female virtue vs male ego

[Guest]

I think it's true that religion attaches unnecessary guilt to sex in order to control people, and what Just/Us said is not incorrect. But it says nothing about the asymmetry between males and females.

I'd say the asymmetry comes from "evolutionary baggage" regarding paternity and control of a woman's reproduction. The evolutionary baggage influences instincts and emotions in a variety of ways which can sometimes end up expressed culturally.

But I disagree that paternity and resources are the only thing a man cares about. His genes may be very interested in paternity and resources, but a man is not his genes. If he were, there would be no such thing as adoption.

[Guest]

[quote1233851732=Vector]
I think it's true that religion attaches unnecessary guilt to sex in order to control people, and what Just/Us said is not incorrect. But it says nothing about the asymmetry between males and females.

I'd say the asymmetry comes from "evolutionary baggage" regarding paternity and control of a woman's reproduction. The evolutionary baggage influences instincts and emotions in a variety of ways which can sometimes end up expressed culturally.

But I disagree that paternity and resources are the only thing a man cares about. His genes may be very interested in paternity and resources, but a man is not his genes. If he were, there would be no such thing as adoption.
[/quote1233851732]
Adoption, altruism, etc.. Interesting topics. Shall we get down to a game of Prisoner's dilema? LOL. Didn't someone just post about this on another thread and also provide links??

Dawkins ultimately contends these are just low level (and selected in) gene survival mechanisms. Note that with humans this (presumably) evolved from tribal days where we would mostly share genes with local tribal members. The pheonomenom is well documented throughout the animal kingdom.

[url]http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/[/url]

Would you help an injured child in the street? Where do morals come from and why, regardless of religion (or lack thereof) do we all basically agree to the same moral standards of "right and wrong"? These are survival mechanism, from the genetic level IMO. We know they don't come from religion because everyone (most people) has them regardless. Has been observed in isolated cultures which were unaffected by religion.

[Guest]

[quote=Welsh_Dragon]
The fear is evolved, albeit (IMO) outdated. Clearly this "slut defense" response was important enough to our caveman counterparts so as to be hard wired. The question for me becomes is the issue still valid, or just another dinsoaur like approach anxiety? If the fear is not useful then I want to "turn that off" and focus my attention to useful areas. I find this to be a common theme.[/quote]

Yes the issue is still valid because paternity fraud is rampant and legal. Dismissive comments about "dinosaur like" approaches could be applied to the sex drive itself. In fact, this is the kind of argument made by religious people to warn against promiscuity. The slut defense evolved precisely because it works, otherwise it wouldn't have survived to be "hard wired."

[quote=Welsh_Dragon]
Robin Baker cites statistics of "at least 1 in 10" (Sperm Wars). Not sure where you get to 50% - I've not read this nor would I believe it to be approacing anywhere near that many. I'd guess under 10%.[/quote]

[link=http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1144414531354]National Law Journal article[/link] showing 30% paternity fraud in the child support system. The 50% figure comes the one of the largest studies of family DNA conducted in Birmingham, England. In over 50% of families in the DNA survey, at least one child was not the offspring of the husband. I can't find a link, but I'll get it after work today.

[quote=Welsh_Dragon]If there was any doubt - even 0.01% in your mind - just get a paternity test shortly after the birth. Do it covertly if desired but you will have your peace of mind. Such a simple solution yet how many men don't bother? Mind boggling.[/quote]

Even more mind boggling is that you are unaware that in 38 states a genetic test doesn't matter. The child is ALWAYS assumed to be the husband's. There are many, many cases of mothers living with the man they cheated with while the husband pays child support for the cheaters baby. In most cases, a genetic test will not clear a husband of child support obligations --- even if the child isn't his.

