Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, why didn't you put this into your OP, rather than speaking about all those women that you know?
I am interested in the issue of "shedding the patriarchy" though. If the "natural state" of humans is of many women mating with few men, why would the "patriarchy" have put the expectation of monogamy in place? Surely, the *cough* Alpha males *cough* would have not allowed their women to be shared with less-deserving males?
Because my observations are supported by the facts. If your experiences are supported by official statistics, I would have no problem with it as it would merely be confirmation of the objective reality.
This is an interesting question. The birth of a civilization requires the active input of the "undesirables" and for them to have offspring so that the population can grow and overwhelm the neighboring tribes, hence giving more access to resources and concubines to the "alphas" who would then don titles of kings and emperors. This model is perfectly consistent with history and the main explanation accepted by most academics and personally the most satisfactory explanation to me.
Here's an interesting study concerning a post-patriarchal meat market: online dating. Accordingly, the women surveyed found 80% of the men to be unattractive and undesirable. It is a rather fascinating study and confirms many aspects of what has been established in psychology circles for years but seems to come across as controversial and offensive in mainstream society. In a society where patriarchal forces have been nullified, we return to natural mating patterns wherein men seek to spread their seed as far and wide as possible and women only choose a select few of men to have offspring with. Women are naturally sexually attracted to a very small minority of men, while men as a whole can find a large number of women sexually attractive.
I guess if you are not in the top 20% of the best males in terms of attractiveness, you are out of luck then in terms of spreading your seed with women.
Here's an interesting study concerning a post-patriarchal meat market: online dating. Accordingly, the women surveyed found 80% of the men to be unattractive and undesirable.
Ugh, this 80% thing again.
Yup, in a situation where an immediate judgment is made solely on looks in a photo, of course most people (men AND women) will not get an "OMG, YES!!!" response. Most relationships don't have this as their sole basis though.
Please show me a study where it has been shown that, absent "societal constraints", human beings as a whole will make their relationship decisions solely based on the "OMG, procreate with me" factor.
Here's an interesting study concerning a post-patriarchal meat market: online dating. Accordingly, the women surveyed found 80% of the men to be unattractive and undesirable. It is a rather fascinating study and confirms many aspects of what has been established in psychology circles for years but seems to come across as controversial and offensive in mainstream society. In a society where patriarchal forces have been nullified, we return to natural mating patterns wherein men seek to spread their seed as far and wide as possible and women only choose a select few of men to have offspring with. Women are naturally sexually attracted to a very small minority of men, while men as a whole can find a large number of women sexually attractive.
Your study also seems to contradict your assertion that guys are not as discriminating as women, as well as most of your other claims. It shows that men are mostly going for the top women in terms of attractiveness, while women are actually going for the guys they deem less attractive.
So, if anything, you have it backwards. It's still the traditional model. Guys want the hottest women, while women are fine not having the best looking guys.
Clearly, you either didn't read the article you cited or were unable to see the logical conclusion.
Last edited by Just A Guy; 06-03-2016 at 04:13 PM..
I guess if you are not in the top 20% of the best males in terms of attractiveness, you are out of luck then in terms of spreading your seed with women.
Not necessarily. Human beings are a lot more complicated than that and there always exceptions to every rule, but the general rule as understood is pretty valid and many men will need to find contentment elsewhere and be completely priced out of the mating market and interestingly enough society seems to be perfectly fine with that. Where do you think the whole narrative of "you're not entitled to a wife or a girlfriend!!!" came from and to address what social phenomenon, exactly? Not saying I disagree with it, of course, but it does add a layer of validation to some of the things I am saying here.
Because my observations are supported by the facts. If your experiences are supported by official statistics, I would have no problem with it as it would merely be confirmation of the objective reality.
I find it humorous (in a somewhat sad way) that you are speaking of scientific studies and academics and don't know the definition of the word "polygamy".
Your "observations" are simply that. If true, they are simply your observations. No more, no less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aether
This is an interesting question. The birth of a civilization requires the active input of the "undesirables" and for them to have offspring so that the population can grow and overwhelm the neighboring tribes, hence giving more access to resources and concubines to the "alphas" who would then don titles of kings and emperors. This model is perfectly consistent with history and the main explanation accepted by most academics and personally the most satisfactory explanation to me.
Just out of curiosity, what field do you have your degree in?
Yup, in a situation where an immediate judgment is made solely on looks in a photo, of course most people (men AND women) will not get an "OMG, YES!!!" response. Most relationships don't have this as their sole basis though.
Please show me a study where it has been shown that, absent "societal constraints", human beings as a whole will make their relationship decisions solely based on the "OMG, procreate with me" factor.
This is a rather foolish contention. I agree that most relationships do not have looks as a basis for it, but there is a minimum threshold of sexual attractiveness that both partners must meet to even be considered as a romantic interest to an individual. I submit, and the data supports me on this, that women have been socialized in such a way that the minimum threshold is far lower to accommodate a lot more men than it would be in a natural and post-patriarchal society.
Here are some studies that support exactly what I am saying here:
In a natural setting, the relationship world is a lot less egalitarian than many of us would like to think. We even see this fact partially manifesting in society for quite some time. As an example, look at the many women who absolutely refuse to date a man below 6 ft tall. Do you know what percentage of men are actually 6 ft tall and greater? 13%. Nothing wrong with that or having preferences, of course, but just using that pervasive phenomenon as a validating example.
In a natural setting, the relationship world is a lot less egalitarian than many of us would like to think. We even see this fact partially manifesting in society for quite some time. As an example, look at the many women who absolutely refuse to date a man below 6 ft tall. Do you know what percentage of men are actually 6 ft tall and greater? 13%. Nothing wrong with that or having preferences, of course, but just using that pervasive phenomenon as a validating example.
What's the exact percentage of women that refuse to date a guy who's under 6 feet tall?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
