What leads to fear of commitment in men?

1. Then you should also call 'fear' women's avoidance of regular non-committal sex.
2. Another assumption made: robots are simple. Incorrect. They are complex enough that their behaviour highlights the rationality of our own behaviour.
3. Again, incorrect. Humans (just like like all mammals - and pretty much every single life form out there) are decision makers. This means that they make decisions. Emotions are essentially biochemical drives that serve to give humans goals. Not too different to wiring a machine to give it a goal.
4. Well, you could make the exact same argument for women's avoidance of non-committal sex. If you make that the equivalent argument for women, I will agree with you. Otherwise, this is biased towards the goals of the members of your sex (making males see commitment as a goal worth of all the risks it carries).
5. Is your father attracted to you? Jesus Christ.
6. Well you are trying to solve a puzzle and the strategy of many of the males you see as potential mates is to prevent your solving of the puzzle. I would say older men are more likely to go for commitment than younger ones. You could start there but the ultimate test is time. You can only keep up a façade for so long.
7. Gosh, you really don't know much about males do you? Surely, your experience with your partners must have taught you something. Let me spell it for you: I would say that as a rule of thumb, males value sex more than females do and they value non-committal sex higher than sex in a relationship. Now your average male might also value other things such as having someone to talk to when feeling down, having a partner as a symbol of someone's attractiveness and the like. But none of rate as high as sex. Note that this is a rule of thumb not a fact or universal that applies to every single male. It is merely a trend. That's the reason I only include sex for males and commitment for women (which interestingly enough, you did not question why I only consider commitment as women's only goal in the evolutionary game).

I don't think independence is an objective notion.

Well, fine, independent from your own point of view.

I don't think there is such thing as independence/independence as a discrete state.

What definition of independent do you subscribe to?

But where are these ladies? The entire legal system is flawed in favour of women so that's why marriage has become such a taboo, nobody can be trusted no more, one wrong turn and a man can lose his kids, wealth and his entire life.

Yes I agree that the family and divorce courts overall favour women and that is not fair and is a legitimate concern. However I think individuals within a relationship male or female must take at least a portion of responsibility for who they let into their lives.

Your original reference was to Kanye West and this is a large part of it in my view: not enough focus on love or empathy for our fellow human beings but instead a mutually competitive concoction of many men chasing ass, many women chasing money possibly originating from our human nature but undoubtedly catalysed by our materialistic, brainwashing society and culture and that enforces it all from birth.

Sadly its life, men will always want to satisfy their desires and women will always exploit this in their favour.

Thank you for your views. It is pretty sad but perhaps it is just part of the natural order of things a lot of time. I think there is a bigger message in all of this though, at least the way I see it, not just in terms of relationship with the opposite sex but to all our fellow human beings is to not just focus on what we can gain but what we can give to one another

My definition of independence is simply 'lack of dependence' where a causal relationship between two objects A and B does not exist and where A is the thing said to be independent and B is any other object.

That is fine I have no issues saying that 1. I, as a woman, have a fear of non-committal sex.

2. I never said robots are simple but a robot is no where near as complex as the human mind. However 3.if you would like to be dehumanised into an automaton that's up to you and I will refer to you as one from here on.
4. Humans are not just like any other mammal when it comes to decision making - you are not the same as your dog or a mouse or a dolphin or a chimp. 5.You have a lot more factors and a lot more complexity that influences you no matter how strong and logical you think you are.

6. I don't think the fear of women having sex outside of commitment is as pronounced since many women do have sex outside of relationships and marriages that is the norm. I personally have no desire to do this and I would rather wait for something that is meaningful to me but perhaps I am just a stubborn virgin as I understand that most people do not do that (men and women). 7.I'm not trying to make males see commitment as a goal I can't change anyone.

