Why Some Men Murder Their Women?

[SQAAD]

Recently i have been very interested in evolutionary psychology. I've learned some things and there are many more i want to learn.

One of the things that i found super fascinating and counter-intuitive is that men (some men of course) can inflict costs to women (physical and mental abuse) so that they can lower their mate value, and as a result the women feel terrible about themselves , think they don't deserve any better and stay with their abusive partners. This tactic works very well. If it didn't work, it would not even exist.

Also men have a monopoly the more violent the crime is.

It's really incredible how all these very intelligent things work in the background without us even being aware of them.. I guess millions of years of evolution have left us with imprinted wisdom.

Anyways, one of the thing that i don't understand is why (some) men end up killing their women. This does not seem wise from a reproductive standpoint. I don't understand it.

It gets so weird, that some men end up killing their own children as a revenge because of their spouses leaving them...

The guy in the video below, killed his own offsprings because they did not agree with him . If reproduction of ours genes is the goal, murdering your own children or your wife does not make much sense.

 

 

Edited July 8, 2022 by SQAAD

[flowboy]

Integrate your shadow.

[Dumuzzi]

I think there is a simple explanation for this. A significant proportion of men (4 percent, I think) are psychopaths or sociopaths, whereas almost no women are. This must have conferred evolutionary advantages, otherwise the genetic code for it would not have survived in modern populations. If you look at modern politics or business, psychopathy is a distinct advantage. It would also seem that a significant proportion of women are naturally attracted to psychopaths. The explanation probably lies somewhere in Richard Dawkins' Selfish Gene theory, whereby our genes act against our own interests, but ensure their own survival in surreptitious ways, by shafting us. A typical example would be a highly violent and/or psychopathic male that ensured the success of his own genetic line by ruthlessly murdering his competition and fathering thousands of children by manipulating women with their emotions, despite the fact they don't have any. Genghis Khan would be a good example from history, but even male lions exhibit this behaviour. 

[SQAAD]

@flowboy 

3 hours ago, flowboy said:

Integrate your shadow.

lol ok 

Edited July 8, 2022 by SQAAD

[SQAAD]

@JoeVolcano

3 hours ago, JoeVolcano said:

+1 to previous comment.

There isn't much comfort in a man's life aside from woman.

Untrue statement. Men who are clinging to women, end up having terrible lives.

If your statement was true, convicts, Nikola Tesla, The Unabomber and Newton would have killed themselves because of no access to p*ssy. The opposite sex is not the end all be all. 

Human nature is much more complicated to be reduced to that.

Still killing your woman, does not seem to serve any function, besides relieving the anger and difficult emotions.

Edited July 8, 2022 by SQAAD

[SQAAD]

@Dumuzzi

2 hours ago, Dumuzzi said:

I think there is a simple explanation for this. A significant proportion of men (4 percent, I think) are psychopaths or sociopaths, whereas almost no women are. This must have conferred evolutionary advantages, otherwise the genetic code for it would not have survived in modern populations. If you look at modern politics or business, psychopathy is a distinct advantage. It would also seem that a significant proportion of women are naturally attracted to psychopaths. The explanation probably lies somewhere in Richard Dawkins' Selfish Gene theory, whereby our genes act against our own interests, but ensure their own survival in surreptitious ways, by shafting us. A typical example would be a highly violent and/or psychopathic male that ensured the success of his own genetic line by ruthlessly murdering his competition and fathering thousands of children by manipulating women with their emotions, despite the fact they don't have any. Genghis Khan would be a good example from history, but even male lions exhibit this behaviour. 

This is partially true.

The problem is that there are many many men who are not psychopaths or narccisists who still end up killing their wives.

Killing your spouse doesn't seem to serve any functional purpose. And usually these murders come along with rage and are not planned before.

[Devin]

Their wives have the greatest ability to hurt them socially.

[SQAAD]

@JoeVolcano

5 minutes ago, JoeVolcano said:

@SQAAD Integrate your shadow 

Cheers

And that will give me the answer? Is that what you are implying?

[SQAAD]

@Devin

12 minutes ago, Devin said:

Their wives have the greatest ability to hurt them socially.

