The sexuality of straight women is the driving force behind patriarchy

[–]CarHungry 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Freethinker312No Pill Woman 42 points43 points44 points 2 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[–]PriestKingofMinosLoser Pill Man 8 points9 points10 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JiraiyaDoesResearch[S] 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

I'm wondering why our species is sexually dimorphic in favour of men and why we aren't part of a species where women are taller, larger, stronger and more status seeking and competitive than men and why women on average prefer masculine men over submissive, breedable men.

I'm not saying I think women like men who are aggressive towards them. I'm arguing that men who have the potential to be aggressive towards other men were favoured by women for the last million or so years of human evolution causing men to be more competitive and dominating than women. As a result those men who were supposed to provide and protect women then started asserting power over them once we accomplished agricultural and were able to build cities and accumulate wealth.

I never said the US isn't a patriarchy. In fact I believe it is the most powerful patriarchy that ever existed. Almost all political power is held by men. I think our species would be better off and more women would be in power if we weren't sexually dimorphic.

Women invest more energy into offspring then men which makes them more picky (desiring men who have a high social status, strength, height, ambitions) which leads to men becoming more competitive followed by the rise of patriarchies.

The solution would be for men to invest more energy into offspring and do more domestic and care work. This way women would attain more political and economic power because there would be less men in the workplace since they are now at home taking care of the kids. Yet there still seems to be a strong desire towards men with status.

[–]uglysaladisuglyPurple Pill Woman 13 points14 points15 points 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]JiraiyaDoesResearch[S] 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]uglysaladisuglyPurple Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hehehe how could such a question be "urgent"?

Careful with that, I hope I did put more nuance in my comment than what you say....

Culture is partially biological and at least always rooted in a biological phenomenon, then culture, as an environment, will impact biological phenomenon. There is no broad distinction that can be made. Something is usually defined as cultural when it relies heavily on horizontal transfer within a population. Orcas have culture, each family has a dialect, hunting techniques and prey specializations that depends only on the pod they were bred in. Still, the root of how they developed these hunting techniques and favorite preys is heavily determined biologically. But it is not anymore, now it is determined by cultural transmission.

In the case of female response to male intrasexual competition, it is complex. The more evolutionary beneficial thing to do in such a context would be to try and mate with the stronger more dominant and aggressive male because otherwise, none of your male offspring would stand a chance to actually birth offsprings. Human sexual dimorphism tend to suggest that at one point, male intrasexual competiton was the driving force. Whether this ended up culturally or biologically fixing some preference in mate selection from females is a too complex question for even the specialists to know or agree on.

We should also be careful not to mistake depending on the environment with cultural. The importance of beauty tend to correlate with how much dangerous diseases there is, it's dependent on the environment. It becomes cultural when it doesn't change or shift with the environment. Humans are so incredibly cultural that I would make the hypothesis that we have a big fat "lagging time" due to culture in most of our tastes, preferences and general tendencies.

[–]PriestKingofMinosLoser Pill Man 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]JiraiyaDoesResearch[S] -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PriestKingofMinosLoser Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]-KalosNo Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrainMarshalPurple Pill Dammit Jane We Are Men Not Action Figures! [Man] 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]balhaeguPatriarchal Barney Man 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm wondering why our species is sexually dimorphic in favour of men and why we aren't part of a species where women are taller, larger, stronger and more status seeking and competitive than men and why women on average prefer masculine men over submissive, breedable men.

This is because the size of the human head. As human brain increased in size because higher intelligence proved to be the most evolutionarily competitive trait, humans started to have trouble giving birth to babies that have fully matured inside the womb (like other primates who children can just ride on top of the mother's back). Therefore, women gave birth early, and babies were helpless for months in the mother's arms. This created the necessity for mothers to have physically stronger males to protect and provide for her while she raised the child and was unproductive.

In the modern world, a solution can be to use tax revenue to economically support women with children. For example, $100,000 per child.

[–]househubbyintrainingNo Pill 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TokimonatakanimekatBear-man -2 points-1 points0 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Freethinker312No Pill Woman 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TokimonatakanimekatBear-man -2 points-1 points0 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]throwaway1276444 -7 points-6 points-5 points 2 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]TermAggravating8043 13 points14 points15 points 2 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]JiraiyaDoesResearch[S] 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]throwaway1276444 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]uglysaladisuglyPurple Pill Woman 73 points74 points75 points 2 years ago* (132 children) | Copy Link

Agressivity, violence and size are signs of intrasexual selection. Which means it is not female selecting males but males competing to each other to access females and keep other men to access them.

The marks of Intersexual selection is often secondary indicator of health such as high testosterone, impressive display of disadvantageous features such as stupidly expensive and impractical colors or attributes, or caring and fatherly attributes.

In primates, problem is that when males tend to violently compete each other to access females, then females have to select the strongest most aggressive males because otherwise, their male offsprings will not reproduce as they'll be beaten by other stronger males.

When it is not the case and the social structure is more peaceful they tend to significantly select softer males with good qualities like caring for other, grooming behaviors, etc

This dynamic is an interaction.

[–]GridReXXMEANIE LADY MOD ♀💁‍♀️ 31 points32 points33 points 2 years ago* (39 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cicero_JohnsonPurple Pill Man 8 points9 points10 points 2 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

Male sexuality desiring “young and many and all only mine” has little to do with female sexuality. That’s male ego and conquest wanting to domineer everything.

Ego has little to do with it--threats to reproductive opportunities do. Our male primate ancestors that killed and drove off competing males reproduced. The males that were driven off did not, and thus their strategy of being weak and running ended their bloodlines.

However, because primates formed troops, and fought over territories and resources with other troops, males evolved the Alpha strategy--the top males bully and harass the beta males and get to reproduce more. Females of the troop reward such behavior by copulating with alpha males more. Meanwhile, beta males help provide additional teeth to fight off advances by neighboring troops, and thus they obtain some reproductive opportunities. But the game is still heavily weighted in favor of the Alphas.

It isn't ego--it is the same drive that is exhibited in virtually all mammals: The males who claw their way to the top and amass the largest pool of available females--fueled in part by being able to provide the most resources and troop status--have the most offspring.

