True Story
- I never considered this chick to be attractive nor show any interest in her, but we kept talking
- once in holidays, all of a sudden she made contact on my facebook page - “hey hows ur holidays etc etc..”
- that sparked my interest

then these symptoms mentioned above occurred:

1. Insufficient Rational for Liking: the Oneitis feelings usually predate any actual sexual encounter or serious interaction with the woman

2. Strong Fantasy Component: the Oneitis feelings often have a very high “fantasy” component, that is, the afflicted man has many “imagined” conversations and “imagined” interactions with the women, in lieu of actual interactions.

would always fantasies about her in bed, all the possibly scenarios etc..

and yes it does sabotage ur chances unfortunately

“everything is a learning experience” - my philosophy

Thank you! Goodness, I get so tired of ignorant people arguing about nature vs nurture. What is more important to human life, water or oxygen?

Anyway, one point of clarification is useful. You may have overlooked it or chosen not to mention it on account of actress not bringing it up. Either way, curvy women do appear to have one advantage from a childbearing evolutionary standpoint. They appear to give birth to smarter children. (Curvy, not fat!)

While your arguments above may comfort you in your own personal situation, your knowledge of socio (evolutionary) biology needs a brush-up. It’s not a field of study you can just think your way through using your own internal states of logic and wishes, and a bit of knowledge gleamed from the Discovery channel, because some of the most “logical” structures or processes actually developed for very different (though no less logical) reasons.

To wit. You talk about pair boding. Pair bonding happens naturally in any couple after between 2-4 years as the neurochemicals that create the intense “lust/love” high are time-limited, and endorphins take over, settling them into a more long-lasting “attachment” phase that covers 7 years +. This is why you hear (and you talked about) a 2-year / 4-year / 7-year “itch”. These “windows” occur for a variety of reasons, but in no small part due to neurochemistry. Receptor sites can’t go on being bombarded with dopamine and phenylethylamine forever, something has to take over, and in successful marriages and relationships, endorphins do. But pair bonding, and the associated chemicals themselves, aren’t nearly strong enough to keep a man from leaving a woman (or vice versa) if they become convinced the Grass is Greener. In modern relationships, it’s not so much that men get attached, as it is the case that they get lazy (though women can be equally accused of this one).

Also, the attraction to “skinny” women you spoke of doesn’t actually exist — what men are actually attracted to, biologically speaking, is a ratio between the hips, waist, and bust. There is a specific ratio and specific evolutionary reasons having to do with health and childbearing ability, and evidence for that evolutionary reason is found in the fact that the “gynoid” fat deposit pattern adds fat on the hips, buttocks, and breasts PREFERENTIALLY, literally changing the “golden ratio” in a way that is set up to fool men into thinking breasts with more fat deposits are more milkful. But men certainly aren’t attracted physically to “big-boned” (again, I say fat) women on any physiological or evo psych grounds, and The Golden Ratio certainly doesn’t include that class of women.

Suffice it to say neither nature nor nurture (environment) by themselves shape desires or relationship patterns — nature and nurture are to people as height and width are to a field — you can’t have one without the other.

To understand human reproductive instincts, you have to think back further than just Victorian times or Middle Ages - any feelings that stem from those periods are cultural rather than natural (although it can be argued that cultured feelings are a natural phenomenon, this has to do with the human tendency to fit into a society rather than any kind of direct reproductive instinct).

Instead, go back to paleolithic times. Times were hard, death rates were high; among men, mostly because of malnutrition and hunting injuries, among women, malnutrition and complications of childbirth and/or child rearing.
Fact is that a woman needs a certain build to be able to carry, have, and raise children. The appeal of a thin woman over a fat woman is obvious: the thin one is quicker on her feet, looks younger, and fat women may have fertility problems. The appeal of a stocky woman, however, is that she will be better able to have and care for children. The stockiness of her body has had an effect on her bones (fat people, as physicians will tell you, really ARE big-boned as well: their bones have grown to support their bulk) that has made her pelvis wider, and she deals with blood loss from childbirth and subsequent nursing better than a woman with fewer reserves.

