Frosty

If the trait is harmless or mostly harmless then there's no real pressure to squash it, for example not sticking your dick in crazy has a lot of positive effects and so is good advice for men, where as not buying fancy $300 shoes as apposed to spending $300 on some other luxury good, that's not so bad. Generally speaking because of females natural advantage in the sexual market place men aren't that quick to be judgmental, it does nothing to help your chances. I'm an edge case who isn't actively pursuing a partner so I have the luxury of judging women without repercussion. It's not attractive in any way that men appreciate i doubt, some shoes such as heels alter physical appearance (appearance of longer legs, bum sticks out), but I think other than that there's no strong tendance for it to be directly attractive, as I said before it's likely a biological traits evolved for another purpose and is mal-adapted for modern day, although what the original purpose is I have no idea. Modern human civilization came about at the snap of the fingers in evolutionary-time so we've not yet adapted to our new surroundings and social pressures. Some men like nice, intelligent women, that's not always the case, many men still think with their penis. I'm not sure that romance is really an important factor for men who are younger and playing the field, romance is really at the root of a more long term relationship where you expect trust and respect and you want to gauge the other persons other values than just how good they look or how strong the initial sexual attraction is. Sexual orientation is decided at a different stage during fetal development which means that sexual orientation is independent of gender and hence isn't tied to gender, and I'm hypothesising that it's gender that's primarily tied to femininity/masculinity. There's very feminine gay men for example, there's also very masculine gay men, there's very feminine gay women and very butch gay women which seems to support this idea. Just keep in mind that componens of sexual humanity are all spectrums and they're all completely independent as explained here http://media01.commpartners.com/AMA/sexual_identity_jan_2011/index.htmlat step 3 in the index. I think it's possible for people who's gender identity is opposite of their bioloigical sex (trans) can take on a social role (masculine/feminine) which is opposite from their gender identity (that is to say aligned with their biological sex), but that appears to be extremely rare as I understand it, it's common for trans people to simply be feminine if they feel like they have a female brain, and masculine if they feel like they have a male brain.

A good point, my anecdotal observation is that men accept getting red pilled on gender and sexual theory much easier that women, and I think that's not necessarily because there's some harsh truths about women, because there's also harsh truths about men, but rather more to do with a common trait with women to take generalities about females personally. There's a really cool woman called Karen Straughan AKA GirlWritesWhat who speaks on gender theory and mens rights quite a lot, and she's pointed out that men like her because she's one of the rare females that can talk about female behaviour in a sensible and sane way without flipping out assuming she's being personally accused of that behaviour. I actually also spotted a thread started by a woman in the FDR forums... *edit* I've found it now here - https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/44092-im-a-woman-and-im-stuck/ I think it's a great example of this, it reads: "I would love some insight from an outsider (who may have personally dealt with this problem before too?) I am having trouble trusting myself and my feelings. For instance, when I listen to podcasts about how manipulative and money-grubbing women can be I find myself getting a little uncomfortable As if he were pointing me out and specifically telling me I'm a terrible human being. (I realize this is totally irrational, that's the problem) I find that I have had to talk myself down on a number of occasions by reminding myself that I am not like those women at all. I am in a wonderful, committed relationship with a good and virtuous man, and we have spent a long time together working to find reason and consistency in how we live our lives. My problem is that I am having a hard time dissociating rational feelings from irrational "crazy girl" emotions that could be manipulative on some level. I am really trying to set myself apart from all of the other women out there who manipulate their way to where they want. Has anyone else experienced this?"