If human females ever stopped rewarding Alpha males with increased sexual/reproductive opportunities, the Alpha game would collapse overnight. It is the women who decide who they will mate with, and men are forced to react accordingly. If a majority of women decided to copulate with the meekest and most pathetic soy boys, within a few years gyms would be barren, and most men would be out at intersections panhandling and wailing about how weak they are.

Women set the requirements, and men comply.

[–]YveisGreyPurple Pill Woman 8 points9 points10 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXMEANIE LADY MOD ♀💁‍♀️ 6 points7 points8 points 2 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cicero_JohnsonPurple Pill Man 6 points7 points8 points 2 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Women decide WHO gets the opportunities for sex, and thus reproduces. Because women reward males who are assertive, they are forced to be assertive. Ego is a sense of entitlement. Males do not feel "entitled" to reproducing. We are always keenly aware that women decide who they will sleep with, when it will happen, how often it will happen, and the best we can do is try to be given a turn and hope that they don't change their mind in the middle of the act. Do we strive to act Alpha? Absolutely, because that is what gets rewarded by women.
There is, absent SA, no human reproduction or even recreational heterosexual sex without female sexuality coming into play. Again, women decide which behaviors they reward, and which they will not. When it come to sex, it is a sellers market with very limited resources. The people doing the selling set the terms and conditions they see fit. Men simply adapt their behaviors to meet the opportunities created by what women have decided as required traits.

Don't believe me? Have an attractive female announce that she is really turned on by men who wear pink jumpsuits while cooking omelets, and men will flood her DMs with images of themselves breaking eggs while wearing hastily-dyed jumpsuits.

Women control access to sex--a commodity men want far more of than is on the market. As such, they must adapt to suit the whims of the women offering sex.

The only thing men control is their own allocation of "relationship" they offer in exchange.

Too many women confuse the latter with the former, because they view it all as part of the same exchange. Men do not. Women control sex. Men have veto power when it comes to relationship--which of course women do as well.

[–]YveisGreyPurple Pill Woman 6 points7 points8 points 2 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

Women decide WHO gets the opportunities for sex, and thus reproduces.

I actually seriously question this claim. Because men do engage in mate guarding. A woman can’t choose to mate with a man who his killed by a stronger man. Women are simply the limit factor in reproduction and that isn’t something we chose or can control at all. Men do have the ability to mate guard, to keep other males from mating with a female so again to attribute all of sexual selection to women is not accurate. Women don’t have absolute choice or say in the matter though I wouldn’t argue that they have zero say.

Because women reward males who are assertive, they are forced to be assertive. Ego is a sense of entitlement. Males do not feel "entitled" to reproducing. We are always keenly aware that women decide who they will sleep with, when it will happen, how often it will happen, and the best we can do is try to be given a turn and hope that they don't change their mind in the middle of the act. Do we strive to act Alpha? Absolutely, because that is what gets rewarded by women.

Um no. Men are assertive so they can cock block other males. Alpha males do not need permission. They can literally cock block other males. I read in ancient China male heirs had men in their courts castrated. In ancient Arabia harems were instituted to keep women from unrelated males. There is also the practice or honour killing which severely punishes female mate selection. All these practices are a thing so idk where you are getting that women have some absolute control here.

There is, absent SA, no human reproduction or even recreational heterosexual sex without female sexuality coming into play.

Why are we excluding SA though? Also again males can be blocked from reproducing by other males it happens all the time.

The only thing men control is their own allocation of "relationship" they offer in exchange.

Wrong. Relationship is simply part of male mate guarding strategy.

Too many women confuse the latter with the former, because they view it all as part of the same exchange. Men do not. Women control sex. Men have veto power when it comes to relationship--which of course women do as well.

If women gatekeep sex they also gatekeep sexual relationships I mean that’s just hand in hand. If she won’t have sex with you she won’t be in an exclusive sexual relationship with you. With that being said men pressure women into relationships as a means of mate guarding them. Sleep with me and no other man and I’ll give you stuff is the exchange in very simple terms. Sometimes it’s not even a deal, it’s sleep with me and if you cheat you’ll be stoned to death. Women and girls have historically been forced into marriages. This is why men gate keeping relationships is a weird sentiment, it implies that a relationship is some kind of massive cost to the man when it’s actually a massive benefit to him.

For most men it’s better to have one mate who is exclusive vs sleeping with promiscuous women. Also STIs are a thing so on a communal level it’s safer as it reduces the spread of disease which could be quite devastating to a population so I wouldn’t say relationships are purely in women interest at all.

[–]BrainMarshalPurple Pill Dammit Jane We Are Men Not Action Figures! [Man] 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]YveisGreyPurple Pill Woman -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Females engage in mate guarding, too

Okay?

Harems where they castrate men aren't even a thing in the West. Nor is honor killing.

These were just examples to show that men can and do also control who mates since you seem to believe women have unilateral control in that area.

”Sleep with me and no other man" that's literally monogamy. Monogamy literally gives one woman more power in the relationship. Imagine him sleeping with 20 women, she'd have no bargaining power. Monogamy is literally empowering for women and is known to be a vehicle for women's rights.

Sure I never argued against monogamy I just said that it clearly benefits men as well. It is not done at some massive cost to men which seems to be your implication. I mean under polygyny most men won’t get any mate so how the hell is that better? The only men losing under monogamy are the small portion of men who could monopolize women. Most men would be left out so they actually gain a lot from monogamy. And the top male doesn’t lose completely either since he still gets a mate.

Now if you think polyandry is a solution because of increased male investment...

I never said polyandry was any kind of ideal “solution” I was really just explaining different strategies. For instance not every man can invest much. I mean consider the case for a man who is very wealthy vs one who is low status maybe even homeless. The wealthy man could provide more for several women than some low status man could provide for even one woman. That is very context specific but shows how it is possible for a polygynous man to invest more than a monogamous one.

lol, what do you think happens when these males compete for the female?

The one who loses dies or something? Idk why do you think she would be at more risk than the men? It’s certainly possible she is a casualty but typically females do not engage or involve themselves in men’s conflicts.

Monogamy is the best solution for all.

I actually agree with this take. I am very pro monogamy and I don’t engage in open relationships cheating etc… nor do I tolerate it. But monogamy doesn’t prove that women have absolute choice or that they unilaterally decide who reproduces which is what sparked this discussion. I mean that doesn’t really make sense because under monogamy most males are mating so where is the “selective” aspect? Absolute female mate choice would likely not result in 1:1 pairing. Monogamy might actually be more so the collective work of men if anything. Though I do also see many benefits for women as well.

