You are only looking at half the equation..... a female must weigh up a delicate balance when she is choosing a male for impregnation.

She has to optimise for a lot of things, like propensity to stick around but she also wants the best genetics she can get for her offspring....even at the expense of the guys sticking around.

When women see tall, ripped, chiseled, violent, arrogant males, they expereince intense desire that makes them put all their chips on red - they realise that this dude is not going to to stick around, but at least he scores 100% on the genetics.

I always thought that a woman was hard wired to wait for sex and be more selective because she is stuck with the consequences (children) for years.#

haha.... they would certainly have you believe this, yes.

Yet this community explains that if a woman likes you she wont make you wait for sex.

Not really "likes", more like "viscerally attracted".

Doesnt this conflict with the evolution hard wiring to be selective?

No.

Fuck alpha, get beta to raise the kids. Women have done this for millenia.

I mean if she is fucking a man that might not stick around thats historically a potential death sentance for her children right?

Not if there are betas around....

You are not understanding evolutionary drivers correctly

You need to stick to the basics. You don't need to keep confusing yourself. Stick to basics and stop focusing on more advanced information. It is not helping you

she waits for sex because bad things happen

A woman will make a beta wait. Not out of fear of consequence, but appearing selective and baiting the beta keeps things in her frame. A woman plays the good innocent girl role, but you're her bitch. She wants you to choose her, chase her, "fight for her." Etc.

Theyre not hardwired to wait. They are hardwired to go with a man that serves them best at that time.

Now, they may not put out right away. I call that a good thing. It might even be better that you enrich her life with a good dose of KINO and then refuse to sleep with her on tbe first date. If she doesnt fuck until the 4th date, you gotta pull the plug on it. Plate broken, womp womp

Women arent afraid of having kids with the more alpha guys. They might not even consider it. The tingles will make her decisions for her.

That said, don't see everything as alpha/beta and just relax.

Death sentence? Are you going to the most autistic extreme? There are plenty of kids that are alive with single moms. These moms later find a husband. You're thinking in absolutes and also have no idea what you're talking about.

Stop mentally masturbating bro.

death sentance for her children right?

Yeah she tries her best to be selective. Nature is trying to be selective, think about it next time when you go to a doctor, hospital or get miraculous medicine.

Imagine what - bitches are spoiled and they will be thinking all they get, they deserve. Simp conditioned women especially. Kind of when you think its only natural to treat an abscess at the dentist so you dont die from sepsis.

Redpill is science.

In the next paragraph I have pasted grog answer to your questions. Don't rely on answer from an entity that will sell itself out sooner or later (like Google did), but say you can paste this kind of AIstuff in your question and ask, do you agree. It will be easier to pick out bulshit AI generates rather than wrie everything from scratch.

Read the sidebar.

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

Your intuition is solid and aligns with core evolutionary biology—parental investment theory (from Robert Trivers, 1972) does predict that women should generally be more selective and "coy" about sex than men. Females bear the heavier obligatory costs of reproduction: 9 months of pregnancy, lactation, and years of child-rearing in ancestral environments where a single mother (or her kids) faced higher mortality risks without reliable male investment or kin support. Males could reproduce with far lower per-offspring costs, so they evolved greater eagerness for opportunistic sex. This asymmetry makes women the "choosier" sex overall, especially for long-term mating. But the apparent conflict with "if she likes you, she won't make you wait" isn't a real contradiction once you factor in dual (or strategic pluralism) mating strategies. Evolution didn't wire women for one rigid rule ("always wait for commitment"). Instead, women evolved flexible psychology that trades off between two overlapping goals:

Long-term strategy: Prioritize reliable providers, good character, resources, and parenting traits. This is where high selectivity and waiting for commitment signals shine—historically, it reduced the odds of being abandoned with kids in a high-mortality environment. Short-term strategy: Prioritize "good genes" indicators (physical attractiveness, symmetry, masculinity, dominance, status, health). When a man strongly signals these, women can pursue uncommitted sex because the potential genetic payoff (healthier, more attractive offspring who themselves reproduce more—"sexy son" hypothesis) can outweigh some risks. This often ramps up around ovulation (fertile window), when conception is possible.

