- 2020-08-28 at 10:52 PM#931949+10
I was thinking about the concept of pair bonding the other day and how men and women differ vastly on how they interpret the act.
We all know that hypergamy is undeniable and is a common factor when women choose a mate but can women really pair bond with someone for life? I say no they can not.
Contrary to popular belief it is more men than women that would like a true pair bond; easy access to sex, stable home life, mother to their children and keeper of the family unit. The vast majority of men (late 20+) I’ve met aren’t some sort of “Tomcat” who has a new women in his bed every night. Even Chads are mostly paired up and dabble “serial monogamy”, jumping from one long term relationship to the next. I would argue that it is logical and grounded men that strive for and want children to bear his name and create a sense of grounded stability in his life. No logical human desires constant chaos.
When a relationship ends it is usually the men who are dumped, divorced and are emotional wrecks because the stability of a partnership is shattered. Men quickly learn that what they once thought as rock solid pair bond was mostly an illusion and the loyalty bestowed on their girl was misguided. Most guys are blindsided and bewildered how their pumpkin (whom they have chemically pair bonded with) could leave them. It is then they either become red pilled and dig deeper or jump right back on the relationship/marriage train only for it to derail once again.
Most blue pilled men are looking for that “soulmate” so they can internally create a sense of stability and security for themselves and carry out their biological desire to be a protector of the family line. In order for a man to stick around and raise his family he must feel pair bonded to his wife. He must believe that she loves him and this relationship is indeed a rock solid life decision. He must believe that this relationship, of all of the others in his wife’s past, is the most divine and magical. When a man signs that marriage contract he firmly believes, from a purely logical perspective, that his investment in bride is a wise choice and they his partnership will be physically, emotionally and financially beneficial to him in the long-run.
But this leads us to the question; can women pair bond with someone for life? The answer is no with a side of maybe. I would argue that women do indeed pair bond and do so quite easily. In their lives they socially bond with their girlfriends, parents, classmates, chads, heck even standing in the grocery store line they bond with some stranger. For women, they are keepers of social attention. They can pick and choose whom they want to socially bond with at any given time. Consequently, she may with a flick of the wrist also choose to end the social attention and shower that spotlight upon someone else.
For women what some may say constitutes as a relationship (dinners, movies, car rides, phone/texting, vacations, sex, sports games, family gatherings, laughing, crying, intimacy, problem solving, child rearing, fighting etc…) is not special to them and is ordinary in their lives. You know how many ski trips and drunken beach sex your pumpkin has had in her life? Lots and lots… your oh so loving memory with her is not nearly as important to her as you think. You could be in a relationship with a woman for 3 years or 30 years and think that all of those cherished moments of her attention mean something deep to her but in reality they do not. Pair Bonding to a woman is an act that she can turn on and off at her whim much like a flashlight. Hence why 80% of divorces are initiated by women and women ride the c o c k carousel. They pair bond until they are bored or until the pair bond is no longer beneficial to them then they turn the light off on you and shine it elsewhere. You are then left in the dark wondering what in the heck just happened!
The only instance I see where women can have an above average emotional pair bond with someone is if she is a virgin and marries her husband. A man who takes a woman’s virginity will be chemically bonded to that female and held in the highest esteem in her life for the rest of her life. If that woman never bangs another guy for the rest of her days she will hold her husband in that high regard for a long time (maybe even life). I suppose as I grow older I now understand why in the olden days they socially shunned divorce and make premarital sex a big deal. You got married at 20, pair bonded and raised a family as a unit. Religious and societal shame was the glue that held together families back for thousands of years and kept women from being w h o r e s selling out to the Chad of the week. In many ways your grandpa had it better than you did… however in many ways he didn’t… imagine 60 year of the same nagging women in your house, day in and day out.
Anyways, just a few passing thoughts for the week I thought I would share.2020-08-28 at 11:46 PM#931950+4
A woman’s potential for pair bonding is inversely proportional to her c~~~ count added to this value should be the gap between her self perceived SMV and the SMV she perceives her man to have added to this value should be her current perception of what she will gain in the future from this relationship.
So the formula is something like: Bond = 1/C + (Man SMV – Woman SMV) + Currently perceived relationship future value
SMV should be expressed as a fraction of 1 and is best calculated by expressing each partner’s SMV as a percentage score where 100% would be a handsome king of a powerful nation and 1 would be a deformed retard with no money. Then divide the percentage by 100, so Prince Harry is 0.98, Fat benefit boy is 0.15. From this subtract what the woman thinks of herself. Usually this gives a relatively neutral value. Most women get with men they perceive as higher value than themselves unless settling in marriage when they have to settle for what they can actually hold for more than a quick fling.
Currently perceived future value is again best expressed as a percentage and divided by 100. Negative values are however possible as well as positive. This is hard to calculate because it depends entirely on the woman’s perception. Consider what does the hive think? Are finances good? Are finances going to improve more if she stays than if she goes? Does the woman have a happy history with the man? Have the overcome obstacles together, got children that the woman believes will receive more positive future input from the father if she remains in the relationship? In the end you need to get a feel for does she feel she is getting something good from this?
You need to get a total value above 1 from the formula B = 1/C +(MSMV -FSMV) + PFV to get a firm pair bond that is unlikely to be compromised by Chad, boredom, irritation or desire for divorce rape. A negative value makes for a woman likely to want out as soon as it is practical.