[–]BrainMarshalPurple Pill Dammit Jane We Are Men Not Action Figures! [Man] 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

These were just examples to show that men can and do also control who mates since you seem to believe women have unilateral control in that area.

If women refuse to deal with competitive males, competition ends.

Sure I never argued against monogamy I just said that it clearly benefits men as well. It is not done at some massive cost to men which seems to be your implication. I mean under polygyny most men won’t get any mate so how the hell is that better? The only men losing under monogamy are the small portion of men who could monopolize women. Most men would be left out so they actually gain a lot from monogamy. And the top male doesn’t lose completely either since he still gets a mate.

I never said men lose under monogamy. Men benefit, that's my whole point. Women benefit, too.

The one who loses dies or something? Idk why do you think she would be at more risk than the men? It’s certainly possible she is a casualty but typically females do not engage or involve themselves in men’s conflicts.

"If I can't have her, nobody will." Or one guy just shoots the others and takes her by force. That's why polyandry is so dangerous.

But monogamy doesn’t prove that women have absolute choice or that they unilaterally decide who reproduces which is what sparked this discussion.

No, monogamy would actually weaken women's choices. It would also nip Chads in the bud.

[–]YveisGreyPurple Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

If women refuse to deal with competitive males, competition ends.

How do women choose that? You think these aggressive males will just be like “never mind go off with that guy” even though we just established that they are trying to attack “that guy” to block him from mating?

I never said men lose under monogamy. Men benefit, that's my whole point. Women benefit, too.

But you implied that men gatekeep it which doesn’t makes no sense. Women gate keep sex because it’s costly, aggressive males cock block because of scarcity. For most men monogamy is a net benefit not a massive cost because they otherwise have no mate. This leads men to pay for monogamy and pursue it, paid dates, gifts, flowers, diamond rings etc…the game is how do I get that girl to be my girlfriend or my wife. This is also why men of higher status get the wives and girlfriends and low status men remain single.

”If I can't have her, nobody will." Or one guy just shoots the others and takes her by force. That's why polyandry is so dangerous.

Well this phenomenon happens under monogamy too. Also DV is an attempt to use violence or manipulation to control one’s partner. So in this case you are presenting an example whereby a man is controlling who the woman can reproduce with which means she doesn’t have a choice.

No, monogamy would actually weaken women's choices. It would also nip Chads in the bud.

Okay so then I’m right? Because this whole discussion started with you saying women “choose who reproduces” and me showing you the myriad of ways this could not be the case.

[–]uglysaladisuglyPurple Pill Woman 7 points8 points9 points 2 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cicero_JohnsonPurple Pill Man 6 points7 points8 points 2 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

That is not correct. In primate (primarily monkey) troops where a new male comes in they will often, as with feline prides, kill every immature offspring they can because it is not theirs, and the lack of offspring forces the females to go into estrus. The females then either mate with the new Alpha male, and obtain the protection he offers for as long as he is Alpha, or they risk not reproducing at all.

Is it cruel and harsh? Absolutely. And BOTH sexes are locked into it because natures has decided that is the optimum strategy. Males must fight and risk death for the privilege of reproducing, while females sit back and wait to see who wins. If it is the old male who wins, they are good to go. If it is the new male, then they either mate with the new male, or they opt to not do so and go without offspring until another new male comes in.

And, again, we do not have "patriarchy". We have Plutocracy. In my country, males are forced to register for involuntary military service which can, and often does, result in large numbers of males being slaughtered while the women stay at home. If I do not register for this, I am denied educational loans, grants, and even education itself. In my country, up until recently, during emergencies men were forced to evacuate last because women and children were more important than men were. Indeed, history has tales of men who pretended to be women so they could get on lifeboats because there were only enough for "women and children".

Male privilege, eh?

A few dead at Kent State was a massive tragedy because women got shot--but far more men came home in body bags that day--and every other day--and no one but their families cared.

You can talk about "patriarchy" all you want with other people. But if you use that fictional notion with me, I will challenge it every time. Our society has NEVER been a patriarchy--it has always placed higher burdens on men than on women. And the people placing those burdens on men are wealthy men AND women, who both benefit the most from how society is structured.

And no one has forced women to breed. Yes if you want to have children, breeding is an unfortunate necessity. (But it wasn't the "Patriarchy" that created that need.) But at no point in our society--going back as far as you want--were women forced to marry and breed. (Royalty and their arranged marriages to keep alliances excepted, but the burdens were on both sexes with those.) Women, going back to at least Rome, have had the right to own their own property. Yes, if you want to get married it might become marital estate, but that sword cut both ways.

No one is forcing you to marry. No one is forcing you to breed. No one is forcing you to do *anything*. Hell--unlike me you are not registered to go die in foreign mud at the whim of our government. You never had to swear under penalty of perjury you signed up for that "male privilege" every time you fill out a government form requesting a student loan.

Western society has *always* seen men as expendable, and you somehow think that is to MY benefit?

No, it has been to YOUR benefit and the benefit of the rich, who traditionally had enough political power to keep their own children safe while the men of the society were used as cannon fodder.

Now, back to the subject at hand--does female sexuality drive patriarchy?

No, because when looked at in the totality of circumstances, males have no overall privilege.

Does female sexuality drive how dating and relationships operate?

Yes. Because women decide with whom they wish to have sex with and set the terms and conditions for such. It has always been that way, and always will be. Men either adapt and comply with the demands of women, are they receive no sexual opportunities.

[–]uglysaladisuglyPurple Pill Woman 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

That is not correct. In primate (primarily monkey) troops where a new male comes in they will often, as with feline prides, kill every immature offspring they can because it is not theirs, and the lack of offspring forces the 2emales to go einto estrus. The females then either mate with the new Alpha male, and obtain the protection he offers for as long as he is Alpha, or they risk not reproducing at all.

You say I am not correct while a literally said that such females would not reproduce? Like... exactly what you say?

Aside of that, I do not believe that there is any point in trying to explain human social structure on the very basis of sexual conflict and sexual selection. I'm arguing in a pure evolutionary biological point of view here, theoretically.

