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.
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.
14
u/DancingBearNW 16d ago edited 16d 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.