Femininity and masculinity are just behavioural traits which are commonly associated with sex, they're common to the sexes because the biology of males and females is different under normal circumstance, there are some outliers but this is really due to abnormal biological development. I've read a lot about human biological development spurred on in large part because of the thread on transgenderism on the FDR forums and being educated on how foetal development works and how you get the broad range of different people with varying degrees of sex, gender and sexuality and this ties naturally into masculinity and femininity because they're related to gender. During early development we start off the same, pretty much on the path to develop bioloigically as female, however the introduction of testosterone is what triggers a foetus to develop differently and that's how we get males. Testosterone exposure changes physical characteristics such how genitals form, but it also makes changes to brain development which is where we get our sense of gender from (gender being distinct from sex) and it's largely this sense of gender which accounts for masculine and feminine traits. Testosterone makes males aggressive both in terms of competing with each other for resources but also sexual partners, it accounts for higher sex drive. It's also really strongly correlated with interest in systems vs people, for example female new born babies will tend to stare at faces as a preference over objects/systems and they'll stare for longer, males tend to prefer objects/systems and again stare for longer, this is all before there's any social influence. Testosterone is also strongly correlated with interest in STEM fields in later life, and not just for males, if a female has an over exposure to testosterone during foetal development then she'll be much more likely to be interest in STEM in later life, long term studies following babies into adulthood have confirmed this. I wouldn't say that these things are inherently superficial, but they can manifest in ways which are superficial for sure, it's a fairly feminine trait to be obsessed with shoes for example. But these traits exist for evolutionary reasons, we stood a better chance at passing on or genes if we behaved in certain ways, in modern society where we suddenly have this different environment full of things we didn't evolve to deal with these existing traits cause odd behaviours. Women needed to be more nurturing to take care of children while men hunted and protected, so it shouldn't be strange to see a preference for women to like to work with children (childcare, teaching) and in places that are based around nurturing such as nursing and care work, and that's exactly what we see. Regarding women being sexy when doing traditionally male things, I think it's just novelty, I got stuck in this trap of really expecting to find a woman who is interested in the same kind of intellectual things I am and that making for the jackpot girlfriend that ticks all the boxes, someone I could share hobbies with but in reality this is just the hunt for the male-brained, tomboy-like female which is a fairly rare thing because it's an abnormality, evolutionarily speaking. I gave up on that a long time ago. Gender certainly isn't black or white, it's a scale or a range of behaviours, where you sit on that scale is largely defined by testosterone exposure during development at certain specific weeks, it's typical for male to be more masculine because during normal or average development the levels of testosterone stay the same throughout pregnancy, so its typical for males to be masculine and females to be feminine, but levels can fluctuate over time, and for males if it drops during the time your sense of gender is developing then you may be very feminine in fact you may develop a brain structure which is closer to that of a female and this is what leads to gender/body dysphoria and trans people. The same kind of fluctuations at different weeks during development also are believed to account for sexuality and that's how we get gay/straight orientation. The desire for trans people to transition and have surgery is something that was speculated would solve the problem but modern medical science has more or less concluded that it doesn't fix the underlying psychological issues, it seems like transitioning by taking hormones may be more successful and leads to more mental stability, I know that surgery is becoming more frowned upon, Johns Hopkins who pioneered the surgery now don't do it any more. Anarcho capitalists and libertarians are very intellectually reasoned positions from simpler principles, and men have a naturally greater interest in these kinds of pursuits so it just makes sense that anything intellectual like that is much more male orientated, i'd like to clarify that it's not because women aren't as capable, it's simply to do with interest. It's not specific to libertarians and ancaps either, it's really broad, you'll find a way higher male attendance at sceptical thinkers groups, atheist groups, in all of STEM fields, they're all sausagefests. Conversely it seems like that our modern move towards a much more leftist and socialist world is in large part due to women entering into the voting pool. Size of government and government spending on socialist programs all explode after women start voting en masse, side by side the graphs are of when women votes started and how the metrics of government changed. And that shouldn't be too surprising, to be femimine is to be more empathetic and have preference for safey nets in direct opposition to the testosterone driven competition and win/loss that men tend to prefer. I also saw this image the other day which I thought was telling: I think the good news is that we're no longer bound by our natural instincts, we're influenced by them but we can intellectually understand that they're influences and make decisions that supersede them. The bad news (I guess?) is that in terms of education and job selection/preference, is that the more freedom we have to choose the more people align with their natural instincts/desires, there's more gender bias in jobs in the freer countries and less bias in less free countries. Links to an excellent documentary on gender studies/science (has english subs), I highly recommend for a more sane and scientific look at gender: https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/1vuho8/the_documentary_that_made_scandinavians_cut_all/ And the most helpful science i've seen as posted in the trans thread on FDR forums: http://media01.commpartners.com/AMA/sexual_identity_jan_2011/index.html

