4 ms·

The problem is your spouse will not really find you attractive sexually. She will be with you because you have money and are a good provider. She really wants t

The problem is your spouse will not really find you attractive sexually. She will be with you because you have money and are a good provider. She really wants to be with the guy she partied with in her younger years, not you.

cortesoft 6y ago
I think you have a very limited understanding of sexual attraction... it is not static. It can grow for someone as you get to know them and spend time with someone.
- Kye 6y ago
  It's always interesting to watch my attraction for someone who was really hot up front start to slide down the more they talk, or the other way around. Personality is so much more important than level of initial attraction.
- armitron 6y ago
  Raw sexual attraction is instant and involuntary, not cerebral, cultivated. It doesn't depend on anything other than a person's biology. Looks, smell, maybe other biological factors that are hard to quantify. If a woman is with you for other reasons, then she's just not into you sexually and you're playing a game in nightmare mode if you're trying to establish an LTR with an attractive female that has other opportunities or keep it going without issues (e.g. cheating). That does not mean that other slow-burn factors such as intellectual chemistry or friendship do not apply, but it does mean that they work synergistically and on top of the raw animalistic part which is the foundation. This is all based on decades of empirical observations. On the plus side for men, it is definitely possible to learn to detect this extremely reliable indicator. On the minus side, one needs a lot of experience with many different women, which isn't the case with average, physically unattractive males.
lotsofpulp 6y ago
That’s always been the case. People’s goals are different at different times during their life. There’s always a transactional aspect to being in a relationship. Are you good looking enough, healthy enough, wealthy enough, well connected enough, emotionally connected, personality etc. It may not be fruitful to frame a relationship exclusively in those pros and cons terms, but that’s the way nature has always worked.
- avmich 6y ago
  > That’s always been the case. Has it? The question is not if people change. The question is who they choose and why - now, versus before. > There’s always a transactional aspect to being in a relationship. Are you good looking enough, healthy enough, wealthy enough, well connected enough, emotionally connected, personality etc. That doesn't explain the decrease in sex. As a group people are supposedly still about the same. > It may not be fruitful to frame a relationship exclusively in those pros and cons terms, but that’s the way nature has always worked. If we talk about humans, the article talks about the changing data. The proposed explanation is that views have changed. You're saying that views always have been like that. So there is a difference in data.
  - foogazi 6y ago
    > The question is who they choose and why - now, versus before If you go back enough you’ll find that there is waaaay more choice now than before
- armitron 6y ago
  Women are having a lot more sexual partners, a lot sooner in their lives, today than at any previous point in history. This invalidates any historical models of sexual behavior. You can very well imagine a woman in Victorian times, keeping her virginity until her arranged marriage (in less developed Western countries this was still the case up until the 70s and 80s) to an average, physically unattractive male. The fact that he was the only male she knew sexually could very well provide the basis of a stable and healthy, loving longterm relationship, assuming he wasn't completely incompetent in giving her pleasure. This woman has acquired her model of a sexual relationship from the only man she ever knew. She never has a chance to find better, to compare. This is definitely no longer the case. Women in developed countries are spending the formative and best years of their lives with multiple sex partners thus developing expectations and also reinforcing their baseline models and sexual norms acquired from said interactions. An average physically unattractive male looking for a stable longterm relationship faces very slim odds with this type of woman -very prevalent in the West- today unless he performs massive compromises and lowers his requirements. I don't want to sound regressive or socially conservative, but this obviously does not bode well for the future of these societies. A permanent, ever-rising underclass bombarded daily with norms of sexual desire and models that it can never meet. One should expect the incel phenomenon -still at its infancy- to drastically intensify. Life-like sex robots may alleviate part of the problem but are probably at least 50 years away. Let us hope that VR comes together in providing alternate meaning-generating realities, sooner.
downerending 6y ago
There is something to this, but it depends a lot on attitude. It will be true for someone who's entitled or an ingrate, and everyone should run fast and long away from such a person. There are a lot of them. On the other hand, people who have suffered at length can be quite grateful to find a decent person. Someone like that can make a great wife (or husband).
- armitron 6y ago
  Relationships are hard enough as it is, imagine stacking the deck further against you by going for someone that's psychologically unstable. Definitely neither smart nor wise, at least for the rational type given the massive time & effort investments required.
  - downerending 6y ago
    I think we're talking about different things.

cortesoft 6y ago

I think you have a very limited understanding of sexual attraction... it is not static. It can grow for someone as you get to know them and spend time with someone.