As you can see the average man today has no chance. A high c~~~ count allows only for tiny positive values to be added by the sexual bonding. Most woman overrate their SMV and underrate men’s SMV -as shown by the scoring of tinder profiles. With women marrying the man they can get not the Chad they might get for a night, tends to produce a negative value greater than the small positive value created by the sexual bond with a high c~~~ count woman. So it all comes down to perceived relationship value. Thanks to laws today there is usually more to to be gained financially by a woman by terminating a marriage than by remaining in it.
All this means is that a modern pair bond is tenuous at best and lasts while she feels it is good. Simple.
However in the past it was so different if you start with 1/c =1 you have a huge advantage. Then male perceived SMV was higher because they actually brought sustenance to a relationship so you got a neutral not a negative value. Then there was almost always far more to be gained from staying with an income source and a protector and not offending the then conservative hive by being a bad woman than from divorce unless you could seriously monkey branch well. In most cases there was always a value above 1, even when a woman had a previous sexual history. This kept most women faithful.
A woman is like fire -fun to play with, can warm you through and cook your food, needs constant feeding, can burn you and consume all you own2020-08-29 at 12:10 AM#931951+4
Secret Agent MGTOWParticipant23928
problem is we know this ability gets destroyed once she’s had sex with over 4 different guys, guys here posted to the social/psych studies that showed that for women with 4 or more sex partners, the bonding ability gets very messed up and doesnt really work anymore. Same studies did not find the same thing happened in men regardless of the number of sexual partners.
and so with the way modern women are now, they short circuit their ability to pair bond if they are a typical normal modern woman.
its possible but not with the way alkost all women are today
Women want everything, but want responsibility and accountability for nothing.2020-08-29 at 5:54 AM#931954+4
A man who takes a woman’s virginity will be chemically bonded to that female and held in the highest esteem in her life for the rest of her life.
No. I tried this. It doesn’t work either.
AWALT. Eventually.2020-08-29 at 5:59 AM#931955+5
As you can see the average man today has no chance.
The average man? F~~~ing Bad Pitt had no chance.
AWALT or better yet Af~~~ingWALT
Eventually. Which can come at any time.
Just don’t.2020-08-29 at 8:21 AM#931960+1
Contrary to popular belief it is more men than women that would like a true pair bond; easy access to sex, stable home life, mother to their children and keeper of the family unit.
I just cant seem to come up with an articulate, polite, and/or non angry/bitter sounding response to this rather innocent and reasonable statement/opinion.
Actual “pair bonding” is an illusion for humans, that at best would be better described as a personal contract of mutual support. However with modern interpretations of damn near everything, “personal” became directed and controlled by familial (mostly hers), community, legal systems (particularly), and Government as a whole, more to my detriment as a man and to the benefit of any woman who just happens to be involved with me and there is very little “mutual” anything actually practiced.
Pair bonding is also a life long unbreakable until death, emotional attachment to another living being that nothing can diminish or interfere with. IIRC
Easy access to sex is also a bit of a misnomer (IMHO), and would be better worded as somewhat convenient access to maybe getting to have sex when she wants it or is willing to pretend to be interested in having sex with you. Regardless, it is a woman’s choice and right to determine when, where, and with whom she has sex with. Anything less is rape, unless of course I’m paying for it then it is prostitution, and that “service” is mine.
The “stable” home life? I have experienced hectic, chaotic, destructive, dramatic, interfered with, but rarely “stable” per se. The closest description would probably be contented regimentation interspersed with periodic agreed upon variances, but mostly the former atmosphere.
Children have not been a mans for the last 60 years or so, they are hers by law first and foremost. Just ask ’em
Failing that, just look at society as a whole to see who children belong to. It’s apparently anyone or anything other than the father unless it comes to the money.
Keeper of the family unit?
And the family home, assets, the husbands resources and labour. Ohhh there’s that bitterness again.
There was a time in my life when I gave a fuck. Now you have to pay ME for it2020-08-29 at 11:42 AM#931962+2
Once upon a time I’d call that a Grumpy response.
But now I just call it the Truth.
Men look for deliverance from their quiet desperation. How that hoped for deliverance became wedded (sic) to that which was least probable to effect such deliverance is baffling to me.
“The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. What is called resignation is confirmed desperation. From the desperate city you go into the desperate country, and have to console yourself with the bravery of minks and muskrats. A stereotyped but unconscious despair is concealed even under what are called the games and amusements of mankind. There is no play in them, for this comes after work. But it is a characteristic of wisdom not to do desperate things..”
― Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience and Other Essays2020-08-29 at 5:30 PM#931970
The science is no, it is not in the nature of a woman to form a pair bond. The more resources to raise offspring thee better. higher intellect dose not seem to be able to change nature. Rare it is you hear about a woman and one man.
A woman I worked with often talked about her husband. It seemed as if it might be a true pair bond. One day we had the radio on low for background noise, just to make the day go by easier. A song came on and the woman spoke up, making it very clear if given the chance she would spread her legs for that man in a second. It was then I knew intellect can not overcome nature. Given the chance and the right man every woman would give it up to another man.
mgtow is its own worst enemy- https://www.campusreform.org/
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.