(Part 2) Best products from r/TheBluePill

Oh look, another post where a guy tries to rationalize being superficial at an age when it's no longer cool.



Education and Attractiveness in Marriage Choices:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2786870.pdf?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Is Beauty in the Eye of the Beholder? (hint: the answer is yes)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v396/n6709/abs/396321a0.html

Age preferences are more similar than we think, and TRP greatly over-estimates the "mate preferences" of men as they age. Most men prefer 2 - 3 years younger in their twenties, and as they age that gap widens to about 10 - 15 years younger in their 60s.
http://www.amazon.com/Adapting-Minds-Evolutionary-Psychology-Persistent/dp/0262524600

http://spr.sagepub.com/content/15/1/77.short




At age 60, I hope these guys want to protect younger women from creepy guys, rather than BEING the creepy guys.

This reminds me of a thread in Men's Rights. The guys there went absolutely apeshit over the following book title:

Disgusting misandry

A couple people pointed out the second title in the series, to no avail.

I must be the world's worst researcher, because I can't find the thread, but there was much wailing and gnashing of the teeth.

Fun Fact: many serious dog breeders adamantly call their best breeding females "bitches" as a term of respect. When I was on dog forums, the rest of us would be all, "isn't it mean to call your dog a bitch?" Lel.

I'm going to try to engage in discussion here, hopefully something useful or interesting will come of it.

1. Why do you think social science makes up concepts? If it were so simple, then why don't social scientists just do that instead of carrying out all that research to empirically support and demonstrate the existence of their concept?
   
   
2. As pointed out by someone else, the possible problems with social science doesn't make evo psych any more or less valid.
   
   
3. How do you deal with the fact that most of the criticisms against evolutionary psychology come from biologists; e.g. Jerry Coyne:
   
   >The latest deadweight dragging us closer to phrenology is "evolutionary
   psychology," or the science formerly known as sociobiology, which studies
   the evolutionary roots of human behavior.
   
   >...
   
   >Plausible? Maybe. Scientifically
   testable? Absolutely not. If evolutionary biology is a soft science, then
   evolutionary psychology is its flabby underbelly.
   
   Russell Gray:
   
   >In its enthusiasm to repudiate behavioral creationism and social construction EP has embraced a
   cartoon version of Darwinism.
   
   And there's a whole book of them here: From Mating to Mentality: Evaluating Evolutionary Psychology.
   
   If you were able to present solid criticisms of aspects of social science (and they do exist) which are as damning and as evidence-based as the criticisms against evo psych, then I'd guarantee that most people here would accept them.
   
   I understand that you're pretending to dismiss an entire section of science because you want to wind some people up, and sure, do what you like if it gives you the jollies, but maybe in this comment string we can put away the childish taunts and actually discuss an interesting topic.
   

Well in "Woman: An Intimate Geography" Natalie Angier explains it that mammals traditionally had sex with the man entering from behind the woman ("doggy style", etc.) and so men associated the shape of women's buttocks with sex.

The idea is that women who had large breasts were more likely to have intercourse with men in face to face positions, because the men liked the look of breasts because they reminded them of buttocks. Having sex in face to face positions included more eye contact, which lead to more oxytocin release upon orgasm which lead to stronger pair bonding and love which created a more stable bond between parents and more involvement in children's lives from their father because he was so in love with the mother.

The other hypothesis Angier covers is that breasts are so aesthetically pleasing that women who had spare food or supplies were more likely to give it to the women with bigger breasts.

This sounds goofy, but it's still a really good book.

Agreed. /u/incelthrowaway321, you need different influences, ones that will make you happy and not feed your negative thought patterns. Look into CBT. I recommend the Great Courses series on it; it's comprehensive and compassionate and lovely. It's scary to try to break out of the patterns that you've built up to protect yourself, but it's the only way to improve your relationship with the world.

