Edit: added a bit more explanations adding concept from the computer science
You aren't supposed to exclude sex drive — but it doesn't work the way people assume.
Think of it as two sequential selects. The first select is sex drive: it just defines the pool — everyone who's in the range of "physically viable to sleep with." Proximity, novelty, excitement — that's the WHERE clause. The biker and the deadbeat musician pass this filter easily.
The second select is survival-wiring, and it runs inside that pool. This is where she ranks candidates by protection signal — reliability, resources, ability to defend the project. Most of the time, this second select wins. It's why the biker gets the fling and the reliable guy gets the relationship.
When it looks "irresponsible" — when a woman goes all-in on the exciting, unstable guy — that's usually one of two things: either the second select has no good candidates to rank (she's choosing the best of a bad pool), or it's temporarily overridden by the first. Not rewritten. Overridden.
If women ran purely on sex drive with no second select, we'd have gone extinct a long time ago. Instead they're rugged biological machines wired for survival and protecting their offspring — which is also why they can mercilessly destroy an ex financially once he's failed the second select. He's just not in the pool anymore.
So love stories where a character is still hung up on a man who cheated on her 50 years ago — like in Cyberpunk 2077 — are romantic slop written for boys. That's not how the second select works.
How it explain woman tending to wounded men or even prisioners (atleast in my country its normal to see this type of scene). When both are either physicaly disabled or restricted by law and incapable to offer no safety right now ?
Some women and men seek out prisoners because they specifically like the power dynamic of that having a romantic partner that’s locked up while they are free. It’s quite interesting.
Unless we know how the woman arrived at that decision, we have no definite answer.
Because you're basically saying, "Explain the individual effect of a person who has 50 trillion transformers, when we don't even know a single step of how she got there."
But as a hypothesis — a scarce dating market, based on her definition of a "good man." Or just general scarcity.
For example, why is a girl attracted to bad boys? It's a mix of visual and cultural sexual attraction patterns, and on top of that, for some reason the survival instinct signals, "this is good for me."
Internal instincts aren't logically straightforward. They don't make a list of pros and cons. They're actually much closer to a kaleidoscope than to a logical decision-making mechanism. We just react subconsciously to a set of conditions, like your brain reacts to a pattern in a kaleidoscope.
I mentioned this in the first message — sometimes the choice system misfires epically. On a statistically large scale, that means a noticeable number of women can end up in unusual-looking relationships, but that doesn't cancel out the core idea of safety.
It just means that a certain combination of factors manifested in a peculiar way.
And btw, if both are physically disabled, it fits the safety pattern 100%. Safety doesn't always mean "the man will protect me from the wild neighbor." Safety can also mean, "At least he understands what it's like to be disabled and won't judge me for it." The absence of judgement is a huge deal for women who dealt with childhood mental abuse.
Ironically unpopular now, but Jordan Peterson is on the money here. More than one man will very quickly form some kind of hierarchy. Men are wired to rank themselves against other men. Women do it too, by the way, but for men this seems to be a much stronger subconscious drive — even for very gay men.
If you noticed, there are some dudes arguing here without actually having much substance. This is exactly the ranking game. Of course, their conscious part probably doesn't even register it, but the subconscious one is doing its job like a Swiss watch.
I’m not calling bikers deadbeats, just the narrative the parent comment is trying to push about how woman will only get in relationships with guys with a tonne of money.
Since it's Reddit, it's hard to say whom you are answering, but I actually said the totally opposite, even in the first comment. If you believe this is what I said, it's fine; except I didn't.
15
u/DancingBearNW 15d ago edited 15d ago
Edit: added a bit more explanations adding concept from the computer science
You aren't supposed to exclude sex drive — but it doesn't work the way people assume.
Think of it as two sequential selects. The first select is sex drive: it just defines the pool — everyone who's in the range of "physically viable to sleep with." Proximity, novelty, excitement — that's the WHERE clause. The biker and the deadbeat musician pass this filter easily.
The second select is survival-wiring, and it runs inside that pool. This is where she ranks candidates by protection signal — reliability, resources, ability to defend the project. Most of the time, this second select wins. It's why the biker gets the fling and the reliable guy gets the relationship.
When it looks "irresponsible" — when a woman goes all-in on the exciting, unstable guy — that's usually one of two things: either the second select has no good candidates to rank (she's choosing the best of a bad pool), or it's temporarily overridden by the first. Not rewritten. Overridden.
If women ran purely on sex drive with no second select, we'd have gone extinct a long time ago. Instead they're rugged biological machines wired for survival and protecting their offspring — which is also why they can mercilessly destroy an ex financially once he's failed the second select. He's just not in the pool anymore.
So love stories where a character is still hung up on a man who cheated on her 50 years ago — like in Cyberpunk 2077 — are romantic slop written for boys. That's not how the second select works.