Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Hi D4shawn, I watched your video, "Love Is Impossible,"
and I have some problems with your argument, and I have some questions.
In your video, you claim that there is an evolutionary argument for your view on what
men and women desire in one another. Specifically with regard to what women desire
in men, you claim that women are sexually attracted to a class called "lovers," basically
***, and that women desire "providers," or nice guys, when it comes time to procreate.
I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the evolutionary argument for these classifications.
Is it preferable for the species that women mate with *** and have nice guys raise
their children? If this were the case, wouldn't nice guys
die out as a result of not passing on their genes?
Or is it that women just desire *** but actually end up having children with nice
guys? If this were the case, what would be the evolutionary
impetus for women's desire of ***? Of course, this ignores the idea that ***
could provide for women materially. But what is it about *** that makes them
desirable from an evolutionary perspective? What is it about treating women poorly that
is advantageous to offspring?