[quote=Welsh_Dragon]Understood. Again though, if you are paying attention it should never happen. The "problem" in my opinion is listening to the caveman brain instead of realizing that society and technology continues so evolve. Solutions exist but caveman brain chooses to go with the "old ways". Sometimes this whole skillset just seems to involve turning that "old brain" crap off. As such I don't reject the more enlightened mindset - it works.[/quote]

I still don't know what you think "works." I have a reasonable and strong conviction that human nature is not nearly as malleable as you think. Social institutions that work against human nature not only won't "work" but produce strife.

[quote=Welsh_Dragon]You are correct in that the "slut defense" evolved, as you have pointed out many times here. I think however you meant to say that men perfer to marry women who "tow the line" or at least act like they do/will.. But what does that even mean?? Can you really ever know about her past? Women can support themselves these days and they will do what they will do. Times have changed and the smart man changes with them.[/quote]

This is a good point. The abolition of patriarchy has been a disaster. Women can now get pregnant and force "society," meaning everyone else, to support her choice and her child through government welfare systems. Men are superfluous under such a system, except as a source of confiscated cash. This does not appear to be a more "enlightened" social arrangement.

[quote=Welsh_Dragon]I'm not advocating any certain behaviour here however to simply brush things "under the carpet" and try to exert "caveman" control is, in my opinion, folly. I'd rather know what is really going on. From this I find exceptionally useful tactics.[/quote]

I've not advocated "caveman control." Those are your words, not mine. Since I've not advocated anything like that, it's a non sequitur.

I've argued that the sexual double standard is rational and natural. The "caveman" stuff is all yours.

[Guest]

[quote=Vector]I think it's true that religion attaches unnecessary guilt to sex in order to control people, and what Just/Us said is not incorrect. But it says nothing about the asymmetry between males and females.[/quote]
I agree.
[quote=Vector]I'd say the asymmetry comes from "evolutionary baggage" regarding paternity and control of a woman's reproduction. The evolutionary baggage influences instincts and emotions in a variety of ways which can sometimes end up expressed culturally.[/quote]
Please demonstrate that it's "baggage" and not a rational double standard. Merely using words with a negative connotation aren't really making the case.
[quote=Vector]But I disagree that paternity and resources are the only thing a man cares about. His genes may be very interested in paternity and resources, but a man is not his genes. If he were, there would be no such thing as adoption.[/quote]
True, but I can't find anyone in this thread who's claiming that men [i]only [/i]think about paternity and resources. Clearly, those are very near the top of the list if not at the top. Social status and emathetic altruism of the kind Adam Smith writes about in The Theory of Moral Sentiments are also factors.

[Guest]

[quote1233855901=Alcyoneus]
Yes the issue is still valid because paternity fraud is rampant and legal. Dismissive comments about "dinosaur like" approaches could be applied to the sex drive itself. In fact, this is the kind of argument made by religious people to warn against promiscuity. The slut defense evolved precisely because it works, otherwise it wouldn't have survived to be "hard wired."
[/quote1233855901]
Sex drive does indeed fall into this category because, ultimately, you have the ability to understand it and where it comes from. You can make your own decision - not be "led by your dick" credit:women.

We will have to agree to disagree as far as paying respect to "slut defense". I don't find it useful myself however I have no issue with other opinions, in fact I welcome them. I suppose it also depends what you are looking for.

My point is (was) that not all "hard wired" survival mechanism still apply today in the same way they were originally intended. Some will be selected out as non-useful in modern times. Many of the most useful PUA skills require one to internalize the concept. Maybe you don't need to do that.

[quote1233855901=Alcyoneus]
Even more mind boggling is that you are unaware that in 38 states a genetic test doesn't matter. The child is ALWAYS assumed to be the husband's. There are many, many cases of mothers living with the man they cheated with while the husband pays child support for the cheaters baby. In most cases, a genetic test will not clear a husband of child support obligations --- even if the child isn't his.
[/quote1233855901]
Not sure why it would be mind boggling when the issue doesn't relate to me at all (as it clearly would were I to be in the situation). Obviously I have not dug into this paticular area to the level you have.

