Science & MGTOW

[Blue SkiesParticipant 15665]

Women are ‘genetically programmed to have affairs’

‘Lifelong monogamy does not characterise the primary mating patterns of humans,’ says Dr David Buss from the University of Texas

Women are predisposed by their genetics to have affairs as “back-up plans'” if their relationships fail, according to a research paper.

Scientists at the University of Texas say they are challenging the assumption that humans have evolved to have monogamous relationships.

The team’s research has put forward the “mate-switching-hypothesis” which says humans have evolved to keep testing their relationships and looking for better long-term options.

The senior author of the research, Dr David Buss, told the Sunday Times: “Lifelong monogamy does not characterise the primary mating patterns of humans.

“Breaking up with one partner and mating with another may more accurately characterise the common, perhaps the primary, mating strategy of humans.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/women-are-genetically-programmed-to-have-affairs-evolution-university-texas-scientists-suggest-a7203501.html

MGTOW is not a movement, it is a way of life.

[sidecarParticipant 35857]

Blue Skies wrote:

Women are ‘genetically programmed to have affairs’

And that somehow makes it right?

Blue Skies wrote:

The senior author of the research, Dr David Buss, told the Sunday Times: “Lifelong monogamy does not characterise the primary mating patterns of humans.

Really? Then why the f~~~ do we have lifelong alimony?

[Anonymous 3]

You always have to look at these types of things with a skeptic eye. It’s a gynocentric media writeup of something that’s already likely from a gynocentric lens.

The term “scientist” here is most likely very loosely used, more than likely it’s sociologists or psychologists just babbling another theory. Most of them are manginas that don’t understand women and have very little experience themselves.

When you want to know how to fight someone, you should ask a boxer, not the nerd that watches boxing and has never thrown a punch in his life.

So when you want to understand women, you need to ask men that are extremely successful with them, not men that wish they were and can “observe” them.

[RoyDalParticipant]

sidecar wrote:

And that somehow makes it right?

The good professors might say so, but they need to cling to their university jobs. For the rest of us men, the answer is ‘no.’

sidecar wrote:

Really? Then why the f~~~ do we have lifelong alimony?

Because we were born in the Western World, and the system is rigged. It has been since before we were born, and things are not improving with time.

Stay single!

Society asks MGTOWs: Why are you not making more tax-slaves?

[WarratahParticipant 895]

You know something, I have just realised that I am now old.
I am definitely old enough to remember when it was a commonly held belief that MEN were genetically programmed to play-the-field.
I distinctly remember hearing, as a child, that men couldn’t help themselves and that was why they had affairs. Whereas women weren’t like that at all.
Shi-ite! And now look at what’s being preached!
The whole f~~~ing world has gone to hell in a handbasket.

...And in our own despair, against our will, Comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God. - Agamemnon; by Aeschylus

[TaxGuyParticipant]

Blue Skies wrote:

Women are predisposed by their genetics to have affairs as “back-up plans’” if their relationships fail, according to a research paper

Since the first day a monkey climbed into a tree with more than one branch….

Order the good wine

[sidecarParticipant 35857]

RoyDal wrote:

Because we were born in the Western World, and the system is rigged. It has been since before we were born, and things are not improving with time.

The institution of marriage has never been about love or family or any of that crap used to sell it to men. Marriage has only ever been about the transfer of wealth from productive men to undeserving women.

THAT is why we have lifelong alimony. Because lifelong alimony is what men are actually signing up for when they make the mistake of getting married. And nothing else.

RoyDal wrote:

Stay single!

Damn right.

Warratah wrote:

The whole f~~~ing world has gone to hell in a handbasket.

But that is not our problem.

The world was always hell for men. Marriage has always been a bad deal. It’s only now that feminism has stripped away all pretense from institutions like family and marriage, we can clearly see them for what they are, and now know better than to have anything to do with them.

[Robert HallamParticipant 696]

Well Yeah this is not science. But it has long been known that women monkey branch from man to man trying to upgrade, and are just as promiscuous as men if not more so. Ask yourself who are all these men cheating with if not with women? Turns out that women cheat just as much as men and there is a biological / evolutionary factor for both.

For the male it’s getting those genes of his around as many progeny as possible so that he improves the chances that his genes are passed on to the next generation. He could care less which female does the raising.

For the female it’s ensuring a continuation of resources to raise her progeny and the chances that her genes are passed on to the next generation. She could care less which man pays the bills. Women always look for a back up plan. And more often than not, it’s an exbf, an ex-husband, or a co-worker who flirts.

From a biologist

[Eric LauderParticipant 12043]

sidecar wrote:

Bayerische Motoren wrote:

The senior author of the research, Dr David Buss, told the Sunday Times: “Lifelong monogamy does not characterise the primary mating patterns of humans.

Really? Then why the f~~~ do we have lifelong alimony?

Because most men are genetically programmed to keep care of women / being blue pill doormats 🙁

SUPREME LEADER KIM JONG-UN'S FASHION STYLIST - if you want a new look or if you're a very beautiful trans you can call me, phone number +85079255312 / mobile 01921421211. The worth of a man isn't the usefulness that women get from him. Avoiding living with a woman, a man isn't rejecting a lot of sex: he's rejecting sexual starvation. MGTOW IS TACKLING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN COMPLIANCE WITH CONVENTION OF ISTANBUL: http://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/rms/090000168008482e --- Article 4, Section 4 "Special measures that are necessary to prevent and protect women from gender-based violence shall not be considered discrimination under the terms of this Convention". WHAT I LEARNT FROM A GENDER STUDIES CLASS IN LUND, SWEDEN: every time feminists accuses men of doing something, odds are likely either them or persons associated with them are doing the exact same thing but a lot worse. WHO I'M RIGHT NOW https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1okpAj7Fhw Basically my former life have been a conflict between this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yz_RQVkvke4 and this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFIMeyTK-sU That's, more or less, all about me.