Kye 6y ago
It's always interesting to watch my attraction for someone who was really hot up front start to slide down the more they talk, or the other way around. Personality is so much more important than level of initial attraction.
armitron 6y ago
Raw sexual attraction is instant and involuntary, not cerebral, cultivated. It doesn't depend on anything other than a person's biology. Looks, smell, maybe other biological factors that are hard to quantify. If a woman is with you for other reasons, then she's just not into you sexually and you're playing a game in nightmare mode if you're trying to establish an LTR with an attractive female that has other opportunities or keep it going without issues (e.g. cheating). That does not mean that other slow-burn factors such as intellectual chemistry or friendship do not apply, but it does mean that they work synergistically and on top of the raw animalistic part which is the foundation. This is all based on decades of empirical observations. On the plus side for men, it is definitely possible to learn to detect this extremely reliable indicator. On the minus side, one needs a lot of experience with many different women, which isn't the case with average, physically unattractive males.

lotsofpulp 6y ago

That’s always been the case. People’s goals are different at different times during their life. There’s always a transactional aspect to being in a relationship. Are you good looking enough, healthy enough, wealthy enough, well connected enough, emotionally connected, personality etc. It may not be fruitful to frame a relationship exclusively in those pros and cons terms, but that’s the way nature has always worked.

avmich 6y ago
> That’s always been the case. Has it? The question is not if people change. The question is who they choose and why - now, versus before. > There’s always a transactional aspect to being in a relationship. Are you good looking enough, healthy enough, wealthy enough, well connected enough, emotionally connected, personality etc. That doesn't explain the decrease in sex. As a group people are supposedly still about the same. > It may not be fruitful to frame a relationship exclusively in those pros and cons terms, but that’s the way nature has always worked. If we talk about humans, the article talks about the changing data. The proposed explanation is that views have changed. You're saying that views always have been like that. So there is a difference in data.
- foogazi 6y ago
  > The question is who they choose and why - now, versus before If you go back enough you’ll find that there is waaaay more choice now than before
armitron 6y ago
Women are having a lot more sexual partners, a lot sooner in their lives, today than at any previous point in history. This invalidates any historical models of sexual behavior. You can very well imagine a woman in Victorian times, keeping her virginity until her arranged marriage (in less developed Western countries this was still the case up until the 70s and 80s) to an average, physically unattractive male. The fact that he was the only male she knew sexually could very well provide the basis of a stable and healthy, loving longterm relationship, assuming he wasn't completely incompetent in giving her pleasure. This woman has acquired her model of a sexual relationship from the only man she ever knew. She never has a chance to find better, to compare. This is definitely no longer the case. Women in developed countries are spending the formative and best years of their lives with multiple sex partners thus developing expectations and also reinforcing their baseline models and sexual norms acquired from said interactions. An average physically unattractive male looking for a stable longterm relationship faces very slim odds with this type of woman -very prevalent in the West- today unless he performs massive compromises and lowers his requirements. I don't want to sound regressive or socially conservative, but this obviously does not bode well for the future of these societies. A permanent, ever-rising underclass bombarded daily with norms of sexual desire and models that it can never meet. One should expect the incel phenomenon -still at its infancy- to drastically intensify. Life-like sex robots may alleviate part of the problem but are probably at least 50 years away. Let us hope that VR comes together in providing alternate meaning-generating realities, sooner.

downerending 6y ago

There is something to this, but it depends a lot on attitude. It will be true for someone who's entitled or an ingrate, and everyone should run fast and long away from such a person. There are a lot of them. On the other hand, people who have suffered at length can be quite grateful to find a decent person. Someone like that can make a great wife (or husband).

armitron 6y ago
Relationships are hard enough as it is, imagine stacking the deck further against you by going for someone that's psychologically unstable. Definitely neither smart nor wise, at least for the rational type given the massive time & effort investments required.
- downerending 6y ago
  I think we're talking about different things.