Fat women were rare if non-existent in paleolithic times. Many died of malnutrition or starvation, and a woman who could successfully rear multiple children was valuable. Hence the attraction of a man to a woman he already has a child with / has been in a long-term relationship with. He will help her raise HIS child, and the chance that she’ll carry and raise more of his children is bigger, as she is obviously equal to the task.
This attraction does not manifest in some kind of “second in-love feeling” from the man; instead, this is the “bond” you speak of. Why do you think this bonding phenomenon exists? It is to ensure that the couple works together to rear their children, and for the woman it means constant support and help when she is incapacitated, whereas for the man it means this valuable woman will bear only his children.
Male monogamy is one of the ways of men to ensure that the woman they perceive as valuable stays with them. Women want their man to stay with them for obvious reasons, and men who have the instinct to comply do so to ensure that their woman does not start wandering.
Have you never read how after about 4 years, it is more usually the woman breaking up the relationship than the man? This is because women are programmed to stay with their man for 4 years - after that (think paleolithic) their child is weaned and can walk and talk, and it is possible to ditch the first man and start looking for a new one, thereby diversifying the offspring - whereas men have usually developed a full-fledged Bond by then, and want to keep their woman. For reasons stated above.

The whole thing, men being monogamous, wanting to treat their woman right, etc, stems from an instinct to want to bind this woman to them. A man who plays around can expect his woman to do the same, increasing the risk of offspring by other men.

As for the finite number of eggs you mention, it is a myth that a woman runs out of eggs in her lifetime. Menopause occurs at a time when a woman, becoming older, is less likely to survive the ordeal of having a child, at which point her body forces her into “grandmother” position, not when she “runs out of eggs”.

Then again, I have no literature to back up my claims. It is all based on evidence presented to me in places like Discovery Channel, but obviously I cannot quote those. I will not expect you to just believe me; to me, the above makes sense, but it is often difficult to distinguish cultural preferences from natural ones - when I say that fuller, more mature women are attractive to some men, I can hear you think “but I like young, slim women better…” and I’ll say that this is a natural instinct to like young women, amplified by a cultural preference that values female virginity (and therefore youth) and undervalues a woman’s life experience, because these days, we have so many ways to ensure a woman lives through childbirth.

But I don’t believe this drives men to *monogamy*. It may encourage them to stick around longer than they otherwise would and help care for the child during the early years, but isn’t a single woman perfectly capable of raising her infant to adulthood by herself?

A male mate sticking around for 1-4 years is not monogamy. In fact, even monogamous relationships typically leave him plenty of time to go philandering.

A woman who has survived childhood becomes more desirable and attractive — particularly to her partner? I haven’t seen any evidence for this, either anecdotal or scientific. Please bring some to my attention! What about the fact that she has already used one of a finite number of eggs? What about the fact that she has spent significant time and resources (bodily and mental) on raising a child?

The “greater attractiveness to her partner” thing you refer to — are you referring to the “attachment” brain chemistry that works for long-term pair bonding? If so, that’s still not a guarantee of monogamy.

Here’s a few other posts on the topic that you might be interested in:

http://realitymethod.com/2007/02/why-women-cheat/
http://realitymethod.com/2007/01/the-red-queen-sex-the-evolution-of-human-nature/

Monogamous SOCIETIES may have an edge over POLYGAMOUS (or Polyandorus) societies in that there’s more genetic mixing going on; as a result of the fact that EVERYBODY gets to partner up 1 to 1 (instead of a few elites monopolizing the breeding resources). I haven’t seen any research that has extrapolated those principles to individuals. In fact, from an evolutionary perspective, people that are able to mate with more than one partner, male OR female, do better in the long run. See the posts above for explanations of why this is.