I was also thinking about the Commodus Maximus comparison and I think it works really well if you are thinking about how to be the type of dominant that quality women like. Maximus does not care whether the people around him see him as dominant, Commodus does. The only things that Maximus cares about are his family, his mission, and his honor and through not caring about how he is perceived exudes the type of dominance women really seek after. Which means if you want to be a "dominant male" don't seek to act dominant but find something worth dedicating your life to and build an ethical system and stick to it fastidiously.
I had Band of Brothers in mind with the distinction between Sobel and Winters. Sobel is the yelling, browbeating type that no one likes and Winters is the quiet professional that everyone actually looks up to.
Porn not always, but often, reflects preferences already established (even if it bastardizes them). The times when porn directly creates preferences are typically more tied to visuals (I. E. Sexual positions that look appealing on camera but are not best suited for pleasure, certain outfits, etc.)
which is an infinite list of demands & what if’s… ultimately concluding any man at all is keeping them from “finding herself” through her 20s with male supermodels & A-list celebrities she genuinely CAN get involved with but could never keep… targeting dark triad traits rather than the men they will never admit are infinitely more competent (physically & mentally) than them… speaking to the post Enlightenment under-appreciation of the later misery of ending up a single mom / cat lady & the guaranteed generational curses caused by incessantly trying to hack the system through technology & modernity & do everything your way
Yes passive and subordinate creatures are not attracted to other passive and subordinate creatures. Problem is that that includes a whole lot of negative traits. Men look mostly for youth/fertility/neoteny. Women find the equivalent males as unattractive boys. They like archaic features in men, as more mature/less neotenous traits signify aggressiveness potential, willingness to dominate others and rise in power over them, etc. Basically if we were canines, males would prefer cute, smaller, baby-faced female dogs, while women would prefer the most aggressive fearless and biggest wolves. That's why I believe countries like Sweden, Japan etc, that have long been incredible peaceful, safe utopias, have had much more male choice in the offspring creation than countries in Africa etc, where the males are much less tame physically and and mentally (again Google neoteny in humans) and physically much more attractive to women (discounting racism and other factors like socio economics). If I'm right males sexuality and dominance over women is then what has bred us from Homo Eructus to Homo Sapiens (the neotenized version of the former).
@@lYl93That's a cool theory, but males don't select mates. Females do. We control reproduction, and we decide which males will breed and which will not. We don't dominate through aggression, we lead with wisdom and quiet strength and endurance. As women, we direct the flow of evolution. All mammals are the same way.
The situation you were talking about to do with finding something disgusting initially yet after doing it a number of times ending up liking/craving it, actually is something that often happens with sexual abuse/violence as a child or even an adult, really. Which is sort of similar to what you were initially saying about women adapting to being the spoils of war in the past…
It may well be the same pathway, but if a given couple mutually consents to a non-harmful act, I don't think it's morally wrong. Just... be safe about it, and keep in private.
I think it is more of a denial thing because I have had women get my unlisted number even after I told them I was from a different town one of them was from Peru. One told me she drove from bar to bar until she saw my truck then told them I had fixed her flat and she wanted to thank me.
Yeah... this sounds nice, and maybe theres an ounce of truth to it.... But they want good sex comfortable living, and the security of sacrifice from others.... And shell take them, in that exact order(unless her basic physical needs arent met, then that wins first) You not having a mission is a good enough reason for her to leave you, but if your the best option she has, she wont think twice about using you, and then BELIEVING your the bad guy after shes used you up
True. This is why so many male artists and musicians have women who sleep with/date/marry them even when they are not financially successful. Skill and passion is attractive on it's own, even if it doesn't include wealth.
The clip with the negotiating is basically how my first conversation with my husband went. Talked for 5 hours, deleted dating apps together mid call, and immediately began actively exclusively pursuing each other. Honesty kicks ass.