In other words: "Liking you" in the community sense usually means sexual attraction triggered by high short-term mate value. That flips the switch to faster sex because the evolutionary calculus shifts—it's not "random guy who might ghost"; it's "this guy's genes are worth the gamble right now." Extra-pair copulations (affairs) while in a primary pair-bond follow the same logic: secure investment from one man, sneak good genes from another. Studies of infidelity and mate preferences consistently show affair partners rated higher on attractiveness/physical quality than primary partners. Historical/ancestral risks weren't ignored by evolution You're right that casual sex with a non-committed man was risky for kids' survival in pre-modern environments (no welfare, high infant mortality). But:

It wasn't zero-sum—kin/allomaternal care (grandmothers, aunts, siblings) often helped. Short-term matings were likely rarer and more opportunistic, not the default. The dual strategy allowed women to hedge: pair-bond for resources, opportunistically seek better genes when cues were strong.

This isn't "anti-monogamy"; humans evolved pair-bonding and infidelity psychology. Both sexes show short-term strategies, but men's is stronger on average (desire for more partners, lower time-to-sex threshold). Your self-answer nails the modern resolution Yes—birth control, abortion, economic independence, and welfare states massively lower the costs that shaped ancestral selectivity. Sex no longer reliably leads to "stuck with consequences for years." This lets short-term strategies express more freely without the historical death sentence for offspring. Hormonal contraceptives can even tweak preferences (some evidence they reduce preference for masculine "good genes" traits and alter relationship satisfaction if started mid-relationship). Real-world data backs the nuance:

Many couples (30–40%+) have sex within the first month (or sooner if strong chemistry); only a minority wait very long. But delaying sex does correlate with better long-term relationship quality, satisfaction, and stability—suggesting the "wait" heuristic still serves the long-term strategy well for many. Women remain choosier overall (fewer lifetime partners desired, higher standards), but individual variation is huge: sociosexuality (openness to uncommitted sex), own mate value, cycle phase, culture, and personal values all modulate it.

The community advice is a useful heuristic (signal high value → trigger her short-term psychology), but it's not universal law—plenty of women still enforce waits for emotional safety, values, or long-term screening, even when attracted. Evolution built trade-offs and flexibility, not a simple on/off switch. Your original hard-wiring view captures the default/long-term bias perfectly; the "no wait if she likes you" bit just reveals the short-term side that modern conditions have unmasked. No deep conflict—just layered, context-sensitive adaptations.

®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®

Women are 5x more likely to kill themselves than be killed by an (ex)partner.

The rest is grogAI

Intimate partner homicides (IPH; current or former partner)

In short: For research, the closest proxies are overall female IPH rates (~0.5–1.0 per 100,000 women in the listed countries) plus qualitative risk-factor evidence that stepchildren (especially hers) elevate danger.

United Kingdom (Femicide Census + DHRs; excellent case-level detail)

Period: 2014–2023 (≈10 years; Femicide Census covers all men-killing-women cases). Reported female IPH (by current/ex-partner): ≈60–62% of women killed by men are by current/ex intimate partners. Annual total women killed by men: 120–150; IPH portion ≈60–80/year. 2009–2018 (prior 10y benchmark): 888 women killed by current/ex partners out of 1,425 total men-killing-women cases. Current vs. ex-partner: In recent years (e.g., 2021–2022), ≈51–53% of women killed by men were by current/ex partners; 37–52% of those involved separation or steps to leave. Children/stepchildren proxy: In 2021 example, 28% of victims had children under 18 (her own). DHRs: dependent children in ≈52% of households (victim

1) Evolution isn't some kind of divine destiny. It's just what happens to survive. Most of it is chance.

2) the consequences of unwed motherhood have been socialized away. Welfare, etc. The state is daddy beta bucks (safety net).

3) why care about this? How is this going to help you actually accomplish anything?