You may well be correct in that, if you are married to the girl, the child is automatically considered your responsibility (in 38 states?). What I find hard to believe is that a negative paternity test would not absolve you of responsibility at that time (shortly after birth). This sounds like a flawed system. Are you sure?

[quote1233855901=Alcyoneus]
I still don't know what you think "works." I have a reasonable and strong conviction that human nature is not nearly as malleable as you think. Social institutions that work against human nature not only won't "work" but produce strife.
[/quote1233855901]
Obviously I can't write a catchy line or two to encapsulate everything that "works" for me. I will say this though - human nature may not be malleable but I am.

I am mostly against social institutions and I can't argue against them being destructive (mostly), particularly if they attempt to work against human nature.

[quote1233855901=Alcyoneus]
This is a good point. The abolition of patriarchy has been a disaster. Women can now get pregnant and force "society," meaning everyone else, to support her choice and her child through government welfare systems. Men are superfluous under such a system, except as a source of confiscated cash. This does not appear to be a more "enlightened" social arrangement.
[/quote1233855901]
So lets assume you are correct and that the current state of affairs is, well, unfair. Why does that prevent me from observing the given facts out there and designing tactics around them? This is a hot button topic for women. I see the results manifested in female mate screening processes, amongst other important areas. And no - I am not saying that women are screening for guys who are trusting to take advantage of. The cheating part comes later and is mainly down to chemical reactions in the brain.

[quote1233855901=Alcyoneus]
I've not advocated "caveman control." Those are your words, not mine. Since I've not advocated anything like that, it's a non sequitur.
I've argued that the sexual double standard is rational and natural. The "caveman" stuff is all yours.
[/quote1233855901]
OK whatever. I'm trying to illustrate a point, not make a mission statement. Thanks for the dialog though.

I guess in the end it all comes down to what you want. Quick fuck? Who cares. Kids ... maybe take some time to observe her behaviour yourself. I think we are in agreement here mostly.

[Guest]

[quote=Welsh_Dragon]Sex drive does indeed fall into this category because, ultimately, you have the ability to understand it and where it comes from. We will have to agree to disagree as far as paying respect to "slut defense". I don't find it useful myself however I have no issue with other opinions, in fact I welcome them. Also, my opinions couldn't be much further from religious if I tried.[/quote]
On the contrary, you've already validated the slut defense when you wrote that you don't want your child raised by a hooker. We disagree as a matter of degree but not of kind.

[quote=Welsh_Dragon]My point is (was) that not all "hard wired" survival mechanism still apply today in the same way they were originally intended. Some will be selected out as non-useful in modern times.[/quote]
Predicting the future course of evolution is interesting speculation, but it doesn't change the hard wiring right now. Social systems must take account of human nature to promote human flourishing.

[quote=Welsh_Dragon]Not sure why it would be mind boggling when the issue doesn't relate to me at all (as it clearly would were I to be in the situation). Obviously I have not dug into this particular area to the level you have.[/quote]
It's mind boggling because you claimed a simple DNA test would solve the paternity fraud problem, but it doesn't in most states. This is important information:[i] men lose almost all reproductive right when they marry[/i]. This casts a dark shadow over marriage itself. Men need to know this.

[quote=Welsh_Dragon]You may well be correct in that, if you are married to the girl, the child is automatically considered your responsibility (in 38 states?). What I find hard to believe is that a negative paternity test would not absolve you of responsibility at that time (shortly after birth). This sounds like a flawed system. Are you sure?[/quote]
Yes. It's in the National Law Review article: "Most states rely on a 500-year-old English common law doctrine, which holds that a married man is always legally presumed to be the father of a child born of the marriage."

Your are quite right to call it a flawed system. In fact, it is unjust in the extreme. Overall, men have far fewer rights than women, but when it comes to reproduction men haven't any rights at all.

[quote=Welsh_Dragon]Obviously I can't write a catchy line or two to encapsulate everything that works for me. I will say this though - human nature may not be malleable but I am.[/quote]
Social systems don't deal just with you, but with aggregates. Your's is an example of the fallacy of decomposition.

