@ItsComplicatedChannel

Who is advocating for average men? #datingadvice #redpill #manipulation

Okay, so if women’s behavior is primarily biological & unchanging, why do Red Pill influencers spend so much time discussing cultural changes like feminism & social media? And if culture matters that much, why reduce historical & modern dating patterns to biology?

Because what is taught is culture, not nature, nature doesn’t change. I don’t know why you can’t grasp that Mr. DumDum.

well that has a lot more to do with culture than biology so why are we blaming everything on female nature? 🤷🏻‍♂️

That’s fair. Briffault clearly intended his broader theory to address human social origins, not just animals. However, there’s a difference between arguing that early human family structures were maternal-centered and claiming that modern women are inherently resource extractors who only associate with men for personal benefit. The first is a theory about social evolution; the second is a claim about modern female psychology. Even if women historically had significant influence over the conditions of family association, how does that prove that a modern woman only loves a man for what he provides?

Ok, we can stop the debate here. As a creator, I set the framework for my own interviews and content. Since I can't get the answers I need from you, I'll find them elsewhere. My time is better spent creating content for my large audience than trying to convince one person who just wants to argue. 🤷🏻‍♂️

So if we don’t strip men of their rights for the actions of a few, why argue to restrict women’s rights (like repealing the 19th Amendment) instead of holding individual women accountable?

If we’re all just evil, hairless monkeys acting on our biological programming, why don’t men go around graping all the women like ducks and sea otters? Men are biologically capable of all sorts of antisocial behavior, but we don’t treat those behaviors as acceptable expressions of male nature. We have cultural norms, moral standards, and consequences that discourage them. So why are you attributing women’s observed behavior to female nature while overlooking the influence of culture, social expectations, and incentives?

Well if you believe that all women are just dating transactionally that opens up an entirely new question: Why does the manosphere care so much about a woman’s genuine burning desire if they believe she’s incapable of love?

Is the controlling of men's sexual drive the key to government stability? #sexuality #government

and that’s basically my point, culture matters more than just biology. Appreciate the loyal support!

You’re setting up a false choice. I don’t have to prove women never behave that way to challenge Briffault’s Law. The claim that women determine the conditions of family relationships is not proven simply because women initiate around 70% of divorces or because some women seek financial benefits. Dowries are a useful counterexample: historically, families in many societies transferred wealth to the bride’s family or the bride herself. If women always determine the conditions based on their own benefit, how do you explain systems where the bride’s family had to provide wealth to secure a marriage? You need to establish that Briffault’s Law is universally or reliably predictive of human behavior, not demand that I prove women never act in accordance with it. That’s your claim to substantiate.

Nobody enters a relationship unless their partner provides some type of value. And if all women are the same because of their female nature, why would men travel overseas to a different culture? Why were women different in the past?

And I asked you if men are gynocentric simps by nature and you deflected.

The point of bringing up dowry was only to prove that women HISTORICALLY didn’t get to just marry for money, according to your previous comment that “women got in relationships for financial benefit.” Women had to bring something to the table and they could only marry within their class.

You’re not even addressing my points in good faith, so why would I even wanna continue to debate?

The dowry is a counterexample to the idea that women inherently determine the conditions of family life. In societies where the bride’s family pays the groom or his family to facilitate a marriage, the financial terms of marriage can be shaped by men and their families. If women inherently controlled the conditions of relationships, how do you explain that? And Buss finding that women, on average, value a man’s financial prospects more than men do in a mate doesn’t prove women control the conditions of relationships. A preference isn’t the same as power. Men have preferences too, and the person who has the most leverage can influence the terms. As for the 70% divorce figure, who initiates a divorce doesn’t automatically tell us who controlled the conditions of the marriage. You’re conflating preferences, bargaining power, and decision-making authority.

It’s not a topic change, it’s just flipping the genders to point out the double standard in your logic. So now men being simps a good thing? Isn’t simping the same mentally that gave women the right to vote, the very thing you think destroyed civilization?

Are men gynocentric simps at their core? If the evidence fits that model, why are we trying to change male nature? Or does the fact that a behavior can be explained by evolution not mean we should accept it as inevitable?

Nobody is arguing that evolution doesn’t apply to humans. The question is whether you’re using evolution to explain behavior or to justify it. An attractive appearance doesn’t automatically mean better genes or greater reproductive fitness, and claiming that dark triad traits evolved for protection doesn’t prove they’re beneficial in modern relationships. Something having an evolutionary explanation doesn’t automatically make it desirable, necessary, or morally justified. That’s called an appeal to nature fallacy.

You’re accusing me of an appeal to authority while appealing to animal behavior to justify a generalization about human relationships. Humans being animals doesn’t prove that human relationships follow the same rules as animal mating behavior. That’s a leap, not evidence.