Think I mentioned this earlier re "plates bouncing back".

Recently, been dealing with the most random behaviour from ex-plates. Bouncing back and then bouncing off, and I can't really wrap my head around it.

Plate 1:

After months of no contact, she messages me out of the blue and invites me to her apartment. I come around, we have a few drinks. She gets out the lingerie and all the stops like she's trying to impress me. We fuck. Next morning she begs me to stay (which I did). We go out for some wholesome day. We fuck some more. She cooks me dinner etc. She gives me loads of food as I leave. Messaging me all the way home. Next morning, one word replies, doesn't want to know me, haven't spoken since.

Plate 2:

Seeing each other for a while. We have an argument and she storms out of my apartment. Months later she turns up at my door unannounced. She then start messaging me and seeing me regularly again. Starts inviting me to events with her friends etc. Then out of nowhere, disappears again. No love lost on that one but yeah.

Plate 3:

Saw eachother for a while and then after a disagreement (probably my fuck up) she leaves. 6 months later she drunkly texts me, there’s some flirting and she invites herself back. That week, she's asking to come over every other day. Next week, I get a random text from her asking if I think shes rude. Bit confused, she eventually clarifies she's been on a date with a guy who was really rude to her, her self confidence is bad - "No you're alright, come over if you want". Maybe slightly BP but idgaf. No reply until 4 days later - "Eventually".

That won't even get a response.

But yeah. I get the concept of girls coming back for easy dick which is probably the case, but just really bizarre that all of these have happened at once.

@adam-l I totally agree that pedestalling female sexual strategy seems to be the entire substrate of a lot of this society's art, literature, TV and film. This is, amusingly enough, a social construct.

The left like to tell us that facts like gender are social constructs. That is untrue. They are reality.

What is true that a fact like female dual sexual strategy can be used to create a social construct. Society has worked very successfully without unchecked female sexual strategy being dominant but we are tod this is the way of the world. It would be constraining and morally wrong if it were otherwise. this is a social construct that is damaging society.

Where it gets interesting is in the interplay between the sexual strategies. This is where art, film and literature suddenly start to become powerful. But this is very rare today. When one sex is on top, the other has to get very creative. Today men are getting creative. Life is getting interesting again.

@First-light

Let me elaborate:

I'm not claiming that "nothing inherently good". Obviously, looks is inherently good, and related to good health.

I mainly have psychopathy in mind, as well as other "fast life" genes.

The most represenaltative example is Huntington's disease. It's genetic, leathal, and has a higher representation in the population than what would be expected, mainly because it leads to disinhibition, and women like that.

So, a specific trait that is attractive to females "might have nothing to do with adaptive quality". This is the area of "genetic viruses".

Mine is all an argument against the pedestalization of the female sexual strategy. I believe that nowadays, that it is endorsed by the system and is protected from the male-sociey's checks, it is detrimental rather than adaptive, the same way a virus let loose on a virgin population.

@adam-l "Women's limiting switches are external" -brilliant pithy line.

The hive is their greater limiter. This is why the way that "good" women behave is so different in different countries and at different times in history.

I am not so sure about the "nothing inherently good" point. I think the process has proved to be inherently good because over history it has led to more success than failure for the offspring and therefore for the genes of the woman and the man she selects. Evolution is a 4 D process and we only see the good over time. What actually happens in this one 3 D slice of the genes' history is not as important as the overall picture. Getting knocked up by Chad who then vanishes may not do Stacy any good but Chad junior may become quarterback on a big team one day and knock up a lot so cheerleaders.

The hive itself has some idea of what is likely to be good genes to select. Men the hive pre-selects are more likely to be good choices. This pre selection is itself to some extent 4 dimensional. Women have boosted young Chad and his confidence all the way from his grandmother to the girls who wish they were Stacy. They all boost him because he appears to have good value.