much better predictor of intelligence than which geographic area you were in when you learned of the same scientific theories as every other student in your major. I have only met 1 guy from NASA, but he was perhaps the most intelligent man I have ever talked to. Engineers at companies that are known for excellence in something, even excellence at being cheap, also tend to be very smart dudes.
SummertimeMelancholy 7y ago
You are talking about undergraduate level not research. And even there there is a great gap between HRMs and LRMs. All things being equal Ivy undergrads will outperform state school undergrads. Also in terms of research that "geograpic area" matters since while other researchers had to ponder about what Prof. X meant in his field defining paper you can just walk down the corridor, have a coffee with Prof. X and have a discussion.
Being a HRM isn't about the general institution reputation, its about that institution's reputation in a certain field. So even in "gender studies" a HRM researcher would produce high quality scientific research.
On topic of "general reputation" and "field reputation" a good example is Cambridge and its economics department. Cambridge is one of the top 5 schools in this world. It's clearly VHRM in many fields. It's current economics department however is considered MRM. So having a good generation is also important. Remember that highest point of human civilization was made possible thanks to the efforts of a single Cambridge economist: JM Keynes. Sometimes the fall is harsh.
Lastly NASA isn't professional arena, its a research institution. Engineers in standard companies... Well they're great at making use of current level of knowledge but they're not expanding it. That's the difference between a researcher and an industry person. This doesn't mean good professionals are less intelligent; maybe they could have performed even better in a research environment but choose not to live on subpar wages. Even a HRM researcher gets paid far less than a "normal mid-level engineer". LRMs? They basically live paycheck to paycheck. That's why everyone wants to be a HRM. The dream track for a reseracher is:
HRM PhD->HRM Job->HRM Tenure->Books->TV/TED
Books. They print money. Most books are watered down versions of that researchers past research papers.
mojo_juju 7y ago
Is this the actual vernacular?
Burner842 7y ago
Clearly you've never met doctors, scientific researchers, etc.
throwaway320_ 7y ago
Which is probably why he asked.
SummertimeMelancholy 7y ago
Incredibly condensed version:
Academia has a caste system. Every scientist wants to be at top. Being at top means more grants, higher prestige, better funding, better research opportunities and more money.
In order to reach the top you have to be the best. Or "signal" you're one of the best. This "signal" is your publications. A scientist sends his/her pubs to journals. Journals have tiers, from one-star to four-star. There are also "super journals"; Nature, Science, Econometrica etc.. These are technically four star journals but a pub in one of them worths far more.
The incentive to publish in high tier journals and be part of a high ranked institution is high. Then why do people publish in low tier journals? Why do people stay in low ranked institutions? The answer is: "Because they are not good enough."
Bear in mind that entire review process for a paper is anonymous except some fringe cases. But those cases usually get revealed and marr the careers of those involved. So if a paper is published in a low tier journal, if someone is from a low ranked institution you should always assume that they're of low quality. If they were scientists of higher caliber then they would have published/tenured better.
Soarinc 7y ago
Thanks for these extremely insightful comments you have given about the academic research caste system. Very informative and helpful. Just curious though how much bad luck can interfere with a good candidate (say the next einstein just so happens to investigate a "dead-end" where nothing interesting or useful will ever arise)
SummertimeMelancholy 7y ago
Dead-ends are very common. They even have their own nickname "file drawer research". It is very frustrating but doesn't actually have an effect on a hard working researcher as he has "back-up projects". There is a problem of funding however: You might end up spending your entire annual research budget on a bad experiment, which means you can't do anything until next year.
That's where grants come in play. Once a researcher's funds dry up he asks foundations or governments for money. And that's why the caste system is solid. If I see a grant request from a researcher in Oxford, MIT, Harvard, Cambridge etc. I will grant it as I would assume that they're one of the best researchers in this world and if they fail to find something that's because that thing probably doesn't exist. If I see a grant request from Melbourne, Liverpool, any "state" university etc. I might not grant it as I would assume they might simply fail because they weren't good enough.
That's why LRMs usually do boring research or tamper with their results. Because they can't afford to fail. Lemons-bad researchers who end up in HRM institutions- also do the same in hopes of getting tenure.
At PhD level a "dead-end" research is a career ending mistake(You have to go to the industry as you would fail your job market due to your job market paper being rubbish). Actually one of the main reasons academic caste system is so stable is this "dead-end" research possibility. A good advisor can sense these from a mile away and usually directs his protege to result yielding topics. Sometimes one even encounters ideas that they themselves thought about but ended up "not significant in statistical sense" being presented by their students. Great minds do think alike after all.
