[Seadog]

I was thinking about this the other day, that most things that "feel" right have a deeply routed evolutionary purpose from our lives back in the cave man days.

EG the reason why approach anxiety takes such a strong hold, is that for thousands of years, approaching the wrong girl and failing had long lasting social and potentially physical consequences, so those of us that were cautious, made out better long term.

So what's the deal with oneitis? it seems like a number of guys flirt with it, if not get fully carried away with it. Why hasn't this behaviour been evolved out over the years? I can't imagine the situation where singly obsessing over one girl who doesn't want you, and who by doing so, finds you less and less attractive is a plus.

It's mainly present in betas/people who are generally weak with game. Does that have anything to do with it maybe?

Or is it purely an environmental development? Guys have bought into the whole "one for everyone" and "if you buy her enough flowers she'll love you" routine?

If it is indeed purely environmental, oneitis seems as contrary to evolutionary biology as approaching lots and lots of girls does. Why is it that the former takes hold and seems as natural as day to some, yet the latter remains to some degree in almost all men in many cases?

[Therapsid]

(03-24-2013 01:40 AM)Seadog Wrote:  

I was thinking about this the other day, that most things that "feel" right have a deeply routed evolutionary purpose from our lives back in the cave man days.

EG the reason why approach anxiety takes such a strong hold, is that for thousands of years, approaching the wrong girl and failing had long lasting social and potentially physical consequences, so those of us that were cautious, made out better long term.

So what's the deal with oneitis? it seems like a number of guys flirt with it, if not get fully carried away with it. Why hasn't this behaviour been evolved out over the years? I can't imagine the situation where singly obsessing over one girl who doesn't want you, and who by doing so, finds you less and less attractive is a plus.

It's mainly present in betas/people who are generally weak with game. Does that have anything to do with it maybe?

Or is it purely an environmental development? Guys have bought into the whole "one for everyone" and "if you buy her enough flowers she'll love you" routine?

If it is indeed purely environmental, oneitis seems as contrary to evolutionary biology as approaching lots and lots of girls does. Why is it that the former takes hold and seems as natural as day to some, yet the latter remains to some degree in almost all men in many cases?

It makes sense if that one girl may be your only chance at reproductive success and passing down your seed.

Watch a nature documentary and see how obsessively the males of almost any species will chase down, display, and mate-call the closest fertile female, even when she's not receptive. Sometimes the female relents and this pursuit was part of the mating ritual.

But sometimes she gets "raped". It's worth considering that some of mankind's sexual programming may originate in a time when rape was a major part of male reproductive strategy.

[NY Digital]

Absolutely not. It's societal programming.

I go into this in a previous thread:
http://www.rooshvforum.network/thread-21928-...#pid400566

[Belize King]

Watching Mutant Mayhem Strange Love on NAT GEO. Shit is crazy what male animals do to have the opportunity to mate. Right now a Seaturtle is smasing and 5 cockblocks are biting at his flippers and trying to drown him.

[guerrilla]

Interesting

I'm guessing that one it is a curse of humans thinking so much more than other animals.a

[Ovid]

Oneitis is quite natural. In the past, even the not so distant past, before feminism and the other social changes of the 20th century changed the game, it was helpful. You see a girl, she ticks your mental checkboxes (good looking enough, classy enough, feminine and submissive enough, intelligent enough, accomplished enough, seems sweet enough, etc.) and you like her. It's much more pleasant to think about her than other girls who haven't met your requirements. So you are, de facto, sort of borderline-obsessed with the girl, and chase her, because we always think of girls, and if one is more attractive than the rest, naturally we will think of her more than the others we know, and will desire her more. The young swain would be motivated to chase his "beloved," and would pay her attention, give her compliments, ingratiate himself into her family's good graces, give her flowers and little gifts, etc. This would sometimes or often lead to the girl reciprocally falling in love with him, and wedding bells.

The dating market is much more competitive nowadays because women have become exceedingly picky, as they no longer 'need' a man for anything except validation and sex. They get validation every day from guys who are lo longer restricted by social decorum and can hit on them constantly, and from Facebook too, and they can get sex very easily, so alpha game is necessary to persuade them that they should have sex with 'us' rather than with some other dude or their vibrator. 'Beta game' no longer works in the West, so in the changed context, oneitis is a liability, because chasing a girl today is the fastest way to turn her off, instead of turning her on.

[NY Digital]

I have something to add though.

Oneitis is our inner male telling us we like the way a certain female looks and we want to impregnate her and gain offspring from someone that we adore.

But in the longer run, after fulfilling the impregnation we would resort back to finding other women.

It's hard for us to drop it sometimes because we're going against our nature which tells us to fuck her first then find other mates.
So it's natural. But not permanent.

[Icarus]

(03-24-2013 01:12 PM)Ovid Wrote:  

So you are, de facto, sort of borderline-obsessed with the girl, and chase her, because we always think of girls, and if one is more attractive than the rest, naturally we will think of her more than the others we know, and will desire her more.

