Why It's Totally Fair That Men Are Expected To Put More Effort Into Dating Than Women Are (From An Evolutionary Perspective) (Page 2)
Click "Show More" for your mentions
Most Helpful Opinion(mho) Rate.
Learn more
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
51Opinion
It really doesn't bother me that guys should be the ones pursuing, and I'm not even into girls who want to pursue. All that is just new age stuff made to empower women and make the guys who lack confidence feel better. Just keep things as they are.
When a guy pursues, he's doing the choosing too: he picks who he obviously was into, and the rest he wasn't. And it's still probably much more common for a man to pursue and initiate and be successful with it than it is for a woman to do the same thing and be successful with it, because it often comes off as odd for a woman to do that. So it really doesn't bother me for guys to be the initiators.
GREAT take! Most republican and democratic men would agree with you. Unfortunately beta liberals make up the majority of the population these days, so they expect women to take on traditional male roles and vice versa. It's a bit sad. If you're a man, be a man! If you're a woman, be a woman! Nothing wrong with that.. in fact, it's natural.
So what are you giving in return? If he gives resources for the rights to reproduce do you then provide unconditional sex to him seeing as how he is expected to give unconditional resources to you? Most women think that they should be pampered but then not actually do anything to earn it. A man gives his resrouces to reproduce and to have his child cared for yet in our society a man gives his resources, reproduces when SHE decides it and then he and her care for the child equally (even as he workes more hours then she does (statisticly proven)). He wishes to have exclusive rights to reproduction but she wishes to give those rights away for free while demanding that he pay for it. In short you can live in a traditional way which makes perfect sense it follows our biology very well which is why we did it for so long, or you can do the modern thing and do as you wish when you wish without obligation, just don't expect him to feel obligated to follow the traditional role that you shirk.
@hellionthesage "even as he workes more hours then she does (statisticly proven)" it is also statistically proven that women put more hours into UNpaid labour than men do...
So many assumptions. I believe in serving your man in the same respect that he provides for you. I think both people should work, have hobbies, etc but it's in a man's nature to take care of a female and want sex for her, which I'm more than willing to provide.
No I meant it was statisticly proven that when you calculate work outside of the home and inside the home men are actually doing more overall: www.usatoday.com/.../
I didn't presume anything I was asking a question since almost every single woman I have spoken too wants a man to be traditionalist as she gets to be free of any and all responsibilities. Its in a womans nature to want to serve her man and stay home with the kids cooking cleaning etc. The fact is it really doesn't matter what his "nature" is if women do not reciprocate which they currently do not as every woman seems intent on having the man be slave for her while she does as she pleases, she doesn't exist to make a man happy, he isn't intitled to sex (but she apparently IS intitled to being pampered and given the mans resources) etc. Its a double standard and as I said if you state a man should be traditional then you yourself have to adhere to those same rules or be a hypocrit. I was simply curious which one you where.
@hellionthesage And I agree with you and men's concerns. Women, thanks to feminism, want everything handed to them without putting in any sort of work, then blame men for all their problems.
Thats what I was curious about, as I pointed out in my own post, I don't really care which route you take whether its the modern "progressive" approach where everything is split down the middle and both parties are treated androgynously (though I don't undersand how one could believe that considering the evidence) or an older traditional role its when they try to take the benefits of both while pushing for men to take the responsibility of both that I am against. So then I would agree with you and you me it would seem. Thank you for the response.
You're basically saying "I'm traditional, and anyone who isn't traditional is stupid!"
It's fine if YOU'RE traditional, just don't shove your 1950's gender roles onto everyone else by insulting them. It just makes you look like a bіtch.
@mistixs you're blaming men for not wanting to put in any work, but your take is literally about "why it's 100% fair for the woman to sit back and wait for the guy to do all the work". Grow a brain.
@hellionthesage No, men aren't entitled to sex. And no, women aren't entitled to being pampered and given resosurces. However, it is acceptable for a man to *expect* sex in a relationship. However he cannot force it. If he wants it, and she doesn't want to give it, then he can leave the relationship.
Likewise, a woman cannot force a man to pamper her and give her resources. But it's fine for her to *expect* that (and if he doesn't give it, then leave the relationship).
