I also have an academic background in STEM, but i don't feel the need to say it out loud as you have lmao, but your assumption about my lack of education is quite humerous.

Actually, this is something that exists in many areas of study, not just biology although i'm actually drawing on the work of John Maynard Smith and his successors, as well as Dawkins who has been a proponent of the ESS model - you probably shouldn't make such assumptions because you'vecompletelymissed the mark. You're also completely ignoring what i state, i didn't say the 'strong rule the weak', i said the 'strong rule the weak in a state of nature' (i.e pre-society), an idea initially pushed by Thomas Hobbes, long before evolutionary theory. I also drew upon Rousseau's social contract theory. My point is, society necessarily comes with some compromises (i.e the paradigm - i'm using the word in the way Thomas kuhn uses it) because it is NOT a state of nature, and people thinking they are entitled to, or can have absolute freedom in a society are kidding themselves. The ESS model definitely is not seen as quackery, and in fact is fairly mainstream in the present day among evolutionary biologists - even stuff like Stephen Jay Goulds punctuated equilibrium do not work very well without the ESS model. I'm talking about evolutionary biology, not sociobiology, i think you're a little confused here - and im really using it to point out why slootery simply wont be accepted, nothing more. I'm not inferring it's rock solid and that the ESS fully dictates society, simply that it has to be taken into account and certain natural feelings, and disgusts reactions we have are genetic - i'm not taking the stance that society is entirely dictated by the ESS (which i believe is the sociobiologist view you speak of). My entire point is actually precisely thatin society, the strongdo notrule the weak, but this 'absolute freedom' many modern women seek, if applied universally can lead to the strong ruling the weak as in a state of nature (because the strongs freedom infringes on the weak if you remove the social contract, you either have absolute freedom, or you have society, not both).. i'm not saying this is how it should be, or howsocietyis, quite the opposite. Strong reading comprehension.

However, you've missed my pointentirely, or purposefully misrepresented it, or you just aren't capable of grasping it, i'm unsure. I think your anger at life and general prejudices towards men have made you respond in general quite irrationally, or you've knee-jerk categorised me as some kind of woman-hater in your head which i'm certainly not.

My point at a basic level is:
- Women have large, expensive, non-numerous gametes. Men have small, inexpensive, low cost gametes that are high in number.
- From this, over evolutionary time, an evolutionary arms race occurs between men and women, until we get to an equilibrium , or the ESS. There's a give and take between females trying to 'ensnare' (for lack of a better word) a man as a resource, and a man trying to invest in women to spread his gametes in the evolutionary 'cheapest' way. The ESS is genetic, not a rational process.
- We still carry those genes, because modern society is a mere eye blink in evolutionary timescales, and therefore you cant 'argue' men into accepting slootery en masse.

So what does one infer from this? and please read this next partcarefully before responding typically irrationally:
- I'm not saying nature is a model for society, what iamsaying is that no matter how much society, and people like you try to 'justify' slootism with rational arguments, it doesn't matter because men carry genes that, on average find slootism disgusting. This is likely due to the resource cost of unknown paternity in nature, and yes you could make the rational argument that we can do DNA tests now, but it's irrelevant to our nature, because we still carry the genes that make us apalled by slootism, whether it's rational or not.
- Therefore, you can do whatever you like, and be as much of a sloot as you like, i don't think men should 'stop' you. I do however, think that it's not very confusing that women, such as the one in the OP are a little confused why they are single at 38 after spending years slooting (and her child bearing years are basically over). Men value youth, beauty and chastity above all else, and she's lost most of this before locking down a man - so what does she expect? She's free to do what she wants, but she also has to bear the consequences. Men cannot rationalize their way to being ok with slooting, it's simply not in their nature (on average - there's always people who don't fit the rule).
- Nowhere did i imply that men shouldn't pay for their children, that's an unfounded assumption you've made, i'm saying that no matter how much women try to convince men to accept slootism, on the whole they never will by their very nature, and these evolutionary differences exist in the genome, and have been moulded over evolutionary timescales... but the fact remains that on average men will be more disgusted by slootery, than women.
- I'm also pointing out that the societal values we have in part emerge from these genetic differences, and so while there can for sure be flex in our societal values, they are not just arbitrary they have value over time, hence why they have emerged. Men and women are not biologically the same, and thus they are not judged by the same standard. This doesn't mean i condone men being scumbags, or not looking after their kids, an some of the arguments i'm making can be applied to men as well (nowhere am i claiming modern men are perfect and well adjusted, and society is only harmed by women - men absolutely play their part too and I am just as appalled with modern men, but i'm trying to stay on topic), but the central thesis is we will never be "convinced" by rational arguments to accept slootism, because by our very nature it's repugnant.