11:10 I know exactly what she meant immediately. My husband is a retired Command Sergeant Major. I supported his military career for almost 30 years. One thing that's bothered me about too many women in leadership roles, is that they think 'leadership' is bossing others. I've worked under too many women in my life not to see the pattern. With a very few exceptions, women tend to be more cruel in leadership roles than males. But soldiers would kill and die for my husband. Yes, he told them what to do, but he also taught them, mentored them, counseled them for the benefit of their careers and through personal problems. He found resources to help struggling soldiers. He was *much* more a father figure than a 'king' figure. He never, ever bragged on himself; but he'd lavish praise on his men. He was exactly the same way with his children. He's thrived in his post-military career because that core character never changes. He's a mentor, not a "boss." It was my job to keep him sane, to give him a place to rest, to care for the family so he could focus on the business of war, and to make sure that he didn't have to worry about his personal finances or life. I also was HIS caretaker. I worked hard to learn what his body needed from a nutritional standpoint, then served him meals that kept him well. I laid out his vitamins and made sure he was well hydrated. He's a grown man who's perfectly capable of taking care of himself, but this was a gift from me to him and he allowed it. I love and respect him so much, but I was an equal partner in our family. He didn't want to be the 'boss' when he actually had some time to rest.
@@vociferonheraldofthewinter2284 i was a Chaplains Assistant in the Army and one of the best sermons I heard regarding roles of the husband and wife in the home was from a chaplain. He said that the husband was similar to the platoon leader, he was in charge and the one ultimately responsible for everything that takes place in the home, even though he doesn't always know what he's doing. The wife is like the platoon sergeant, ultimately she's the one taking care of the family, she's the one most in touch with the kids and their likes dislikes and abilities. So if the wife gives you a suggestion, it's in your best interest to consider it (which I've been told that all 2LT are told in their first assignment)
She said women where like mercenaries they change sides when they can get a better deal or times get tough. So at the battle of Shiloh when Sherman was loosing the first day of his army had been mercenaries they would have changed sides if Beauregard had offered them a better deal.
I agree with what you are saying. It's not that women want someone to 'push them down', they actually want to be 'lifted up' by someone which does imply that the partner is higher or more capable than them in some way. The real key here is children. Women want to be able to be fully attentive to the children, so the man shes with cannot be like another child, he has to be a rock and provider. Not so she can be oppressed like a little rat, but so she can be a more secure and stable mother.
It's what feminists rail against in Genesis where Eve is said to have her salvation in child bearing and her desire will be for Adam (Man) while he 'rules' over her.
14:41 "People in these communities think the key angle of dominance that they need to demonstrate to a woman, is *to the woman* instead of *to society* The woman is not looking for a man who dominates *her* necessarily, she is looking for a man that dominates *society* so that she can choose to follow that person."
It's very hard to take your advise on this, when you reek of soy. Just saying... I've had much more success with invoking desire when I'm an a$$hole. I don't have to 'negotiate' it consciously. The chemistry is subconscious.
35:00 - Can a fetish arise if the first exposure was genuinely off-putting? Yes but in a dark way. Say, someone being subject to incestual abuse in childhood may, decades later, develop an incest fetish. The fact that the more traumatised you are, the more deviant your sexual behaviour becomes is well documented. Many say this is 'coping with trauma' (I hate that apologia). I think it's precisely what you are saying - activating the 'slave' mindset is the last ditch attempt by evolution to make you survive abuse. It's not to cope or recover from abuse, its to adapt to abuse to survive.
I don't think you're wrong, but some women who have never been abused by a partner are into it. Sometimes it develops naturally. I don't think a given kink having dark evolutionary orgins makes it immoral for a consenting couple to partake in it.
While I completely agree, it’s far from the only reason. Often submission / dominance kinks can arise from the exact opposite conundrum - a lack of discipline and strong authority growing up, leading to the person speaking out authoritative figures in their life. In response to lackluster guidance in childhood, kinks can arise that seek out structure and control and the guidance and leadership that was previously lacking in that person’s life.
@@nicoleg2544 You are talking about personality types and behaviours adapted by people to balance themselves out. This has nothing to do with s/d fetishes which arise in a pathological form of abuse or self abuse.
Age gaps are often used as a stand-in for sex differences. Successful same-age gay couples tend to function more like what straight Liberals think they're doing and it ends up like a Platonic partnership (and by "Platonic" I mean using open discourse and common ground in the manner of a Plato debate). The top/bottom or masc/femme distinction as well, but honestly some zesty bottoms have extremely male-typical cognitive orientation so that's a bit more superficial.
Nick Offerman is like 2% "my type", but Ron Swanson gets me hot under the collar. That is a man with a plan. If they had married him to off anyone other than Xena they would have done him dirty. He is a shining example of calm, non-bonbastic confidence, nurturing and adult masculinity, and how to make an ok-looking man incredibly appealing through personality and mannerism alone.