[TuneoutParticipant]

Marriage and mating for life were instituted by Gov’ts
and Religion as a means of controlling the population
and making their subjects more accountable.

In reality though neither sex is really suited for this

Lifes a bitch,but you don't have to marry one!

[AntipathyParticipant 4901]

If you study some female nature in other creatures, you’ll find some similarity. For example a female jaguar, is known to leave her male partner after he has her pregnant. The male jaguar follows her around for a while wondering why she doesn’t care for him anymore, before finally giving up.

Male dolphins will fight other male dolphins, over female dolphins.

These are just a couple examples we get from other creatures, both on land, and in the ocean.

So i can see why how it could be looked at, in a scientific way. I find the study of human female behavior, to be more psychological study, than scientific. Maybe it’s because it’s my own species though.

[sidecarParticipant 35857]

Eric Lauder wrote:

Because most men are genetically programmed to keep care of women / being blue pill doormats

Not really. At least not the doormat part. When a woman monkey branches away, men are naturally inclined to stop giving her goodies. Otherwise laws enforcing lifetime alimony, forcing men to be doormats at gunpoint would not be necessary.

Eric Lauder wrote:

Marriage and mating for life were instituted by Gov’ts

Not entirely. What was instituted by government was the special privilege for women to continue receiving a man’s resources even after monkey branching away.

With humanity’s absurdly long childhoods, the two partner pair bond really is the best way to successfully raise children into adults. What government (including organized religion – all churches desire to be the state) did was institutionalize this successful reproductive strategy and then twist the rules to the sole benefit of females because females sell their votes cheaply.

Get government out of the business of marriage (end marriage as a political institution – no more divorce court) and out of the business of family as well (no more welfare or family courts or “child support” from non-custodial parents and so on), and humans will rapidly revert back to the old pair bonding system.

[Joey AlfioParticipant]

I’m skeptical of what these scientists claim since most of them have had very little intercourse and chance with women and for a scientific study the information was extremely vague with very little statistics, charts, numbers, etc..

Δεν υπάρχει τίποτε αδύνατο γι’ αυτόν που θα προσπαθήσει. - Μέγας Αλέξανδρος

[Blue SkiesParticipant 15665]

Antipathy wrote:

If you study some female nature in other creatures, you’ll find some similarity. For example a female jaguar, is known to leave her male partner after he has her pregnant. The male jaguar follows her around for a while wondering why she doesn’t care for him anymore, before finally giving up.

Male dolphins will fight other male dolphins, over female dolphins.

its important to remember that humans are animals. we are not special compared to the animal kingdom.

just like animals, our brains tell us to do stupid s~~~….e.g. signing the marriage contract.

MGTOW is not a movement, it is a way of life.

[neverAgainParticipant 1662]

sidecar wrote:

Get government out of the business of marriage (end marriage as a political institution – no more divorce court) and out of the business of family as well (no more welfare or family courts or “child support” from non-custodial parents and so on), and humans will rapidly revert back to the old pair bonding system.

i agree with this^^^

governments are far to involved in the romantic relationships of its citizens

All good things come to an end.

[narrow road travelerParticipant 1680]

Women in my observation are married to the state. The US and much of the west are supporting a huge amount of concubines. Single mothers are concubines.
I was raised by two generations of single women, and the magic answer they always vame up with was “the government ought to do something about that.”

The phenomenon of governmental polygamy always was a mystery to me during my blue pill days. Now it makes perfect sense
and explains feminists’ “down with the patriarchy bulls~~~.”

If there were no concubines there would be much less infidellity in women. They wouldn’t be able to extract resources easilly from local men if they were unfaithful.

On top of that, if a woman in a patriarchy were to try and entice the main provider away from his wife all the other local woman would want to burn that bitch alive, because the slut could go after her husbands resources next.

That’s my two cents for now.

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting. --Sun Tsu

[BrainPilotParticipant 7640]

I think maybe this report might be interpreted a different way. These scientists are acknowledging the crappy behavior of women, and placing responsibility for it on genetics, rather than her choices. I assume that since we have no control over the genetics we inherit, this will help allow women to blame their behavior on something other than their own choices, and thereby escape any accountability for it.

From where I sit, once the crappy behavior of women is acknowledged and agreed to exist, I have all the information I need to make my decision.

I’m LONG gone by the time the discussion gets around to where to put the blame for that crappy behavior. I don’t hang around and accept unacceptable behavior regardless of what the cause of that unacceptable behavior is claimed to be.

Here’s me abandoning what we now agree are genetically flawed women. Since we don’t yet have the technology to correct genetics, there is zero hope of correcting this behavior. By placing responsibility on something outside themselves, they have now made any possible correction also beyond themselves. I can now declare the situation completely hopeless, so my decision to abandon it cannot be second guessed or challenged. There is now proof that there is no hope for a solution.

Me and my money say “See ya!”

Look, it's not my fault that tornado dropped a house on your sister. Now get back on your broom and get your ass out of here... and take your monkeys with you

[sidecarParticipant 35857]

BrainPilot wrote:

this will help allow women to blame their behavior on something other than their own choices, and thereby escape any accountability for it.

If women are so at the mercy of their biology and can’t take responsibility for their choices, how can we expect them to make responsible choices when voting?

Typically they expect to have things both ways: rights without responsibilities. And have men pay the bills. Anyone can see how that’s a civilization destroying combination.

[Author]

Posts