lol that is not what I said or what I am suggesting. I am pointing out the fact she'd rather be with him than you or I.

That is literally the post, NOT "beat women" or " women like being beaten " or " beating women is okay " FFS

Do you believe there are any other reasons for a woman to stay in a violent relationship, or is that those "good looks" just outweigh those ass kickings?

You're so right dude, let's just jack off over Ray Rice being an ******* and ignore anything else complex or intriguing about the story.

Go back to jacking Fly off in your echo chamber Dids.

Not what I said at all, yet again.

Probably a million reasons that people, male or female stay in abusive relationships. Attraction is one of them, often not based around looks for a woman too btw.

I try to illustrate with what contempt women treat obsequious , "nice" guys she isn't attracted to , to the extent she'd rather be with a piece of **** who beats her, and you respond telling me I'm a sociopath for stating a fact based on countless examples of empirical data

Todaloooo

In the "countless" studies you've come across on the dynamics of IPV, can you recall reasons why victims remain despite enduring chronic abuse? Because your thesis is unsubstantiated, offensive ignorance.

show me the receipts.
we can actually see what you wrote. Good riddance.

Show me where I said " the only reason people remain in abusive relationships is attraction to their partner " ?

Would you say its the greatest reason?

I have no idea mate

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/34...tates-1474034/


But I'm gonna go out on a limb and say this guy should probably be banned already

Got something right.

I'm sure, while reviewing the endless studies, attraction was IDed as a reason victims stay in abusive relationships. Feel free to provide a link.

??????????

Here's one I literally have without having needed to google : http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/31...e-romanceless/

Guy has had five wives , beats and cheats on all of them, beats the fifth one for complaining that he was banging one of the previous ones who was clearly still attracted to him. That's a very short TLDR, goes far further and you can read more of it, don't take my word

.

I know that a Nice Guy™ likes to think this is basic biology (alpha ****s, beta bucks!!!!), but just because you want to believe this, it doesn't actually make it so.

also gotta lol at that being your source

Some people believe that there are good people and bad people and good people just don't do isolated bad things. This is part of what is called the fundamental attribution error.

It is often paired with a belief that good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people. This is called the just world hypothesis.

Almost always there is normalization going on. People think their experiences are what is typical. It is pretty interesting because they often seem incapable of integrating new information.

Added together, you get a lot of seemingly strange statements from people. Many of the rest can be attributed to drug use.

oh really

so the fact that the median 22 year old woman has twice the amount of sex as the median 22 year old man is not true, and therefore a small proportion of men get a huge proportion of sexual inter course is false, yes ?

you're also saying that women are attracted to agreeable, "nice" men more than "*******s", seriously ?

you are also saying that females are not attracted to "alpha males ", yes ?

please answer, straying completely off the original discussion but I don't understand the way you think

I am pretty sure that you are on the correct limb.

Could you please link to this source?
False dichotomy. And yes.

I'm saying that it's not biology

Don't have it to hand, source was provided at university ( Nottingham, UK ). If it's not biology, what is it ?

So, when you were that age / not constrained by marriage, did you , or were you more likely to , have sex with the quiet, timid nice guy who was always sweet and kind to you, basically bent over backwards , or the confident, muscular " alpha male " who was more likely to be a dick?

You may be an exception, what about your peers ? Can't honestly believe someone would deny that women have more sex with "*******s" and that "nice guys " do finish last . Note I don't actually think that a lot of men hiding behind this facade actually are nice, in that they ultimately want sex rather than friendship from most women but aim to weasel into it through the facade of friendship.

lol

Explain?

“up to approximately 100,000 to 40,000 years ago, hominid evolution was driven by the criteria females used to select males for their procreation partners (Tanner, 1981) included males who were increasingly cooperative, social, and less aggressive (Young 1971). Males with these characteristics were more inclined to succeed in a promiscuous social environment (Morgan, 1877;Margulis & Sagan, 1991) and more likely to be responsive to the needs of women with infants and children helpless for long periods. These characteristics were evidenced by males with less testosterone (T) than the more aggressive males”

“By choosing males with low T, females are prolonging the developmental and maturation rates of their male progeny. In humans the relative levels of testosterone (and probably estrogen) in males and females is the primary hormonal intermediary between the eight environmental cues and relative rates of maturation. By prolonging growth, whether explained by heterochronic concepts of neoteny (Montagu, 1955, 1989; Gould, 1977) (prolonging child features into adulthood) or by hypermorphosis (Shea, 1989; McKinney and McNamara, 1990) (prolonging all developmental stages), one of the net results is increased brain and cranium size (Riska & Archley, 1985). Prolonging growth rates is achieved in humans by lowering T. Accelerating growth, in effect condensing developmental stages, is achieved by raising T.”

http://serpentfd.org/section2hominidevolution.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0801171114.htm

Ignores all obvious real world evidence to the contrary

Says it isn't biology

Responds with biological study



Also that study literally proves the point you were arguing against earlier " Alpha ****s Beta Bucks " , it even paraphrases it. Women chose these low-T men because they were more likely to commit resources to their offspring ( because they had less sexual partners/ less women competing for them ), at a time when women couldn't provide for themselves i.e hunt :

" more likely to be responsive to the needs of women with children and infants "

AKA the woman gets the "bucks" / the resources from the low-T, non-confrontational man, and now that in today's society in which all barriers are removed ( birth control/ social conventions/ equality/career opportunities) we see women having sex with the men they are truly attracted to before settling for (marrying) the man who will commit resources to her. You've provided a study which says this. All obvious real-world evidence supports it too.

Thanks, giving those links a read now

The "alpha ****s/beta bucks" line is one used to show that women **** alphas and find betas to raise their offspring. The study shows that women were having sex and offspring with so-called "betas". That's the point.
Women wanted those men. And lastly, women hunted as well it was only assumed that women did not hunt because lolwomen are weak. And the hunter/gatherers were the ones that ensured more survival in general. But that's really an aside.

I was commenting that your take on biology was wrong. It is not a biological imperative to want offspring from an "alpha", as the study linked to illustrates.

Lastly your "birth control liberates women to sleep with *******s!" line means nothing. If your argument is that evolution plays a role in wanting alphas, then that's wrong because evolution shows women picking "betas" or men with low T and more feminized features (smaller brow). So, then, if that's the case and biology is out, then what is it that women want? Security? Comfort? Intelligence? Status? I think you will find that the answer to this is fairly varied. But back to your original assumption - the one that women "respect" a man who will beat her and bring her "under his thumb"... first and foremost, this is wrong. Abusers are charismatic and charming as a rule. This includes the "beefy, muscular men" you claim women are most attracted to all the way across the spectrum to the weedy, needy "beta" men. All shapes and sizes of men can be abusers, as well. Women don't stay with them because of respect. Women stay with abusers because of lengthy amounts of psychological abuse as well as physical, which ranges from degradation and destruction of self-esteem to literal threats of violence either self-inflicted or otherwise.
If you want to parrot MRA talking points, at least educate yourself a little bit outside of your usual echo chamber.