@Joe-sg9ll My entire dad's family were lumberjacks, log drivers, and miners. Some took the "easy life" and switched to construction or dairy farming. I myself have also had years of blue collar work. You don't know me, you don't know my life, you don't know what I like. Not everything is cosplay. Whatch yourself, sir, you look a fool.
@@Joe-sg9ll Don't take it all so seriously. The whole show is satire, not just Ron. He's poked fun at, and also treated very respectfully, as the story demands. It's the same way with Leslie and she's nearly his opposite, and much more representative of the "hyper leftist position." She gets respect and she gets laughed at, depending on the scenario.
It's too bad we made socially centering the idea of making every man a man that women actually want to marry into something that is next to taboo. 60 years of prioritizing women's momentary wants over their longterm needs while institutionally ignoring men's issues because "oh the men don't need any more help!" forgetting that every generation of people need similar raising to maintain equilibrium or growth.
I agree with 95%, but I dont think most women give a fuck if what they’re husband is doing is “noble” or “changing the world” or anything, they’re more concerned with the experience of the relationship and the positive impact on their own lives than any positive impct on the world. Its like a job: they dont care what they company does they just want a good paycheck and a good experience working there. Other than that another great video spot on.
The reason women desire to be with a higher status man is much simpler than you are describing. The more value of the man that chooses her reflects on her value in the eyes of others which is her greatest concern.
Then why is it so common for women to be attracted to "starving artist" types who are neither popular or wealthy? I think you're over-simplifying female desires.
This is what I've gathered over the years. The baseline of most women is, how does this make me look to the community? Better? Worse? Obviously there are exceptions, and ways that women elevate their mindset above that baseline. But by default, most think in those terms.
I, as a man, can never understand the choking thing. The idea that i would intentionally do that to a woman outside of self defense is absolutely insane. It makes me cringe and retract even thinking about it.
It is probably the single must common fetish I personally encountered among women. Its always wild to me when people are like, "this shit is coming from men". When its more like men being like, well I guess I can try it if it will get my laid.
@@SimoneandMalcolmYou may have encountered it coming from the woman . But in general it comes from the men. Whether it’s asked for or not, it comes from the men. In my opinion
Noo its coming from women... its a lot of woman i spoke to when it comes to sex.. they asked to be choke or want to be choke. Because it doesn't matter what i want if im not interested, but she wants me to still choke her it has nothing to about a man anymore.@@umwha
I think it has something to do with them enjoying being in a position of helplessness to their partner. That's my best guess, I don't even know if my partner 100% knows why she enjoys it.
Women aren't attracted to wealth per se; they're attracted to the ability to create wealth. A lump sum doesn't last long (especially in the pre-civilization era), while competence lasts for a lifetime.
H@@billbadson7598usually not always. In a depression or when your own gov destroys its own industries or if your skill set is in the wrong area or if all your guidance counselors told you go on something you like even though there are no jobs in the area.
Making a blind guess before I watch: They confuse submission with lazy or some equal quality. 15:07 Ah they finally acknowledge that wicked horrible unaccountable women excist now let me guess... ignore them.... yep. Why isn't that the answer for the Andrew Tates? Ah yes because men accountability aren't able to separate like with women.
I mean, good idea, but most people don't have the opportunity to have a mission in life. And a lot of the missions that we could devote our lives to (family, church, nation) are actively demonized by the UMC.
Swapping the word dominance for competence is a better fit when discussing with a post modern audience. I believe Jordan Peterson even swapped words when he speaks about the “dominance hierarchy” in favor of “competence hierarchy” which is a quality way of explaining this topic.
It's not a competence hierarchy, Peterson swapped it because it sound bad not because it is not true. It's a hard pill to swallow. Women know nothing about competent men - Jordan Peterson even says it when he is pissed enough to speak the truth
I am pretty sure you are wrong. I remember seeing the podcast in which a guest convinced him why competence hierarchy is more accurate description. I will edit my comment with the link to it when I find it. Edit : so it wasn't from his podcast but him explaining why competence rather than dominance. He was inspired by Dr Higgins aond Frans De Wall. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-6OT5-xS0Bj8.html
@@nahushkanitkar8194 I send more links I still have to go back and watch some of the stuff cause I don't remember the video titles, or who was he with in the video, was he a guest or a host. So please be patient.
