Could I have a link so I can see where they derived their conclusions from? This is clearly not a study, but the article surely must reference studies, unless, of course, this is all opinion...
Can't find where in the textbook it's from, but here are the exact studies referenced in the lecture:
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.
.
Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J. (1992). Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. In J. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. New York: Oxford University Press.
.
Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
How can anyone deny reality? Women have it easy. Even fat girls can have sex anytime they want, something that is impossible for us.
An egg is worth more than sperm when it comes to survival. Women are the gatekeepers of sex. It only makes logical sense that they have more smv and compete with each other for the highest value men.
Low value men are fucked because of unfavourable phenotypes. All we can do is rot.
Interestingly enough, I'm fairly certain it's only written like that as a disclaimer, so to speak. The lectures were created by a male professor and there are several examples of this throughout this particular lecture, most likely to make them more palatable for female and SJW/feminist/cucked/soyboy male readers.
I find it incredibly hard to believe that any self-respecting man could digest this knowledge and view females as the victim in this case. Victims of nature? Perhaps. Victims of modern society? Most certainly not.
13 comments
1 ToFapNoMorelsTheGoal 2018-05-19
If you IT cucks won't listen when we say it, at least listen when decades of research in psychology says it.
1 FeelingFlat 2018-05-19
Could I have a link so I can see where they derived their conclusions from? This is clearly not a study, but the article surely must reference studies, unless, of course, this is all opinion...
1 ToFapNoMorelsTheGoal 2018-05-19
These are lecture notes derived from an introductory psychology textbook.
1 FeelingFlat 2018-05-19
The book being?
1 ToFapNoMorelsTheGoal 2018-05-19
Can't find where in the textbook it's from, but here are the exact studies referenced in the lecture:
.
.
1 lonely_suicidal_cel 2018-05-19
Just pass me the rope. It's over.
1 Tiren9 2018-05-19
No still "escort theory" is the last hope if conservatives and feminists stops demolishing sex work
1 GeneticCleansing 2018-05-19
The blackpill shouldn't even be called the blackpill.
It should just be called the fucking truth. Common sense. Science.
1 Hodgey54 2018-05-19
Does competing for high quality men even matter, when through out most of history they'd be married off or simply just raped.
1 DaiMiVsi4ko 2018-05-19
How can anyone deny reality? Women have it easy. Even fat girls can have sex anytime they want, something that is impossible for us.
An egg is worth more than sperm when it comes to survival. Women are the gatekeepers of sex. It only makes logical sense that they have more smv and compete with each other for the highest value men.
Low value men are fucked because of unfavourable phenotypes. All we can do is rot.
1 Ryzasu 2018-05-19
That headline is so fucking twisted
1 ToFapNoMorelsTheGoal 2018-05-19
Interestingly enough, I'm fairly certain it's only written like that as a disclaimer, so to speak. The lectures were created by a male professor and there are several examples of this throughout this particular lecture, most likely to make them more palatable for female and SJW/feminist/cucked/soyboy male readers.
I find it incredibly hard to believe that any self-respecting man could digest this knowledge and view females as the victim in this case. Victims of nature? Perhaps. Victims of modern society? Most certainly not.
1 TurboTrashman 2018-05-19
JFL @ women thinking they're entitled to the best-looking men just because of "muh eggs"