Oneitis leads to emotional investment. The more a man invests in a girl, the harder it is for him to discard her. This leads to stability. The guy is "locked" in a valley. He can get out, but it will take quite a bit of energy to climb over the ridge and settle in a neighboring valley. If she hits the wall, then it's much, much easier, of course.

Stability gives the couple's children better chances of survival. Even if oneitis translates into only a very small increase in offspring's survivability, after 40,000+ years and some 1000+ generations, the gene pool will be flooded with oneitis-prone betas. This is a bit like the mutation that made Europeans lactose-tolerant some 10,000 years ago. More lactose means better nutrition, and thus higher chances of survival.

If this hypothesis is correct, then those men who do not suffer from oneitis, even with all the corrupting Disney movie memetic trash, and bullshit rom-coms, are the ones who descend from the paleolithic alphas!

[Ovid]

Given the exponential increase in population, along with inevitable interbreeding, I think it's safe to say every last person on the planet is descended from the paleolithic alphas.

Oneitis is basically a game-perspective term for being "in love." It's easy for men to fall "in love," because we aren't that picky, and our needs really can be distilled into a checklist. For the most part, we don't entertain romantic notions about "soul mates" and all that. We're more pragmatic. As long as she meets some basic criteria and our personalities click, she's the one. This naturally leads to lots of young marriages, and lots of babies. This is good and necessary for the species to survive. It also leads to some disillusionment in a man's late 20s-40s when the romantic love has worn off and he realizes that the girl's hitting the wall, and his value is now higher than hers. Now, humans are, for better or worse, not like cats. A kitten can more or less survive on its own after 10 weeks or so. A human child absolutely needs family for 12 years at least, and optimally, 20+. These spans of time, coupled with multiple children spaced a couple of years apart, effectively mean that men and women are tied together for most of their lives, which is why societies have always recognized the concept of marriage, and healthy societies have fostered it and made it more difficult to dissolve. Healthy, well-adjusted children mean a healthy, well-adjusted people. Anyway, point being, oneitis does inevitably fade, but in a normal society, historically speaking, there are usually factors which preserve the bond between the couple, regardless of romantic attachment. She might lose her looks, but she still cooks and cleans, there's children to look after, then grandchildren after that, social pressure to prevent public straying and the whole thing from unravelling, etc. Nowadays, these factors aren't there, or are greatly reduced, so men and women have little incentive to practice the self-sacrifice necessary to maintain their oneitis past the original stage when it's fun and exciting.

[GunznButta]

for the most part i'd agree with ovid but i'd add that modernity (i.e.: progress) -- especially over the last 100-150 years -- is what's most responsible for having flipped the script.

imagine life in 1850 anywhere on the planet. poor hygiene, no antibiotics and no modern understanding of nutrition. life expectancy UNTIL THEN at the really top end was about 40-50 years (it's why they'd set the minimum age for becoming a US president at 35 back then; it was expected that a man of 35 would be quite well experienced in life by then.)

most women would start making babies ar 14-15 and can expect to birth 10 children (or more) and have maybe only 2-3 make it to adulthood -- the rest to be lost to dysentery, scarlet fever, rickets, smallpox, polio, and whatever other childhood diseases that we've pretty much eliminated over the last 100.)

the lack of "real/modern" medicine also made it quite likely that women of any age would die in childbirth.

what few children that a man can produce with a woman would be expected to contribute to the family as soon as the kid could get up on 2 feet. (remember all those stories about child labor in grade school?) even if you strip out the industrial revolution of the late 1800's, it's not too difficult to imagine that life had been that way, more or less, for millennia before that.

oneitis, for the lack of a better word, promoted family unity through attachment (usually emotional and legal.) it helped the family unit work as one for the better long-term good of the family.

nowadays, with the expanded lifespans that better health, nutrition, and technology can afford us all, oneitis is becoming one of those traits that's no longer really needed like the appendix or little pinky toenail; nice to have but not really needed for everyday life.

in fact, it could become an inconvenience.

[Jazzman92]

Im taking evolutionary biology right now and its really crazy to see the relationship with game and biology and evolution. One theory behind monogamy amongst humans is that it is due to the fact that humans are very underdeveloped during birth. The main feature attributed to mans ability to become the apex predator of the world is the fact that we have a huge cranial capacity relative to our body size (the biggest out of any species) which has allowed us to develop language, societies etc. As a result natural selection has selected for children to be born underdeveloped to ensure the woman doesn't die during child birth because the head would be too large and would kill her otherwise. Since the child is more vulnerable when born the woman needs to increase care so the child can be successful and her genes can proliferate in the population. The male has to therefore provide food and protection for the woman as she raises the children to ensure his reproductive success.