8.I want to know why they are so frightened of it and get a better understanding of it which I feel I am doing here. However 9.when you say things like the only benefit a woman can bring to a relationship is regular sex then I have to disagree and wonder what kind of woman have been entertaining you but I suppose that is none of my business. 10.My thread is not an attack on males and I nor am I saying that women are saints: I have acknowledged things such as child custody battles being unfair towards men, sex being free and cheaply available which puts some men off of commitment - which is what we women have done for ourselves we made our bed of freedom and now we have to lay in it. However I also on the other side think men and women (including myself) have to take responsibility for the kinds of people we attract and let into our lives. 11.If I chase a player I'm going to get played for instance... I can't then turn around and bemoan about all men. 12. If I were a man and married some hot young thing that wanted me for my money and utilities rather than the human being that I am I would later face the consequences. It is important to use caution and guard your heart yes, but it's sad that 13. I see a lot of young men writing off relationships for fear of being hurt, rinsed or not getting enough sex.

No of course my father is not attracted to me. 14. But do you not understand that good fathers play an integral role in bring up healthy children with a healthy self-esteem? Do you not understand that when a father leaves on his own accord or is forced out by a woman this brings great dysfunction and emotional trauma? The destruction of the family unit causes a lot of suffering and ultimately changes the fabric of society and interpersonal relationships for us all men and women. For both little girls and boys a father is the first and biggest example of what a man should be. I would hope that perhaps your own father taught you a lot about manhood, and perhaps you will have to take up the mantle one day if you have your own.

15. No I would never want to be with a man who doesn't want to be with me. I can't force anyone to feel any kind of way about me so no I won't be deploying 'strategies'. If someone is emotionally unavailable that is to do with them and there is nothing in this world I can do to change it. I'm not into tying someone down against their will because I want them to be happy too.

16. I will not disagree with your 'rule of thumb' and I would say that this constitutes to a lot of the answer to my original question. The reason why I asked why regular sex was the only goal in a relationship for men is because you gave so many benefits of being an eternal bachelor for men. I did not ask about women because once again I am not personally interested in this thread about women's views on relationships and commitment.

So is it your goal to be independent of as many things as possible?

No, it is not. What makes you think that?

1. But you are. You are using the term fear to describe males' avoidance of something that they are not interested in (commitment) without using the same term to describe females' avoidance of something that they are not interested in (non-committal sex).
2. No, you are not. You are here to learn what makes people do stuff you (presumably) want them to do. And I understand it, because what they what you want them to do is for your benefit.
3. See point 1.
4. I already told you. It's the evolution of sex, the so-called sex arms-race
5. See point 4.
6. Another assumption you made: men are becoming more distrusting of women. I have lost count of how many assumptions you made.
7. Well, there is a collection of factors whose interplay result in the current distribution of sexual behaviour you see.
8. See point 3
9. Nor does it affect the interests of many males insofar as it does influence the sexual availability of said individual
10. See point 5

You might also want to read my first post again. Seems like quite a few TSR users agree with what I stated there.



It is like the milkmaid tale. If you think too ahead without ensuring the path that leads to it, you jeopardise your future. Thus, it is logical that someone who wants to ensure the future, takes steps to ensure the present. And the only way available to someone to do that is by making someone promise he won't run away the second he sees someone more suitable. In other words, you make the person make that implicit promise by making him commit to stay to you. This is an evolutionary strategy that is seen in mammals whose ovulation is not visible. And apparently, it works wonders!

From your post it seemed as if you thought independence was generally preferable to dependence.

1.were not quite animals in that regard and 2.theres more subtle ways of holding onto your man like backing off sometimes and not asking him difficult questions and making demanding romantic requests.

2. by all means dont holiday in playboy mansion.dont give them opportunity to cheat...but certainly give him the freedom to make his own choices. if he cheats that way he was the wrong one. if he hasnt great he could be the one. locking him up wont get you anywhere whether hes keeper or not. hell most likely run.

I don't. I think, under a range of situations independence is preferable to dependence. I don't think independence (given any interpretation of the term and applied to any situation) is generally preferable to dependence. Gosh, that would probably make me anti-science and anti-logic! Can't you see it? I would thought that much was obvious if you have read my posts in this thread.

1. In which regard exactly?
2. I would bet £200 right now that your strategy is not totally effective or even effective in 50% of the cases in a large enough random sample.
3. I have nothing to say about that

Sorry, I'm a pleb, so the hand-wavey pseudo-philosophical bull**** you've been posting rather bored me.

Word of advice: don't be a sarcastic little swot next time someone asks you a question. It's nauseating and obnoxious.