I believe it's for 2 major reasons. 1) Women are naturally more cautious and risk averse than men, they tend to prefer safety and when that gets converted into a political stance it comes out as leftist/socialist, I think that's just a biological propensity and is linked with the lack of testosterone. 2) Women are naturally less interested in intellectual topics such as philosophy, this is just something we observe all throughout deep intellectual subjects, they're much rarer in STEM fields, intellectual gathers such as skeptics, atheists and hobby groups for building, designing and working on projects. I don't think women are less capable, at least not significantly, the differences in IQ are well measured now, men tend to have a very slightly higher average and the bell curve of distribution is flatter which means more men are in both the low and high IQ ends of the spectrum than women. Otherwise they're strikingly similar. Women just aren't interested in this stuff, their minds work differently to males, they develop in the absence of testosterone and that creates a fundamental and irreversible difference in the structures of male and female brains. Obviously that's an average and some degree of drift from that average is seen. From my experience generally speaking women tend to prefer the emotional appeal of socializing and the rewards of helping people which is why so many prefer care jobs, teaching, nursing and looking after people and so few pursue intellectual pursuits like STEM education, philosophy, politics and alike. I think to be an anarchist you need to really to have thought deeply about social systems, ethics, morality, politics, philosophy and those sorts of things bore the average woman to tears.

What are the other options? That men find young and skinny women attractive because someone told us to? Or because media portrays it this way? Quite frankly I find all of the alternatives absurd. It's a common feminist assumption that media depiction of women fuels men to prefer that body type, when in reality the exact opposite is the case, as usual among feminists, the cause and effects have become confused, in the same way they think women are feminine because they grew up with feminine toys, and men grew up with masculine toys. It's not that there's a great toy conspiracy it's just that toy makers are businesses in a free market and which ever meets the demand of their target customers are the ones which are more successful, the same goes for fashion/lifestyle magazines portraying sexy women. As such the products evolve to most closely match that of the demand through trial and error and ultimately the best thing winning out. It's almost inconceivable that the preferred body type for men isn't something guided by evolutionary processes because it guides just about every other aspects of our biology. There is obviously some variation about a more general trend as there is with almost every metric related to human or animal behaviour, but the average is very clear. If you look younger, fitter, and slimmer then you're generally more attractive than if you were fatter and unhealthy. Also this more recent fat positivity movement to try make fat people feel good is trying to divorce weight from health which is stupid because they're so well correlated for a huge number of medical issues, again generally fatter people are less healthy, this isn't controversial outside of feminist rhetoric.

No I made an observation about general behaviour and then correlated that with statistics observed in real life. Women typically try and settle with a partner before they hit the wall and lose a lot of their sexual market value, this traditionally has been done through marriage and children.

I tend to side with this sentiment, I think more importantly the kind of women that Stef suggests you look out for, those women who have some self knowledge and know a bit of philosophy and things like that, these women are a tiny number as a ratio to similar minded men, you only need look no further than the ratio of males to females on FDR, who post, comment and attend meetups, the ratio of women at atheist clubs, at libertarian meetups, at skeptics meetups etc. If you want one of those women you need to best a huge number of men in order to stand a chance, those women have a lot of value because they're rare and so get to pick and chose between their best options. That's a seriously rigged game for men and a huge number of men who play, through no fault of their own, will simply fail, it's a mathematical certainty. This is partly why I stick to the MGTOW philosophy - I'd happily play this game if the rewards scaled with the effort in, but they don't, and it's a problem compounded by the fact that women tend to date up in general.

