Consolidated discussion - In dating/relationships, my gender has a much harder time

[Criticality]

 

In fact the CDC reports that 11% of women have issues carrying a pregnancy to term and 7.5% of men have saught help with infertility issues.

 

With 7.118 billion people on the planet and the ratio of 101 males to 100 females that means almost 312 million women and 215 million men have fertility problems. And yes, early humans had mutations and fertility issues as well. So even though they may have been banging away it doesn't mean they were either with a fertile mate or fertile themselves.

 

You can't extrapolate CDCs statistics for Americans as if they're the same worldwide.

 

They're not.

 

Its not unusual to see families in third world countries with 5, 8 or 10 children through a couples marriage.

 

American women and men have more problems with fertility and childbirth mainly because many couples don't have children before they're 30 and 40 years old, which is a little too late compared to the ideal childbearing age for women, which is in their teens and early twenties. Men's sperm quality also severely decreases over time.

 

And yes, 30 and 40 is an old age to get children, considering that its not too long ago, that the average life expectancy was 40 something.

 

It's also more likely today, especially in the industrialized world, that more people have fertility problems than at earlier times, because its much more likely that they pass on their genes than it used to be. Many couples that deal with infertility get pregnant through fertility treatment. (In vitro and others). So they pass on the genes that may contribute to low fertility.

 

Before the invention of modern medicine, there weren't any fertility treatments, so it was much more unlikely that a genetic combination that could cause infertility was passed on.

 

Marriage was mainly seen as a practical arrangement meant to ensure descendants and heirs.

 

If a woman was infertile, her husband would just get another wife.

 

And if the husband was the problem, the main fertility treatment was to be knocked up by somebody else. Preferably without the husband knowing.

[Criticality]

They also didn't have the medicine we have now. Childbirth was extremely dangerous for the woman - it takes a severe toll on her body. And miscarriages were far, far, far more common. So, if you're going to take modernity into account, you have to do it across the board. Exponentially more children survive now than did then.

 

Not "extremely dangerous". While you certainly knew somebody who had died while giving birth, the human body is designed for giving birth many, many times in a row. In the US the maternal death rate is about 20 pr. 100.000 births.

In South Sudan, a place with almost zero modern medicine and hospitals and where people give birth loke in preindustrial times (at home with help from their friends) the maternal death rate is about 2000 in 100.000 births. That's about 2%.

 

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2223rank.html

 

 

 

I'd be willing to bet one of my limbs that fertility was much, much, much higher in pre-civilization times compared to now. Now, we have so many environmental factors such as pollution, xenoestrogens, etc. that can completely change our body chemistry.

 

That's a very bold claim I'd sure like to see some sources on. Cause it sounds like environmentalist fear mongering.

Many of the factors you mention are everywhere: in our oceans, lakes and air. And plastics/herbacides are also a world wide factor.

But not only are there lots of families with 6-8 kids in countries that have the same pollutants as in the US: Egypt or the Philippines. But you also see plenty of families in Mexico with 5-6 kids.

[serial muse]

Not "extremely dangerous". While you certainly knew somebody who had died while giving birth, the human body is designed for giving birth many, many times in a row. In the US the maternal death rate is about 20 pr. 100.000 births.

In South Sudan, a place with almost zero modern medicine and hospitals and where people give birth loke in preindustrial times (at home with help from their friends) the maternal death rate is about 2000 in 100.000 births. That's about 2%.

 

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2223rank.html

 

Well, the point has become a bit lost since this thread got merged into the larger "who has it tougher" thread, but the original post by MrHand was postulating that fewer men than women have the opportunity to reproduce their genetic material, due to biology and polygamy and now the sexual revolution. Then we got into this discussion of whether having sex = reproducing, per se; Pompeii suggested that basically if you had sex in the centuries before contraception you were making a baby - and that he thinks that people were more fertile back in the day, too.

 

So my response wasn't so much about mother mortality, but about overall infant and child mortality; mothers dying during childbirth certainly contributed to that back in the day, but was hardly the main thrust (har har) of my argument. The point I'm making is a counterpoint to the idea that people having sex in olden times = people having passels of babies that then go on to spread their genetic material into the human race; modern medicine is a large part of the reason that many more babies and children survive (as well as mothers -- and this is true even in South Sudan, although certainly not to the extent that it is in the developed world; see below).

