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

[ThaWholigan]

How could you possibly know how you will respond to realizations that you haven't had yet?

 

Experience changes people, my friend.

Because I won't allow myself to be as jaded as you motherf*ckers .

[jddg5wa]

I'm just jumping in here but doesn't it work the same way for guys if they look good enough?

[serial muse]

Women have tons of guys coming at them from every which way (credit: my female friends and many of the women on here). Many women will get rid of guys for no reason (I knew a girl that broke it off with a guy because he liked cilantro). This is because they have MANY options.

 

Phoe may not at this particular moment. But, as she said in many posts, this is because she lives in the middle of nowhere.

 

If she didn't, she would have guys hitting on her left and right. Of course, she might not be into those guys, but she will have MANY options.

 

So, yes, I don't have the experience of being a woman. You are right. I'm just living vicariously through female posters here and females I know in real life.

 

Sure, you can dress up conjecture any way you like - vicarious experience, apocryphal stories, etc. - but in the end, you either know from personal experience or you don't, which is what you basically told ThaWholigan. So I think my point stands.

 

In the absence of absolute personal knowledge, all that's left is the opportunity for empathy. Too bad it's only imperfectly and selectively applied, as the very existence of this merged thread proves.

[MomsSpaghetti]

I'm just jumping in here but doesn't it work the same way for guys if they look good enough?

 

Yes, but fewer guys are considered good-looking than are girls. I'd say that at least 20% of women are attractive to most men, while only 5% of men are attractive to most women.

[ltjg45]

I agree. Pretty girls are a dime a dozen. Hell, they're a nickel a dozen.

 

Good looking guys, however, are very rare.

 

And they're even MORE rare (if non-existent) once you get into the 50+ range. At that point, it's just a matter of trying to find the one that looks the least hideous amongst them.

 

I have to wonder what is the benefits of looking good once a male is past the age of 50 outside of his own personal health.

 

At that point, I doubt a man at that age would be doing so to attract female attention since he would have a woman by now or is content remaining single so I don't see the benefits.

 

Besides, males at that age would have grey hair or is bald and/or they have many other issues that just wouldn't be attractive to women that they can't control anyway so remaining "good-looking" would be an uphill battle regardless if the man did everything right or not.

[serial muse]

No, threads like this exist because women do not appreciate how good they have it.

 

Er...you do know that you're not actually disproving my statement, I hope.

 

Don't blame me though...you kind of boxed yourself into a corner, logic-wise. No way out!

[MrHand]

Researcher Roy F. Baumeister mentions in his work that while 80 percent of women have historically managed to reproduce, only 40 percent of men have.

 

With ancestral humans, there was rampant polygany, with the top men dominating the fertile years of multiple women, and a significant portion of men facing natural and insurmountable celibacy. Women went along with this arrangement because it meant getting the best genes for their children. Even an ugly woman would much rather share a man above her with other women rather than settling for low status man. Men would have to undertake dangerous activities to overcome their lowly sexual status -- banding together and invading neighboring tribes and stealing their women, challenging alpha males in their group, etc...all of which results in male deaths, while the women continue to sit around getting impregnated by the winners.

 

This arrangement went on for tens of thousands of years, heck, millions of years, considering all the creatures that preceded homo sapien sapien..

 

Several thousand years ago though some elite men realized that they could make their societies more stable, and the men of those societies more willing to fight for that society rather than against it, if every man was guaranteed a mate. Thus, monogamy as a cultural norm was instituted with the idea of it benefiting the average man who would otherwise lose out to the top men who get multiple wives. Monogamy was a socialist divvying up of the good of female sexuality among the male population.

 

Societies which practiced monogamy became more stable, as men's energies were directed in other avenues beyond worrying about mating. The men weren't as eager to fight against their own societies. Perhaps this is one reason why Western culture came to dominate the world: Monogamy allowed its men to work together rather than against each other.

 

The West however decided to rock the boat with the Sexual Revolution. Since then, divorce has become more common. Marriage is delayed. Single motherhood is widespread and socially accepted. Slut shaming is frowned upon. Obviously, these things are incompatible with a strict monogamous culture.

 

The consequence is that monogamous marriage no longer functions as a socialist divvying of female sexuality. Society, in some manners, has returned to the law of the jungle, in which, once again, top men dominate the fertile years of multiple women.

 

For, consider the case of one 35 year old man today marrying a 28 year old woman he has known for five months. But prior to that marriage, in fact, going back to his years as a high school sophomore, he's never been without a girlfriend around his age for more than a few months. Whether the number of girlfriend's he's had is two or 15, it's clear that he's consuming more than one woman's prime years. The consequence is that other men lose out.

