Youtube Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cK7DdY3uSc Original Article: https://archive.today/d87oT

So I've been a recent lurker of this sub-reddit and in no exaggeration it has helped unlock some of the qualms I've had with the supposedly irrational nature of the society we're in and the double standards its perpetuates. I won't go into my personal experiences too much immediately in my first post, but here is some research I wanted to highlight. If I rant I can only apologise, I am trying to approach this academically but its 4am and I had to get this off my chest

{Disclaimer for my disclaimer: I am not attaching a disclaimer for want to appear to appease any side, feminists or us. I wish to approach this academically and make judgements based on observation. Emotions are great for conveying facts passionately. Science and apathy can be great for analysing and making sense of them}

[Disclaimer: I do NOT hate women. Everyone is ultimately self interested in creating a set of circumstances beneficial to themselves. You can't blame women for wanting to create a stable environment or being hypocritical, it's basic human instincts. Why would you hate someone for making the most out of the situation they're in? Aren't we all doing the same by creating a set of circumstances beneficial to our own personal motives? Don't hate the players, hate the game. Or get good at it.]

Courtesy of The Young Turks (a fine 'Unbiased' news outlet on most accounts in my opinion [They fail in this case as I will explain]), some research into what exactly women wanted from their SO's was highlighted. Below is a list of relevant preferences made:

  • Financially stable men
  • Men who were LESS attractive
  • Men who are in worse physical condition
  • Those who did household chores
  • Were monogamous

As the enlightened people we are, it's probably safe to say most of this is not a surprise. Allow me to break down some of the points made by the video as well as the initial research.

FINANCIAL STABILITY

All women are gold diggers or potential gold diggers. End of conversation. Whoever states otherwise is either a Woman, brainwashed or a brainwashed moron. But here's the caveat; THIS IS NOT A BAD THING NECESSARILY. It doesn't make women evil, or sexist inherently. It's called making the best out of the hand you've been dealt.

The whole point of a long term relationship is commitment; You commit with each other. It is literally impossible to commit with someone who is unstable in their position. It's like hoping the leaning tower of Pisa is not going to fall over, or betting on the dog with a broken leg and no medical insurance. Men who have money, are financially stable to look after themselves and others. Simple as. Women are not seen as providers and are culturally able to get away with not being able to be independent. Why would you not want a good foundation to build a commitment on?

Men who are LESS attractive/Worse physical condition

Men who were shorter are seen to make better long term partners. Why is is this? Though it is difficult to make assumptions about everyone, it is clear to say that there is a preference for women of men who are taller than them. Men also prefer to date those who are shorter usually. This can be linked to the hunter/gatherer mentality. Those with a taller stature are more likely to be physically dominant and thus have the capacity to protect and provide for a family using that genetic trait. Men, who prefer and are told by society to be providers don't wish to be seen as inferior to they wives, and hight is a very easy visual indicator to power dynamics.

So why would a woman want someone shorter? Surely this makes a man unsuitable as it limits their propensity to provide? We live in a society where the amount a person earns is not necessarily linked to ones physical stature, but rather with intelligence. Thus a physically weak individual can make a good provider. As for security, not only do walls and heightened security negate the needs for strength, but it's also not that difficult to dial 999 is it?

There is still a clear sexual preference for physical domination. The very act of sex for woman in it's mechanical evaluation is one of submission (penis penetrates, vagina gets penetrated). Women would logically therefore want a sexual partner more dominant than them for an optimum sexual experience. A good sexual partner does not necessarily make a good provider. This comes down to basic economics. If a man's physical abilities are in high demand, options in women are available, and a man has an abundance of CHOICE of sexual partner.

The idea of choice also applies for attractiveness. Ugly men are more committed as they have fewer perceived options. As well as this, if you marry someone more that is more attractive, you feel as though you've been dealt pretty good cards under the circumstances. You've got that 2nd place trophy when you didn't even think you were a contender for 4th. Why take the risk of losing 2nd place when you feel you're unlikely to improve?

Monogamous

Why would a man settle down when scores of women are willing to have sex with you with little commitment? Being physically attractive and being a provider and a SO candidate are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to be both. However as explained above, a person who is physically attractive has OPPORTUNITY, and just the idea of this leads to instability. If you have the option of living in a house where there is a high risk of storms and somewhere where there is a low risk, you're unlikely to want to build one near storms, its just common sense. It requires a higher level of trust and additional effort in a relationship to work, and who has time for that right?

Household Chores

Well no one likes a dirty house right? Any human being will want to maximise on leisure while minimising work. Basic idea of conserving energy. Wouldn't anyone want to get away with doing less work? This isn't much of a problem really all else being equal, but where you have a woman who is spending all their time leisurely, and then even at home her work role is diminished, her only value is her looks and sexuality. When power is unbalanced like this, there is the increased potential for infidelity as her only leverage is likely to be the strongest in the relationship. A man taking such a large provider role must really want to maintain the current SO situation, and thus could be said to be more 'forgiving' of fidelity issues. The power balance switches here though depending on the perceived weight applied to ones sexual prowess.

Review of TYT Coverage

Its identified pretty early on that many of the characteristics seen as attractive for long term relationships are not for short term ones. As Cenk says, tall people are flocked over, and yet from this study are seen not to make good long term partners. Which makes all the sense in the world as explained above. Analogies to houses come to mind.

A false dichotomy was made by the female presenter (mentioned cause it's relevant) Ana that as 'Men are more visual, men prefer more attractive women'. I happen to believe this statement. It's also completely irrelevant. The study is analysing women's preferences, not Men's.

She goes on to speak about other attributes which are perceived to be higher value (stability crops up, who knew). Know what does not come up? Having an ugly boyfriend. Women may not mind having a less attractive husband, but they are not attracted to less attractive men. That last part cannot possibly make sense. Read it again.

They and the article have done somewhat to validate some of the arguments made in this sub reddit. The fact that Ana says that men who marry more attractive women have 'struck gold' says a lot. An individuals perceived value can be split into physical attraction and financial stability. Men can be said to add higher value to a woman's physical attraction due to the fact we have financial stability often and not just cause we're hormonal cavemen. Women have the option not to be and lean financially on a man. A man cannot do this, it is not socially acceptable. It makes sense therefore that you maximise on what you find to be of more value, and in the case of women (who can choose not to be financially stable independently) at times it happens to be stability.

Don't begrudge women for this, be aware and make the best of your own situation.

Rant over