[quote=Welsh_Dragon]I am mostly against social institutions and I can't argue that they are destructive (mostly), particularly if they work against human nature.[/quote]
Anarchism is barbarism, and nothing in pickup would work without the behavioral regularity provided by a stable human nature.

[quote=Welsh_Dragon]So lets assume you are correct and that the current state of affairs is, well, unfair. Why does that prevent me from observing the facts and designing tactics around them? This is a hot button topic for women. I see the results manifested in female mate screening processes, amongst other important areas. An no - I am not saying that they are screening for guys who "won't know". It seems like more the opposite to me.[/quote]
I don't understand, can you explain further?

[Guest]

[quote1233859135=Alcyoneus]
On the contrary, you've already validated the slut defense when you wrote that you don't want your child raised by a hooker. We disagree as a matter of degree but not of kind.
[/quote1233859135]
It is a matter of degree when it comes to children. But is PUA about making babies? Or making fun? Now we really are at the core.

[quote1233859135=Alcyoneus]
It's mind boggling because you claimed a simple DNA test would solve the paternity fraud problem, but it doesn't in most states. This is important information:[i] men lose almost all reproductive right when they marry[/i]. This casts a dark shadow over marriage itself. Men need to know this.
[/quote1233859135]
If you marry the girl then yes - you are assumed to be the father when that child is born. I (apparently incorrectly) assumed a negative paternity test would protect the innocent man from paternity fraud. My mistake if that is not the case - it should be and presumably will be one day. I'm not planning to test the waters any time soon but any netural observer would surely agree. I guess it sucks to be the victim, eh?

.

(from your cited article):
STATES RESPOND

Meanwhile, many states are responding to the alleged widespread problem of paternity fraud with new laws.

Florida is about to pass a new law that would end child support if a man proves he's not the father.
In Colorado, a new state law took effect this year that permits men, for the first time, to challenge the paternity of alleged offspring -- at least during the proceedings of a divorce, separation or child-support action.

And Michigan is considering a bill that would require the courts to withdraw child support if a man proves he is not the father.
A dozen other states have also made similar changes to paternity laws, most of them in the last five years, that allow for men to disestablish paternity. These states include Ohio, Georgia, Maryland and Alabama.

- Can we agree that the "hard wired" response of men will be outdated were every state to have this law? Surely you don't think that male responses to "sluts" would just change overnight without having first to be flushed from the gene pool???
[quote1233859135=Alcyoneus]
Social systems don't deal just with you, but with aggregates. Your's is an example of the fallacy of decomposition.
[/quote1233859135]
Please explain your reasoning. Whilst I may not "win" (in your terms) it sure beats watching paint dry.

[quote1233859135=Alcyoneus]
Anarchism is barbarism, and nothing in pickup would work without the behavioral regularity provided by a stable human nature.
[/quote1233859135]
I'm not even going to touch this one. Society does have "behavioral regularity provided by a stable human nature". OK so maybe my ideal world is not yours. Lets stick to reality and stay on forum topic.

[quote1233859135=Alcyoneus]
[quote=Welsh_Dragon]So lets assume you are correct and that the current state of affairs is, well, unfair. Why does that prevent me from observing the facts and designing tactics around them? This is a hot button topic for women. I see the results manifested in female mate screening processes, amongst other important areas. An no - I am not saying that they are screening for guys who "won't know". It seems like more the opposite to me.[/quote]
I don't understand, can you explain further?
[/quote1233859135]
Basically I am saying all of these abstract ideas can be observed, tried, and in some cases even tested by a scientist (PUA) in the field. I can't seem to easily put into words however the whole notion of paternity, "slut defense" and male/female control has had its influence on my development of PUA tactics. Even if that just means I am more able to verbalize/sympathize/whatever with women - regardless of whether my sentiments deep down are genuine. This is the enlightenment to which I refer. No-one is saying the truth is pretty HOWEVER it does seem to help get you laid.