And in this regard, your take on how reproduction works in "primates" is also incorrect. It could be partially correct if it wasn't so categorical. Its vastly different in bonobos, gibbons, orangutan and the like. Gorilla tend to have this behavior of only one male allowed to mate, but it doesn't hold your scenario as the particularity of gorilla is that it's females that tend to live groups to find other ones. It seems also very incorrect for most monkeys. Baboons tends to live in big groups of small harems (4 females for a male) or in matrilineal structures. Macaque tend to pair with their level of the social hierarchy... actually, I'm not sure I can think of a single species of primate were this kind of behavior actually does happen. Would you mind giving me exemple?

[–]Cicero_JohnsonPurple Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

What you SAID was:

You understand that in such groups, refusing to mate with the top male result in being killed or having your illegitimate offsprings killed right? The women who did also didn't survive to reproduce

The females CHOOSE to mate with the new Alpha male. They are not killed if they do not. And, their offspring with the prior male are killed if they are not old enough to flee.

And the females can choose to mate with the new male or choose not to. They can simply wait a year or two for a new male to come along, as they normally live between 10-30 years, or they can go join a different troop. However, because the benefits of staying in their current troop outweigh leaving, most of them choose to mate with the new male.

Aside of that, I do not believe that there is any point in trying to explain human social structure on the very basis of sexual conflict and sexual selection. I'm arguing in a pure evolutionary biological point of view here, theoretically.

Except that our entire society is DRIVEN by our biology. Females control access to reproduction and would prefer a male to look out for them and their offspring exclusively. Males would prefer to have unlimited sexual access to all females exclusively for themselves.

What is the basis for the societal structure of 99+% of human societies?

Monogamous relationships where the males get access to one female, and are forced (via court order if need be) to provide for the offspring--even if it later turns out that the female was impregnated by an outside male, the male who made the mistake of marrying the female is forced to continue to care for her offspring if it was born during the marriage.

Sounds like the females won that little battle, and it is the indeed the core element of our society, upon which all other structures build off of. It is true that super-rich males can have a mistress or harem, but that is usually permitted by his females because he is rich enough to supply *all* of his mates and offspring with resources. The females under such a system forgo monogamy in exchange for a guarantee of a good life and children that will be cared for.

But again, the needs of the female come first. Only when those are met does the female acquiesce to the possibility of the male openly siring children by other females.

I'm not sure I can think of a single species of primate were this kind of behavior actually does happen. Would you mind giving me exemple?

There are 521 species and sub-species of primates. In the ones that form troops, they are either, as I have described, single male Alpha where the Alpha must defend his role in the troop against other male contenders (this is also the model most herd animals follow), or as I have described, troops that engage in territorial warfare where the males are collectively tasked with defending the territory. The latter is what our chimp and bonobo close cousins practice. All males in this structure have a chance at mating, based upon female approval, but are tasked with defending the troop and its territory in wars, as well as raiding against other troop territories. In short, males are forced to engage in, and risk succumbing to violence to be part of the troop, and thus have any opportunity to mate. The females are kept out of harm's way, while surviving males win the opportunity to convince females to mate with them. This latter model is what humans use. As for an example of the former model, here is video showing it in action:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3amUhalXd8

Be warned, this BBC video can be difficult to watch. No one wants to see baby monkeys getting attacked, mauled, and slaughtered. (The BBC kept the graphic displays to a minimum, but still, it is not easy to watch.)

But the entire drama is driven by the fact that female biology is programmed to go into estrus if their current offspring is killed. This is done because a new Alpha male has an expected reign of only a few years. Thus, females have evolved to go into estrus so that they have the maximum amount of time under the protection of that Alpha male for its offspring to mature. Males, being unable to reproduce without the acquiescence of a female, must fight the baddest Alpha male there is, survive the fight, win the fight, take over the troop, mate with the females, and then fight off all other Alpha contenders for long enough for his offspring to reach adulthood.

Yes, females lose offspring in this, but it is the way Nature designed it to produce the highest number of surviving offspring. Also, most males never get to reproduce, while all females are afforded that opportunity.

As with human society--males are highly expendable while females are highly protected--no matter WHICH primate hierarchy model is followed.

[–]uglysaladisuglyPurple Pill Woman 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

And, their offspring with the prior male are killed if they are not old enough to flee.

So you agree that in this scenario, due to male aggressiveness and will to compete and kill other males/or their offsprings to access females. Any females not willing to do so will have far less offsprings than the others. So in your scenario that is so simple, male aggressiveness and tendency to do this would actually result in counter selecting any female that would not "reward" such behavior. So if you maintain that this is how it worked for humans, you are implying that the reason females ended up rewarding violent males is simply a fact of violent males selecting the kind of females.

See how it works?

this is also the model most herd animals follow

No, most herd animals live without males and accept them only at rut season.

troops that engage in territorial warfare where the males are collectively tasked with defending the territory.

I don't see how this has to do with anything. We are still not in a case of inter sexual selection.

female biology is programmed to go into estrus if their current offspring is killed.

Absolutely not, you are mistaken. Oestrus is 99% of the time a cyclic phenomenon mostly depending on seasonality (you know like once a month, maybe you heard about ovulation in humans) that is only interrupted by pregnancy and breastfeeding. The only reason males kill the offsprings is that the females will go back to their regular cycle. Female don't go in oestrus if their offsprings die. It's a ridiculous idea.

Males, being unable to reproduce without the acquiescence of a female, must fight the baddest Alpha male there is, survive the fight, win the fight, take over the troop, mate with the females, and then fight off all other Alpha contenders for long enough for his offspring to reach adulthood.

So absolute pure intrasexual selection... are you even arguing against my point here?

Also, most males never get to reproduce, while all females are afforded that opportunity.

Same... it's like you are literally arguing my point.

As with human society--males are highly expendable while females are highly protected--no matter WHICH primate hierarchy model is followed.

Again... same.

