Today’s Modern Men and Women Relationships

[MikeNovack]

It is a problem for humanity catching up with the fast, ever-changing environmental context, and adaptation takes biological time, all the while dragging our evolutionary baggage along with us. Romantic fantasy, which most people buy, is problematic, and tops up the chaos.

True.
I made a joke the other day with co-workers and a young girl laughed hysterically and agreed when I said:
"Why do women fantasize a man dying for them as romantic? Why does when a woman love a man she always fantasize about him dying?"

I think POSSIBLY mistaking the real commonality of male romantic fiction. Not that he dies, but that he has laid his life on the line. The result of this wager is that sometimes he dies and sometimes he lives. But in either case wins as a "hero". I suggest would better understand male romantic fantasy by trying to understand "what is a hero?"

[Fairy]

https://youtu.be/KxT1Se_Rt70?si=DsMfXdTJ-mvm9oPj

AI relationships. The future of dating.

[Eodnhoj7]

It is a problem for humanity catching up with the fast, ever-changing environmental context, and adaptation takes biological time, all the while dragging our evolutionary baggage along with us. Romantic fantasy, which most people buy, is problematic, and tops up the chaos.

True.
I made a joke the other day with co-workers and a young girl laughed hysterically and agreed when I said:
"Why do women fantasize a man dying for them as romantic? Why does when a woman love a man she always fantasize about him dying?"

I think POSSIBLY mistaking the real commonality of male romantic fiction. Not that he dies, but that he has laid his life on the line. The result of this wager is that sometimes he dies and sometimes he lives. But in either case wins as a "hero". I suggest would better understand male romantic fantasy by trying to understand "what is a hero?"

I don't disagree but there is a nuance to this: romance requires tragedy. The most romantic things require tragedy and the fantasy embodies this.

[Eodnhoj7]

It is a problem for humanity catching up with the fast, ever-changing environmental context, and adaptation takes biological time, all the while dragging our evolutionary baggage along with us. Romantic fantasy, which most people buy, is problematic, and tops up the chaos.

True.

I made a joke the other day with co-workers and a young girl laughed hysterically and agreed when I said:

"Why do women fantasize a man dying for them as romantic? Why does when a woman love a man she always fantasize about him dying?"

You Never Truly Loved — Only the Character You Invented for the Other | Alan Watts

https://youtu.be/UbmighpiJBk?si=yUBeCH4HMJUS94V7

95 percent of romantic relationships require the projection of imagination, they are purely psychological constructs.

[Fairy]

Women prefer relationships with fantasy made up characters like the ones in a movie or a book.


Fitzwilliam Darcy is popular. Drama free, but drama fulfilled.

“In vain have I struggled. It will not do. My feelings will not be repressed. You must allow me to tell you how ardently I admire and love you" .

This is Mr. Darcy's first proposal to Elizabeth, revealing his true feelings after struggling to suppress them.

"You have bewitched me, body and soul, and I love--I love--I love you" .

Spoken in the popular 2005 film adaptation, this quote encapsulates a profound and overwhelming love.
"My affections and wishes have not changed, but one word from you will silence me forever”
This quote shows his deep devotion and vulnerability, giving Elizabeth the power to end his hopes with just one word.

"I have been meditating on the very great pleasure which a pair of fine eyes in the face of a pretty woman can bestow" .
While not a direct declaration of love, it reveals his growing admiration for Elizabeth's physical beauty, a precursor to his deeper feelings.


Women want the real deal or nothing at all.

[MikeNovack]

I don't disagree but there is a nuance to this: romance requires tragedy. The most romantic things require tragedy and the fantasy embodies this.

Probably right about the tragedy part BUT that does not necessarily mean death. I'll give as an example the ending of The Prisoner of Zenda. Can also be bittersweet like The Four Feathers. And in Green Mansions not the man who dies. << I intentionally chose examples from the same approximate time period >>

[Eodnhoj7]

I don't disagree but there is a nuance to this: romance requires tragedy. The most romantic things require tragedy and the fantasy embodies this.

Probably right about the tragedy part BUT that does not necessarily mean death. I'll give as an example the ending of The Prisoner of Zenda. Can also be bittersweet like The Four Feathers. And in Green Mansions not the man who dies. << I intentionally chose examples from the same approximate time period >>

Some tragedies are worse then death. Romance inevitably requires tragedy to gain depth.

[popeye1945]

You get a new girlfriend, what is the first thing your buddies are going to ask? What does she look like? A girl gets a new boyfriend. What is the first thing her girlfriends are going to ask? What does he do for a living? Do with it what you will.

[accelafine]

You get a new girlfriend, what is the first thing your buddies are going to ask? What does she look like? A girl gets a new boyfriend. What is the first thing her girlfriends are going to ask? What does he do for a living? Do with it what you will.

Welcome to 1950.

[popeye1945]

You get a new girlfriend, what is the first thing your buddies are going to ask? What does she look like? A girl gets a new boyfriend. What is the first thing her girlfriends are going to ask? What does he do for a living? Do with it what you will.

Welcome to 1950.

Do you ever present a reasoned argument?