That's what I said in the title. It's OK for men to be *expected* to provide for his partner. Likewise, I do agree that it's OK for women to be *expected* to give her partner sex. However, neither man nor woman is *entitled*. If they're not getting what they want, they have no right to force it; they can leave, instead.
Entitlement = not ok for either men or women. Expectation = ok for both women and men
@Kirah When did I call anyone stupid? I called liberals beta, because they are. They're self-entitled, professional victims. It's why feminists are so attracted to it.
@Pampered you're traditional? That's cool! You should probably remove your opinion, everyone knows women should not speak up, unless spoken to, or with permission from the husband.
And if you had any hopes of pursuing a career or education, you better forget it. You either take housekeeping classes, or you stay at home. Forget about voting too, every traditional person knows that women can't vote. You better get into the kitchen and prepare a meal for your working husband, or else you may just "fall down the stairs" again.
But you won't do any of those things, because you're not actually traditional. You just pick and choose between "modern" and "traditional", whichever is more convenient at the moment. Modern when wanting a career, but traditional when the check arrives. Right?
@Kirah Oh please.. don't be dramatic Kirah. We're not talking the 1950's traditional. I'm talking about respecting your husband and not berating him over every little thing, just because he doesn't treat you like a princess and lets you get away with everything like a child, just because you're female. A man can be a man and not completely dictate his wife, and vice versa. I think a man should know his role in society and so should a female. Men are superior in certain aspects and women should honor that.. that's completely lost in today's society. Why do you think men and women are so unhappy? It's almost taboo in Western society to praise a man or say he's better than a woman at anything.. sad.
@Kirah im not actually against men paying for dates. it compensates for the fact that being female is so much more expensive in other ways. bras, tampons, gyno visits, pap smears, makeup etc. thus it is fair. i am not saying a man should be forced to do it but it really is the fair thing to do
That is the most idiotic thing I have heard to day. More expensive? Men die years before women, men win. Men suffer from most disease with greater frequency (a man has a 50% probability of developing cancer to a womans 33%) and at younger ages, men win. Women account for 80% of us domestic spending and 70% globally, and you want women to have more of mens hard earned money while she gives absolutely nothing in return? I really hope you stay single because I don't think any guy deserves to be treated like that ie like a walking paycheck. Thats just dispicable, at least look at them like their human beings instead of a thing to use and discard at your leisure. @mistixs
@hellionthesage @hellionthesage I'm not actually seeking a partner and I question whether falling in love is worth it anyway (since it'll always end). I just believe in fairness for other women. Women *do* have a lot more expenses to pay than men do, so paying for her is a decent thing for a guy to do. Of course he's not obligated, but it's fair and nice.
And she does give stuff in return. Love, sex, etc. Of course she's not obligated to give him these things but he's not obligated to give her money either. It should be a choice for both. But personally I think this is the fair, ideal type of relationship.
No, you whant whats "fair" for women, not for men. You made that abundently clear. You think feeding two people is cheap? Paying for everything, chauffering her around (cars are expensive, so is gas and insurance), buying nice clothes, buying her incredibly expensive jewelry, and in return she gives you "love"(under the condition you give her everything dime you have.) and sex?(because as we all know men only care about sex and whant nothing else). Your sexist, lets just be completely honest about it, you think men are objects to be used and while I really could care less about it, its the fact that your trying to rationalize it that makes it so infuriating. You want to use men thats fine just own it and be done with it, stop trying to lie about women having more expensise because they don't not when men are expected to pay for everything. You choose to have your twenty pairs of shoes, your massive quantities of makeup etc. Its your choice he doesn't owe you and its not fair.
@hellionthesage Do you think menstruating and giving birth is cheap and easy?
And I'm not saying that he has to buy her EVERYTHING. Well, first off, he doesn't *have* to buy her anything, but in my view of the ideal relationship, it'd be okay for the man to just buy her the essentials to balance out the inherent imbalance in which the reproductive system is costlier for women.
"because as we all know men only care about sex and whant nothing else"
I used sex as the example because that's what you said in the first post:
"If he gives resources for the rights to reproduce do you then provide unconditional sex to him seeing as how he is expected to give unconditional resources to you?"
So I was saying, yeah, that'd be fair, as long as it's an arrangement derived by two enthusiastically consenting partners.