[Guest]

[quote=Welsh_Dragon]It is a matter of degree when it comes to children. But is PUA about making babies? Or making fun? Now we really are at the core.[/quote]
It's a good question. Would PUA for a relationship be different than PUA for a ONS? Of course, precisely because of the slut defense and it's associated behavior patterns.

[quote=Welsh_Dragon]If you marry the girl then yes - you are assumed to be the father when that child is born. I (apparently incorrectly) assumed a negative paternity test would protect the innocent man from paternity fraud. My mistake if that is not the case - it should be and presumably will be one day. I'm not planning to test the waters any time soon but any netural observer would surely agree. I guess it sucks to be the victim, eh?[/quote]
No worries. Most guys are not aware of the rights they give up when they get married. I only became aware of it when an acquaintance's wife had a baby. It was African-American, but the husband and wife are white. The husband was ordered to pay child support for twenty four years for a baby that wasn't his, eve nthough genetic tests disestablished his paternity. If that hadn't happened, I wouldn't have know about the problem of paternity fraud.

[quote=Welsh_Dragon]Can we agree that the "hard wired" response of men will be outdated were every state to have this law? Surely you don't think that male responses to "sluts" would just change overnight without having first to be flushed from the gene pool???[/quote]
As to your first question, I don't agree. Modern law seems to be a giant machine that transfers self-responsibility from females onto males. Where these laws have been passed, they have strict time limits. A woman can get pregnant and wait out the time limitation, then sue for child support. The man cannot challenge paternity because he didn't get tested within the required time period. So, even in states like Texas, men can still be forced to pay for children they didn't sire.

You're second question seems assume that sluts appeared only in post-modern times. But sluts have been around a long time. We already know what to do with them. Most of us also have the good sense not to sire children with them and not to enter long-term relationships with them.

Don't get me wrong. Women are not acting irrationally. They are simply acting according to the economic incentives of a system that makes men responsible for women's choices. If laws made women responsible for their own choices, we'd see far fewer sluts.

[quote=Welsh_Dragon]Please explain your reasoning. Whilst I may not "win" (in your terms) it sure beats watching paint dry.[/quote]
A composite does not necessarily share the properties of the elements of which it is composed. It has more to do with logic and less to do with painting.

[quote=Welsh_Dragon]I'm not even going to touch this one. Society does have "behavioral regularity provided by a stable human nature". OK so maybe my ideal world is not yours. Lets stick to reality and stay on forum topic.[/quote]
I'm not sure what world of which you write. In any case, you seem to have misapprehended my claim. Here it is again: "nothing in pickup would work without the behavioral regularity provided by a stable human nature." PUA uses the "hard wiring" of evolved human nature.

Let me apply your method reasoning to the other side. Women today can take care of themselves, as you have written, yet still they prefer dominant males. Then by your approach, isn't this female preference "outdated?" As soon as women set aside their preference for alpha males, then we can expect men to set aside the slut defense. In other words, we can expect it never.

[quote=Welsh_Dragon]Basically I am saying all of these abstract ideas can be observed, tried, and in some cases even tested by a scientist (PUA) in the field. I can't seem to easily put into words however the whole notion of paternity, "slut defense" and male/female control has had its influence on my development of PUA tactics. Even if that just means I am more able to verbalize/sympathize/whatever with women - regardless of whether my sentiments deep down are genuine. This is the enlightenment to which I refer. No-one is saying the truth is pretty HOWEVER it does seem to help get you laid.[/quote]

Here are the words for you.

paternity - the kinship relation between an offspring and the father.
slut defense - in long term-relationships, especially those involving children, it is the male preference for women who have demonstrated sexual self-control.

The existence and import of the sexual double standard (and the concomitant slut defense) is discussed everywhere and often complained of by women. It's not a hidden or esoteric phenomena disregarded by science and philosophy. Paternity is an ancient and well understood concept. I can't see any ambiguity in the words or testability or falsifiability of these two concepts.