[–]Cicero_JohnsonPurple Pill Man 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Male aggressiveness would be pointless if females didn't stop regular estrus cycles simply because they have young they are currently caring for. The male is forced by this to spend his time wisely, or not procreate. So, again, female sexuality dictates male strategy. Females decide on their strategy, and males must adapt.
I assume you have a reference for this? If so, please provide. (Also, a whole slew of those BBC African documentaries that show a single Bull and his harem need to be contacted because apparently they are wrong!)(Including hippos, oddly enough.)
You really can't see how males being forced to be aggressive and females sitting back waiting to see who wins and then mating with the victors is a case of inter sexual selection? Do you not know what the term means?
Irrelevant to the conversation at hand. As with lions, monkey females who lose offspring immediately go into Estrus. Ergo, it is you that are mistaken. Remember, Generalities < Specific Examples when those Specific Examples are what are being discussed. Because I have established the exact mechanisms for the species being discussed, you are wrong.
I am the one who is arguing that human sexuality--and society--is driven primarily by the female selection process and reproductive strategy. If you agree with that, simply say so. If you disagree, you need to come up with some reason to counter the examples I have given. (And if so, I do not envy your task, because females want monogamy and males want unlimited and irresponsible sex, and we both know which form all societies tend to follow.)
Only if you agree with me that female sexuality is the over-riding concern of how we and our primate cousins operate.
Again... same.

[–]uglysaladisuglyPurple Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Stop getting your bio facts from BBC maybe to begin with.

This conversation start to be tiring, are you not able to use google?

Females don't chose to stop their oestrus when they care for young. Lactation inhibit ovulation, that's it. There is only so much energy in one body. There is no other way of having offsprings, breastfeeding them and having them survive. For both male and females by the way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactational_amenorrhea#:~:text=Breastfeeding%20delays%20the%20resumption%20of%20normal%20ovarian%20cycles%20by%20disrupting%20the%20pattern%20of%20pulsatile%20release%20of%20gonadotropin%2Dreleasing%20hormone%20(GnRH)%20from%20the%20hypothalamus%20and%20hence%20luteinizing%20hormone%20(LH)%20from%20the%20pituitary.%5B1%5D%20from%20the%20hypothalamus%20and%20hence%20luteinizing%20hormone%20(LH)%20from%20the%20pituitary.%5B1%5D)
Actually I do but you could have looked yourself. Should we take the narrow or broad defininition of herding? Because as you may know a herd is, by definition, relatively unstructured. Otherwise it's called otherwise. I can't post all the links, it's too long, go look for yourself which herding animals live in harems and which dont. List of some of the ones that don't and live in sex segregated groups. Red deers Elks Bovinae in general Elephants The rhino species who are not solitary Boars American bison

Basically, equines, some camels and some species of gazelle live in harems. All the rest are either solitary, forming paire or just living there with no social structure at all.

It seems you don't know what the term means.
What you are discribing is intrasexual selection. There is no argument about that. Intra sexual selection can be either detrimental or beneficial to the other sex reproductive fitness, but it is for sure always to the benefit of the winner of the competition before anything else.
Here YOU will have to source that.
I searched myself because I do know how to use google and I didn't find anything abou that.

Lioness and monkey females simply go back to normal ovulation when they stop breastfeeding their offsprings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion#Reproduction_and_life_cycle:~:text=When%20one%20or,against%20the%20male

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide_in_primates#Parental_manipulation:~:text=The%20females%20whose%20infants%20were%20killed%20exhibited%20estrous%20behavior%20and%20copulated%20with%20the%20new%20leader.%20These%20effects%20result%20from%20acceleration%20of%20the%20termination%20of%20lactational%20amenorrhea.%5B10%5D

I'm arging that sexual dismorphism in humans would point to intrasexual selection and not the opposite. I'm not arguing that human society is driven by either sexual selection porcesses as I believe these are widely diverses and a shit ton more complex than that.

Your understanding of sexual conflict is poor and you are not really trying to learn, you're just going on and on with BBC takes.
"The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it."

[–]YveisGreyPurple Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

There is a bit of confusion on your part where you seem to be describing the literal biology of females as strategy or behavior.

Most of what you are describing as a “female selection” is actually just their literal biology. For ex saying that females go into estrus after their infants are killed or that they stop ovulating while nursing. That is not a strategy at all this is not something the females are in control of or choose it’s just their biology. Just like males don’t choose how much sperm to produce nor can they choose to produce more sperm depending on the circumstance (though there may be factors that influence sperm count they would be outside of the males control).

In the case of chimps an actual female strategy would be promiscuous mating to confuse the males about paternity in order to reduce the risk of infanticide. This is a strategy, it’s actual behavior the females are engaging in to protect their offspring. Going into estrous is not a strategy, it is not behavior.

So everything you are describing in regards to males competing and forming troops and committing infanticide etc are male strategies that are focused on blocking the reproduction of other males which is why they were described as intrasexual competition which would be competitive strategies between members of the same sex. The reason males engage in this behavior is because the females are the limit factor in reproduction but again that’s not a female strategy that’s female biology. This is not to say that female selection doesn’t influence evolution at all but you seem to refuse to acknowledge that male intrasexual competition could also do so and depending on the species may be more or less influential than female selection.

[–]RelativeYak7Blue Pill Woman 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrainMarshalPurple Pill Dammit Jane We Are Men Not Action Figures! [Man] 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]househubbyintrainingNo Pill -5 points-4 points-3 points 2 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

can I get a citation on this claim? What is up with evopsyche girls and trying to portray men as genetically subhuman. I get i have a y chromesome but jesus.

My understanding of why patriarchy comes into existence is because of economy. In societies where males provide more to the children through hunting/warfare those societies tend to lean patrilineal, vice versa for gathering.

In africa, pastorialist groups (mobile herders) are often patrilineal an exception to this are the Tuareg who have historically been matrilineal and pastoralist. while agriculturalists group are often matrilineal.

europeans only became "patriarchal" because of environments where white men had to compete harder for scarce resources. African men in bantuland and ancient Egypt had dense fertile jungles or the fertile nile thus they became more female oriented. African men of the sahara region were stuck with oasis hoping their cattle herds. - Pastoralist = savannah / oasis hopping. - Agriculturalist = fertile land.

[–]uglysaladisuglyPurple Pill Woman 6 points7 points8 points 2 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]househubbyintrainingNo Pill -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]uglysaladisuglyPurple Pill Woman 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]househubbyintrainingNo Pill 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

but what I see is that it is mostly other men who can never stop to babble about how "biology" forces them to try to fuck everything that moves and that rapist "reproduced more" and yada yada

i feel this is the internet at play because the "all men are geneticaly wired to rape" crowd seems more prominent in a academia. There's characters like, I think his name is richard wrangham who has made implicit arguments of men being inherently evil. There is also a book titled "a naturalistic history of rape" that basically argues rape is wired in men.