Do you thank cancer is cheap and easy? How about heart disease and stroke all of which men get with greater frequency and at younger ages then women? Do you think a shorter life span in general is easy? How about no reproductive rights? Child support? Alimony (which in many states is paid for life)? How about physical labor?(98% of work place accidents and deaths are male), I'm sorry, but I cannot take the complaint of minor inconvience (and it is) seriously comparative to literal life and death situations. You are self absorbed, stop trying to play victim. Look at the world look at the facts and you'll quickly realize that you have it better then any one else does, at least those who have a penis. No one helps men, every body helps women. For instance 80% of homeless are males, yet 90% of all resources that go to the homeless go to homeless women. Also why men have a 4x higher suicide rate then women. Do you think divorce is cheap? Because its filed by women 80% of the time, and
screws him out of money and out of his children since we have a system tha gives women complete custody over children. Do you think its cheap to have to double your expenses? Because that is what you are advocating men do which is actually ironic since currently women make up 80% of domestic spending (in the US, 70% global) meaning they already spend their money and the money of men. Basicly you want another pay check and its quite disgusting. As for sex, yes I did, but I also stated that he was allowed to have it whenever he wanted which you of course disagreed with, she gets his money and she decides whether or not he gets sex. Thats like an employer being legaly obligated to give you your paycheck but you reserving the right to decide whether or not you actually work for the money. ie its sexist as hell and you are a dispicable human being. If you want a man because of his money while doing nothing in return thats fine, but don't lie about.
@hellionthesage See, all of those problems affect only a small percentage of men. Whereas the problems that impact women affect almost all women.
Most men won't be in a situation where they have to deal with the fact that they have "no reproductive rights" or have to pay child support or alimony. Most workplace deaths may be men, but most men don't die in workplace deaths. Most homeless may be male, but most males aren't homeless. Etc.
To the contrary, all women menstruate, and 81% of women experience pregnancy and childbirth.
SOME men (the ones impacted most by the above problems you mentioned) have it worse than MOST women, but MOST women have it worse than MOST men.
Oh and men may have a shorter life expectancy but there are plenty of men who live longer than plenty of women.
The only way the shorter life expectancy would fully compensate for women's childbearing & menstruation would be if ALL women lived 10 years (7 years menstruation + 2 years pregnancy) longer than ALL men.
@hellionthesage by the way the custody thing is a myth. The reason men get custody of their kids less often is because they ask for it less often.
Anyway, women experience much more frequent and intense pains than men do:
JOURNALS.LWW.COM/.../...AL_PAIN_EXPERIENCE_.3.ASPX
And women experience less happiness, and 30% more distress than men, on average: campus.fsu.edu/.../Mirowsky-ASR-1998.pdf
(Yes, they controlled for desirability bias.)
The custody thing is not a myth, it has been documented thouroughly and has been proven to be the case but I like how you blame men for it, a man has no right to tell a woman to not kill his child (abortion) a man cannot actively stop a woman from abandoing his child (safe haven laws) and he cannot stop her from give his child up for adoption. Their are many many groups fighting for fathers rights and you blame men for laws that feminist lobbiest put into law for why men have no recourse against a bias system. Women feel more pain, and men die earlier guess what? Men loose out ie in this who has it worse game men (sadly) always win. You are the most pampered and protected group in the world, this is fact statisticly proven, ancedotally proven. You are not going to be able to argue against reality no matter how much you try, I have proven this everytime we have discussed this. Women experience less happiness because of women, they wanted what men do they got it, and they hate it.
@hellionthesage seems your right it is 80%
and here's the article to prove it www.divorcenet.com/.../divorce-for-men-why-women-get-child-custody-over-80-time
@CancerianMan81 Except thats not the case. They also say almimony goes to the one who is the "dependent' yet only about 23% of alimony goes to men that should be getting it ie in 77% of cases the men who should be getting alimony by this very reasoning are not. Same goes with child custody. The system is incredibly bias thats not an opinion that is fact.
www.telegraph.co.uk/.../...-the-family-courts.html
Twisting of statistics and misrepresentation of facts do not alter this.
@hellionthesage yeah it's crazy
@CancerianMan81 Yes it is, laws don't work unless people follow them and enforce them but since the very people expected to apply them are bias themselves it really doesn't change things (courts favor women in all respects, hence women getting a third of the sentencing that a man would for commiting the same crime). Yet its constantly being twisted as if the father getting to call his children once a week is the same as full or partial custody.
