The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
tarantella64 wrote:
I've said this elsewhere, but my experience is that women by and large are pretty okay outside relationships -- the "I'm taking time for myself" business is endemic -- and tend to be pretty picky. Most of us don't, as far as I've seen, go throwing ourselves at men, because we're not interested enough to do that. If there's a particular man we're interested in, we'll go after him pretty vigorously. It could be that the percentage of men women are really interested in is pretty small. I hadn't thought about it before, but most of the men I've been involved with are pretty accustomed to female attention. My recent exbf, the one with AS who struggles to get his life together, has had three women come courting in the last year. I can certainly see why. He's a very handsome, charming fella, mannerly and well-spoken, looks like a great boyfriend and husband manqué. (He does not, incidentally, have a car or drive at all, and is chronically unemployed, has no money, does not have his own place. None of this seems to matter.) If initial courtship were the whole game, he'd be in great shape.
Your anecdotal evidence indicates that there's some truth in the Alpha male theory in pua culture.
Okcupid showed that women find only 20% of men as above average (looks wise only) and the rest as significantly less than average.
A majority of women find a minority of men attractive...yes, sounds pretty much Alpha-thing to me, this whole alpha-thing in pua had been theorized based on this very observation that you are talking about, Tarantella.
"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. **** 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."
I got that from an article I found somewhere, sounds like there might be some truth to it, that there being more male sexual losers than female sexual losers
07 Aug 2014, 5:34 am
