The Double Life of Women--why 2nd date didn't work when first date was great

[EMY]

http://www.psychologytoday.com/artic...ble-life-women

Interesting article about preferences and appearances of women over the course of a month.

 

[Avocat]

Ah, the caveman/cavewoman brain theory in modern man/woman ...

Yes, heard this somewhere before. Woman as cavewoman wants to marry boy next door (gentle, sensitive, etc.) 21 or so days out of the month, but drops him like a hot potato so as to be available for all those caveman Mr. Universe types who come running, fighting each other off for her affection 1 week out of the month. (Note: males operate on a 24 hour cycle so as to be ready for it, y'see, the window of opportunity only lasting a week at most). But if all of this were still true of modern man/woman, then boy next door would become Mr. Universe caveman style, too, and yet he doesn't.

While the caveman/cavewoman brain is still a part of us, pysch today is giving the theory more attention than in deserves. The very fact modern woman (unlike cavewoman) is interested in sex a couple times a week (more if a French or German woman, like 3 times a week, and even more after menopause) proves it, no? Doesn't change the fact that, when it comes to the dating game, it really does seem sometimes as if women are from Venus and men are from Mars, though (this is most true!!).

 

[tagutcow]

Is there really any "science" to evolutionary psychology? I don't think I've ever heard a single conjecture of evolutionary psychology that is experimentally falsifiable.

 

[Avocat]

Originally Posted by smakdak

Technology will never replace nature. This information , to be news, means we have lost all connection with the human world. We are becoming so out of touch that pretty soon we may be mystified that babies are naturally born from a woman and not a test tube. What the heck is going on with common sense?
If we're talking pure "nature" where males and females both partake in rearing of the child (i.e., serial monogamy or monogamy as naturally practiced by birds, wolves, and yes humans), it's the males who must be pretty to attract a female, and not vice-versa. In the case of birds for e.g., males sing to attract a female. He who is prettiest with the best and strongest song just might entice a female, when "ready" to check out the nest he built (thus singing its readiness to her). If it's not strong enough she'll leave, no matter how pretty he is or sings (it's for the little birds he hopes to have, y'see). In the case of wolves, alpha males mate with alpha females, but the male had best have the prettiest fur but at the same time be strong enough to fend off all the other males, etc. Yet she, too, must be strong enough to fend off the other females (there can only be one mating pair, and these are the alphas). Is anthromorphizing animals proper? Most scientists say "no" though we can learn something from their behavior, provided we understand first why it is they do what it is that they do. That said, of course males instinctively know when she's in the mood (body language, etc., or she takes you by the paw ...). How else are you gonna get all those baby birds and/or wolf pups from a test tube

(obviously kidding). EDIT: that is indeed the problem, Tagut. Psychology Today and thus the "estrus (cavewoman)" theory is, well, pop-psychology in turn--i.e., there's no cavewomen around to ask, I'm afraid. Part of the caveman brain remains a part of us, but the evidence respecting sexual relations b/w men and women today tells us that this theory is, well, non-scientific. tl/DR: psych-today and "evolutionary psych" are pop psychology, and the whole caveman/cavewoman "theory" --including this one--traces to romantic fiction of the Victorian era (which isn't science but fantasy fiction, akin to Harlequin novels today). Then again, at one time, some who thought themselves to be scientists believed in alchemy (magic) and dragons, too ...

 

[HRoi]

More validation that one must hit it by the first date

 

[Fuuma]

Originally Posted by tagutcow

Is there really any "science" to evolutionary psychology? I don't think I've ever heard a single conjecture of evolutionary psychology that is experimentally falsifiable.

You're obviously not awarew of all the cutting edge research published on internet forums.

 

[SpallaCamiccia]

Women and socialists... both ruined my life.

 

[grit]

That article was worth reading just for this picture:

 

[jarude]

******* furries.

 

[Wirr]

Originally Posted by grit

That article was worth reading just for this picture:

Yeea, cool pic

I don't really believe in this theory. I don't think you can apply it to any real situation.
In theory it might have an impact, but it's so much more to take into calculations when in reality.

(SRY 4 bad en.)

 

[MetroStyles]

tl dr

what was the gist of the article?

 

[jarude]

women want manly men when theyre ovulating and they want girly men when theyre menstruating

bitches want it all

 

[MetroStyles]

Originally Posted by jarude

women want manly men when theyre ovulating and they want girly men when theyre menstruating

bitches want it all

bullshit. wymyn want ****** at all times of month.

 

[kwilkinson]

Originally Posted by MetroStyles

bullshit. wymyn want ****** at all times of month.

that's b/c three weeks out of every month you're a ***** ass ***** and one week of the month you're a badass. That is--- when you're not ditching your homeboy kwilk.

 

[MrG]

Originally Posted by MetroStyles

tl dr

what was the gist of the article?

I didn't read it, either, but my guess is the following:

If you're a nice, emotional, good guy and you banged a girl, you most likely gist when she wasn't ovulating. On the other hand, if you're a tough, cold, bad boy and you banged a girl, you most likely gist when she was ovulating. Ergo, if you're a bad boy, you better not have gist raw dog.