 

For example, if we return to South Sudan (which is actually not even in the top ten for infant mortality), infant mortality rates are around 1 in 12, and under-five mortality (which has actually dropped significantly since the 1950s (about 375 per 1000 children) is now around 1 in 10. Still quite high. The point being that you can't suggest that people were more fertile in the past without also acknowledging that even if they were constantly pregnant (debatable, but let it stand for the moment), a large percentage of those kids never made it anyway. So when it comes to seeding the gene pool, it's easy to make grand sweeping arguments about history and societal this and that, but when you take a close look at these things it's just so much hot air. There's really no logical, scientific way to argue that men have half as much input into the gene pool as women; it's just proofiness (made-up numbers to support an emotional argument that are masquerading as data).

 

Which is why it actually makes sense that it was merged into this larger "who has it tougher" thread, since - pseudo science aside - the OP was indeed just another such argument.

Edited October 21, 2013 by serial muse

[mario_C]

I love this and this is a proper thread to share it on:

Overly Picky Brooklyn Women Are Destined Die Alone (Maybe With Cats)

Granted, the source is sketchy, but it was shared via FB by an old friend of mine (who has a great job, Upper Westy apt, gorgeous GF...the jerk ) who is the most honest, driven and friendly guy I know and who passionately agrees with this. So if we both agree this is how it is, there's got to be some truth here.

[Pyro]

If you put in as much effort to listen to the advice given to you on here as you do complain about the same thing over and over you would have better luck dating.

[lino]

Whoever said it was equal?

 

 

Everyone knows men have to do all the chasing and ground work, been like that since the beginning of time no?

[MalachiX]

I have tried to listen to the advice on here in that I give much much more effort than I used to years ago but it hasn't really changed anything

 

 

Anyways, this isn't really relevant. This thread is not about me. I'm just curious...

 

Sounds like you're more bitter than curious.

 

Worrying about the advantages one gender has over the other is a waste of time. There may be things that are easier for women but there's a ton of ways it's advantageous to be a man. It's not a contest.

[Dark_history]

Maybe it is because a lot of the women are approached by guys that just want to f**k and have to deal with being called a bitch or up tight h*e for saying no?

 

It would kind of be like you being approached by only fat, ugly, socially akward chicks and being called a womanizing pig for rejecting them. How dare those fat, ugly, socially inept women...

[SJC2008]

Don't worry about it. We have a trump card and it's

age. Do you think I'm going to date a woman in her 30's even though I'm about to be 32? Hell no! I'm a man, I'm ENTITLED to younger women!

[Eternal Sunshine]

That dating is equally challenging for both genders?

 

 

I just don't get it. Women nowadays have all the same benefits that they've always had in dating (guys do everything) plus the benefits of being a man in that they can approach whoever they like and it's not looked down upon at all. Hell It's much easier for a girl to approach a guy than vice versa because guys aren't so incredibly picky about everything and don't get approached at all so they're not super defensive. As long as you're not ugly, fat or socially retarded, the overwhelming majority of guys will respond to your approaches in a very positive way

 

 

How exactly is it equal?

 

I can assure you I am neither of the bolded and have trouble meeting men. Just because you are not picky doesn't mean that no man is. If anything, they are much pickier when it comes to looks than women.

[MalachiX]

I can assure you I am neither of the bolded and have trouble meeting men. Just because you are not picky doesn't mean that no man is. If anything, they are much pickier when it comes to looks than women.

 

Well, I think men tend to be more picky about looks when it comes to a relationship but not when it comes to hooking up (at least that's what one study I read showed).

 

The bottom line is that there are inequalities but focusing on them is kinda pointless since they tend to balance each other out in the end.

[madjac74]

I think he is saying that women will look down on a guy for approaching her but men will always be positive towards a woman approaching them (because we are all desperate or super nice apparently).

 

I don't agree with this at all because it is making women out to be snobs and that just isn't the case.

[Eternal Sunshine]

I think he is saying that women will look down on a guy for approaching her but men will always be positive towards a woman approaching them (because we are all desperate or super nice apparently).

 

I don't agree with this at all because it is making women out to be snobs and that just isn't the case.

 

 

I don't agree with that either. Men will be super nice only if a girl they are attracted to approaches them, otherwise they are pretty brutal. Women are pretty much the same.

