Their preferences may be innate, but their standards are not. Their standards change depending on their life experience. If men they find very attractive give them attention (but not commitment), they are going to have a harder time settling down with men they find less attractive but which are willing to commit to them.
The men that are ruining her life are not the sort of "weak men" being discussed here. The ones ruining her life, I can just about guarantee, exude the impression that they don't play by other people's rules. To women, that is strength.
>That's one bitter truth about life: (almost) everyone needs some amount of physical intimacy to be happy, but it's not something anyone is entitled to.
it is, I notice that me or even people in my family who often times tend to show anticonformity behavior need some love.
Often times I wonder how would I feel if someone were to hold my hand, or give me a kiss but the feeling goes soon away perhaps dictated by the way I was raised or my own genes (something I'm can't determine since I'm not an expert neither in science or parenting)
Just to give you some context I grew up in a family with 6 uncles, 2 aunts and my mom, just one of them married, although all of them seem to fare well economically speaking.
To be clear, "(almost) everyone needs some amount of physical intimacy to be happy," is a falsifiable statement of fact. You can go out and measure something to find out whether it matches reality.
On the other hand, "but it's not something anyone is entitled to" is fundamentally a statement of opinion, unless it is limited to a specific context like within a specific social system.
>It's just highly intelligent educated experts giving their best possible estimate based on current data.
OK, but can we trust them to completely put out of their mind the interests of the people signing their paychecks? Do the people signing the paychecks blindly hire scientists without considering whether the scientists will be mindful of their interests?
People in the US rightly don't trust the pharmaceutical industry or the government. They may not be able to pinpoint why, but when they look around they see that every year the people around them are more obese and have more chronic health conditions. They may not be able to tie those things together consciously, but it leaves the powerful subconscious feeling that the government and pharmaceutical industries do not want them to be healthy.
I do think it's a bit ironic to choose not to get a vaccine because you don't trust Big Pharma.
Because the alternative to the vaccine is putting yourself at risk for a deadly virus which can cost a lot of money to treat, which would give more money to Big Pharma. Generally, vaccines aren't in the best interests of pharmaceutical companies.
It's not about not wanting to give money to them, it's about not wanting their products injected in to your body. The vast majority of people that get infected with the coronavirus do not get any pharmaceuticals put in to them whatsoever.
>Generally, vaccines aren't in the best interests of pharmaceutical companies.
Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. As far as I know, no one has done any long term (10+ year) studies to determine whether people that get vaccines end up using more pharmaceuticals than people that don't get vaccines.
Not sure why you're being downvoted; this is exactly the mentality of many people. I don't even think it's subconscious necessarily: many people think this is a conspiracy to ensure profits for Big Pharma.
EDIT: to be clear, I do not endorse such a view. I am merely stating that I have observed others espousing it.