Just for the record I think it's really extremely bad form for a board on philosophy to have banned free will and determinism discussion, and since in some ways it's threatening to a libertarian position that makes it even more suspect. The science is increasingly more certain on this, the world behave deterministically on large scales, and a lot of the major scientists such as theoretical physicists are saying that free will in the classical sense is basically an illusion. There's several really good arguments for determinism that come out of physics and not just brand new quantum physics but well established things like the special theory of relativity which infers that space time is a 4D object and which exists at all points and therefore the future is fixed, time is not absolute but relative which means observers depending on their motion can in theory observe events in the future from the perspective of other individuals. Look up the plane of simultaneity to get a good idea for how this works. I'm somewhat of a compatibalist, I think that certain notions of free will are compatible with the idea of a deterministic universe but probably not the kind of free will that most people are thinking of, it depends how you define free will. I think the limit of our ability to make choices is that our brain is going to make the same choice given the same input so we make choices in the sense that it occurs in the mechanics of our brain, but the brain cannot produce 2 different outputs (decisions) for the same input (stimulus) it can only ever produce 1 output which is the decision you make or the action you take. There's a lot of advancements in neuroscience that prove that unconscious parts of our brain make decisions before the conscious part is aware of them, it's the conscious part of the brain which is our experience of spontaneously making these decisions when in reality we're not, this is now super easy to prove. This suggests we have neural architecture which is set up to fool ourselves into feeling we have control and the freedom of choice, and certainly most people who discuss free will would like to think that our decision making if it's in our control at all has to come from the conscious part of the brain that is our moment to moment experience, if you have no "control" over your subconscious and how it makes decisions before they arrive in you stream of consciousness then this is no more classical free will than a deterministic brain. Again I think the outright banning of determinism and related talk on a philosophy board is extremely bad form, there should be no discussions in philosophy that are banned especially for ones which are so hotly contested by both sides, the arguments about waste of space and bandwidth on the server and alike are extremely pathetic in my opinion.

This sounds a lot like me and my brother actually, we'd go out for beers down the pub after work regularly and be always buying each other rounds and whatnot and managing it was a pain because it's easy to forget who owes who how much, in the end he wrote a little android mobile app which just held a difference between us and then whoever was in debt to the other would just buy the next round. One of the best things we ever did, just tap in who paid and how much, you don't need spreadsheets and stuff like that because we're not interested in how much we spent or on what, we were simply interested in make sure we were both paying fairly, we weren't bothered about there being say a £30 difference at any one time, just that it always tended towards being fair. I could see that working well in relationships to be honest, if you're trying to maintain financial fairness, he never actually published the app though just left it as a development version.

I don't see it as denying myself an experience, I see as trading that experience for peace of mind, financial and legal security among other things. It's easy to look at just what you lose and not at what you gain, when I think about these things I try and balance the two. I understand where you're coming from, we just value these things differently and so choose different ways to approach it.

It's strange in the sense that it doesn't really happen very often, the stats on that are about 95% of the time it's men asking women, that's just to do with the asymmetric nature of sexual market value, generally speaking young and healthy women have a lot of it where as men struggle to get it, this creates the imbalance where women tend to have many suitors from which they can pick, women in general can afford not to ask men out and they'll be OK. It's not strange in the sense that it would bother me, that would be quite flattering really. Feminists rant that they don't need men to pay for everything, so we have a class of women who are fairly principled about splitting the bill, but then we have the women who feel it should remain a traditional thing that men do it and they can expect that and get away with it because again men don't have a huge amount of choice. I don't think dates are expensive enough for it to really bother me either way, what I think is a bigger problem is the tension and awkwardness that comes with not having a broadly accepted etiquette and needing to discuss it, I think people worry about making good first impressions on dates and worry that discussing it mostly just invites making yourself look bad. Feminist leaning people may find it offensive if you insist to pay the whole thing as if they're not capable, if you go the other way and discuss splitting it the traditional women are going to frown upon this, and if you discuss it openly you risk 50/50 chance of ending up in one of those camps. In some ways things were easier the traditional way, most people knew what to expect and so there's less anxiety and worry.

