"Women mature faster than men." That's the saying. Like most adages, it has some truth to it, but also like most adages, it's woefully incomplete. Maybe amend it to:

Women mature faster than men initially.

From menarche to, say, age 18-21, I don't think I'd argue against women being more mature. Biologically, they have to be, since that is when they're meant to start popping out children - and historically they usually did. Raising children requires a certain level of maturity or else your child dies.

But what about afterwards? Child (theoretically, or historically) produced, best looks of her life (at age 18-21) commanding status, what more does she have to strive for? Nothing. She has all she needs to secure a mate and second parent to her child, and provisioning. Unless she chooses not to (which most did, historically, up until the western modern world.)

Meanwhile, the male, who has developed slower, is still developing, and developing. He's working now, learning to earn, struggling to keep up. Taking losses. Being rejected. Failing at things. You know, growing up and growing in wisdom and skills.

And she coasts on her looks, and her fertility, right up until she hits the wall. Which doesn't much matter if she was a traditionalist and secured herself a provider. But nowadays...

...and the 30-year-old man, who never stopped developing and growing, has now far surpassed her in emotional, intellectual, and personal development. Being object- or objective-oriented, the male is always striving; whereas women, being relationship-oriented, usually stop once they have found their partner.

Another saying I've heard, in various forms, is that "mankind only changes when forced to, under duress of pain or loss."

Thirst is a form of pain. Men thirst for women. We strive to achieve, to do, to compete, and improve ourselves constantly, in part because testosterone, and in part to secure access to women.

Women in their twenties... generally women don't know pain unless they're mothers. There's a reason why another adage, "Let her get pregnant. Having a baby will settle her down" exists. Motherhood isn't a guarantee of maturity, but it's hard not to be forced to grow up/mature when you're a parent.

But for those women who aren't mothers, where is the incentive to grow and mature for western women in their 20s? Hell, where has it EVER been?

I don't think it exists naturally. Which brings me back to, "Women mature faster than men initially."

In the wild, animals have varying development periods after birth. Newborn prey animals often are able to walk minutes or hours after birth. More developed animals (primates, big cats) have offspring that take a lot longer to develop (weeks to months) to a point where they can function, let alone survive. Humans, obviously, take years.

Women, being coddled in the modern world, have had so much handed to them, that the few (often painful) incentives for personal development and growth are almost completely gone. This is why game works on the average 20-something woman. An actual mature, confident, competent woman is more resistant to game than a "Strong, Independent Woman."

And finally, because the only pain a woman will face is hitting the wall, they tend not to be ready or nearly mature enough to handle it, which is why they fumble with it so poorly and immaturely. They don't have the tools to handle failure and rejection, like men develop over years. So they lash out, get bitter, and (if wealthy) often cling and grasp at surgery and sudden workout routines to try to recapture their suddenly fading looks and SMV.

At least, that's my theory. Maybe it should be posted to EvoPsych instead. But RP theory is rooted in EvoPsych, in biology and neurological wiring and reality. So I thought I'd post here. I know it's a rehash (or a retelling?) of some of RP theory. Maybe it's just my shower thoughts. Any comments/additions?