These guys end up hurting themselves socially more than their wives could ever have. Many of them end up in jail serving life sentences. Others commit suicide afterwards.

Also there any many murders among couples who are not even married, and therefore have nothing to separate.

Edited July 8, 2022 by SQAAD

[Breakingthewall]

in Roman law the paterfamilias could kill his wife if he wanted. 200 years ago, the figure of honor killing was in almost all penal codes. the native americans sold their women if they wanted, God took out a rib from adam and created the woman to keep company and serve the man etc etc.

[Devin]

3 hours ago, SQAAD said:

@Devin

These guys end up hurting themselves socially more than their wives could ever have. Many of them end up in jail serving life sentences. Others commit suicide afterwards.

Also there any many murders among couples who are not even married, and therefore have nothing to separate.

There are worse things for a man than jail or death, social shame and rejection, jail is not that for many men, it is often considered manly.

[Razard86]

6 hours ago, Dumuzzi said:

I think there is a simple explanation for this. A significant proportion of men (4 percent, I think) are psychopaths or sociopaths, whereas almost no women are. This must have conferred evolutionary advantages, otherwise the genetic code for it would not have survived in modern populations. If you look at modern politics or business, psychopathy is a distinct advantage. It would also seem that a significant proportion of women are naturally attracted to psychopaths. The explanation probably lies somewhere in Richard Dawkins' Selfish Gene theory, whereby our genes act against our own interests, but ensure their own survival in surreptitious ways, by shafting us. A typical example would be a highly violent and/or psychopathic male that ensured the success of his own genetic line by ruthlessly murdering his competition and fathering thousands of children by manipulating women with their emotions, despite the fact they don't have any. Genghis Khan would be a good example from history, but even male lions exhibit this behaviour. 

If you think almost no women are sociopaths, psychopaths you are not doing enough research on the matter. 

Along with cultural biases at play, most female psychopaths and sociopaths avoid detection.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/201906/why-female-psychopaths-are-different-breed

Edited July 8, 2022 by Razard86

[PenguinPablo]

Integrate your shadow.

[Ulax]

My guess would be some form of PTSD-like psyche.

[StarStruck]

When excess emotions is involved, there is no reason. Low consciousness people don’t think ahead. They just want to get instant gratification which is in this case: release of anger. 
It is Darwinism at play. Extreme low conscious people remove themselves from the gene pool which is not counter intuitive. It is what it is.  

[integral]

6 hours ago, StarStruck said:

When excess emotions is involved, there is no reason. Low consciousness people don’t think ahead. They just want to get instant gratification which is in this case: release of anger. 
It is Darwinism at play. Extreme low conscious people remove themselves from the gene pool which is not counter intuitive. It is what it is.  

but because they don't think ahead they are likely to have the most number of children with the most number of people so they could spare a few. nature has a way to solve every problem.

Edited July 9, 2022 by integral

[puporing]

You're thinking this from a higher consciousness perspective so it seems absurd. But it's actually not absurd from their perspective.

There's also a cultural/environmental factor. If one is from say an environment that has a very negative stigma around divorce and one had built most of their self-worth (specifically the masculine identity) and identity around having the family together even if superficially. The cultural narrative play a role in how we view these things.

Being very attached to time investment, money and pride and when those are threatened in a seperation/divorce situation it can really trigger the ego.

Killing children that don't agree, well, that also makes sense from a very selfish ego entirely driven by its own interests and sees children as their property to do whatever they want with.

Edited July 9, 2022 by puporing

[StarStruck]

11 hours ago, integral said:

but because they don't think ahead they are likely to have the most number of children with the most number of people so they could spare a few. nature has a way to solve every problem.

you can't make a lot of children when you are in prison.

[integral]

5 hours ago, StarStruck said:

you can't make a lot of children when you are in prison.

its ok doe, they more then always get busy making babies young and luckily they tend to be the unlikely to learn from there mistakes so right after prison they'll get back to work making does babies. (i am joking around...)

Edited July 9, 2022 by integral

[Michael Jackson]

Integrate your shadow.