I finally figured out why women are valued higher.

[Julian]

No, not really.

But I have considered that I'm domestically violent.

What a great guy you are. I think its awesome you are a part of this forum. You really bring that certain something to this forum. Never change.

 

[RichardTheFrog]

What a great guy you are. I think its awesome you are a part of this forum. You really bring that certain something to this forum. Never change.

What do YOU bring?

 

[Elias.Barbarian]

According to evolutionary theory - packs of humans would place a higher value on women, as they are integral to the survival of the tribe, more so than men. This has been pointed out above but deserves to be repeated. Humans are social animals, conditioned to live in relatively small groups. Hence, most of our hardware and much of our instincts are customised for that environment. If you lose most of your women - your tribe is most likely done for. If you lose most your men, that's tragic but not a death sentence - as few men can impregnate the many women and thus return the tribe to adequate size. That is where "Women and children first" originates.
Life or evolution is just a race of genes attempting to further themselves. You are merely the vessel for these genes. If your children die - the agenda of your genes to procreate is inhibited. If all your women die - the same issue. Men, on the other hand, ARE more expendable in that sense. ESPECIALLY the weak ones. You only need very few men - preferably the strongest ones, to keep a tribe going.

I would argue that is the evolutionary explanation for many of our social customs when it comes to the different genders.
I think talking about "inherent value" is very much misplaced here though. There is no inherent value to any of our social interactions, rather than furthering our genes. Please explain what the "inherent value" of a man is if not that?
I feel like you are trying to make a normative argument here, while the underlying topic is cold biology. There is no fairness in evolution.

But for our purposes, the question is more whether women are in the driver's seat when it comes to mate selection.

Interestingly, there are studies conducted in Universities showing that the relative amount of female and male students affects sexual behaviour.
IF there are more men in the Uni -> men and women tend to form LTRs.
If there are more women -> there tends to be a hook-up culture.

This seems to indicate that the relative amount of men and women (supply and demand) impacts the success of different, gendered sexual imperatives.
On average, women tend to prefer relationships - men prefer casual sex. At least in their early 20s apparently.
I would argue that the gay community is also an indicator of that claim.

So does that mean you should move to a city where more women than men live? That would actually work -> Example New York.

I'd say that there is a biological imperative to further genes. This is accomplished through the female tendency to attract a capable man and keep him around so she is protected while she is incapacitated due to pregnancy and a short while after. The chemicals that cause your brain to feel strong infatuation to someone on the basis of sexual attraction last about 1.5 - 2 years - coincidence?
After that, the child is relatively autonomous - they guy might move on - he might stay - same for the female. But now, there is the option to further the genes with different people.
I think there might reason to believe that there are two classes of men due to their different reproductive requirements. The men that spread their semen and the ones providing care for the mothers and children.

In any case, it is important to understand that there is no conscious agency in any of this, but just cold biology.

What you have to realize though, is that most men are lazy and complacent these days. How many people do really consistently show Alpha traits?
You have to show indicators that your genes are strong!

You as a desirable man are incredibly rare in our current society. Possibly even rarer than women in their most desirable age.
This means that if you are a sufficiently high-value man you are just as rare as the female equivalent.

If you think that women have endless options because there are so many guys out there willing to do everything for them - you are mistaken.
I know this girl through friends (Uni) and she is about 23 and a model. She is not my cup of tea but objectively a 9.5 in terms of looks (I like beautiful women but I also need to be not driven insane by the topics a woman talks about). Anyway, she clearly knows how hot she is and that she can get pretty much every guy she wants. But she has been stuck up on this guy for almost 2 years now. Granted she has had other relationships but this dude is apparently so Alpha that he even made her break up with the guy she was with at the time to **** him, only to ditch her the next day. This guy toys with this girl as if she had no other option in the world. That guy is rich, self-employed, relatively handsome, and the most natural gamer I have ever met.
He is a bit of a **** but nobody has ever demonstrated so clearly to me that highly desirable men can make even the hottest women into helpless groupies.

So sure, society might value women on average higher due to biological reasons. But that does absolutely not mean that this cannot be your world, if you realise your options and work on yourself to become the most desirable you can be. Desirable men are just as high in demand as certain women are on the SMP. Talking about men and women in general makes you overlook this improtant fact.

I hope this made sense to some of you guys - that is the way I think about this - I am interested to hear your thoughts.

I believe that discussions like these are important and interesting. They can give you background information and context for some of the arguments that are being made in this forum. Also, they help you to understand where attraction comes from and what you need to do to get what you want given your biological constraints.


Best,

E.

 

[That_dude]

No, not really.

But I have considered that I'm domestically violent.

If thats the conclusion you've come to personally. Other peoples opinions and projections are like aholes

 

[Julian]

What do YOU bring?

You have a tactic ive noticed, a pattern of sorts. Whenever someone calls you out or exposes you, you ALWAYS like to use the female tactic of diverting things from you and flipping them, by asking some asinine question.

Such as:

"Wheres the pics of YOUR hot girls?"

"Why are YOU so tough?"

"How much money are YOU making?"

etc etc. so please bro, stop the gayness line of questioning. its quite lame.

 

[ChristopherColumbus]

I would argue that is the evolutionary explanation for many of our social customs when it comes to the different genders.
I think talking about "inherent value" is very much misplaced here though. There is no inherent value to any of our social interactions, rather than furthering our genes. Please explain what the "inherent value" of a man is if not that?
I feel like you are trying to make a normative argument here, while the underlying topic is cold biology. There is no fairness in evolution.
.

What's really at play here is ideology not biology.

 

[Elias.Barbarian]

What's really at play here is ideology not biology.

What exactly do you mean by that?
Maybe I am overvaluing the impact of biology, but you cannot deny that many social norms (is that what you mean?) are rooted in biological realities.

 

[ChristopherColumbus]

What exactly do you mean by that?
Maybe I am overvaluing the impact of biology, but you cannot deny that many social norms (is that what you mean?) are rooted in biological realities.

It's also arguable that social norms are the exact opposite of biological realities. Language, culture, society, morality, norms etc seem to rise like a superstructure from the [biological] base. Even though we have a disposition to think of the base as causing the superstructure [ideology... but the whole sentence also gives you the ideology equation - underlying natural irrational causes ----> phenomena], there is another way of conceiving causation. We could think about those social norms developing from rationality and teleology [where we pursue ends as rationally/ culturally conceived]. So in this picture, whilst the rose rises from the dirt, it develops and rises towards something.. it's being is also one of becoming.. a realizing of its own nature. This is also biology, but it now has a fuller meaning due to the old classical sense [there is no progress to be found in perennial thought].

Of course there is the old chestnut of nature/ nurture which I think may tend to translate into Right and Left on the political spectrum. Like all such dichotomies, it is the result of an ideological mode of thinking. The reality is that people are more like an interface between nature and nurture; between biological realities, on the one hand, and social/ rational/ cultural... and even metaphysical ones on the other. We can to a certain extent make ourselves.

 

[That_dude]

I'd never say they lack value. Some lack heart and character.. Have there own agenda.. But a good women with looks, brains and personality is of high value imo

 

[RichardTheFrog]

I'd never say they lack value. Some lack heart and character.. Have there own agenda.. But a good women with looks, brains and personality is of high value imo

If she sucks d!ck and doesn't ask for money

 

[Maggsgsr]

If she sucks d!ck and doesn't ask for money

haha that too