Again lazy is just more social shaming. When someone weighs the pro's and cons of something and comes to a decision that it's not in their best interest to opt into a system which is toxic to them, that person isn't lazy, they're just risk averse and value their freedom, independence and assets more than they value what relationships provide them. People weight these things differently depending on different factors such as experience, knowledge, personality etc. If I couldn't be bothered because I was lazy, I would just say that I can't be bothered.

My personal view is that whoever does the asking for the date should pay, so if I offer to take someone to dinner then I cover the costs of the whole thing, if they insist on paying half because they feel bad then I'm happy for them to contribute. The main problem is that the tradition of men paying which everyone understood and agreed with for the longest time has been ruined by modern feminism where equality is such a hot topic and now no one knows what is best, there is no etiquette anymore that will suit everyone, it just requires discussion of it.

I've had extended conversations with MMX across this board, please don't try and pretend that you know better, I'm aware of his reputation but I find debate with him generally pretty useful as he makes me question my position on things, I know that a lot of the FDR community aren't capable of dealing with him without neg repping him into oblivion There's no reason to believe there's anything like an afterlife, when I die my brain will be dead and I won't have the ability to contemplate anything. I'm not wasting time searching for the unicorn, I'm a MGTOW and reject most social norms regarding intimate relationships, I don't waste my time with essentially pointless endeavours, the game is rigged and I don't play rigged games. Don't make the mistake of assuming you're the only person that knows what it's like to be with beautiful women, or that others will find the same value in that as you do.

No I didn't, where did I say that? I said the number is lower which seems to be trivially true given things like the ratio of men to women of FDR boards, given the almost zero attendance of women in FDR meetups, given the almost zero interest in libertarianism, anarchism and philosophy in general. I don't see that the reasons for why this is the case are terribly important for men, we're not here to fix women, I'm not interested in taking someone with little to no self knowledge and then educating them, as a fully mature adult I'm looking for another fully mature adult to partner with. This is shaming language, don't worry MGTOWs get this all the time, fundamentally because when you run out of arguments against the position the only weapon left in your arsenal is to attempt to socially shame that person, it's a type of emotional manipulation and it won't work because you have fundamentally failed to understand MGTOW. MGTOW is expressly about disregarding social peer pressure put on men to conform to systems that are bad deals for us, so here are MGTOWs saying "we're not going to listen to your social shaming any more because it's not in our best interest" to which you respond with "<insert social shaming here>", I don't know what to say to that...other than calling me a coward isn't going to manipulate me into behaving in a way which is in line with your agenda. Most MGTOWs do know what it means to love and be loved, you're making an assumption that the decision to reject social norms such as LTRs and marriage is done without the knowledge of what it's like to love/be loved, which in many cases is just flat out wrong. A huge number of men arrive at MGTOW through bad experiences with relationships and getting dicked over by a system explicitly hostile to men. It's funny you end with looking for women in STEM, who are vastly outweighed by men, comes full circle about proving my point about the imbalance in numbers.

This actually raises a good point because one of the trends we've seen more recently is that women have been pricing themselves out of the sexual marketplace. A young, healthy and attractive woman already comes out the gate with an automatically high SMV for almost no cost/work, so when these women are accomplished, wealthy, have good careers and great future prospects the pool of equivalent men dramatically shrinks. It seems the next step to making the most of such high SMV is to date multiple men at the same time, find medium to high value males who on their own would be considered dating down, but then juggle several men at once, they'll tolerate it to have access to higher status women than they'd otherwise be able to get. The thought of that is really creepy and unsettling, but then we know that womens loyalty is generally much lower than mens, they'll swap partners at the drop of a hat and deal with post break up much better.

Also isn't it interesting that in France, having a paternity test done in order to establish the genetic father in order to potentially get out of child support payments for children which aren't biologically your own, is illegal. Let that sink in for a second.

