This is required reading for understanding the WHY of "AWALT".
Biochemical research points to a natural four-year sexual cycle for the human female. This apparently allows enough time after childbirth for the average mother in a state of savagery to regain her ability to survive without male provisioning. In the absence of any system of marriage, a woman’s natural tendency is to “liberate” herself from her mate after that point. When her hormones prompt her to reproduce again, she simply takes a new mate. 2 Vol. 7, No. 2 The Occidental Quarterly Langley cites Helen Fisher’s Anatomy of Love and Burnham and Phelan’s Mean Genes in support of this account. According to the latter, separation and divorce are most likely to occur in the fourth year of marriage “across more than sixty radically different cultures.”
This is why marriage is ALWAYS a losing proposition. You cannot fight biology.
Feral female sexual behavior is governed by a number of chemicals. The euphoria of infatuation is associated with the stimulant pheylethylamine, naturally produced in the body by erotic attraction. As with other drugs, it is addictive, and people gradually build up a tolerance to it, requiring ever greater levels to achieve the same effect. Over time, it loses its power over us, and infatuation is replaced by a calm feeling of attachment to our mates. There are neurochemical factors at work here as well. But the feeling of attachment or bondedness is akin to the effect of a sedative or narcotic rather than a stimulant
This is why sleeping around ruins a woman's ability to pair bond. She becomes numb to the stimulant pheylethylamine and must continue in riskier and riskier behavior as with any addiction.
Next there are hormones to consider. The sex drive, in both men and women, is linked to testosterone levels. These are, of course, always higher in men; but the difference is greatest in early adulthood when people have traditionally taken their mates. As men age, their testosterone levels gradually decrease; women’s levels rise. Going into their thirties, women get hairier, their voices deepen, and they behave more assertively. And, in the author’s words, “it’s also quite common for them to experience a dramatic increase in their desire for other men
This is the reason why men get cucked.
Women are more likely than men to confuse sexual attraction with love. The sexes speak differently of the feelings associated with the early stages of a romantic affair: Most men I have talked to call it infatuation, but most of the women I have talked to call it being in love….Women in particular may believe that, if they find the right person, intense feelings can last. They’ve been taught to believe that they should only want sex with someone they love. So when a woman Summer 2007 / Devlin 3 desires a man, she thinks she is in love, and when the desire fades she thinks she is out of love.
This is why they cannot love. They do not understand what love is. To them love is merely infatuation. For Men, love is a choice, and a commitment. Many Men in love die for their partners. This is a result of this commitment, not infatuation.
Women often speak of seeking “commitment” from men, but this would seem to imply a preference for marriage-minded men over others. Langley observed the very opposite tendency in her interviewees: They often form relationships with men who are emotionally inaccessible. Instead of choosing men who are interested in developing a relationship, these women choose men who make them feel insecure. Insecurity can create motivation and excitement. Women who seek excitement in their marriages (and many do) will often forego the possibility of real relationships for the excitement of fantasy relationships…. It’s not uncommon for women to pine for men who shy away from commitment, while they shun the attention given to them by men who are willing and ready to make a commitment.
This is why they go for Bad Boys, and get tingles from them. They are chasing infatuation, and mistake excitement for something that can last in the long term.
Much uninformed and superficial commentary on the sexual revolution assumes that “men want sex while women want marriage.” Langley draws a valid distinction: women want to get married, not to be married. They often love not so much their husbands as their bridal-fantasy in which the man serves as a necessary prop. Females want to wear the dress and have the wedding. Many women have looked forward to that day their whole lives, which ultimately sets them up for a huge crash.
This is why marriage is guaranteed to be a disappointment for them. You are nothing but a prop to them. Their completely unrealistic expectations for life guarantee them misery.
Women, says Langley, enter marriage assuming they are naturally monogamous. “Trying to be faithful doesn’t seem natural to them.” They recite the wedding vow in much the same spirit as they wear “something borrowed, something blue”—it is simply what one does at a wedding. Of course, a vow is no very serious undertaking to one who assumes she will never feel any temptation to break it. Accordingly, over time, most women begin to rationalize their extramarital erotic interests. If women simply want to be married and are not naturally inclined to be attracted to other men, “any unhappiness or infidelity on the part of the women is assumed to be due to the men they married.”
This is why they will grow to hate and resent you. Why they treat their Husbands with abject disgust and revulsion.
I highly recommend reading the entire paper. Red pills galore. Eat up boys. It's war out there.