Trusted, Automoderated users
17,538
edits
Love shy: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Criticism of Gilmartin's writings
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 135: | Line 135: | ||
Love-shy individuals likely often lack the required amount of social status that would admit them to confidently lead a relationship and overcome women's reluctance to have sex, and not fear shaming in case they turn out to be a failure in sexual matters. | Love-shy individuals likely often lack the required amount of social status that would admit them to confidently lead a relationship and overcome women's reluctance to have sex, and not fear shaming in case they turn out to be a failure in sexual matters. | ||
Low status may be due to any number of flaws in physical appearance ([[ugliness|beauty]], [[fatcel|overweight]]), behavior ([[autism]], [[fuckupcel|lack of competence]]) or [[NEETcel|economic standing]], based on which human dominance hierarchies are decided. | Low status may be due to any number of flaws in physical appearance ([[ugliness|beauty]], [[fatcel|overweight]]), behavior ([[autism]], [[fuckupcel|lack of competence]]) or [[NEETcel|economic standing]], based on which human dominance hierarchies are decided. | ||
This is aggravated by [[feminism|feminists]] outright shaming men who confidently and forcefully approach women and forcing them to be [[nice guy|nice]], even though many women seem to prefer [[rape#Rape_fantasies|being dominated]]. A main limiting factor in men's sexual and social success may hence be attributable to a rise of social norms that hinder men in their assertion of dominance, a point that [[Jordan Peterson]] also raised. | This is aggravated by [[feminism|feminists]] outright shaming men who confidently and forcefully approach women and forcing them to be [[nice guy|nice]], even though many women seem to prefer [[rape#Rape_fantasies|being dominated]]. A main limiting factor in men's sexual and social success may hence be attributable to a rise of social norms that hinder men in their assertion of dominance, a point that [[Jordan Peterson]] also raised. However, humans are very [[wikipedia:Self-domestication|self-domesticated]], [[neoteny|neotenous]], mostly practice [[arranged marriage]] and hence dominance is not as central compared to many animals with dominance hierarchies. | ||
The link between lifetime reproductive success and social dominance status in human males is much weaker than in closely related nonhuman primates (r = .19 vs r = .8).<ref>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27601650/</ref> | |||
Excessive shyness may also be caused by evolutionary mismatches such as the such as the absence of [[arranged marriage]],<ref>https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1474704919887706</ref> i.e. at least some of the love shy might have adaptations for their parents to be involved in their mate choices and also have weak flirting skills. Other potential evolutionary mismatches causing shyness may be women's unusual high-status role,<ref>https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill_(Supplemental)#Women_were_historically_predominantly_involved_in_cooking_and_they_never_dominated_men</ref> stagnation, overpopulation, or even the rise of mutations (see [[behavioral sink]]). In this view, shyness would be a [[blackpill]], i.e. nothing that the individual can simply overcome by being more [[redpill|confident]], but it is fixed behavioral adaptations that mismatch the current alienated sociocultural circumstances and thus lead to drastically reduced [[reproductive success]], even though the same adaptations may have increased reproductive success in times when quiet confidence and subordination to the collective and parental or group mate choices enabled group cohesion and functioning. | Excessive shyness may also be caused by evolutionary mismatches such as the such as the absence of [[arranged marriage]],<ref>https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1474704919887706</ref> i.e. at least some of the love shy might have adaptations for their parents to be involved in their mate choices and also have weak flirting skills. Other potential evolutionary mismatches causing shyness may be women's unusual high-status role,<ref>https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill_(Supplemental)#Women_were_historically_predominantly_involved_in_cooking_and_they_never_dominated_men</ref> stagnation, overpopulation, or even the rise of mutations (see [[behavioral sink]]). In this view, shyness would be a [[blackpill]], i.e. nothing that the individual can simply overcome by being more [[redpill|confident]], but it is fixed behavioral adaptations that mismatch the current alienated sociocultural circumstances and thus lead to drastically reduced [[reproductive success]], even though the same adaptations may have increased reproductive success in times when quiet confidence and subordination to the collective and parental or group mate choices enabled group cohesion and functioning. | ||