I don't understand what the point of this episode is. What is the question you are trying to answer? What are his/her mating preferences? I can't tell. Whatever it was I'm out an hour and no better off. If it's about "misconceptions perpetuated by . . . . red pill movements" you have not done your homework - you've knocked down some strawmen, but I don't think you really have any idea what the red pill is (hint: it's merely the TRUTH about female nature, as opposed to the popular, Disney, fairy tale version).
31:20 - Women have a bimodal distribution of sexual expression because historically they might be in one of two scenarios. I realised this exact same thing! The 'slave' archetype is literally a survival mechanism that is deeply encoded to be resorted to because in deep history many women had to survive like this, and play the part well enough that they would be kept. Its very dark. This is why I dislike discourse that makes light of BDSM - look at the evolutionary context, and you come to very dark places. The other side of the coin is that, of course, male sexuality is bi- or tri-modal. Being a husband to one, or few wives, being an incel, and being a warlord. The 'Master' sexual archetype is just as evolutionarily encoded, and at its core derives from a real desire to own, rape, and torture.
Yeah, it’s an uncomfortable piece of info. And I can definitely see how it can be a liability if it was misinterpreted (especially these days with the way social media is incentivized to spread information in the simplest and most dramatic way possible). My biggest question is with the framing that it’s enjoyed more. I don’t know if it’s necessarily enjoyment or just a really high threshold/tolerance for the extreme activities. It seems more like an adaptive psycho-plasticity. I say this because if it was about enjoyability, then there wouldn’t be such a gap in sexual availability between the genders to begin with. But idk. Either way, I guess it doesn’t matter that much.
This is a great example of a “just so” story, held in place by emotions based reasoning. If there is a genetic basis for this aspect of female sexual arousal, it’s much more likely to have its encoding, like most aspects of reproduction, far deeper in the genetic past. Reproduction is one of the two most important functions of an organism. The genetics responsible for a repeatedly successful reproduction behavioral stack are usually, across species, very highly conserved. Being subject to big changes in the genome due to very short term variations in the social means of mate selection would introduce unsustainable turbulence and doom any species. Honestly, this explanation is ridiculous if you are able to think about it clearly. It ignores the fact that 70% to 90% of women are unable to achieve orgasm with penetrative sex but nevertheless, somehow women have such an intense need to enjoy rough sex for successful reproduction, aka to have children that also reproduce, that it affected the genome of our entire species and bifurcated the mating strategy. And this all occurred due to a a single mate selection process that only occurs under specific environmental conditions which has only occurred intermittently in the temporal frame and locally in the spatial frame across the last two-hundred thousand years of human history. Mate stealing is socially unstable and nearly always, humans across cultures, chose to opt out of it as soon as environmental conditions allow. Humans actually do have a dual mating strategy, but this ain’t it. Our dual mating strategy can be summarized as being short term and long term, and it was inherited and as such nearly all mammals have the same dual mating strategy. These Just So explanations, coupled with emotions based self disassociation which causes the person to not be aware of the part of their self that caused the confabulation lead to downstream effects like cognitive dissonance which the girl in the video rightly claims is unattractive. She also attempts to provide a better alternative explanation but the guy’s fast reaction limbic responses inhibits her ability to complete her train of thought sadly.
@@ngc-ho1xd Interesting break down. Can you surmise what their emotion based reasoning is? In other words, why do you think they would prefer this reasoning as an explanation? They had a guest named Aella on the podcast once, maybe about a year ago. In some of her other interviews and debates, she spoke of this ‘slave’ theory as well, and with the same level of confidence. I was just as doubtful then, but I could understand why she would make the claims she was making given her personal preferences.
@@ngc-ho1xd Your a bit off. When you said mate stealing is unstable and so cultures choose to move away from it. Dude? In war , women are stolen and seized all the time. At any one time in history there are multiple wars. Even in peace times there are rapists and gangs and brigands. Yes in monogamous cultures they use marriage to try to circumvent this tendnacy for women stealing - but true monogamy is the expections historically and societally not the rule. Monogamous cultures are so controlling precisely because they need to resist the constant pressure for sexual chaos. Even in functioning mjj on bigamous cultures there is much cheating. Even today, 1 in 3 women is sexually abused before she is 18. Those are only the sucsessful sexual assaults , the amount of women have are subject to attempted assault would be closer to 100. Women are basically constantly under threat of being coerced , groomed, molested, forced .
