Neuroticism load (N) — sex-linked baseline differences. worrying about scarcity factors > survivor additivity for females, males more mediated and co-correlated with Feeler types or plausibly mental issues
Bisexual volatility (BV) — over-representation of bi women in F–F dyads.
Novelty preference (NP) — Openness to Experience as orientation fluidity driver.
Female abstraction (FA) — attraction encoded in symbolic/relational frames, instead of visual cues, memetic status cues/indirect signals in heuristics get amplified for females also scorecard logic; Female Abstraction as Dynamic Scorecard
Cognitive load: Women’s DMN + higher relational abstraction means they don’t just process present interactions; they carry a running ledger of past slights, betrayals, and signals.
Empirical anchor: Psych lit on rumination and memory for relational conflict (e.g., Nolen-Hoeksema 2000; Cross et al. 2002) shows women are significantly more likely than men to track, recall, and “stack” grievances.
. Epistemic Updates on Mate Investment
Mechanism: Women encode each betrayal, resource shortfall, or disappointment as Bayesian evidence against long-term reliability.
Result: Relationship satisfaction is not static — it is a dynamic updating process.
Empirical anchor: Buss (1989, 2003) on mate choice criteria; Nolen-Hoeksema (2000) on rumination; Eastwick & Finkel (2008) on female re-evaluation of long-term mate qualities.
2. Dreamer-Type Idealization Network
Profile: NF types with high DMN load.
Function: Construct idealized partner scripts and run constant counterfactuals (“If he really loved me, he’d…”).
Effect: Conflicts are not judged only against present reality but against an idealized narrative benchmark.
3. The Male Status Ratchet
Heuristic: Once a woman adjusts her baseline expectations upward (e.g., higher provisioning, social proof, emotional attunement), it becomes the new normal.
Implication: Previous investments are depreciated — male must continually escalate effort to maintain perceived mate value.
In F–F dyads: Both partners idealize and ratchet simultaneously, compounding instability.
Feeler vs Thinker logic — F-types more tolerant of non-hetero relations.
Big five, not big give 😄
Core Psychological Traits
Neuroticism load (N) — sex-linked baseline differences. worrying about scarcity factors > survivor additivity for females, males more mediated and co-correlated with Feeler types or plausibly mental issues
Bisexual volatility (BV) — over-representation of bi women in F–F dyads.
Novelty preference (NP) — Openness to Experience as orientation fluidity driver.
Female abstraction (FA) — attraction encoded in symbolic/relational frames, instead of visual cues, memetic status cues/indirect signals in heuristics get amplified for females also scorecard logic; Female Abstraction as Dynamic Scorecard
Cognitive load: Women’s DMN + higher relational abstraction means they don’t just process present interactions; they carry a running ledger of past slights, betrayals, and signals.
Empirical anchor: Psych lit on rumination and memory for relational conflict (e.g., Nolen-Hoeksema 2000; Cross et al. 2002) shows women are significantly more likely than men to track, recall, and “stack” grievances.
. Epistemic Updates on Mate Investment
Mechanism: Women encode each betrayal, resource shortfall, or disappointment as Bayesian evidence against long-term reliability.
Result: Relationship satisfaction is not static — it is a dynamic updating process.
Empirical anchor: Buss (1989, 2003) on mate choice criteria; Nolen-Hoeksema (2000) on rumination; Eastwick & Finkel (2008) on female re-evaluation of long-term mate qualities.
2. Dreamer-Type Idealization Network
Profile: NF types with high DMN load.
Function: Construct idealized partner scripts and run constant counterfactuals (“If he really loved me, he’d…”).
Effect: Conflicts are not judged only against present reality but against an idealized narrative benchmark.
3. The Male Status Ratchet
Heuristic: Once a woman adjusts her baseline expectations upward (e.g., higher provisioning, social proof, emotional attunement), it becomes the new normal.
Implication: Previous investments are depreciated — male must continually escalate effort to maintain perceived mate value.
In F–F dyads: Both partners idealize and ratchet simultaneously, compounding instability.
Feeler vs Thinker logic — F-types more tolerant of non-hetero relations.
Cognitive–Neural Operators
Default Mode Network (DMN load) — abstraction, narrative identity play.
Executive Function (EF load) — constraint, inhibition, goal enforcement.
DMN–EF coupling — balance point between novelty tolerance and stability.
Biological Inputs
Androgen load (AL) — prenatal hormone exposure shaping orientation variance.
Sexual dimorphism in risk penalty — females lower pregnancy/violence risk in F–F context.
Constraint / Stability Mechanisms
Constraint load (CL) — religion, kinship, law, fertility enforcement.
Traditionalism (TR) — STJ/ESFJ “snap-back” to survival heuristics.
Auto-model fixing (AFix) — INTJ/ENTJ self-coherence, low suggestibility.
Orderliness / Conscientiousness — reduces adoption, increases stability.
Cultural / Structural Factors
Seeding (norm activation) — elites memetically enabling fluidity under surplus.
Exergy (resource surplus vs scarcity) — scarcity locks hetero, surplus allows fluidity.
Intergenerational stability norms — Confucian/Islamic inertia vs Western pre-loading.
IQ / abstraction bands — higher IQ = higher symbolic tolerance, lower IQ = canalized hetero.
SES / education — correlated with openness, adoption penetrance. Fertility Windows and Novelty Dynamics
Female Fertility Peak (18–22):
Evolutionary psychology shows women maximize mate exploration and “bad-boy” preference during peak fertility years.
Neuroticism + novelty preference load heaviest here.
Result: bisexual exploration and instability peak in late teens/early 20s.
Post-25 Decline in Novelty-Seeking:
As fertility urgency drops, preference for stability rises.
This partially stabilizes bisexual women—less churn, fewer relational exits.
3. Cohort Effects and Norm Seeding
Cultural Cohort:
Women exposed to bisexual/queer norms at 18–25 show higher long-run penetrance.
Those who pass fertility window without exposure rarely “convert” later.
Constraint Interaction:
In traditional/low-IQ contexts, bisexuality is both unseeded and punished (death penalty, ostracism).
Twitter/corporate rainbow-flag avoidance in Saudi, Nigeria, etc., reflects both elite signaling adaptation and population non-suggestibility.
. Genetic Superiority Signal
Females evolved to detect risk-taking, defiance, dominance as costly signals of high genetic fitness.
“Dangerous” men (fighters, rule-breakers, high-status nonconformists) demonstrate surplus capacity — they can absorb risk and still thrive.
This becomes erotically coded as “he can protect, he can provide, he’s chosen by others.”
2. Deep Investment Paradox
But danger alone isn’t enough. If the male invests in her despite having other options, it amplifies her value.
That’s the paradox: she’s most aroused when unpredictability (bad boy) is paired with secure investment (prince).
“I can’t control him, but he chooses me” → strongest arousal profile.
3. Unpredictability = Arousal Spike
Female arousal is highly responsive to novelty, uncertainty, and risk.
Unpredictability spikes dopamine/oxytocin → attraction reinforced.
Predictable “safe” men create stability but flatten arousal.
Hence: female dyads (two novelty-preferring partners) amplify instability because both crave the arousal spikes without the grounding counterweight.