 

Thus, the amount of sex had by the average man has remained the same since the Sexual Revolution, but the variance has increased.

 

Videogames and pornography have the cultural function of pacifying the male sexual loser population.

[fallenheart]

Science is neat.

[Philosoraptor]

Lack of reproduction does not equal lack of sex.

[kendallk]

I dont think reproduction is the best way to measure. Few men actually wish to impregnate women its just the pleasure part. 90% of people living in utter poverty in this world are women with children. I think that speaks alot about how much men really want children. Even in the US a child's economic status directly correlates with whether his father in his life or not. Because women tend to get paid less and kids aint cheap.

 

If it makes you feel better, women tend to suffer more emotionally in relationships than men. But, that doesnt matter because men prioritize sex over emotions tenfold, hence why you find threads like this and responses like mine.

[Pompeii]

Lack of reproduction does not equal lack of sex.

 

Back in early times before civilization existed, it did as there was no contraception available. Having sex pretty much meant that you impregnated the female, your biological predecessor being a marker that you had sex. From a biological perspective, if you fail to reproduce you are considered an evolutionary failure. Our main biological mission in life is to reproduce more copies of ourselves. That doesn't mean our lives can't have meaning but that is outside the scope of this discussion.

 

Yes, not every man will get to mate. Civilization remained stable because the creators of civilization were able to subvert men's sexual drive through the creation of institutions. This was achieved through either direct satiation (marriage, prostitution) or sublimation (work). These three institutions created a stable atmosphere for civilization to thrive and be created. A mass of sexually-frustrated young men are no good for any civilization and it has been proven that men will frequently demolish and go to war to increase their sexual access to mates. Today, such a thing is impossible due to forces such as police.

 

The male sex drive is underestimated by women and even many men themselves. It needs a proper outlet such as sex or meaningful, contributive work or else it can be very destructive. We've seen this already in the incidences of mass shootings - all of which were committed by mentally disturbed by no doubt sexually frustrated men. Sodini comes to mind.

[Disillusioned]

As usual, whoever does these studies totally ignores asexuals (who are not exactly as rare as snowstorms in the Sahara).

 

The ratio of asexual straight men to asexual straight women is something like 4 women to one man... maybe the folks at asexuality dot org can give you better numbers than I can.

[HoneyBadgerDontCare]

I dont think reproduction is the best way to measure. Few men actually wish to impregnate women its just the pleasure part. 90% of people living in utter poverty in this world are women with children. I think that speaks alot about how much men really want children. Even in the US a child's economic status directly correlates with whether his father in his life or not. Because women tend to get paid less and kids aint cheap.

 

If it makes you feel better, women tend to suffer more emotionally in relationships than men. But, that doesnt matter because men prioritize sex over emotions tenfold, hence why you find threads like this and responses like mine.

 

Now, if only there were consequences placed upon women for being single mothers (such as the single mother tax levied on women in China), then this problem would decrease significantly.

 

But no, in the US, daddy is paying tons of child support (even if the baby isn't his) to support mommy and baby. So women are actually rewarded for being single mothers here.

 

And, OP, if a guy is ugly as sin, but smart and resourceful enough, he will find a way to reproduce.

[Revolver]

Women have been sharing top men for pretty much ever... This is not just some 2013 post sex in the city phenomenon

[Philosoraptor]

So you're saying that every time someone has unprotected sex there is a pregnancy? This takes into account a womans cycle, miscarriages, unfertile men and women? The millions of woman who died during childbirth back then?

 

Lots of jaded dudes in here. Guess back in the day you'd be whacking it to art on cave walls.

[Nikki Sahagin]

People are always comparing humans to animals but WHICH animal should we compared to?

 

Amongst apes and monkeys we have:

* Serial monogamy

* Antisocial monogamy (i.e. meeting to reproduce, then parting)

* Polygamy

* Lesbianism/Gay

 

Amongst other animal species we have:

* Female spiders eating the male after sex

* Sea horses carrying the females babies

 

Basically, what I am getting at is that although human beings ARE animals and although we have close links to apes, human behaviour is so much more difficult to analyse because it is driven NOT ONLY by biological factors, but by cognitive thought, by emotion, by culture, by society etc.

 

I read another thread recently that said arranged marriage was created so that all men COULD have one woman. Otherwise a large proportion of men would be single.

 

What I think is that a load of great catches (female and male) are single and a load of people who are nothing special (female and male) are in relationships or have plenty of options.

 

When it comes to humans, we complicate stuff.