I somewhat agree with you, but I also disagree. I agree that, from an evolutionary perspective, it would be fair that men put in more effort while women sit and wait for the right suitor.
But one thing evolution didn't account for was over-population, and for us to create civilisation. Humans are more than abundant, we are excessive. Rendering most of us expendable, and that includes women. You see, we are not living in hunter-gatherer societies any more. We live in concrete jungles and are practically separate from the natural world.
Women no longer have inherited value. Their goods are obsolete. We have more than enough humans, so what is a woman's bargaining chip if not child-bearing?
Not really. You have a point about overpopulation and us not *needing* to have many kids anymore, but regardless, most people still want kids. Because it's not enough for them there are *many* people *outside* their family. They want to have their *own* family.
Yes really. I get what you are saying but there is, objectively, barely any value in a single human life (and thus, barely any value in a woman's ability to bear children). So women don't instantly deserve special treatment or whatever, simply on the basis of their genitals.
What if I don't want kids? Would I still need to put more effort in than I need to?
What if the woman doesn't want kids? Would she still deserve to be treated like a princess?
Seriously, first you choose to use makeup. I beg my wife not to use it the female body is a work of art. Maybe your insecurity is the problem. Why don't men wear makeup, because we are not that hung up on our looks there are more important things about us we need to worry about. Women are to worried about what everyone thinks about them. Second, you have the ability to carry a living being inside you which any woman I know says is an amazing experience, you will feel a connection to your child a man will never have. You act like it's a curse yet it's not required for a happy/healthy relationship. Last both parties should be trying to satisfy their partner in every way then there would be a lot less relationship problems.
Biologically and over 10,000 years of human history, men have been the senior and women the subordination positions. It has only been over the last 25 or so that Feminism has infected western culture with artificially forced "equality". In that historic and proper relationship, it is natural that men would have to "win" women. In the present state, which is un-natural and won't last much longer (think world financial collapse) we are allegedly separated by being concave and convex and men should not be expected to expend any more effort than "womyn".
Of course, your childbirth automatically outweighs everything a man can possibly do, whether or not she actually uses it. Her pain of childbirth means the man putting equal work to raise the child and then slave at work for the rest of his life still can't compare
https://images.memes.com/meme/224148
s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/.../...bbbf655f25.jpg
We are passed that... we are not living along side the neanderthals anymore! The reason for that is that homosapiens EVOLVE and CHANGE if we stay stagnant in our neatly packaged little roles forever we will stop moving forward. If we refuse to change we will end up extinct like the rest of our ancestors.
Yeah but if women still have to have their evolutionary reproductive burden (pregnancy and childbirth) why are we going to get rid of men's? So that women are the ones left with all of the burden. That's unfair.
You are overcomplicating things, it's a bit immature.
Women should quit making excuses why guys should try harder.
Their you want a man or not
Don't expect him to give you the world.
You want money get a job,
Then you can afford make up etc..
As for dates it's better to go half and half.
Women's standards are so high
If I was a guy I would turn gay.
Or be single.
I'm not sure why so many people are up in arms about this. LOL
I mean, it's an undeniable fact that women have FAR greater reproductive costs, and therefore they should be choosier as a result. And them being able to be choosy means that men compete for them in one way or the other.
I really hope I don't come across as hoity-toity, but I think that most people who complain about this arrangement just haven't found success with women -- thus the griping.
What everyone is glossing over is the fact that we haves TOO many people already.
Thus further reproduction, will only lead to note crime, war and famine.
Being able to bring more of what there is already too much of IS NOT something you should attach value to. That's an idiotic argument.
More*
Typing on my dumb phone.
I think guys having to work to provide for the wife while she is pregnant and be the breadwinner in a relationship already balances out the problem without making men look like perves and rapists having to chase around women that just give them the middle finger.
(women are less likely to be perceived as aggressors if they do a bit of the chasing themselves). anyway, pregnancy really is not THAT big of a deal.
Um, yes it is a big deal.