Wow. Malcolm, youre open to donating sperm? This an excellent way to spread your seed without the added complexities of polygyny. The issue with sperm donation, even when done physically, is that you lose all control of how your various children are raised throughout their respective lives. That part is just terrible.
@@CS-mf5un I'm sure his perspective is, "I'm smart, and my children are likely to be smart, and more smart people equals more good." I can understand that thinking, although I absolutely believe there is something wicked about producing children whose lives you will never be a part of.
It's better to be a donor to a specific woman you know personally. For instance, a family friend who is a lesbian or has an infertile husband. Then you can be assured that your child will be raised well and be somewhat involved in an avuncular role.
@@oliviastratton2169Still a #HardPass for me. People behave differently when not knowingly being observed by other of their social circle. I don't know how that person will treat my child at their home. It doesn't matter to me that they're delightful and sweet when the friend is "on" in social situations. If I can't actively be part of the child's upbringing, for example, a legal document stating that the parent or parents can't simply "leave state or even move to another city without my permission" along with requiring weekly visitation rights, then it's a #HardPass from me.
@@billbadson7598 many smart people do not necessarily make the world a better place. Abandoned children have deep and serious identity and self worth issues. This should be common sense but those who are smart are not always very wise.
48:26 I was the girl who was straight up honest with my objectives right out of the box. The problem I came up against was that men lie for sex. Guys will 100% swear that they're looking for a wife and want children tomorrow just to get a month's access. Now here I did find some advantage by being sexually naive. Many guys were honorable enough to back away when they found out, but it doesn't take many dishonorable ones to cause trouble. At least I had the ability to wait for sex when I was young and that was a good filter - to a point. I do find it sad that our culture has removed the ability to wait until marriage unless a girl is devoutly religious. There are HUGE secular advantages to do so. I genuinely felt uncomfortable that I didn't have an 'excuse' to wait because I didn't have a religious background. Over the years I've brought this up to every female friend I've had and found out that they ALL felt that way when they were young. Some fell in love with their first boyfriend and things went from there, but many 'gave it up' because they didn't feel like they had the option not to.
“Love is never something ready made, something merely 'given' to man and woman, it is always at the same time a 'task' which they are set. Love should be seen as something which in a sense never 'is' but is always only 'becoming', and what it becomes depends up on the contribution of both persons and the depth of their commitment.” ― Pope John Paul II, Love and Responsibility
Relationship guru Teal Swan talks about something she calls "masculine containment" in a few RU-vid videos. I think its a better way of describing submissiveness in heterosexual relationships.
Dude, as a married man with kids and a healthy relationship with my wife, Andrew Tate is stomach wrenching cringe. I have a physical reaction level cringe to his spouting.
I think you are still not understanding the things that Red Pill talks. It's not that women doesn't care for sex, but its that women don't want to make sex to a men that she perceives as not worthy, even if he is a good men. As for a Chad, she will break the rules and enjoy the sex, even if he isn't a good men, but because she perceives the guy as a Chad. It's all about perception. And to make things worse, society changed education to better fit women. Men doesn't thrive in modern education, men need more harsh education to understand and to care for things. And a second critic, you lose me when you cite the movie Gladiator as a archetype of leaders. As someone based like yourselves, to use a work of fiction to portray such important discussion show that in some areas, you aren't based yet. Such characters are flawed and don't work in real life. They are good as discussions of ideal, but not for what works.
In the marriage negotiation from NewsRadio, who on earth wouldn’t want a vacation in Hawaii in the winter and the summer vacation of your choice. Why on earth would she turn down two nice vacations when he’s being perfectly reasonable
An observation I’ve been thinking about lately is how straight women seem to want access to male-oriented spaces and social dynamics more often than straight men do of female oriented spaces. For instance, a bunch of guy friends might get together and have a BYOB whiskey tasting while a bunch of girl friends might get together to do paint your own pottery. I see vastly more women being interested in the guy activity than vice versa. And once in that masculine space, most females will, almost by definition, be lower status (shorter, weaker, less knowledgeable/competent in the subject matter, etc.) and that’s not necessarily fun for a girl. But the end run for her around the status problem is her sexuality - if you’re low tier on one dominance hierarchy, shift the game to a different one. As I reflect on my own pre-marital life, this dynamic seemed to define my sexual experience. I rarely ever chased after girls, I just included them in my own social group and, if they were interested in maintaining access, they would almost invariably signal some sort of sexual interest. Malcom and Simone have an interesting frame here about women wanting to follow a leader on a mission but I, honestly, think that’s a bit too Brahmin a sensibility to describe female hypergamy in the broad sense. I don’t think the diner waitress who falls for the UPS driver who talks to her about his love of fishing does so because she sees some grand purpose in his life. More likely she just finds his masculinity attractive and innately wants inclusion in his lifestyle - even if she doesn’t know a crankbait from a jerkbait. This differential in interests may be the fundamental dynamic underpinning the observation made in Genesis 3 “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you”.