Do I sympathize with women who want to be simultaneously treated like an 18th century lady whilst fucking men like a 21st century sexually liberated women? No I don't.

Will men fuck her like the slut she it? Of course. But also, they will be unlikely to engage her in a long-term relationship. This is rational and natural.

[Guest]

Female virtue vs. male ego.

This is one of the fundamental cornerstones of the battle of the sexes. From a biological perspective, call it a reproduction strategy as echoed in Sperm Wars, it is in a woman's best interest to have as many sexual partners as possible. This way she can have sex with the alpha and/or beta males.

But, this goes against a man's ideal reproduction strategy. It is in a man's best interest for a woman to have as few sexual partners as possible, being a virgin obviously assures this, and for him to have as many as possible. In such a case, the man has zero competition from other men, but potentially endless sources of women to impregnate. Which brings us to the double standard of promiscuity in men and women.

Traditionally all human civilizations have been patriarchal, matriarchal civilizations have existed but not in large numbers (although the rise of the matriarch as been a phenomenon we've witnessed in Western culture over the last 100+ years, and I think is the source of more acceptable promiscuity and sexual liberation in women).

Because men are essentially 'in charge,' of society and its norms we have sought to enforce, through social mores and pressure, that there is virtue for a woman to have as few sexual partners as possible (with the ideal being zero). Voila, the concept of a slut was born. On the other hand, there is no comment regarding a man being with a large number of sexual partners.

This social construction clearly goes against a woman's biological urges and stacks it in favor of a man's biological urges. Which, in turn creates social friction. I would contend that virtually all the things in our society that are points of friction are due to incongruity between the laws of nature and the rules of our society. Essentially, we're such smart creatures that we've created entire social constructs that our minds understand but our body/biology cannot seem to come to terms with. In essence, our society, and one might even argue our intelligence, have evolved substantially faster than our bodies. I guess you could say that we're Windows (whatever the fucking version number is now) running on an IBM 386. Things don't always process correctly, or at all, and they certainly don't process fast enough for comfort.

The curious question though is whether or not the opposite is true. In a matriarchal society, will promiscuity be encouraged in females and discouraged in males? Or, and I think this is probably more accurate, will there simply be no labels either way? Call it a society of understanding. I understand that she's going to be with other men, she understands that I'm going to be with other women. Is such a reality even possible?

Personally, I don't care where you've been (as long as you've exercised good judgment and are disease free). I expect the same treatment.

[Guest]

[quote1233868195=Alcyoneus]
It's a good question. Would PUA for a relationship be different than PUA for a ONS? Of course, precisely because of the slut defense and it's associated behavior patterns.
[/quote1233868195]
So we can agree PUA tactics could/should change depending on the man's intent (ONS vs relationship vs whatever). "Slut defense" is, as you point out, well known to women (much to their chagrin).

The attitude you represent to women on these matters, therefore, will always be closely anayzed. Irrespective of my intent, why would I not want to represent myself as non-judgemental in this regard (even if I am not)? It clearly benefits me to do so in most cases as a rule of thumb. These are the origin for the most devastating PUA tactics I have found.

[quote1233868195=Alcyoneus]
As to your first question, I don't agree. Modern law seems to be a giant machine that transfers self-responsibility from females onto males. Where these laws have been passed, they have strict time limits. A woman can get pregnant and wait out the time limitation, then sue for child support. The man cannot challenge paternity because he didn't get tested within the required time period. So, even in states like Texas, men can still be forced to pay for children they didn't sire.
[/quote1233868195]
Again though - if I am smart and always resolve to get a paternity test at birth just for my own peace of mind .. how do I lose? If the law supports me only for a given timeframe I would presumably always stay within that by testing at birth.. so it should be a non issue for the smart guy (assuming correct law). The "time limit" clause is akin to getting charged fees for going overdrawn at the USA bank. Rules are posted and if you choose to ignore them you will likely be punished.

