Women choose. Men compete.

Post Reply New Topic

Depends on my mood and the situation. I tend go for friends, so mostly it's a difference in behavior. I'm also quite forward, and have been told I have a penetrating gaze.

Well obviously there's some issues regarding the validity of this argument since the person who presented it can't even spell "intelligent".

Hello, I'm "new" in the sense that I haven’t posted before; the fact that nobody gave a scientifically based response to this question has blown my mind.
I don't have sources to cite this (I'm too lazy), but go look up "parental investment" and I'm sure you'll find all this information.

It is observed across the animal kingdom that males tend to be highly competitive while females tend to be very picky. The reasons can be described entirely in terms of reproductive fitness.

Start with the biological constraints of the sexes. Note that females are far more investive in their offspring. First, they produce massive egg cells which are very expensive in terms of resources. Then also note the time they have to spend developing that egg in their bodies, and then the nursing that proceeds afterwards. Women are designed to be the sex which invests far more in their children.

Women can only produce so many children in a lifetime due to their constraints, while men's ability to produce children is only limited to his access to mates. Therefore, if she’s only going to be able to produce children with only a few males, then wouldn’t it make sense for her to try her best to find a male with the best genes possible?

Conversely, males are well documented to engage in combat in order to secure access to mates. In many animal populations, it is usually one or two of the biggest and strongest males who mates with all the females in the population, while everybody else is lucky to have even one copulation; often enough, this copulation may be a forced one (i.e. rape). Males therefore tend to be far less picky, since the 99% of males only have a chance of passing on their genes by accepting a single copulation offer.

Combining these two constraints, it is usually the toughest/sexiest/most extravagant males who do all the mating within the population. This explains why sexual dimorphisms can be so extreme in some species. Note that in many species, it’s usually the male that is usually the more aesthetically pleasing sex to humans. Peacocks are one example, but this can be seen across the board.

The opposite is true in species where males are the more investive sex, such as seahorses.

Now think back to high school. Remember those elitist males who lost their virginity at age 13, treat their girls like garbage, yet has no problem getting a new girlfriend every couple weeks? This is because they’re the most attractive males, the elitist males who all the girls go after by their natural, highly investive biology. However, females may lower their standards after all the elitist males get hitched; however, I haven’t observed this amongst my females peers yet.

Isn't Zuckerberg married now?


Also, the title is true.....only for dating sites (there women are employers and males are job seekers).


It is also true in traditional communities, like in some Arab communities where potential grooms go to the girl's parents, one after one, and normally the girl has the last word on it. I personally know a girl and she tells me about a potential coming and rejected every few days, this rejected because he's too young, that because he works as bodyguard, this not educated enough, that not good job enough.... there is competition between men in that case because basically it's like she's getting a list of men and she's choosing one of them, It's a form of arranged marriage where the to-be-bride having the final word (vs the more suppressing communities where it's all father's decision).

Otherwise, in real life and with serial monogamy, it's different: both men and women have varying degrees of competition and 'choice power', for example the more desirable the woman is, let's say a young super duper hot and smart woman is going to have a wide range of choice, in that case she has little competition and more choice power - while let's say a poorly educated overweight woman would have to do a lot to compete better women and she would have much less choices, if any.

Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 10 Oct 2013, 2:05 am, edited 2 times in total.

Oh boy, trust me, men choose as well. They really do. I've been rejected heaps.

It's scientifically proven that humans descended from species where males compete, even in combat form, hence why we have dimorphism, like height, but we are less "dimorphisic" (sp?) than most ape species indicating that our coupling system had been leaning more toward monogamy longer than previously thought.

Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 10 Oct 2013, 2:11 am, edited 2 times in total.

One look at testes size can tell you a lot about the mating system present in a species. Species with lots of sperm competition tend to have bigger balls than those with fewer sperm competition. Lower sperm competition comes from a lack competitors, which can be either because of monogamy or having a harem.

For example, gorillas have tiny balls cause it's generally 1 alpha male and a troop of women. Any other males present in the group are subordinate and don't get any unless the alpha dies or they overthrow him.

Bonobos have sex with each other, their neighbors, their neighbor's partner, everyone. It's a real orgy. It isn't a shock then to know that bonobos have huge balls. They need the big balls to compete with the sperm of other males, cause trust me any given female bonobo is getting lots of other bonobo dick.

Humans are....what do ya know, in the middle. We have a mixed mating system where both males and females employ different strategies, although monogamy has had a strong presence for a long time it seems.

We are probably an evolving species from polygyny to monogamy and maybe to two ways polygamy? lol you know with all that divorce and cheating.

I'm inclined to believe that humans were never polygynous. Given that the biggest threat to humans is other humans, having available males willing to fight for the good of the group was imperative. A collection of 1 happy alpha male and lots of sexually-frustrated, discontented males would have gotten smashed apart in fighting even as low scale as tribal warfare. Polygamous and monogamous societies would have simply been able to field much larger amounts of warriors.

Then how do you explain the height difference if we've never been polyandrous? I am talking about height now, not testes sizes. Of course by 'we' I mean our ancestral species.

it could be weaker males were more likely to die but that would lead to polyandry or maybe the stronger males remained longer alive to fool around.

I've just realized that I've answered my own question lol

There are many possible reasons here, but serving different roles in society would be one way of making it happen. A bigger body is required to go out and hunt big, dangerous animals. If women didn't need to be engaged in as much physical activity as men, then evolution would tend to lead to women with smaller bodies. Such small-bodied women would be able to allocate more of their energy toward reproduction, which would have improved their fitness.

I am getting this one: http://www.amazon.com/Woman-That-Never- ... 0674955390
The title is weird tho.

Having all the big strong men out hunting while the weak men stayed home w/ the ladies might have evened that out a bit.

I recall a study showed that there less male traces than female traces in our DNA (only 40% of men reproduced vs 80%), so the more logical theory is that weaker men were more likely to be killed in action.

I have chosen Johnny Depp. So something in your theory has to be wrong. ^^