 

The only gender difference that I will admit to is that women can get casual sex at any time. Men can't. But unfortunately most of us don't want it.

[madjac74]

I don't agree with that either. Men will be super nice only if a girl they are attracted to approaches them, otherwise they are pretty brutal. Women are pretty much the same.

 

The only gender difference that I will admit to is that women can get casual sex at any time. Men can't. But unfortunately most of us don't want it.

 

No way. I believe people in general whether male or female are flattered by the attention of the opposite sex (unless maybe they are idiot school age kids). They may be brutal behind the persons back but that happens in every aspect of life.

 

I also disagree with the casual sex for guys thing

[Eternal Sunshine]

No way. I believe people in general whether male or female are flattered by the attention of the opposite sex (unless maybe they are idiot school age kids). They may be brutal behind the persons back but that happens in every aspect of life.

 

I also disagree with the casual sex for guys thing

 

Ha - I don't believe ya

[xxoo]

Both men and women can have all the dates they don't want.

 

Neither has an easy time getting the dates they DO want.

[madjac74]

Ha - I don't believe ya

 

haha Would I lie here? This is my sanctuary for honesty. I always thought you were incredibly cute by the way

[StanMusial]

 

It would kind of be like you being approached by only fat, ugly, socially akward chicks and being called a womanizing pig for rejecting them. How dare those fat, ugly, socially inept women...

 

Or what if some guy just used a girl for sex then posted on the interwebs how she was "disgusting"? Imagine if that were to happen, dang.

 

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/mind-body-soul/sexual-reproductive-health-practices/438412-i-had-sex-woman-last-night-who-disgusts-me

[Philosoraptor]

These comparisons are stupid, truly.

 

It's hard for anyone, out of 7+ billion people, to find the mate they desire. Women may be able to settle easier on a creepy guy, but everyone seems to complain about not being able to find a quality mate.

[Revolver]

The men who say women have it harder tend to be in their late teens and early to mid 20's. The time where it's universally known as the worst time for the average man when it comes to dating

 

The women who say this isnt true and that's it's either equal or men have it easier tend to be over 30 and many times in their 40's the one where it's universally seen as the hardest for women in dating.

 

Those 2 sets of people are the ones who make up the vast majority of this website IMO(and most relationship discussion sites)so I'm not suprised this is always a deadlock issue on here.

 

Ask the same guys 10-15 years later this question and ask the women 10 to 15 years earlier you might get a different answer.

[madjac74]

The men who say women have it harder tend to be in their late teens and early to mid 20's. The time where it's universally known as the worst time for the average man when it comes to dating

 

The women who say this isnt true and that's it's either equal or men have it easier tend to be over 30 and many times in their 40's the one where it's universally seen as the hardest for women in dating.

 

Those 2 sets of people are the ones who make up the vast majority of this website IMO(and most relationship discussion sites)so I'm not suprised this is always a deadlock issue on here.

 

Ask the same guys 10-15 years later this question and ask the women 10 to 15 years earlier you might get a different answer.

 

Ask men and women what you just said and then ask them 15 years later and they will still not understand what you just said

[MidwestUSA]

Ask men and women what you just said and then ask them 15 years later and they will still not understand what you just said

 

LOL, thanks for that. I'll stop scratching my head now!

[Toddbt12y1]

Wouldn't be Loveshack without these types of threads.

 

Lol....nvm

[Ouroboros]

The guys who have had it hard early in life will always have it harder than other men. Time won't change that. Once an omega always an omega.

 

Middle aged women who feel it is equal or men have it better will think it was hard as youths since they couldn't score the alpha they desired like the alpha girls, but they had their youth to fall back on and could settle for the betas. If they were lucky an alpha used them as a fwb which wasn't fulfilling but the highlight of their young dating life. Now in their 30's-50's, the beta male tired of being used and these women having lost their youth can only spark the interest of the omegas. They are always the first to whine when an older man goes for a younger lady. It is motivated by pure jealousy.

 

Dating forums are overpopulated by these types since they are the most in need.

 

The alpha males and females remain largely unaffected by the troubles of their lessers relatively speaking.

[runningfar]

It would kind of be like you being approached by only fat, ugly, socially akward chicks and being called a womanizing pig for rejecting them. How dare those fat, ugly, socially inept women...

 

Hey! That reminds me of another thread... Now who was it that posted that.... hmmm....