[quote1233868195=Alcyoneus]
You're second question seems assume that sluts appeared only in post-modern times. But sluts have been around a long time. We already know what to do with them. Most of us also have the good sense not to sire children with them and not to enter long-term relationships with them.[/quote1233868195]
I obviously know sluts have been around for a long time. My point is that something as abstract as a law change can and does render the behaviour absolutely useless (much like approach anxiety has been rendered in modern society). In spite of being a useless behaviour we would still feel the effects in our brains and most people would just follow along. I contend that, through personal experience, you can figure out which "instincts" are still useful (e.g. don't jump from high bridge) and which are not (e.g. approach anxiety). Whilst I don't plan on trying the jump off a bridge I have no qualms trying just about anything in a set or with women in general. The risk/reward is massively in my favour once again.

[quote1233868195=Alcyoneus]
Don't get me wrong. Women are not acting irrationally. They are simply acting according to the economic incentives of a system that makes men responsible for women's choices. If laws made women responsible for their own choices, we'd see far fewer sluts.
[/quote1233868195]
I don't believe the law would change women's attitudes much, given these are not (presumably) active choices. As pointed out above - it would take time to flush out of the gene pool.

[quote1233868195=Alcyoneus]
A composite does not necessarily share the properties of the elements of which it is composed. It has more to do with logic and less to do with painting.
[/quote1233868195]
I understand the term, just not how you related it to me.

[quote1233868195=Alcyoneus]
I'm not sure what world of which you write. In any case, you seem to have misapprehended my claim. Here it is again: "nothing in pickup would work without the behavioral regularity provided by a stable human nature." PUA uses the "hard wiring" of evolved human nature.
[/quote1233868195]
Agree with your statement. Merely was saying to leave the politics out of it.

[quote1233868195=Alcyoneus]
Let me apply your method reasoning to the other side. Women today can take care of themselves, as you have written, yet still they prefer dominant males. Then by your approach, isn't this female preference "outdated?" As soon as women set aside their preference for alpha males, then we can expect men to set aside the slut defense. In other words, we can expect it never.
[/quote1233868195]
Outdated as may be but again the drive comes from genes. These don't operate on the "oh things have changed so lets fix ABC" basis. Only conscious provides for that. And consciousness is only useful if you understand the genetic drives.

I might also argue that women's mate selection is ever changing. Alpha being such a bastardized community term that it carrys little meaning any more. Were you to have written "As soon as women set aside their preference for SUPERIOUR males" we could clearly highlight the fact that this term really doesn't mean anything because no-one knows that superiour is tomorrow. What if we had an event by which all humans went blind? Women might conceivably start to select for the few men who still had eye function (no matter how little) or maybe for those with better hearing and/or other senses. Alpha has changed in this example so yes, one day women may change their own tactics (eventually - it would of course take time to happen at the genetic level I presume).

[quote1233868195=Alcyoneus]
Here are the words for you.

paternity - the kinship relation between an offspring and the father.
slut defense - in long term-relationships, especially those involving children, it is the male preference for women who have demonstrated sexual self-control.

The existence and importance of the sexual double standard (and the concomitant slut defense) is discussed everywhere and often complained of by women. It's not a hidden or esoteric phenomena disregarded by science and philosophy. Paternity is an ancient and well understood concept. I can't see any ambiguity in the words or testability or falsifiability of these two concepts.
[/quote1233868195]
Nothing was ambiguous to me.

[quote1233868195=Alcyoneus]
Do I sympathize with women who want to be simultaneously treated like an 18th century lady whilst fucking men like a 21st century sexually liberated women? No I don't.

Will men fuck her like the slut she it? Of course. But also, they will be unlikely to engage her in a long-term relationship. This is rational and natural.
[/quote1233868195]
Back to my main point then. Properly understood these concepts can be used to formulate tactics and desirable personality traits for the budding PUA. Call it "below the belt" if you like but I can sympathize with the best of 'em if I want to ;) It's not a huge deal rather just another tool in the arsenal.

Cheers!!