Re: Ann, Laurie, and all the other women here, are rapists

Hmmm, it's because female reproduction has a higher energy cost than
male reproduction.

"In "runaway" sexual selection, the selected trait becomes more
embedded and exaggerated with each passing generation, requiring the
next wave of the selected sex (usually males) to compete from a new
plateau, which amplifies the trait even more, and so on. Even if the
degree of exaggeration threatens the viability of the species at large
-- e.g., the titanic antlers of the extinct Irish elk -- this may not
abate the driving competition among individuals for reproductive
success. The models of R. A. Fisher (1958) long ago showed that
evolution of a sexually selected trait, and the preference for it, can
strongly correlate, with both accelerating in tandem.

Why is it nearly universally males of species who become burdened with
huge antlers, giant tail feathers, or other garish exaggerations? A
mistake of teleology might claim this is only fair, since females carry
the major costs of reproduction, and a larger share of the risk. A more
valid explanation lies in the fact that females in these species have a
dictatorial veto over which males get to breed. Males wind up being
selected to satisfy any criteria females get in the habit of using.

-- From "Neoteny and Two-Way Sexual Selection in Human Evolution",
described by the author as "A Paleo-Anthropological Speculation on the
Origins of Secondary-Sexual Traits, Male Nurturing and the Child as a
Sexual Image", by David Brin, Ph.D."

As for your idea of "who actually love and care for each other and
enjoy each other's company and want each other to be happy"...

All very nice in theory. In reality it doesn't turn out that way. I
held out hope, for three years of my life, to find any female who was
decent. Every last one of them turned nasty, lying, manipulative...
Doing her best to make up lies and bull*** just to annoy me, making
out everyday situations as if I was a really bad person when they could
do the same everyday situations and they were just fine.

A really good example, one of them said I was inconsiderate and without
manners, because I forgot which cup I'd previously drank from, and that
was a good enough reason to stop seeing me as I was a really bad
person. All of that from everything previously being fine! And it
wasn't her words, more of her nasty tone of voice, and attitude that
made it upsetting. And that is from someone who pretends to be all
things sweet and nice, she even looks and sounds like it. In fact she
is only good at manipulation, pretending to be all things good but in
fact being a nasty abusive bitch.

I thought, for a long time, that maybe I was just unlucky, and kept
trying to find others who weren't evil. It wasn't hard to find new good
looking women who seemed nice at first, because I am so startlingly
good looking, charming and I have a sort of shy but confident manner
which lets me get to know people without being overbearing. Reality
kept on proving me otherwise, the same patterns would emerge, she
starts criticising me and making up all sorts of false bull*** about
me.

Eventually, after I started becoming very cynical (this was with my 12
lover by then, and by lover I don't include the women who I just took
off their clothes)... I found this book by Warren Farrell. By this
time, I was so expecting and not caring about their criticisms that I
didn't even bother to take them on, I'd just count them.

Her: "Why are you wearing those clothes" (again, tone of voice is more
important, it's how she sounded negative and criticising)
Me: "One"
Her "Why do you always leave that door open"
Me: "Two"

She got to about 6 criticisms per minute. I'd time them to see how fast
a rate she could crticise. I'm a really easy going laid back person so
I don't actually say those sort of things to her. I mean why try to
make other people feel uncomfortable in my prescence because I expect
them to do every little thing just how I expect it done?

OK so those criticisms weren't bad in the words, but it was more the
tone of voice and the fact that she'd just criticise so fast.

Anyhow, eventually this book by Warren Farrell told me the missing part
of the puzzle. When I read this text below, I finally stopped dating.
I realised what the problem was.

" Researchers find that when only one sex expresses
argument-provoking feelings, it is likely to be the wife-by a ratio
of almost six to one (85 percent vs. 15 percent). When both sexes
participate but one dominates, women are about twice as likely to
dominate. Overall, women are more willing to initiate conflict, more
willing to escalate conflict, better able to handle it when it occurs,
and, when they have initiated it, are quicker to get over it.

These findings come from numerous sources. They are found among
couples of high, medium, and low socio-economic status. They are found
using a variety of methodologies: The couples themselves acknowledge
this gap, and, much more reliably, researchers who systematically
observe couples verify the couples' own assessments.

Probably the most respected researcher in the field is John Gottman
at the University of Washington. He records pulse rates, heart output,
skin conductance, and other indicators of stress. Then he videotapes
the couples to observe facial expressions and body language. He does
not ask the couples to fight, since that would be artificial. Instead,
he basically works with a couple and when a major area of disagreement
naturally evolves, he asks them to discuss it and attempts to resolve
it. When a fight naturally occurs, the equipment is there to record it.


Gottman found that men are more intimidated by angry women than
women are by angry men. Men are more stressed by marital arguments,
while women are more comfortable with emotional confrontation and are
better at it. "

From "Women can't hear what men don't say", by Warren Farrell.

References:
(4) John M. Gottman, "Why Marriages Fail," Family Therapy Networker,
May/Jun 1994, pp. 40-48

(5) John M. Gottman and R. Levenson, "Assessing the Role of Emotion in
Marriage," Behavioral Assessment, Vol. 8 1986, pp. 31-48; and John M.
Gottman, "How Marriages CHange," Family Social Interaction: Content and
Methodological Issues in the Study of Aggression and Depression
(Hillsdale, NY: Erlbaum, 1990), G Patterson, ed., pp. 75-101.

(6) A. Christensen and C. Heavey, "Gender and Social Structure in the
Demand/Withdraw Pattern of Marital Conflict." Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology. Vol. 59, No. 1, 1990, pp. 73-81.

(7) M. Komarovsky, Blue Collar Marriage (New York: Random House, 1962);
L. Rubin, Worlds of Pain: Life in the Working Class Family (New York:
Basic Books, 1976). Cited in Richard Driscoll, Ph. D., The Stronger Sex
(Rocklin, CA: Prima Publishing, 1998), p. 8.

( 8 ) M. Komarovsky, Dilemmas of Masculinity (New York: Norton, 1976);
L. Rubin, Intimate Strangers: Men and Women Together (New York: Harper
and Row, 1983); H Kelly, J. Cunningham, J. Grisham, L. Lefebvre, C.
Sink, and G. Yablon, "Sex Differences in Comments Made During Conflict
Within Close HeteroSexual Pairs," Sex Roles, Vol. 4, 1978, pp. 473-79,
Cited in Driscoll, ibid.



Basically, women are just nasty. It wasn't just that I had bad luck. I
had bad experiences, and the science proved it to be true that I had
those experiences because women themselves were bad!

Considering that I am much nicer than the average guy, I mean I'm
probably one of the nicest guys you can possibly meet... well it would
just mean that it would be in 100% of my relationships that she usually
caused the argument, instead of 85% of the time. Makes sense right?

After this I gave up on women.

I'm now waiting to meet a female who isn't evil.

And yes, by "evil" I don't really mean "evil". I do underestand people
better than that and I know they can do some good sometimes, but the
thing is, you don't even understand what people are like properly. The
true description of what people are like, is closer to "evil" than it
is to any other English word. We have no singular English word to
describe the morality of Earth humans.

"Self-contradictory" would be closer, but it's not a thorough
description.

.