Why are guys so afraid of "settling down"?

They aren't - just with you

Please refer to the thread "post-nuptial shut off."

I wasn't, she left me this week!

What it boils down to is that men are timid, fearful, & fail at understanding what is best for the majority of them.

^Not true at all.

When it is the right chick and the right time they are not afraid.

Usually that means they are between 30 and 45 and the girl is between 21 and 27.

At a certain age, I don't think they are. Most single guys I know would rather settle down. Problem is they are picky about who with. Most guys think they derserve the best.

Because we're not genetically designed to be monogamous. Period.

They know women are nuts but they still need to get laid. If it wasn't for that all women would be lesbians.

Because biologically we are not "programmed" to settle down. Nature tells us to spread our genes to the next generation as much as possible - leaving the female with nursing and raising the offspring, while we continue straying for mating partners

Nurture, aka society of the western culture (and many other cultures, historic and present), instead tells us sleeping around with different women is not accepted anymore after a certain age, and before that definitely never without protection. We shall be an active and integral part of raising offspring and providing for our mate and the nest we share.

I am not saying this is bad. All I am saying this is going against our instinct.

In summary, we tend to delay the point in life where we finally have to compromise social learned behavior with our natural instinct.

-Of course us males differ in when we are ready for this compromise: in general, insecure and physically weaker guys tend to be willing to compromise at a younger age, whereas guys with high self esteem and confidence compromise later.

"Things fade. Alternatives exclude." - John Gardner

You've been reading Dawkin's "selfish gene" too much. Males need emotional attachment just as much as females.

You're idea of males spreading genes for the sake of spreading genes does not logically flow from evolutionary theory. Humans survive longer if they develop closely communicating and collaborating relationships with the people around them. In no stable society would males just drop the sperm and run; they stay around to raise their children, who can grow to be extra hunters or hands for gathering food to support the community, or extra warriors to deal with the neighboring clan.

Why would every society have some form or marital practice that ties men down to a particular number of female mates, if that is not to the consent of the males. Thousands of years ago, women could do nothing to resist male power assertion, if the natural "male instinct" was as you argue, just spreading sperm without concern for their society, no males would have ever consented to formal marriage or father practices.

dudewheresmycar wrote: You're idea of males spreading genes for the sake of spreading genes does not logically flow from evolutionary theory.

Wow! I, too, am idea of males spreading genes for the sake of spreading genes does not logically flow from evolutionary theory.

Because they secretly want to marry their mothers.

Dare I say we have a logical poster on letsrun?spot on, emotions and their corresponding facial expressions are innate and universal to human beings. they best serve to facilitate human communication (ever heard 90% of communication is body language and not verbal?).under your model, males would have no need to develop societies, as social functions simply get in the way of individual freedom.Individual freedom, btw, is a concept that doesn't get generated until the Enlightenment. Several arguments have been made that small, rural, agriculture-based towns require town cooperation, and thus large oversight and solidarity in thought among and over all its citizens.This is all aside from the fact that impregnating women has no use if you don't stay to protect your child from being eaten by a woolly mammoth.

not so confused wrote:

Because they secretly want to marry their mothers.

Stop reading the Freud RIGHT NOW! I promise you you'll feel better.

I am the walrus wrote:

Nurture, aka society of the western culture (and many other cultures, historic and present), instead tells us sleeping around with different women is not accepted anymore after a certain age, and before that definitely never without protection. We shall be an active and integral part of raising offspring and providing for our mate and the nest we share.

I am not saying this is bad. All I am saying this is going against our instinct.

r.

I totally missed this, but Walrus, you really got it wrong on "western culture tells us sleeping around with different women is not accepted."

Seriously, western culture is one of the most individualistic ever to grace the earth. Like I said earlier, smaller, rural communities-indian tribes, if you will-held much more oversight and control over individuals within the society.

Living in a city leads to "blaze attitude," where you grow increasingly disconnected with the other humans next to you because you pass way more people everyday than you were biologically developed to care about. See "Taxi Driver" for a film about the "blaze" attitude.

Travis Bickle is an example of what happens when a male travels alone, without social support, or society "tying him down." Travis goes insane and is unable to morally or psychologically function at the end of the film. Humans NEED other humans. We were "programmed" to NEED meaningful social connections.

Brojos, hurry up and shut this thread down, we have individuals using academic language to make valid arguments here, this can't be allowed to continue!!!

It's because you marry a cute chic with a tight ass and killer legs then 20 years later she morphs into a fat whale like Stephanie Hightower. Ever see Stephanie walk up to her seat at Reggie Lewis. The seats around her empty out as she climbs up the stairs since people fear her fat ass will collapse the stands.