Stop quoting the bible. It was written by men for men. You know nothing about. Young women and girls might have those little fantasies about men but they soon learn the truth.
Innate within us is the remembrance of the Alpha Male archetype. The Alpha Male can be the be male who has the most virtue (by being strongest, for instance) and therefore wins consent of the tribe. This is essentially the same as the Hero archetype. If you can't be an Alpha through virtue, then you can get there through fake confidence (Conman), bullying, and becoming a tyrant. The Hero and Tyrant are both sides of the same coin, and in some ways are functionally identical. The urban monoculture is characterised by its lack of heroes, and thus men and women alike have lost the ability to distinguish between the Hero and the Tyrant.
13:25. Andrew Tate is being sarcastic in this clip!!! Come on bruh, I’m African-American and I understand British sarcasm better than you. He’s not overcompensating. He knows he sounds stupid but that’s the humor of it.
That negotiation clip was "News Radio". Phil Hartman's last project before his death, Dave Foley's first project after The Kids in the Hall and the show that intiated Joe Rogan and Andy Dick's fame. Kind of a forgotten crossroads of important moments.
The irony is that 'Trans' actually proves there's a fundamental difference, since you can't transition from one thing to another if those things either don't exist or are fundamentally the same. That'd be like saying "I'm an elf, but I identify as a gnome" or "I was born a circle, but now I'm a slightly larger circle". Also, one other point, the reason why Andrew Tate's "I'm the commander!" bit is so cringe is because, as anyone who's ever had to lead people in any context will know, if you have to say you're the leader, you're not the leader. Women hate guys who are inauthentic (that's why men are told to "just be themselves" in dating) as one of their greatest fears is being tricked, forced, or in any other way compelled to breed with a man who's not of her choosing.
I think, as someone said in the video, leadership has to do with "vision." If all you know about "leadership" is declaring you're the "big guy in the room," you are a terrible leader. Men looked up to Napoleon because of his ability to plan and make decisions on what to do, short-term and long-term, whether it was what to do in an individual battle or the overall strategy. It wasn't just vision but also execution. You start with an idea, then you do it and do it well. A lot of the Manosphere ideas are superficial and phony. They love talking the big talk but not walking it.
@@tomsmith6513 Unfortunately, a lot of men (particularly young men) don't actually want to become better men, but just want hacks/cheat codes to getting laid. And where there's a demand, there will always be those willing to supply.
@@jasonwolfe4205 Why is getting laid the ultimate goal, at all? I mean darn, I could always think of better things to do with my life than that. Getting laid, of all the things in the world . . . Some of these people have a one-track mind. They're worse than Gaius Baltar. Gaius Baltar, at the very least, knew how to look after a farm.
@@tomsmith6513 Though I'm in the same boat as you, I'd just like to point out that there's probably a simple, logical reason why it's probably called the "sex drive" and not the "mission/family drives".
Malcolm, you need to learn to listen patiently and respectfully to Simone more. It makes me cringe and crawl along my seat slightly as I can see you just impatiently waiting for her to stop talking so you can continue. From what Ive seen of two videos, you look to be taking up about 70 or 80% of the talking time (even going so far as to use editing to insert even more of your own talking), so when she's taking her 20 or 30%, you need to stop trying to encroach even on that. You need to fully give her her time talking. For now, I cant stand this tense dynamic, and will be taking my leave.
I love the dynamic between the two of you. You’re each comfortable with yourselves and with each other. Also, I know you’re trying to keep the baby quiet but I love the baby! Babies are so cute! It’s wonderful to see intellectuals with babies. That’s not a common archetype.
This is pair bonding when a couple is tested or attacked from out side forces, the bond is not breakable. from an outside perspective that promotes a narrative of this bonds solidarity vs an outside perspective that doesn't, the bond is unquestionable, and acts as a cohesive unit even when the plot separates the characters.