Although if you realise you have a dead-end research in your hands you can always ask for an extension. A department would be inclined to give you that time as it's against their interests for you to end up in a bad institution(Departments publish their placement records).
Lastly Einstein was mostly a theorist. Theorists are not affected by bad "experimental" results as they're using logic and existing axioms in their papers. Actually one of the best advice I've heard in economics was "Don't do experimental unless you're a genius. Do theory if you're a genius.".
Soarinc 7y ago
I wish you'd host an AMA because I'm fascinated with the inner workings of the academic research system! One final question (I promise...) is what if a super brilliant HRM grad student winds up at a middle-tier research university and EVERYONE in his department realizes they have some kid who is way too good for this university -- will everyone kinda ditch their own department underlings to sorta meddle & mentor him and hope he earns their institution a nobel prize? (I ask this because deep down, I imagine everybody -- especially at middle tier instutions -- want to pursue even a 1% chance of discovering the "next... big... thing..." in science!)
SummertimeMelancholy 7y ago
HRM grad student cannot end up in a MRM university as "a kid". If he's there as a PhD student it means he is MRM not HRM. And no even if someone is extremely brilliant and too good for that university as a student only their advisor would care. It occasionally happens like Bonn placing in Harvard for example.
Sometimes a HRM PhD graduate gets placed in a MRM instution. He usually gets stuck there. But sometimes you have people who try their hardest, outperform, and jump to a higher tier. This jump is however is not a big one. You can jump from UCLA to Yale, You can't jump from San Diego to Harvard.
Nobels... People who wil get them are pretty much known. You can see their trajectory. There is also vast lobbying involved. Someone who is educated in MRM instution in 2000s can't even dream getting it but this is not due to lobbying but instead the difference in quality of education. It wasn't used to be like that but now there is a clear difference in quality between the top and the rest. As it is Top 5 in US practically leagues above any other instution. And imagine you're spending 4 to 6 years of extensive training and guidance in that kind of place. I doubt there are even mentors in MRM places that can guide someone to HRM, let alone a Nobel.
RedPillAccount69 7y ago
Interesting, thanks for posting. Are there cases thought where a young 28 year old professor (who will become a superstar) can only get published in the lower ranked ones and then work his way up?
Another way to phrase it: A 19 year old starting in minor league baseball might be awesome and on his way to a great career, where as a 42 year old starter in the minor leagues if obviously just a low tier player.
Thanks
SummertimeMelancholy 7y ago
That would be an incredible outlier.
Remember that someone who has a PhD had 4 to 6 years to gain knowledge. So if he botched his job market paper, where his advisor was trying his best to make him publish as high as possible; and then failed his job market, where again his advisor was trying his best to make him place in the highest institution possible, it probably means that this candidate is simply a dud.
The reverse happens a lot though. Someone gets some good pubs and places in a high ranked institution and then turns out to be an awful researcher. They are called "lemons".
[deleted]
xx69bootyhunter69xx 7y ago
Damn. I'm a math major Masters student, and was planning to do a PhD. Even I didn't know such a tier existed. Wait, does this exist in the mathematics/computer science research environment too? (Because many people do not see math as part of science, and you/your sources of knowledge about this caste system could be among them, you have to give me the benefit of doubt.)
SummertimeMelancholy 7y ago
Mathematics is part of science. As far as I know its very cliquey. The tiers exist and very brutal. However since Mathematics research is very intuitive a genius could easily bypass these tiers since a Mathematics paper doesn't need any funding. From what I've seen in Mathematics your advisor matters more than your institution.
CS... is complicated. Currently it's very meshed up because of AI. HRM CS institutions are not great in cognitive science, good cognitive science institutions are not great in computer science. Honestly I'm not very knowledgable about CS and only interest myself with AI part of it, which is dominated by Google's research division.
mojo_juju 7y ago
Has anyone X-posted this to 2XC yet?
I think we need to share this and see how they feel :D /s
[deleted]
666mafioso 7y ago
I'd do it but I believe I'm banned from there already.
mojo_juju 7y ago
Same here :( I wish I could troll them forever :'( sniffle
but they took that away from me!