On top of being a very stupid and limited way to try explaining our behavior, armchair evo-psy is also simply plain-wrong and incorrect about the biology it tries to leverage.

At times i feel evo-psych has no understanding of anthropology and make anthropological claims, not even any understanding of primates.

[–]uglysaladisuglyPurple Pill Woman 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

i feel this is the internet at play because the "all men are geneticaly wired to rape" crowd seems more prominent in a academia.

Fiou, I'm happy I never encountered this kind of things... what kind of academia would you say?

At times i feel evo-psych has no understanding of anthropology and make anthropological claims, not even any understanding of primates.

To be fair, evo-psy is generally not really respected as a reliable science, I'm not surprised they piss off anthropologs as much as they piss off biologists.

What they're trying to do is already done ten times better by sociobiology, neurobiology, neurosciences and evolutionary biology. The only supplement brought by evo-psy is the worst kind of "transdisciplinarity" where instead of trying to unite specialists from every field they just smash together their "approximate knowledge of many things".

We don't need evo-psy, we need cooperative work between the ones I cited and anthropologists, archeologists, paleontologists and historians.

[–]GloomyWalk5178 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CakeAlternative6181 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Cicero_JohnsonPurple Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Tell that to the societies that permit bigamy. What is the core requirement? That the man make enough money to support ALL of his "families".

As for cheating....

According to the General Social Survey, men are more likely to cheat than women, with 20% of men and 13% of women reporting having sex with someone other than their partner while married. However, this gap varies by age:

Ages 18–29: Women are slightly more likely to cheat than men (11% vs. 10%)
Ages 30–34: The gap reverses and widens in older age groups
Ages 60–69: Men are most likely to cheat, with 25% of men over 65 admitting to cheating compared to about 10% of women over 65

https://ifstudies.org/blog/who-cheats-more-the-demographics-of-cheating-in-america#:\~:text=also%20means%20infidelity.-,In%20general%2C%20men%20are%20more%20likely%20than%20women%20to%20cheat,increases%20during%20the%20middle%20ages.

So, no. Women are not way more monogamous than men. Indeed, amongst younger women, they are less faithful than men. (Which, says more about the males than the females...)

[–]BrainMarshalPurple Pill Dammit Jane We Are Men Not Action Figures! [Man] 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JiraiyaDoesResearch[S] -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PurplePillDebate-ModTeam[M] 0 points1 point2 points 2 years agolocked comment (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]-KalosNo Pill Man 13 points14 points15 points 2 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Strong_Coffee_3813Blue Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]addings0 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Strong_Coffee_3813Blue Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]addings0 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Savings_Builder_8449Man -2 points-1 points0 points 2 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Strong_Coffee_3813Blue Pill Woman 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]uglysaladisuglyPurple Pill Woman 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wagnerlight -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Strong_Coffee_3813Blue Pill Woman 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]wagnerlight 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I was not making the suggestion that women are solely attracted to violence. That would be nonsensical. They prefer the dominant male, and the violence can be a side product of said high dominant attributes in said males competitive nature. So men who can also physically win a fight or a boxer or great athlete or muscle builder can appear to be more attractive do to being more dominant in their field, which attracts more women and gets more men to pursue those traits and violence is byproduct of men climbing to those vertices of dominance in their field. Modern day things can be solved without violence but in the past winners and loser would have been through violence and women would absolutely choose the winner. Now we just battle over who can throw the ball the best or run the fastest or dominate their set sport to choose our “winners” of mating

[–]-KalosNo Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]wagnerlight 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Where in my whole statement did I say anything about violence? You can learn a lot about which male is more dominant without using violence. If you go to a regular group of men and put them together a hierarchy forms same with women as well. If you have a class full of guys they usually circulate among the most dominant male, there was no winner or loser or battle and yet the females will direct their attention towards the dominant male even if he is physically not the most attractive male. The fact that he is the most high up on the ladder socially is enough. Women will reward this as if it’s something valuable and so the cycle continues. You just said women will obviously choose the winner, do you not question why? If men were to witness a group of women they would select each women and it would not be all the men just directed onto the top female, but women will statistically all share preference onto the higher up male (don’t need data take any sampling and see for yourself). Like I said take a group men for example there are many studies and even YouTube videos that do this now, the women will without a doubt initially gravitate to and focus their energy onto the highest up male. If that male were to show signs of fragility or appear to not match up to their standards they immediately switch onto the next highest. There was one were initially 6/7 females like this one male and then he shared how emotional he was about his best friend and he shed a tear and he immediately went to the bottom of the ranking. Do you see how men choose women for women and women choose men for checklists, thus creating the race for men to acquire everything they can to have the chance to mate?? Also Do you understand how Reddit works? If you follow the thread you can see I am replying to strong coffee. Wherein do you got off commenting on someone else’s comprehension in order to raise your pov. It’s pointless to discuss with someone who resorts to insulting the other in lieu of having anything of use to say. Just say you like being a white knight and go, you’re aren’t not going to get extra brownie points here bud.

[–]addings0 -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlmostKindaGreatPurple Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Pretty good points here and I think you are closer to a mental model representing reality.

But I don't know if I agree with your assessment of what women select.

they tend to significantly select softer males with good qualities like caring for other, grooming behaviors, etc

It's maybe one of the most oft-repeated critiques of Nice Guys, including here on PPD, that being kind and caring absolutely does not differentiate a man sexually from others. This is table stakes, expected behavior and it is other traits and behaviors differentiate him - often displays of superiority physically, socially, or in regards to status. The Nice Guy's downfall is believing that women will "select softer males" and he tries to be kinder and gentler than all those others guys. While these things help sustain an LTR they do next to nothing to actually attract mates initially.

As for "grooming behaviors" this is just a display of higher status. A man with resources and adequate leisure time spends time and money to learn what is most fashionable and to maintain himself at a high standard in this area. This is signaling superiority over other males in a way that women, especially, recognize.

In other words, even though we certainly could shift our preferences toward more high-minded attributes in the relatively peaceful present, we still are selecting for largely the same things our ancestors did. Men and women are still using our primitive brains rather than higher intellect to make mating decisions. For women this means they are still selecting the highest status or most physically impressive males who achieve superiority over their rivals.