I’d like to see more investigation into occult lore, alternative theories on history, legitimacy of alleged pseudoscience. Malcolm, prove to us that the moon isn’t hollow.
@@SimoneandMalcolm there was a super friends episode where the moon was hollow and and was actually an egg for a giant bird. If you made a video you could use this clip.
About the Jimmy James-style direct negotiation approach, this works if both parties know what they want and can state it in words. I am somewhat skeptical that men operate like this and very skeptical that women do. Orion Taraban's dating advice, if I'm understanding it right, is basically the opposite: that a man should avoid revealing very much about himself until after the 2nd or 3rd date, because as the woman is starting to warm up to him, she becomes ready to start changing what she wants to conform to him.
I’ve been into somewhat masochistic sexual situations from a pretty young age, before I had any sort of sexual relationship and am not interested in sleeping around with multiple men. I engaged in play fighting with my partner before I did anything more sexual than that with him. So I think there must be other factors than promiscuity that cause a woman fo be into that. Sex is inherently vulnerable and potentially dangerous especially for a woman, so I think controlled aggression beforehand can be a kind of trust building exercise and play to see how one responds to different types of physical touch to better read each other’s body language and to see how the other responds to that feedback.
As a military leader, I had more success in the worst circumstances deployed when I operated as a servant leader, doing what I wanted from them first and for the duration. We had vision and would sacrifice ourselves for this vision, which was logically and emotionally defensible as it was a locally needed sacrifice that included protecting the group as much as possible.
My fav internet couple :) The submission of any woman at the core is a primary drive in women to feel safe, so she can feel their children are safe. Women whom have husbands whom are extremely competent, financially stable, physically capable, and present enough so she doesn’t have to be forced to live out of time.. women are generally poorly evolved to live anywhere other than the moment. How could she feel she and her children are safe if she is forced to try have forward thinking as well as living in the moment.. the two are adversarial and always will be but when balanced between the two natures, the two time (shift/phases etc) it works best for the family unit and especially the children. Women are described as childlike for existing in the moment and men are described as not living in the home resent stuck in past or dreaming stuck in the future.. The woman already posses evolved psychological adaptions that advantage their sex in manipulating men whom have physical and other characteristic advantages over them. A very delicate balance indeed. End of the day.. men and women.. quit trying to gain power over the other.. we are supposed to do what is optimal for our children their survival and raising into stable productive adults is the true meaning of life the only thing that should matter to both sexes …
I always noticed they're like dogs, they are at their happiest when they can be submissive to a strong leader who is self confident and knows what he wants and takes what he wants and is commanding of others. But if he doesn't command that role she'll automatically assume that role her self and will become stressed out by the role and becomes less happy.
😂 women aren't like dogs ya fool. Women are leaders in their homes. We are responsible, generally, for the well-being of the family. We like to serve, but that's not the same thing as a dog who likes to be fed. We BECOME the people we love. We hold them up and nurture them and lose most of our individuality in this pursuit. It is a sacrifice which only a human can perform. This is why we want a man who has something going for him and doesn't fail at being an ADULT. We inherently become a part of that.
I will give my perspective based on the animal world, certain deer, for example, when escaping, usually jump, this is done to tell the predator "look at me, I am so healthy and skilled, you won't be able to catch me" generally exaggerate when demonstrating strength or power usually works since the risks The chances of finding that you are a liar are so great that only someone who has power would risk being aggressive. In birds, for example, males with certain characteristics were seen as more attractive. The problem was that by having those certain characteristics, they also attracted the attention of others. males so they had to fight more often
Have you ever run through the woods there are all kinds of branches ant hills and roots on the ground that can easily trip you. This might be why they are jumping.
How i found my fiance, i literally wrote to my tinder profile something like "I want to have children, family, get married and grow old together. No fuckboys, no polyamory". I found my fiance in like two weeks 😅 Ofc i was 24 years old skinny, feminine girl. I understand its probably different to someone who isnt like that. + I think im pretty good at analyzing people and their motives and i set boundaries based on my analysis of them. So that woulnt work to person, who cant analyze people well or doesnt have ability to set boundaries.
The Andrew clip is a RU-vid skit joke video 💀 he's said he'd sacrifice his life to protect his woman from men who would try to harm her. I was looking forward to actually seeing a clip to change my mind, but it was just one of his joke videos. The creators of Southpark don't believe what Cartman was saying any more than Andrew believes that about the sword.