Nausea and vomiting your guts up, having trouble breathing, migraines, constipation, hemorrhoids, swelling all over, yeast infections, bloating, fetus kicking you in the cervix and in the ribcage, aches and pains, insomnia, restless leg syndrome, massive fatigue and exhaustion, heartburn and sore breasts; having exasperated blood pressure issues, struggling to walk, losing ability to control bladder, hip pain. On top of that, no pain medicines!
Meanwhile, ALL this - and you still have to go to work for the majority of your pregnancy.
"Nausea and vomiting your guts up, having trouble breathing, migraines, constipation, hemorrhoids, swelling all over, yeast infections, bloating, fetus kicking you in the cervix and in the ribcage, aches and pains, insomnia, restless leg syndrome, massive fatigue and exhaustion, heartburn and sore breasts; having exasperated blood pressure issues, struggling to walk, losing ability to control bladder, hip pain. On top of that, no pain medicines!"
Sounds like a typical workout we men have to do to look strong, muscular and sexy for you ladies.
https://www.myosynthesis.com/cns-handle-stress
www.syattfitness.com/.../DL.jpg
www.dieselcrew.com/.../huge-deadlift.jpg
www.musclemag.com/.../...tForStrength_620x4452.jpg
it's not uncommon for the central nervous system to shut down, for a man to feel like he is about to puke and haemorrhoids and brain seizures to happen.
then there's all the extra work you've got to do when your wife is pregnant or raising the kids to keep paying the bills, etc. most guys work harder, dirtier and more dangerous jobs
I could go on.
Only 1 out of 5 men work non-sedentary jobs. Compared to 4 of 5 women who endure pregnancy.
And women work out too.
any guy with a pregnant wife needs to look after her and be the breadwinner. doesn't matter if it's sedentary or not. office jobs are horrible. I do brazilian jiu jitsu slow rolls with guys that work them: all of them are about as brittle as a piece of clay and the whole time they are stressed and nervous as fuck.
'women work out too'
I'm sorry but burning fat is nowhere near as strenuous as muscle building
thirdretinaacademy.com/.../...-you-lose-weight.jpg
Women do office jobs too... and many women work throughout their entire pregnancies. In The United States, only 13% of women get paid maternity leave
'only 13% of women get paid maternity leave'
then that's a social issue, not biological. anyway, how many men get paid parental leave post pregnancy?
Irrelevant. Men don't have to recover from having a human being tear it's way out of a bodily orifice.
no, they just have to deal with (female) human beings tear their way into their finances
Which is only fair. Providing for his wife is the least he could do, considering he's not the one who has to go through pregnancy and childbirth.
you're asking the dude to provide for his wife, initiate mating strategies, workout to have the most muscular physique to attract her, be high socioeconomic status AND put up with her emotionally dramatic period bullshit.
When did I say any of that? (Aside from the "providing" part.)
in your original article you are saying it's fair for men to put in more effort - i. e. approach - and in your posts on here you are conceding that guys should work out by marginalising it (just saying that girls have to work out as well even though fat burning is clearly nowhere near as hard as muscle building). socioeconomic status is tied in with wealth - and you're already conceding that it's required for guys to work to pay for his girl. emotional drama is just something any guy in a relationship is going to have to put up with: more so if the woman is pregnant or has kids.
To a degree true but really simplistic - The main reason I say this is I am not 100% convinced by this finding a mate theory - I am a great believer in things just happen, men and women should just look after themselves, do what they wish to feel comfortable about themselves and if they are lucky enough to find someone so be it - If they settle down and have kids, they should share the duties and responsibility as equally as possible according to their capabilities.
"Women have some issues so let's create some more for men just to level things out."
So are you good with the military draft for women or increasing the amount of homicides on women and assaults to level it out with the mens rates of being victims to these crimes or take away your insurance for STI vaccinations since men don't have them to also level that out? Because that's the exact same logic you just used.
It's people like you who make people think all feminists are just man haters.
No, because some of those issues are what partially compensates for the issues women go through that men don't.
Only a small percentage of men go to war & get killed/assaulted, so even that doesn't compensate for the fact that 4 out of 5 women give birth.
So if we increased the numbers of women facing those issues, that'll just increase the gap to be wider than it already is, with women facing more issues than men.
Plus we should be working on getting rid of the draft, and decreasing homicides/assaults for men, in order to achieve equality, rather than increasing them for women...