Everything else you claimed about my views is conjecture or assumption (welp did not want to get dragged into writing essays but i guess thats my fault for posting lol)

Nice cope miscers will fight each other to death just for a chance to be cucked by some used up hag there are no consquences for them.

I file this chit under “attractive people problems”.

It’s not so much a gender thing as the same happens to very attractive males, they jump from one hole to the next.

Everyone wants to be more attractive as it’s perceived as the holy grail, but it’s not without it’s costs. The greater majority of people are going to want to be with you for superficial reasons.

Having said all of that, it’s still better to have more options than less options.

Summary, huge sloot’s brain is fried on dopamine.

So she's a slut, this is nothing new. Looking at her, you can tell she has been driven harder than most rental cars.

IDK how this can even be controversial. How many thousands of times have you heard some man talking about wanting a new woman?

The misallocation of New Relationship Energy could be a main cause why marriage and family formation have collapsed. Arranged marriage/no sex before marriage puts that energy into what is meant to be the formation of a new family instead of into serial monogamy.
Different function stack. Most females are sensing types.

OTOH that doesn't mean that sensing types are universally worse at making decisions. In my function stack analysis comes first and preference last which is great for objectivity, but BS for making certain types of decisions.
Trimmed for easy reading and yes.
Yeah, they do. But I agree that men need to work on their side of the equation because so long as there are other men going along with the current state of affairs this is what we will have.
Whew. Trimmed again, but generally agree.

This civilization you are living in where electricity and fossil fuels have given us the equivalent of millions of slaves to do our labor for us?

Yeah, that is very novel and could be gone in a blink.

So building your argument on that is the proverbial foolish man building his house upon the sand.

Men and women are different and we need each other. All this technological window dressing is damn pleasant and I would hate to lose it all [some could go], but just lol if you believe that physiological and emotional differences that have been retained through a hundred generations can or should be tossed aside.

Aussie women are particularly terrible about this. It’s Narcissism. They get really bored, and usually look for a reason to get rid of their partner.

everyone wants mileage and age when looking for a wife

Also, relationships do not work without some screening, which would not approve destroying your family for a new partner.

If she's 38, never been married and it required Google telling her to realize she only likes the honeymoon phase of a relationship, she isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. A couple decades of monkeybranching would be enough to have figured that out long ago.

They look bad as is srs

They look depressing in a bra.

I kind of get it. I always quickly got bored with relationships. I never lasted longer than 6 months. This MS nonsense has also made me take a long hard look at myself. I wasn't a likable person. I was cynical. I talked before I thought. Hopefully, when I'm back on my feet, I'll be better off. She's probably sucks out loud, as a person. I'm sympathetic to women, in that they've only become what guys has conditioned them to be. Being young and led to believe being a sex machine that'll play with their dink is what guys want. Then, in their late 20s, guys decide they want smoke show virgins. But, I'd assume having the personality of a water balloon hasn't helped.

like every other entitled woman you feel like your accolades automatically make you better. talking from a point of authority is not effective.

she's not too bright

Not sure why misc thinks she won't be able to find someone. 38,above average looks and no kids? She could easily get a 38-45 year accountant to marry her

Betcha she takes it in the pooper, no questions asked.

thats a rough looking 38 year old.saggy bobs and wrinkly skin.no thanks jeff

She looks every second of 38. That's why she is single.

Women over 30 are so gross. I couldn’t even hard for that. lol at those poverty tits

Miscers are writing fukin novels ITT over some bimbo with a sex for breakfast t-shirt.

This 100000%

Aussie girls don't age gracefully. Too much sun, so there aren't any girls who look much younger than their age.

ITT: TED talks

BRB investing in CAT and WINE stocks

I've said it 100x on here; they should be passed off from father to husband otherwise you end up with the OP

Anyone that's single over the age of 24 I just assume has mental/addiction issues

You do realize that's a cross-dressing male

That’s why Margot Robbie peaked so young. Damn.

That concept won’t be back for a couple of generations in the west. Women are too independent and don’t wanna follow orders from no man

yeah.thats what i figured.shes already a crusty sloot.i know lots of girls her age that are hot.she is not