[–]uglysaladisuglyPurple Pill Woman -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Virtual_PieceRed Pill Man 7 points8 points9 points 2 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]uglysaladisuglyPurple Pill Woman 17 points18 points19 points 2 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Obviously, our case is more complex. Actually, even the basics I explained there are more complex. But what I wanted to point out is that even if it made sense to actually use these "biological" processes to try and explain the foundation of patriarchy, then they are factually contradicting the basis of sexual selection in evolutionary biology.

There are in fact traits that tend to be selected for more than others though which is where shit like hypergamy comes from.

It may be but I remember a huge study I saw in my sociobiology course. It was done on more than 10'000 men and women from 33 countries ranging from south america to every corner of Asia, north and subsaharian Africa as well as north America a d Europe. People were asked to attribute scores from 0 (this has no importance at all) to 3 (this is absolutely necessary) to 18 traits in relation to partner selection.

The result were very interesting and may explain some of the misunderstanding around the subject and the statistics linked to it. Fact is that the results were widely similar between male and females and the best predictor to cluster the answers was actually the country of origin. It was significantly easier to guess the country than the sex of the person who answered. There was indeed statistically significant differences between sexes, but with a quite moderate to low size effect. Basically men would on average score beauty, youth and health in a way that they were 7,8,9th in the ranking while females would instead put social status and financial status at these positions. We focus on that a lot, while we tend to ignore that the qualities ranked 1st to 6th were the same.

Another extremely interesting result was that beauty was significantly more important for both sex in countries with high prevalence of dangerous diseases. Which tend to suggest that we do associate beauty with health in unfavorable environments.

[–]Virtual_PieceRed Pill Man 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]uglysaladisuglyPurple Pill Woman 13 points14 points15 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I found a part of It on an old slide (sorry I'm lazy to look for the study, it's quite old). I put in orange "good health", green is "education and intelligence", pink is "good aspect aka beauty", and blues are "ambition and work oriented", "good financial situation" and "good social position or status".

As I said you can see that the differences are more toward the end of the ranking. Like we tend to find the same things very important while, on the more "accessory" feature, we tend to differ more. Men rank health 5th while women rank it 7. Male rank education and intelligence 6th while women rank it 5th. Beauty is ranked 10th by men and 13th by women. Ambition, financial situation and social status are 11th, 13th and 15th to men while they are respectively 9th,12th and 14th to women. The results were statistically very significant but as you can see, the size effect is rather low.

<image>

[–]omgbadmofo 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]uglysaladisuglyPurple Pill Woman 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]wagnerlight 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]uglysaladisuglyPurple Pill Woman -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CakeAlternative6181 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Virtual_PieceRed Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ChadderUppercut 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

"Agressivity, violence and size are signs of intrasexual selection. Which means it is not female selecting males but males competing to each other to access females and keep other men to access them"

That makes sense. I also think that there is more to it. Women want the strongest man possible and the competition is a way to demonstrate it. The woman also wants the strongest man to be on her side against other men, women and the elements. Being nice and caring is something you can only do as long as you can protect yourself against violence so it all starts with the capacity for violence. I think the line between intrasexual and intersexual is blurred here. They cannot be separated. The men do compete intrasexually by definition and intersexual selection is the woman choosing which prompts the intrasexual selection.

[–]uglysaladisuglyPurple Pill Woman 9 points10 points11 points 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ChadderUppercut 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]uglysaladisuglyPurple Pill Woman 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The reason is that female's reproductive success especially in very K selected species is inherently caped while male's is not.

If one could argue that we would all collectively benefit for a peaceful and cooperative structure, the fact is that this is also true individually and in a selfish point of view for females. There is no possibility for a female to up her reproductive fitness above a certain point that is usually reached by the vast majority of other females. Let's say a female living in a group of 200 individuals (50/50 sex ratio) has 5 years of fecundity and can have 1 offspring a year. The maximum offsprings she can have is 5.

On the contrary, a male reproductive fitness can continue to increase indefinitely, with the amount of fertilizable eggs around being the sole limiting factor. In a monogamic peaceful setting, the male will have 5 offsprings max. Now, if he decides to fight other males, if he's strong enough, he may have 100.

For this reason, there is a shitload more incentive for a strong male to fight and compete in order to monopolize all the females he can, than there is for females to do anything like that. Of course, reproductive success is not only about quantity but also about quality. Mating with a very sexy male that takes good care of the offsprings may up a female reproductive fitness in the sens she'll have 25 grand kids while another that mated with a less good male had only 15.

But still, the strong competing male will have several hundreds more grand kids than the others.

The strenght of the incentive is vastly different.

[–]JustACogInAMachine -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]uglysaladisuglyPurple Pill Woman 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TokimonatakanimekatBear-man 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]uglysaladisuglyPurple Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Plutarcane 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BeReasonable90 5 points6 points7 points 2 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]uglysaladisuglyPurple Pill Woman 14 points15 points16 points 2 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

This my friend is what we call a Nash equilibrium. And it does suck because more often than not, this equilibrium is not the optimal one for neither of the players.

Now, to be fair, I think there is no need to be too defeatist about it. All equilibrium are one flick away to complete transformation and we are living a time full of changes and disturbances.

Also, evolutionary strategies are populational. Just live your life, don't try to win. I personally identify a lot with the outsider strategy. If you clearly can't win the game, playing another one Is better than either trying to convince winners to be nice or trying to outcompete them. Think about the male lizards looking like females and leaving on strong manly males territories while secretly mating with some willing females. Love who you want, spend more time and effort finding your kind of people than trying to become the "majority winner type". It will be a lot nicer and you only have 80years to spend feeling things ;)

[–]penny_admixturePurple Pill Woman 9 points10 points11 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]uglysaladisuglyPurple Pill Woman 8 points9 points10 points 2 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrainMarshalPurple Pill Dammit Jane We Are Men Not Action Figures! [Man] 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PM_ME_YOUR_DONGERZ -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]uglysaladisuglyPurple Pill Woman 5 points6 points7 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PriestKingofMinosLoser Pill Man 7 points8 points9 points 2 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]CakeAlternative6181 7 points8 points9 points 2 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wagnerlight 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]uglysaladisuglyPurple Pill Woman 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]wagnerlight 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]No-Mess-8630Powered by Kebab 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Strong_Coffee_3813Blue Pill Woman 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]wagnerlight 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DoinIt989A misandrist against time (MAN) -5 points-4 points-3 points 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]uglysaladisuglyPurple Pill Woman 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]wagnerlight 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]uglysaladisuglyPurple Pill Woman 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

More successful doesn't mean dominant and doesn't mean dark triad per se. It means that only in the context of this kind of capitalism.