This is one of the things that is so stupid about feminism. Feminists say men and women are born equal but that is not true. Men have evolved to become protective and dominant and females have evolved to become nurturing and choosy which is why we have such large sexual dimorphisms and men are substantially larger than females. Men have always been the bread winners of the household because of the fact that women need to take care of the offspring, not some stupid gender roles. The only real reason why females have started working in the last hundred years or so is because of the economic benefit and the ability to generate an adequate amount of money to survive, especially during the world wars since men were not at home.

Males are also generally exposed to greater selective pressure because we have to gain access to mates. Mate selection by females usually boils down to which male is alpha and which is not. Being more intelligent, preselected and larger than the rest of the males gives you access to the mates of your choice instead of having to breed with whatever is left over. Monogamy can be seen as a political alliance in humans because very very few organisms on this planet exhibit monogamous relationships. In terms of mating, males have evolved to go for quantity and attempting to breed as many times as possible because sperm is less energetically expensive to the organism and females have evolved to find ways to differentiate between the betas and alphas because pregnancy is very energetically expensive.

Personally I think oneitis is a result of the conditioning imposed onto us throughout our lives which contradicts our innate desires and evolutionary motivations. If you look at any ancient kings and generals or men of great power i.e. Genghis Khan, their lives have always been associated with an abundance of women. Once religions and societal pressures come along condemning sex, people are forced into marriage. It is portrayed as something sacred and in many ways is a political alliance between two groups of people.

That being said I don't think monogamy is entirely bad all the time. Its fine as long as it is not a result of a misinterpreted perception of reality or pressure by society forcing you to be monogamous, but actually a genuine liking for the girl, which is also reciprocated by her. For the most part thats pretty rare to find.

[Icarus]

Perhaps oneitis is merely the result of a neurochemical imbalance.

Who gets oneitis? Sex-starved betas and omegas. These are the guys prone to orbiting hot chicks. Why do they do that? Because it's a symbiotic relationship: she gets attention, he gets "something"? What is that "something"? It's attention, proximity to a fertile woman, human touch, ego boost, etc.

Paleolithic males were almost certainly impregnating girls at an early age, still in their adolescence. Moreover, they had to hunt, which involved vigorous physical exercise. In other words, males evolved in conditions in which physical exercise was necessary for survival, and which allowed early sexual contact with fertile women.

Modern males live a pampered existence that requires little physical activity. Their diets contain too much sugar, which leads to hyper-activity and ADD. No outlets for such ADD. And, for most males, no regular sexual outlets either (except for jerking off). If women are living in unnatural conditions, so are men. Which reminds me of that Ambrose Bierce definition of love:

Quote:

A temporary insanity curable by marriage or by removal of the patient from the influences under which he incurred the disorder. This disease is prevalent only among civilized races living under artificial conditions; barbarous nations breathing pure air and eating simple food enjoy immunity from its ravages. It is sometimes fatal, but more frequently to the physician than to the patient.

[Hannibal]

One part idealization and another part despair.

Idealization because the victim sees his perfect mate, and despair because he's so dependant on the outcome that he refuses to even attempt it for fear that she'll reject him and dash his hopes of ever getting laid.

It's mostly to weed out the men who aren't cut out to reproduce. Unsurprisingly, the younger folks are more susceptible to one-itis. I've gotten it before, it's hell.

I figure the experience of one-itis is so that, once you actually recover from it, you don't even care about any particular woman in general.

[GenJx]

oneitis, beta strategy to spend all time and resources to bang one chick. it probably worked in the past when resources were scarce
player, alpha strategy to bang a lot of chicks while spending little resources on each one. betas cant pull that off

[Hannibal]

Oh yeah, and in the past, if a man was willing to expend all his resources on a female, his efforts were usually reciprocated. I'm not saying it's right that it worked or it's wrong that it doesn't anymore, but that's just how it is.

[Caveman]

I'll differentiate the term oneitis into two sub-terms:

1. before-oneitis - this is oneitis BEFORE you've gotten the girl
2. after-oneitis - oneitis AFTER you've gotten the girl

As explained by other posters above, it makes sense that AFTER-oneitis was needed to ensure survival of the progeny. Those males which didn't stick to their family had their children not survive and became extinct.

But half the question still remains: Why do men fall into oneitis BEFORE they've gotten the girl?

My hypothesis is this: In stone age times if a man didn't show any dedication to a girl then she wouldn't select him for mating. And why would women develop an instinct to require dedication by a man before selecting him for a mate?

An alpha male could have many women and children, but when hard times came he had to prioritize his limited resources (yes even alpha males didn't have all the resources they needed), and this meant he would drop his lower valued wifes and children, so that at least his higher valued ones could survive. So for a woman it became better to selected a beta male which would be very attached to her and dedicated all his resources to her, than an alpha who would be not so attached and dedicated her a only a small fraction and droped her in hard times.

So this instinct for dedication in the woman coupled with her extremely acute sensitivity to body language and fake love detection mechanism, forced the prehistoric men into a real BEFORE-oneitis behavior, especially if he was a beta and wasn't getting any anyways.