There was some discussion of this in the much larger thread on transsexualism, several of the sources of information were interesting, it looks like a lot of the conditions for creating transexual people are similar to creating homosexual people, testosterone exposure at different times during foetal development is responsible for most of this stuff, if sex hormones present spike for whatever reason at specific times then it makes permanent changes to the structure of the brain, the main differences between your sense of gender and your sexuality is the weeks during foetal development the spikes occur, If I remember correctly sense of gender is somewhere around 11 weeks and sense of sexual orientation is later around the 30 week mark. I don't know if genetic traits of mothers can lead to abnormal testosterone production, I suppose that's possible, I think a lot of it is environmental. But I don't think that the genetics of the individual who turns out to be homosexual actually play much of a direct role.

I think the problem with these ideas is that the number of philosophical, logical and open minded men severely outweigh the same kind of women, so whatever strategy you have as a man it can only really ever work out for a relatively small number of us. I'm not a fan of those kinds of odds so I just opt out the whole thing, you could discuss strategy for creating more women who are like this but I think that's a cross-generation change that's required with peaceful parenting and all that jazz, so not a realistic option for men today.

I'm happy to continue dialogue with MMX, I don't think he's a troll he just appears as if he is one on some issues. I've more or less already said what I think a Unicorn is, someone with some self knowledge, some knowledge of philosophy, primarily in the context of being aware of her own irrationality and biological urges (such as hypergamy) and keeping them in check. Someone that makes choices based on logic rather than emotion and of course someone that is virtuous, these kind of unicorns wouldn't be shit testing men which you'd have to "pass" as PUA teaches us, instead these women women would be honest and up front with what they want and what they expect, no mind games or messing about. None of that precludes sexual activity, not sure what I've said that makes you think that's what I mean by Unicorn? I certainly think if a woman knew what she wanted and that was a stable relationship and family with a respectable man then she might conclude that at least some respectable men don't want to seek LTRs and marriage with women who are overly sexually promiscuous (riding the cock carousel) and so they might show restraint in this area. They're not, which is why these women are referred to as Unicorns, they're exceptionally rare. PUAs would say that this is creating emotional tension in a situation which didn't already have it, which is like fuel for a lot of women, they live off that emotional roller-coaster. But again the problem with that tactic is that when you use this you're just landing yourself women who want emotional roller-coasters, great for hooking up to sleep with women, but that's setting yourself up for a major fail when it comes to a LTR relationship where you want stability and long term viability. What I'm also trying to say is that I think a Unicorn would also find that kind of behaviour obvious and manipulative and probably be put off by it, so you also run the risk of potentially driving away women which are better LTR material, and if they really are that rare then that's not a good strategy. But then PUA seems to be aimed at getting laid and not at starting a LTR so I guess it's just a case of using the right tool for the job. Honestly the whole thing kinda disgusts me at this point, It makes me want to have absolutely nothing to do with women, the more I discuss these ideas and read about PUA and various other red pill theory the faster my respect for women just drains away. Yeah I can see that the strategy of getting some tail is better than risking not getting any by chasing the ever elusive unicorn, that seems like a fine conclusion to me, I just don't feel like lowering myself to that, I can't help but feel that at some point men just threw standards out the window. I guess I'm just lucky in that I generally feel content outside of an intimate relationship so just doing away with the whole lot is a viable choice for me.

I've seen a few articles and videos about this over the years, from what I understand womens happiness relative to men's has been decreasing for the better part of 40 years, one of the more interesting videos I've seen on this is by Danielle Crittenden promoting a book she published about 16 years ago, she goes straight for feminism as one of the causes for decline. Full interview here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7h_ni-TeSvo I also tend to align with Gavin McInnes on this, he's very traditional and is pretty bold abotu asserting that most women would be happier at home looking after children, you can see him clash with a woman about this here, quite funny: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OlmKXbMQfc I think the truth is that feminism has pushed so hard for equality that they've denigrated traditional female roles of being a good mother and raising children as special and important in their own right, and taught several generations of young women that unless they're as strong an independent as men then they're not equal. Feminisms biggest problem is that they ignore the bioloigical differences between men and women and pretend that we can both be happy and fullfilled doing the same things, and I'd argue that on average we cannot, that men get a satisfaction from working and building things that women simply don't get, women have found some satisfaction in care roles where they work with people and look after them, but they could be doing that at home with their own children and more frequently they're not. Don't really have any sympathy for women though, it's up to them to figure out what they want and treat feminism critically, if they can't do that then too bad, it's their loss.