[deleted] 7y ago
[deleted]
666mafioso 7y ago
Doesn't take much, friend. Just having a dick and knowing how to use it will suffice, lmao.
[deleted]
getRedPill 7y ago
I ask myself if marriage was imposed by men upon women, or women invented it to control men.
Overkillengine 7y ago
Alternate explanation: pragmatic collusion by higher tier men to reduce the violent behavior of lower tier men whom otherwise have no mating opportunities and thus no investment in the tribe and social order. Throwing the Betas a bone, so to speak, to keep them content.
So men upon men.
SexdictatorLucifer 7y ago
A combination of both. No matter the case, the institution and social constructs that came with it highly benefitted human societies. Once these societies created too much abundance and comfort, women realized they had the freedom to indulge in their primitive desires. Once they indulge for too long, abundance and comfort will be lost. Then a different kind of sexual revolution will occur.
103342 7y ago
Also, monogamy forces men to focus their energy on work (incentivized also by the prospect of pussy), instead of focusing it on competition.
If men focus too much on competition with other males they lose focus on social productivity and become more individualistic.
harsha_hs 7y ago
Marriage, like all great things, was invented by man for the benefit of women. If there was no marriage, all women would be like children fucking richer and cooler guys when they are YOUNG and then have no one to provide them when they hit WALL. So, men, in all societies, independently, decided that a woman will stay virgin until this special contract called 'MARRIAGE', and provide sex ONLY to him after marriage. This way, men are convinced to provide these women until they die.
Crazy idiots these days don't have no fucking clue what marriage means and why is it so important for a girl to be virgin before marriage and provide sex only to him. They see a nice girl, who looks cute at that time and marry her without knowing any repercussions of marriage. And then she starts to get old, and most importantly, bitchy and loud. Then man realises her worth and want to get the fuck out of it.
Now, enters state. Honourable state, have no fucking clue about how the contract of marriage was established and what it actually means. State decides to divorce rape a guy because, woman in question, has become useless now(lost virginity, lost beauty, hates guys), and no sane guy will provide for her till she dies(of course, why would someone provide her, right?).
Until here, all good?
Enter 21st century. New species of men is evolved and these are called beta^beta. They listen to bullshit story of these single moms and how they are victims and how a grave crime is committed against these women. They want to be super heros of these women and want to provide for them. And, guess what, women being women who are even hopeless than children, decide to involve state again for divorce raping this super hero too, because they learnt it by heart now. And, Money is soo good, and they hate guys to the core because, guys want only young pussies, which they don't have it anymore.
[deleted]
jzekyllandhyde 7y ago
Marriage is to guarantee all males reproducing and passing their genes down. Women have always hated it if you look through old women literature regardless of how old it is you see how marriages were for money not love and even fairy tales describe some lone wolf alpha taking a princess from her fiancé prince. Even Disney tells us that to get girls you have to have status and looks and no competition in either department.
Pastelitomaracucho 7y ago
Fuck no. Marriage was invented to secure that your kids were yours. But it also evolved to be a sign of status as well. Women want marriage to gain such status.
getRedPill 7y ago
So if was invented by men, according to what you said and men back then were naïve because they assumed a girl after signing a paper would be always loyal. Naïve
Pastelitomaracucho 7y ago
Society was much more male/religious dominated even one or two generations ago and you can still see how heavily controlled sex is in many societies today. Men were not naive at all.
1) virginity was seen as the prime guarantee that the kids would be yours.
2) the wedding, wedding night, etc: you were supposed to get married when she was ovulating, you were supposed to impregnate her just after the wedding. She was even supposed to vent the bed sheets the next day to show that they have been stained with blood from hymen rupture. In some cultures, the newly formed couple are expected to remain inside a room for week.
Of course infidelity has always existed, but again, marriage was created exactly to control that you were not raising anyone else's kids.
Society expected women to fulfill her part of the deal (regardless whether women actually wanted to be in that deal). And of course, most women were ok with abiding with societal rules.
Today the whole thing has morphed. Women are freeer than in any other point in time in western society, yet marriage somehow still lingers as a symbol of status for many. Both women and men still look to get married so as not to appear as losers to society. Idiotic if you ask me.
getRedPill 7y ago
Nice points you bringed there. That was marriage before the state, though.
Pastelitomaracucho 7y ago
Itt: humans being humans. Nothing new under the sun.
You want to lash at someone? Don't lash at women for being human, lash a political correctness and all this bullshit that came with it.