I do NOT trust heterosexual men anymore, because they make up stories and try manipulating you. They can get strange and are very jealous and try controlling you as if they own you.
Some, not all.
why is that most of us women want that emotional connection and other values in a man before we want to go further? Why is it men think differently?
Dawinism tends to explain it as conflicting strategies for maximising reproductive success, for a male to impregnate as many females as possible, but for females to keep a male hooked and providing support for rearing sprogs - even though they might not be his.
Some Darwinists also claim that they have empirical evidence of women being more likely to sneak off for a shag on the side around the time of peak fertility.
They think we owe them sex just because we have a vagina. I mean there is more to a female body than a pair of boobs and other bits. But men's raging testosterone is only one they blame but can't they just come up with a better explanation than this?
Some do, not all.
Maybe I should just become a lesbian lol
No harm in exploring
There are some interesting explanations for that in Darwinism - along the lines of females being more open to gay sex as a means of keeping a mutually supporting relationship cemented, and successfully raising sprogs as a result. that might also offer an explanation for why lesbian fantasies are popular in porn for males (those models don't look anything like the lesbians I know!).
I've used the word "darwinism" rather than something like "evolutionary behaviour" because it remains an assumption that evolutionary theories are fit to provide adequate explanations for what we see In the area of human behaviour.
In the area of behaviour of the sexes, there's a book review/critique/refutation in the journal of evolutionary psychology that you might find good, The title is something along the lines of "Sex in the evening", it's critiquing a book that was titled "sex in the morning" or "sex at dawn" (the journal gives free access on the net).
I think that there's a lot more there than a reductionist Darwinist would have us believe, but it does provide a good starting point.
As an example of that more, this is from economic reasoning: The only world that could be imagined in which it would
not be of any benefit for humans to cooperate with each other, would be one where we were all identical in likes, dislikes, abilities, interests, intelligence (or lack of), and where all land was equal too.
The more that we and our world differ from that imaginary all identical one, the more advantages there are in cooperation (including but not limited to trade and division of labour).
In a volountary exchange each party to it expects to gain something that they psychologically value more highly than what they give up (that works for charity too - the giver expects a psychological gain)
A parasite expects to gain without giving you anything which you particularly value (and naturally you are not willing to engage in the exchange)
we can only withstand supporting a very few parasites - we can't all be parasitic. (I can flesh this out if it's not clear).
Jass, I think that those little boys are trying to be parasitic.
The Ladies here will have better lines than I have for asking them if they've anything important to say - because you're too busy or it's too late, or you don't want to take a call, or listen to them bore you, or put up with their flirting etc.
@