I've seen this video just recently and quite frankly It's stuff like this that gives me a little bit more hope for humanity, there are honest women out there who acknowledge and support logical and fact based conclusions by caring enough to look at the statistics and make their own judgement outside of the feminist politically correct rhetoric. I get the impression that this isn't a popular position however, almost no women seem to voice this opinion or back it up openly, I guess the result is kind of what Lauren experienced, backlash from hordes of angry feminists. I have a lot of respect for people actually willing to stand up and back this position, these are the people who are for true equality.

I gave my reason when I posted it. You don't have an advantage, you have an anecdote, anecdotes aren't data so we don't really know anything more substantial, we also can't confirm what you're saying or if the women you're seeing really fits our definition of unicorn. The fact that something is hypocritical isn't dependent on a persons point of view, either it is or it isn't and having double standards is a clear case of hypocrisy, I don't think that's up for debate it's just basic logic. This doesn't come from my suspicion, it comes from the definition of unicorn, which loosely means (among other things) that these women have self knowledge and know some philosophy.

Where did I proclaim that I'm able to predict exactly how she's going to think and feel? I said that I suspect one thing and then I gave the reason for why I suspected it. Jesus Christ you're the king of misrepresenting what people are saying. I don't have hard stats just the impression I've got from looking over thousands of profiles in my area, it seems like a trait of older women, they want to settle down when they see a lot of their friends doing the same which is something I've read a lot, they're also probably looking to have children before it's too late, most of them have their children preferences set to "want children". The amount of casual sex will differ greatly from woman to woman, although it'll be higher on average with age the stats on partners for women can differ greatly from what I've seen, no doubt that depends on many other factors. If they have had a lot of casual sex then it would be hypocritical of course, but thats kinda my point with regards to unicorn women, they're the kind of people who know its hypocritical to have standards for other people which they don't meet themselves, so don't ride the cock carousel and that gives them the moral grounds to look for men who are less promiscuous. It is possible however that they are just enlightened though, I read a lot of profiles which state in no uncertain terms that they're done with bad boys because they know it goes no where, that's something it seems that a lot of women had to learn through experience and couldn't work out through having a bit of self knowledge and using their brain.

Just for the record, physics tells us that the universe is deterministic, that's a relatively uncontroversial point of view in science right now, our choices are made by deterministic systems and influenced by deterministic systems, the outcome is deterministic. There's different reasons for believing this but the simplest that I'm aware of comes out of special relativity - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity "In physics, the relativity of simultaneity is the concept that distant simultaneity – whether two spatially separated events occur at the same time – is not absolute, but depends on the observer's reference frame." It means that in theory you could observe events that are in another observers future, for this to be the case those events have to have a fixed outcome. This is something that all the major respected physicists seem to agree on, Lawrence Krauss, Brian Greene, Leonard Susskind etc. Here's a documentary with Brian Greene explaining simultaneity in a fairly easy to absorb way - That kills the idea of traditional free will in the sense that at any time we're free to pick any choice we like, we're not, our decisions are influenced by prior events. I happen to think that's compatible with libertarianism and certain other definitions of free will, free will is defined in all sorts of ways. Back to your original point which I'm struggling a bit to grasp, but seems to be that educating ourselves and each other is the primary way to create an outcome which is desirable. I think that's just inherently true, to be able to interact with the universe in a rational way you need to first understand how it works. To say that the rapist is just inherently bad because he chose to be bad is an ignorant way of viewing the universe, when we understand that he was almost certainly abused as a child and we know how to look for these things and correct them, we can start producing a society with less rapists, these are ideas which value the scientific view of cause/effect and determinism and avoid the judgement of bad decisions. Its funny because when we really want to solve a problem we go straight to science and physics to maximize our chance at interacting with reality in a way that will get us what we want (e.g less rape), but we're still happy to judge others as being free to make that decision when we want to point blame or get retribution.