"with women facing more issues than men."
yeah I don't buy this for a moment. We can go toe to to showing stats of who actually faces more issues in society if you like. There are so many issues I bet you don't even know exist in the first place.
Sorry but fair is fair right? You going to purposefully create more issues for men in dating just to compensate then I'm equally going to create more issues outside of dating for women to make them suffer as much as men do.
The thing with male-dominate issues is that although they occur mainly to men, they only affect a minority of men. For example, most murder victims are men; however, only 1% of men are murdered.
In contrast, most female-dominated issues affect the majority of women. Such as pregnancy and childbirth and periods.
If there are male-dominated issues that you know of, that affect the majority of men, then let me hear them. Especially if they're worse than pregnancy and childbirth.
And it's not a matter of purposefully creating more issues for men. It's a matter of allowing the already existing issues to continue existing.
Women actually suffer more than men do already. Women, on average, experience 30% more distress than men. (Yes, this was *after* controlling for reporting bias.) https://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1996-04642-001
Your argument is that a small percentage of men experience it even if it's more than women yet you only show a percent difference between men and women for distress yet don't state what the actual amount of women experience it.
The hypocrisy is just oozing.
And no it's not okay to let some issues persist and not let others LITERALLY that's the exact opposite of what equality is. Unless you don't believe in equality in which case I guess there's nothing left to say because that's pretty subhuman way to think.
Also how did they adjust for mens unwillingness to talk about their issues? They just say it happened yet don't talk at all how that happened which is at the very least suspicious.
We *are* letting some issues persist. We're letting the childbirth issue persist, and therefore also letting the "men paying for dates etc" issue to persist.
Then let's just let ALL issues persist. No reason to be inconsistent. Again way to give feminists a bad name. I know not all feminists are are so self serving as you. So despite your good attempt whether intentional or not I don't hate women still even though you are blathering about such selfish dogma.
I'm going to fight against ALL issues the best I can. Some are easier like the men always paying thing than helping women with birthing difficulties (who again it's your freaking choice to have a kid not every couple wants one. You can't seem to comprehend not everyone wants what you want we're our own human beings with feelings that are just as legitimate as yours) But even though there doesn't seem to be a way to fix the health risks of birth I'll still look for a way instead of the god awful approach you're doing of instead of looking for a way to fix it you just want to make men suffer because you're nothing more than a bitter misandrist.
What I think is that if we can't get rid of women's burden in reproduction, then neither should we get rid of men's (which is to provide for his mate).
No that burden is leveled out by the fact that men have 0 choice if a woman becomes pregnant. If she wants an abortion it doesn't matter what he wants she can kill his child. If they swap the roles he has no choice he at the very least has to make payments (and if he doesn't make enough to pay those he goes to prison and gets butt fucked in the shower)
THAT is the equal to your issue because just like your issue ours can't really be fixed. The man paying one 100% can be fixed and it can be done SO easily. Your way of thinking is going to get zero sympathy for any self respecting guy that doesn't like to be seen as a doormat. So enjoy only getting the love of guys that are spineless. It's that or nothing for you.
again those are issues that only happen to a minority of men. whereas 81% of women give birth
AND IT'S THEIR CHOICE! See that's your privilege you aren't enslaved to your issue your's is a fucking choice. A CHOICE! You have freedom. You have no idea just how much you're taking freedom for granted. But then again I guess you don't care since you're so indifferent to the sufferings of those who are physically different than you.
and it's men's choice to provide for his "mate" (girlfriend/wife). i'm not saying he should be forced to do it
By your logic they have to if they want to be in a relationship and have love and affection whereas women don't have to have love and affection in their life. But whatever I know you don't care; your bio is a lie. Say what you want with your draconian philosophy I'm done this is way too upsetting to continue.
no, i'm just saying that it's not unfair for a woman to require a man to provide for her, in order to remain in a relationship with her, as long as she doesn't force it.
likewise it's not unfair for a man to require a woman to have kids in order to remain in a relationship with him. as long as he doesn't force it.
I wouldn't argue evolutionary perspectives as a woman, darling. Do you forget how biologically weak and lost you are? I honestly think you need to experience what men are truly capable of to set your brain straight, bare least understand that expecting a man to put in more effort to get you means you need to put in more effort to keep him wanting you.