[MikeNovack]

You get a new girlfriend, what is the first thing your buddies are going to ask? What does she look like? A girl gets a new boyfriend. What is the first thing her girlfriends are going to ask? What does he do for a living? Do with it what you will.

Welcome to 1950.

Do you ever present a reasoned argument?

Well Popeye, Accelafine has proved not an AI (Large Language Model is not good at that sort of response). I understood the "reasoning" because able to fill in what was left out << and so why what you wrote far better fir the social realities of 1950 than now >>

a) Women had been displaced from their roles in the work place they had duriung WWII
b) So it was assumed they would be stay at home housewives and family income would depend on the man
c) But note this was BY CLASS. Among the poor, not assumed the woman would be able to stay at home.

[popeye1945]

It is a problem for humanity catching up with the fast, ever-changing environmental context, and adaptation takes biological time, all the while dragging our evolutionary baggage along with us. Romantic fantasy, which most people buy, is problematic, and tops up the chaos.

True.
I made a joke the other day with co-workers and a young girl laughed hysterically and agreed when I said:
"Why do women fantasize a man dying for them as romantic? Why does when a woman love a man she always fantasize about him dying?"

I think POSSIBLY mistaking the real commonality of male romantic fiction. Not that he dies, but that he has laid his life on the line. The result of this wager is that sometimes he dies and sometimes he lives. But in either case wins as a "hero". I suggest would better understand male romantic fantasy by trying to understand "what is a hero?"

I would agree that in this society, the term hero is greatly abused. Someone is not a hero because they are abused or suffer from some wretched illness. The hero must be defined as one who sacrifices, not necessarily the ultimate sacrifice, but a sacrifice that involves great courage, always overcoming fear, no fear, no heroic deed.

[popeye1945]

Welcome to 1950.

Do you ever present a reasoned argument?

Well Popeye, Accelafine has proved not an AI (Large Language Model is not good at that sort of response). I understood the "reasoning" because able to fill in what was left out << and so why what you wrote far better fir the social realities of 1950 than now >>
a) Women had been displaced from their roles in the work place they had duriung WWII
b) So it was assumed they would be stay at home housewives and family income would depend on the man
c) But note this was BY CLASS. Among the poor, not assumed the woman would be able to stay at home.

Mike,

What I stated is rather timeless; we do drag our biological realities along with us on our journey, men and women. It is a fact, a biological imprint, one could say that women do not marry down, even when they are very rich themselves. It is also a biological fact that sexual selection is the female function, which is going to get a rise, but it's a fact. Women do marry on the same level, counting on maintaining the same standard of living. Sometimes women make bad choices in this regard, and the man they marry does not measure up to their expectations. In the past, this was very problematic; society frowned on divorce, so often women were stuck with their bad choice. This is not so today. The Western world has become more and more feminised, and old norms and standards are cast aside. Whatever the future holds, you must realize it is going to be working against our biological natures. Maybe that is good, social evolution, but it is going to be a rough ride for all concerned. Many young males see what has happened to their elders and find it a dangerous consideration to marry, a rough ride indeed. What it will look like in a hundred years or more is anybody's guess. This rocky road is not likely to get smooth in the near future.

[MikeNovack]

Popeye:
Our BIOLOGY is constant over the entire range of human cultures. Those cultures are diverse, and "marriage" does not always play the same role. WE ARE NOT GIBBONS (a pair bonding ape) If you want to talk just about THIS society, fine, but you are talking about sociology, not biology. You should not assume a biological explanation unless you are looking at something you are seeing in all human societies.In oter words, you want e=vidence from Anthropology, not Sociology.

[popeye1945]

Popeye:
Our BIOLOGY is constant over the entire range of human cultures. Those cultures are diverse, and "marriage" does not always play the same role. WE ARE NOT GIBBONS (a pair-bonding ape) If you want to talk just about THIS society, fine, but you are talking about sociology, not biology. You should not assume a biological explanation unless you are looking at something you are seeing in all human societies. In other words, you want evidence from Anthropology, not Sociology.

Biology is the ground of everything; biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. I am aware of differing cultures, and mostly their sociology is governed by the established moral system in place. Some cultures are frightfully brutal to women in their cultures, but that too is biology and a mindless belief system from the seventh century. I am aware more than most, I think, just how much context defines, so we had better rationally construct a humane culture if everyone is to flourish. Multiculturalism has set the world on fire. What a moronic idea to have a great, unmalting pot of cultures under one roof. Our culture, I believe, is in decline; there is entirely too much irrationality and chaos for it to survive without some kind of metamorphosis on the horizon. Whatever transformations a culture is going through, its goal should be greater harmony, and the way that can occur is through our commonalities, not our differences. Our differences are due to geography and the degrees of our isolation in the past. As to the conflict between genders, ideally, these two aspects of one thing are supposed to be in harmony, and one can see it in harmony in certain cultures. Where roles are not questioned and are mutually supportive of the living of life. Perhaps a social evolution could happen if humanity gave up romantic fantasy, which muddies the waters of reason in the mating game. I used to think arranged marriages were primitive and vulgar, but now I am not so sure. Running against human nature is not the wisest path, and I believe there will be no peace between genders until both agree to live by roles, as unlikely as that is.