Skip to main content

Pseudo-science (like psych).

I consider myself a man of science. I try to approach problems and deal with them logically, using observations previously recorded to handle new problems. So of course my interest was piqued when someone I knew posited that men are needier and more complicated than women.

An interesting theory. But to properly examine it, one must understand the concept of sexual selection and its two aspects: male competition and female choice.

Which brings us to point one: men are needier [in relationships] than women. This is true. In a natural/primal setting, the males are generally love-'em-leave-'em kinds of guys. Their main objective is to reproduce as much as they can. Humans, in their infinite wisdom, have decreased the emphasis on this to the point where it has become a footnote in male purpose. Civilization dictates that, instead of finding a partner for the sole purpose of reproduction, males find females for life companionship. With the effective removal of their natural tendency, men forced themselves to adapt to the new form of male competition by becoming mostly nice guys (donks and doop doops excluded). As mostly nice guys--and in response to social pressures/stigmas associated with being alone--men began to need more reassurance from their mates that the female would not abandon the male. With such a strong emphasis on mating-for-life, men had to become more emotional and more romantic in order to gain the favor of women. This paradigm shift went largely unnoticed in women, who continued to select the more savage, uncivilized men. Thus, the adapted males find themselves at a disadvantage, despite being the more favorable and balanced mates. The adapted males that find themselves in relationships need periodic reassurance from their women that the women--who have not completely adapted to the new system they helped create--will not abandon their mates for savage males--who have failed to adapt.

Point two: men are more complicated than women. Men are simple creatures. They only need a few things to sustain themselves besides the obvious of food and water. They need affection (physical and emotional), fraternity (companionship, etc), and stimulation (adventure, etc). Affection includes things like relationship reassurance, hugs, cuddling, and sex. Fraternity includes bros, buddies, doods, dudes, and good times. Stimulation includes doing cool stuff, video games, hobbies, and good times.

Men only seem needier than women because they're more romantic. They jump through hoops and over hurdles and obstacles just to be with women. Women stand and wait for their man to come sweep them away. Women, for all of their feelings and emotions, are actually quite callous. They need as much as men do, but they want a lot more.
In conclusion, girls are dumb and probably have cooties.

Comments

Ashley said…
Leave psychology alone, or I'll beat you up.

I would also disagree with the fact that most guys are nice guys.

And I argue that men are only 'romantic' because they've figured out what women want. It's not that they have some sudden impulse to do something sweet. They do it because if they don't, women get mad. Kthx.
Gabe said…
I didn't mean that there are mostly nice guys floating around, only that there were mostly-nice (who are also kind of not nice) guys in there with all the donks and doop doops.

Also, maybe women are too cynical to truly appreciate romantic intimations. Women shouldn't get mad when they don't receive romantic gestures--they are gifts, not guarantees!
Ashley said…
Then I guess men shouldn't get mad when they don't get sex. It's a gift, not a guarantee.
Anonymous said…
Like. (Ashley's comment, that is)

Popular posts from this blog

Side effects include constant irritability, being an ass.

It was a typical day in MUS 307 . A typical day where nobody pays attention to anything the professor talks about. A day where people play shitty flash games instead of take notes. A day where people sit and refresh their Facebook newsfeed instead of follow the slides. A day where people roll their eyes and go to sleep instead of listen to the music examples. A day where people get up and leave ten minutes before lecture ends instead of having the God damn decency to stay the whole time and pretend to be interested. I mean, if you're going to be so unaffected by the music we're studying in class then why the fuck did you take the class in the first place? Fuck it makes me mad. And I haven't even started talking about that fucker who sits in the back and tries to whistle along with every song that gets played in class. Alright, dude, we get it: you are just too cool and you know everything about jazz, ever. You know every standard ever written and everybody's so...

So, I mean, there's that.

So I went to church again. I slept through most of it but I woke up to hear this: "Oh Lord you are holy indeed. You are a fountain of holiness." Dang, I thought. That is pretty holy. I saw The Nightmare Before Christmas again recently. That is still one of my favorite movies. I never get tired of watching it for some reason. I remember the first time I saw it quite clearly. I was about 5 years old at the time, I think. My dad and I were in the Albertson's video store looking for something to watch as was our Friday night custom. I walked through the aisle, glossing over the scary movies as quickly as I could without looking like I was scared. My dad pulled me aside with a video in hand. "What do you think about this one?" He held up a cover with a skeleton on the cover and 'nightmare' in the title. "It doesn't look very good." I said nonchalantly. "It looks lame." I rolled my eyes and turned away, playing it cool....