Red pill, blue pill, liberal, conservative are all inaccurate, sometimes usable shorthand terms that don't directly map to particular, physically real things which are uniform across individuals. In other words, "red" is pretty real-- a particular set of light bandwidths. "Red Pill" is highly subjective.
This concept is called "reification". This is mistaking an abstraction for a real, physical thing.
Something like a particular individual's erectile response to 18 year old girls would be measurable, but then again it would vary with the particular girl of course, the state of mind/health the guy being measured, etc.
This leads to endless, somewhat pointless arguments about whether a particular word or concept-- which isn't even really the same thing to both people discussing it-- is "true."
As far as the whole fertility attraction thing, as I'm going through my 50's I do see I am still almost only attracted to women who appear fertile. The girls I am MOST attracted to are almost exactly the same age as when I was 24 or 27.
An 18 year old could have 12 of my children whereas a 35 year old might only be able to have 2.
However, I think if a woman was loyal to me for years, gave me children, and took care of them and me, and maintained her looks fairly well, I could certainly see having sex with her as an expression of affection and joy and not be feeling ice cold because my body knew she wasn't fertile.
Even in total ruthless evolutionary terms, your affection to an now-infertile mother of your children could have a function of maintaining her health and, resultantly, her ability to continue to care for the growing children. As well it would help continue to maintain your social network support in the tribe. In terms of evolution, I don't think the anonymous, urban , nuclear family model has dictated much of our evolution.
We are still designed to exist in a social network, although many PUA people are probably less wired than others to be high-attachment neurologically.
This concept is called "reification". This is mistaking an abstraction for a real, physical thing.
Something like a particular individual's erectile response to 18 year old girls would be measurable, but then again it would vary with the particular girl of course, the state of mind/health the guy being measured, etc.
This leads to endless, somewhat pointless arguments about whether a particular word or concept-- which isn't even really the same thing to both people discussing it-- is "true."
As far as the whole fertility attraction thing, as I'm going through my 50's I do see I am still almost only attracted to women who appear fertile. The girls I am MOST attracted to are almost exactly the same age as when I was 24 or 27.
An 18 year old could have 12 of my children whereas a 35 year old might only be able to have 2.
However, I think if a woman was loyal to me for years, gave me children, and took care of them and me, and maintained her looks fairly well, I could certainly see having sex with her as an expression of affection and joy and not be feeling ice cold because my body knew she wasn't fertile.
Even in total ruthless evolutionary terms, your affection to an now-infertile mother of your children could have a function of maintaining her health and, resultantly, her ability to continue to care for the growing children. As well it would help continue to maintain your social network support in the tribe. In terms of evolution, I don't think the anonymous, urban , nuclear family model has dictated much of our evolution.
We are still designed to exist in a social network, although many PUA people are probably less wired than others to be high-attachment neurologically.