This is my favourite video from you so far! I could not agree more. I am extremely honest and almost always pursue as a woman & it works SO well, far better than when men pursue me. No doubt it greatly helps that I’ve always known my objective function since early childhood. Self-awareness + constant striving for self-improvement is incredibly overpowered. Sharing this video with everyone. 😍
Im not exactly an OLD school red pill guy, but I am old school enough that I didn't read all this in the incel Tate way. I just became aware that I'm liable to be taken advantage of because I don't understand these ways we vary with women in our relationships. I find it frustrating whete all of this has gone.
The original redpill 'religious texts' are Pitch Anything by Oren Klaff and 'The Game' by Neil Strauss. They are wildly different than your opinion of Andrew Tate
No. Where did you get such a preposterous idea? The Game is a biographical history. The closest thing to a red pill "Bible" would be The Rational Male by Rollo Tomassi, and his subsequent works. But you are correct that their opinion of Tate is based on a faulty premise.
They aren't ironic. They're performative for three reasons: Reason 1: To contrast behaviour between the male of the urban monoculture with behaviour of the extreme stereotypical "Alpha male" strongman Reason 2: Performative entertainment to get higher views Reason 3: To strike emotional chords of people in the urban monoculture to again, get higher views via outrage
I wish I could find a female that wanted ANY kind of relationship that enjoyed having conversations about in depth and obscure topics. The hindrance mostly being I think where I live. Let's just say intelligence is not only not a virtue but I think they left it atleast a few counties over during the western expansion...
@@maidende8280men and women value different aspects of intelligence. That's why women are always talking about emotional intelligence. He is talking about non emotional intelligence.
There is a very easy explanation as to why influencers don't want to date their fans. It's because they don't identify with their online personas wich is mostly the product of what the algorithm decided they had to do to have their curent reach. Some of them even despise their fans for being so gullable, so naive and so stupid for being attracted to the type of content they produce.
Regarding your point on women not changing their preference due to the options made available to them I think it is incorrect to dismiss it so easily. Without citing any studies or data but only from what I have observed, I think this is similar to how many rich and wealthy individuals ends up going to more extreme outlets for entertainment as they become bored with the "vanilla". While I think you make a good point re it is likely influenced, possibly to a large extent, by inherent preferences which are uncovered, I also think there might be something to the notion that exposure changes inherent preferences as well. Not sure how this is reflected in data, but amongst many men there is a perception that nurses in particular are more promiscuous and "freaky" than others. While there might be some relationship with these attributes and people who tend to go for such professions, I think it is more likely that to some extent the profession changes their inherent preferences. I would argue that the reason for this change is due to some mixture of the taxing nature of the profession, the suspension bridge effect and the hedonic treadmill. The taxing profession triggers the suspension bridge effect where arousal from fear is misattributed, and as this feeling dies down over time causes people to chase the highs of the past. Switch profession with mentioned acts in bed, and it looks like the acts in themselves change the baseline.
And this is one nore reason whybi love you guys🎉 Your objectivity and ability to call out the BS and shortcomings of all sides is admirable. As a Nigerian conservative guy i respect that.
@@pyxylation One might think so, but reproduction is still possible. Some people would have children for their own sake. However we would see a 99%+ reduction in: Sex crimes Std transmission Human trafficking Abortion Pornography Infidelity Ect It would be one of the greatest reductions in Human suffering in history. Absolute win.
@@LiamLoves I definitely see your point and agree that it would have a huge positive impact on human suffering. But I think the vast majority of people wouldnt agree to having their sexual attraction and arousal removed. And I also wonder what unintended consequences would also happen because of it.
The Andrew Tate clip reminded me of the trope in movies of the officer who hides behind their rank expecting respect solely because of what's on their collar. Consider this reflection by a proven leader "Of course, the soldier must be trained to obedience, and should be "content with his wages;" but whoever has commanded an army in the field knows the difference between a willing, contented mass of men, and one that feels a cause of grievance. There is a soul to an army as well as to the individual man, and no general can accomplish the full work of his army unless he commands the soul of his men, as well as their bodies and legs." Memoir of General William T. Sherman, Vol II, pg 387
She said women where like mercenaries. If Sherman had an army of mercenaries at the Battle of shiloe when he was loosing badly on the first day and Beauregard had offered them a better deal they would have left him.
