Human Sexual Behavior

>>8962898
Sometimes

File: Screenshot_20170607-211314.jpg (890KB, 1920x987px) Image search: [Google]

890KB, 1920x987px

>>8963032

>>8963032
>>8963034
This guy gets it

In the absence of any agency, males will naturally attempt to impregnate the first female they come across that phenotypically appears fit for breeding. Males will then attempt to provide for and protect this female for as long as she is continually birthing and rearing his children.
Females will have a pool of males to select from, and will choose the male that phenotypically appears to be the strongest and most capable of sheltering, protecting, and feeding her and her children. Usually those traits coincide with a dominant and aggressive personality. She will likely stay with that male until he cannot fulfill those duties.
Polygamy and hypergamy is unnatural; humans are naturally monogamous.

Fortunately, humans are not animals and have personal agency, and their choice in partners is not strictly defined by evo psych. So to answer your question, yes, passive men and women are "instinctually" less attractive than aggressive ones, but "instinctual" attraction means little in current society. I don't care about what the whining autists on /r9k/ said, because everything they say is a way to deflect blame away from themselves. This is the truth.

>>8962898
Opposites attract for a reason m8. Perhaps that's why those who love to hate each other are often closer than those who love each other.

wouldnt mind a dom gf 2bh

>>8964495
think human psychology went much further from that. Maybe this is for someone with a lower iq who depends more on their feelings and the chemicals their brain is giving them. While perhaps a person with higher iq can realise this.

your genes are the only thing that matters. darwin proved it with sexual dimorphism and secondary sex characteristics.

people that look good don't need to date the same woman 10 times, they are not being tested for value like average people.

>>8963032
Hm lol this is both right and wrong. While Chad's may get to ez pass certain tests if they're dumb they still end up with shit women and it's like this guy is chalking everything up to genetics just so he can excuse himself from being no fun or whatever.

Obviously girls is complicated so I wouldn't be able to explain it all here but cmon man like wtf. Do you know how many Chad's there are? Not many. Do you really think all girls go for Chad? Not really. But yeah like it's not all about being aggressive. Although having good genes is inherently aggressive to some degree.

Girls will say he looks like a guy you wanna fuck but he's probably a giant asshole. And that's just from looking at the guy, when he might actually be really nice. But obviously even nice Chad's will be dicks to people 'lower' than them.

But yeah it's all really complicated and you can't just say that to get off the hook. I've somehow managed to gather data from across the spectrum. I've had plenty of really hot girls go for me just because of time and place and being the Chaddest guy there and just like being with friends and having a good time. But I've had a rough life and that shit takes a toll. So when I'm feeling down on myself the rest of the world shits on me as hard as they can.

But yeah overall aggression is a bit attractive to me. Being a bitch successfully requires a bit of cunning. If a girl is capable of dominating a situation it's pretty attractive.

But there's just so much to it. Girls will sacrifice looks for bigger dicks usually. And girls have types n shit. They're also very suspicious these days. Just wait til you actually really like a girl and you did everything so right she thinks you're just a player before you throw your head into your hands