Believe me, I relate. I had similar thoughts when I was young, that I was unattractive and that most people would dislike me. Turned out, I had just grown up in a really toxic environment, and the things I had learned about myself from those formative experiences weren't objectively true. I would bet good money the same is true for you.

I see that you're saying that men generally want sex and women generally want commitment, and you believe that when women friend-zone men they are cheating men by taking the commitment and giving nothing in return.

It seems me that you agree that men shouldn't be doing chores for women with the hope that they will get sex in return. I also think a lot of feminists would agree with us that women shouldn't be having sex with men with the hope that they will get commitment in return. They're both foolish ways of thinking.

Here's how we get around the foolish confusion that both men and women bring to relationships: honest communication about feelings and expectations.

Men who feel friendzoned should tell the women (in similar but not necessarily identical words) "I feel hurt because I want our relationship to become something different. I also like you and I feel happy when I'm around you. But I also feel bad about myself because I worry that you're purposely leading me on to hurt and use me"

and women should tell men "I want to have sex with you, and I really like you. But I'm also worried that once we have sex you'll no longer be interested in me, and I don't want to have sex outside of a long-term relationship. Do you think that you're interested in having a long term relationship or do you see us as having a casual relationship?"

If you want more information on how to have these conversations in a socially skilled way, I suggest Difficult Conversations by Douglas Stone

In short, you're right to point out that both men and women don't communicate their expectations with each other well and end up feeling used and cheated as a result. However, I think the solution is more honesty, not less honesty, wouldn't you agree?

I've mentioned Rasputin before on here, and I am still a little amazed that TRP never mentions Rasputin when they talk about their heroes.

Both these passages are from Robert K. Massie's excellent book Nicholas and Alexandra. Rasputin was such a jackass, but a really fascinating one, and I'm learning a lot about the Romanovs!

This is on my Amazon wish list.

Until that glorious day, this will do.....

Anyone who romanticizes housework should read this. It's an great read.

1. If you can, get ye to a therapist- look for someone who does CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy)- they will give you the tools you need to disarm these thoughts. This isn't a judgmental thing, you are having intrusive thoughts and they are impacting your life.
   
   
2. Get your hands on "The Happiness Trap"- it will help you deal with the intrusive thoughts "https://www.amazon.com/Happiness-Trap-Struggling-Start-Living/dp/1590305841"

Well it would be only one facet of bdsm being M/f (only clarifying because a lot of them seem to think "bdsm" is only M/f) If the tables were turned on them in a F/m sense they'd cry misandry. Funny thing is there's an actual book on training men like dogs https://www.amazon.com/Treat-Happily-After-relationship-primer/dp/1935125265

They'd be so triggered if they caught wind of it though lol

excerpts are from here http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Prehistoric-Origins-Sexuality/dp/0061707805

>Huh? Even if this is true (which I'm not because it isn't referenced and I haven't done any research on it myself), what is the significance of this? What is biologically better about a larger penis?

If you have a monogamous animal sperm delivery is not a problem. The woman only has one mate, so the body readily accepts the sperm.

However, in promiscuous species the men's sperm needs to compete with other sperm to impregnate the ovum. Only 1-2% of sperm have the goal of actually trying to fertilize the egg, the other sperm are blockers and killers, that seek to stop other men's sperm.

The reason why a large penis is so advantageous is because the penis is shaped so during each thrust it creates a vaccum that pumps out the guy's sperm before hand. Plus the guy can ejaculate in a deeper area of the vagina than other men can.

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/emir.kamenica/documents/identity.pdf

Oh yeah, I've heard of this before. Pretty sure it comes from the retro book "Fascinating Womanhood".

Notably, it has some other advice about relating to your husband that would make RPWs/TRPs rage, though:

> "like a child who wants too many cookies, a man must be denied [sex] sometimes for his own good."

He's the beta we keep chained up in the basement to lend scientific credibility to our EvoPsych BioTruth claims. You can identify alphas by their headgear.