Some sort of a quid pro quo. I concur with the idea, but you'll be getting A LOT of BUTTHURT comments from dudes on here... o. O
Well how about I tell you that because of your genitals, you automatically are assigned a job-you have no free will of your own, and the main purpose of your existence is to cater to my needs.
How would you react?
Telling a man he owes women special treatment simply because, is no better than telling a woman she owes me sex simply because.
@Jimrat86 Theodore Roosevelt said this: "The birth pangs make all men the debtors of all women." & I don't disagree tbh
@Jimrat86 Butthurt comment! No 100902928929...
Well thats because women will not hold their end of this deal. For instance in marriage the aggreement is that the man provide his resources, just as she mentioned, and in return he gets the exclusive rights of reproduction, however women do not have any obligation to fullfill their end of this agreement. She does not have to have sex with him if she does not want to yet if he withoulds his resrouces as she with holds hers he will experience significant social pressure to stop she will not thus allowing for an extreme imbalance. He marries a woman for exclusive reproductive rights dedicating all of his resources to her yet she slept around before him, she violated that condition she gave away her reproduction that he has to pay for, she still expects him to commit to her and dedicate his resrouces ie she expects that the rules apply to him but not her. This is not "butthurt" this is fact, this is how things operate and men don't want to be short changed anymore.
Ok. Just point out what others are doing instead of actually participating in the discussion.
That's helpful.
A moderator should remove you from this thread.
MyTake Owner. Explain to me why Theodore Roosevelt has supreme authority, and why his opinion trumps any argument that stands in it's way?
I think it's the opposite: Women have a biological clock, so they are the one's who should put in the effort. From a biological perspective, women have an expiration date. If you don't mate by that expiration date, you can't reproduce. And reproduction is the driving force of evolutionary history.
I guess there are different ways to look at things.
i feel that both need to put the same amount of effort! this doesn't work one way... it should be balanced
But then after that, women have to put more work into reproduction. That's not fair.
no... guys ve to deal with our mood swings... our morning sickness... all sorts of stuff... they do their part we do ours... ya they dont go through the pain of giving birth but there r other things that make them rise to our level... its better if equal efforts r put in
You've clearly never been pregnant if you think that men "dealing with our morning sickness" is ANYWHERE near equality with the pain women go through during pregnancy.
but still my point is guys anyways do a lot for us in their own ways... relationships r about equality
I came here for the sole purpose of telling you that anything coming "from an evolutionary perspective" is bullshit.
We're humans, not animals. Or more like, we're more human than we are animal.
Humans are animals.
We're smart animals. Animals who do not follow the rules of nature.
Nature is not fair. Men only have to put extra effort in if they are less attractive intrinsically. In other words if you have won the genetic lottery (or can convince the girl you have) you don't have to put any effort in at all.
Nooo women usually require more from a partner than just looks.
A said "attractive", that's more than just looks but it's still mostly genetic. What makes a guy attractive to women varies more than what makes a woman attractive to men but it's still mostly genetic. Men who aren't gifted genetically can make up for it with wealth and care giving, men who are don't have to. Not fair but there you are.
Well even a very handsome man probably won't have many opportunities to get a partner if he's homeless or really poor.
If he's homeless or really poor in the general culture of a Western nation that is generally taken as a sign there is something mentally wrong with him. In subcultures or places where everyone is poor and it is not taken as an indication of genetic defect then it makes no difference whatever.
Oh lawd jeezus... the feminism is strong with this one...
Not really. I do consider myself a feminist but I think a lot of feminists would disagree with me on this, as well as some other beliefs I have.
You're confused, mate... Which is understandable since you subscribe to reactionary political movements like feminism... Mainstream feminism is run by the psychos and sociopaths of the movement... Reproduction is hardly the burden you believe it is. It's a choice which yields it's own rewards which may or may not appeal to you. It's the same with physical and emotional intimacy. In the single-minded quest for gender-equality, some misguided feminists fail to see that while men and women may have seemingly incongruous stakes in forming strong enriching relationships and raising healthy families, power and agency are distributed equitably between the sexes.
Lmao why don't you feminist try getting laid? Why are you so sexually frustrated and bitter towards dicks? Is it because you can't get D?
I think its because some fucking white knights have been desperate to get into their panties have been giving them some sense of entitlement.