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

Second, and my specific point, is that what the female attraction circuits perceive as "good" might have nothing to do with adaptive quality, and be just a superstimulus. That's how psychopathy holds a niche in societies. It's not women's business to contain it: that's left to the wider society. Women have notoriously narrow social scope, and their limiting switches are external.

Well it's essentially novelty within a scope, right. So traits that are novel or stand out from the rest of her social bubble are going to stand out and be attractive.

But those attractive traits still generally follow the same playbook. Good looks, tall, strong, social proof, status, provisioning etc.

My point is that today there is really nothing inherently "good" about the female sexual strategy boosting "good" male genes. Whether a "superstimulus gene" proves adaptive, neutral or maladaptive takes several generations, and has no straightforward relation to the person's wellbeing.

Evoluiton is inherently about trying random shit and seeing what sticks. But the idea of passing on better genes to your offspring is pretty hardwired.

But it's also selfish. If she can mate with a "good genes" guy, there's at least a chance she can get some benefit from said guy.

@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.