 

Lots of people who on paper are not attractive or very amazing partners have no trouble attracting it, whilst others who on paper have it all, are always single. Basically....with humans....it is more complicated. You really need to understand what you PROJECT out and who/how people are reacting.

[Pompeii]

So you're saying that every time someone has unprotected sex there is a pregnancy?

 

Most of the time there would be. As there was ZERO contraception. I'm talking about in the times way before civilization even started.

[Pompeii]

People are always comparing humans to animals but WHICH animal should we compared to?

 

Amongst apes and monkeys we have:

* Serial monogamy

* Antisocial monogamy (i.e. meeting to reproduce, then parting)

* Polygamy

* Lesbianism/Gay

 

Amongst other animal species we have:

* Female spiders eating the male after sex

* Sea horses carrying the females babies

 

Basically, what I am getting at is that although human beings ARE animals and although we have close links to apes, human behaviour is so much more difficult to analyse because it is driven NOT ONLY by biological factors, but by cognitive thought, by emotion, by culture, by society etc.

 

I read another thread recently that said arranged marriage was created so that all men COULD have one woman. Otherwise a large proportion of men would be single.

 

What I think is that a load of great catches (female and male) are single and a load of people who are nothing special (female and male) are in relationships or have plenty of options.

 

When it comes to humans, we complicate stuff.

 

Lots of people who on paper are not attractive or very amazing partners have no trouble attracting it, whilst others who on paper have it all, are always single. Basically....with humans....it is more complicated. You really need to understand what you PROJECT out and who/how people are reacting.

 

 

Human sexual behavior is closest to the chimpanzee but you could make a case that we are shifting more towards a bonobo-like model.

[Philosoraptor]

Most of the time there would be. As there was ZERO contraception. I'm talking about in the times way before civilization even started.

That's a ridiculous concept. Millions of people have fertility issues.

 

Again you need to take into account womans cycle, miscarriages, unfertile men and women, the millions of woman who died during childbirth back then. What about guys who are having sex with women who are already pregnant?

 

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.

[man_in_the_box]

That's not even the worst - getting pregnant is just gambling at low statistics if that's your goal. Even at the most fertile period the changes are only ~9%. So not every sexual encounter results in pregnancy.

 

I assume we are not going back in time far enough to deal with completely different reproductive systems - if so I'll need to educate myself further.

[Pompeii]

That's a ridiculous concept. Millions of people have fertility issues.

 

Again you need to take into account womans cycle, miscarriages, unfertile men and women, the millions of woman who died during childbirth back then. What about guys who are having sex with women who are already pregnant?

 

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.

 

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. So I don't see how this is even an issue. Early humans had mutations but they simply didn't have the environmental factors or genetic timeline that we do to have as many as we do now.

[Mrlonelyone]

You need to remember this idea.

 

http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/ep021223.pdf

 

Semen Displacement as a Sperm Competition Strategy in Humans

 

Gordon G. Gallup, Jr., Department of Psychology, State University of New York at Albany,

Albany, NY 12222, USA. Email: [email protected].

 

Rebecca L. Burch, Department of Psychology, State University of New York at Oswego, Oswego,

NY 13126, USA. Email: [email protected].

 

Abstract: We examine some of the implications of the possibility that the human

penis may have evolved to compete with sperm from other males by displacing

rival semen from the cervical end of the vagina prior to ejaculation. The semen

displacement hypothesis integrates considerable information about genital

morphology and human reproductive behavior, and can be used to generate a

number of interesting predictions.

 

This basically says that women are not wired for hypergamy but they are wired for polyandry...just as men are wired for a polygyny. To a certain degree.

 

The male penis grew in size and shape to scoop a rival males semen out. That makes it sound like there was lots of group sex going on. Everyone got at least a taste.

 

Maybe 40% of men got to have sex with 80% of the women. But 100% of the men and women got to have sex with someone. The man with the biggest *ock could squish his rivals sperm out of the way. The man with a longer *ock could place his boys in deeper.

 

That and if you think about it wouldn't it make sense for humans to have sex standing up and facing eachother. Likely with the man holding up the mother, standing and carying the woman. This explains in part why big broad shoulders and a narrow waist are so attractive to women.

[man_in_the_box]

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. So I don't see how this is even an issue. Early humans had mutations but they simply didn't have the environmental factors or genetic timeline that we do to have as many as we do now.

 

Can you provide comparative evidence for that?

[Keenly]

All I needed to see was your last sentence.

 

 

No married father plays video games right?

[serial muse]

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. So I don't see how this is even an issue. Early humans had mutations but they simply didn't have the environmental factors or genetic timeline that we do to have as many as we do now.

 

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.