And even if it was true, that most women on average tend to find men with these traits more attractive, which they probably don't but ok... and I'm not willing to go over 10 psychology-sociology studies to check it out so feel free to provide me if you want. I'll check when I have time.

1) It doesn't necessarily mean that it is these traits that are attractive per se. You know like most traits come with their little friends to the side.

2) It doesn't necessarily mean that women would prefer these traits over anything else. You know things add up and mix and result in a whole person that is a collection of a huge range of continuous traits and not just some binary : are they selfish? Are they narcissic? Are they psychopathic?

[–]wagnerlight 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This argument aside (I’m not set on it) Why is it that men will date and mate with basically any woman and tend to stick with the ones who they match best personality wise where women select based on resources and checklists but men get the blame for being more shallow, that makes no sense. Men are painted as body hungry emotionless monsters by women’s media and descriptions and women are the ones supposedly being down to earth humble emotional loving yadda yadda but when we look at how both approach the selection women are the ones with all the checklists. Fetishizing tall men and denouncing short men immediately to friend status. Actively pursing the most attractive shallow males or males that are of the highest wealth. Isn’t that selection disregarding the individual and going solely for what do you offer resources wise. Women have and will always be checklisters.

[–]uglysaladisuglyPurple Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why is it that men will date and mate with basically any woman and tend to stick with the ones who they match best personality wise

What you mean why? You asking me why they do that? Shouldn't you ask them?

And... do they? I know plenty of men who will not fuck or date most women, and I knew plenty of women who did kind of fuck anyone that was willing to (they tend to stop doing that when they get some self love). There was a post here some days ago where plenty of men from all pills, told us the many time they did reject opportunities for sex or a date. Don't you think women also stick with the men they go along with personality wise on top of attraction? You never witnessed people being in love?

but when we look at how both approach the selection women are the ones with all the checklists.

Men don't have standards and checklist? What is then going on with all the "no single mother, no girl with daddy issues, no high ncount, no hairy legs, no hairy armpits, no fatties, no women older than 30, no tattoos, no colored hairs, no feminists"? Aren't these standards and checklist? If not, how?

Actively pursing the most attractive shallow males or males that are of the highest wealth. Isn’t that selection disregarding the individual and going solely for what do you offer resources wise.

Do you truly believe that women as a whole are going only after stupid superficial shallow rich Chad? You know no guies that are successful with women without being all this? Don't you think it is possible that a good portion of these good looking, fit and reasonably wealthy men are actually also interesting, fun, loving and ongoing?

Women have and will always be checklisters.

It seems like you already made your opinion. I hope you'll let yourself proven wrong when/if the time comes. Would be sad to miss a loving relationship with a woman just because you decided we are in a specific way, and nothing else.

[–]_jay_fox_ 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]No_Mammoth8801With Incels, Interlinked. No Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

None of this is true or verifiable.

For the uninitiated, bonobos are a common example used to try to prove this because they are the most matriarchal and least violent of all the non-human primate species (humans are still orders of magnitude less violent btw).

Females of the species also exhibit a high degree of sex partner choice and autonomy among a long list of other qualities that can be cherry-picked to fit a certain narrative, including being highly cooperative/communal and having opposite sex friendships. Despite all this, there is no solid research to back up the following claim:

When it is not the case and the social structure is more peaceful they tend to significantly select softer males with good qualities like caring for other, grooming behaviors, etc

In fact, there is some not-so-solid research, as they only observed one group of bonobos in the wild to suggest the opposite:

"The funny thing under such a scenario would be that most of the females would have the same preference for Camillo, the alpha male and 'Brad Pitt' of the bonobos at our research site," said Martin Surbeck, researcher with the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany.

Oof.

Now before any of you accuse me of implying this is indisputable proof human women desire Chad, keep in mind there is a MAJOR FACTOR that is ignored in these discussions, which is the role of males in child-rearing. In bonobo societies, females still do pretty much all of it, including the providing.

So why would female bonobos select for provider qualities when they are fine providing for baby bonobos all on their own (with the support of other bonobo mothers of course)?

And why would males care about assurances of paternity when there is no significant resource investment on their part, as females don't demand assurances of resource investment as a prerequisite sex?

TL;DR any "revelations" or prescriptions made of human mating behavior from the study primates is mostly bunk pseudo-science.

[–]uglysaladisuglyPurple Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The fact that strength and size is a marker of intrasexual selection at play is neither true neither verifiable?

I was not implying that it is how human operate. I was simply putting out there that the way we look are evidence pointing toward the fact that it is not female pickiness that had the more driving force the but male competing.

Yes most bonobo research are not solid as all of them are done on one group and they're very difficult to see.

What I'm describing is a tendency that makes sens in an evolutionary point of view when you actually have some understanding of evolution and the forces at play. Mostly I'm pointing that the assumption about how sexual selection works that OP is using, are wrong.

So even if it made sense to use this kind of simplistic processes to explain the structuration of society the basis of it are wrong

[–]No_Mammoth8801With Incels, Interlinked. No Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]uglysaladisuglyPurple Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Puzzleheaded_Card_71Red Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JiraiyaDoesResearch[S] -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago* (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]uglysaladisuglyPurple Pill Woman 13 points14 points15 points 2 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]YveisGreyPurple Pill Woman 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]uglysaladisuglyPurple Pill Woman 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheYoungFaithfulWoman 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]YveisGreyPurple Pill Woman 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheYoungFaithfulWoman 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]YveisGreyPurple Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I think BC changed the culture in a way that ironically is now resulting in less sex. Basically we went from free love sexual revolution to divorce and now we don’t even know how to pair up in the first place. People have less sex because people are single. Singleness rates are the highest ever, and the number one predictive factor for a woman having multiple kids is getting married. Most women who have kids, especially more than one are married or were married so if people don’t get married as much you’ll see fewer kids. Also the longer a woman is married the more kids she has. So most of this really comes down to the fact that people aren’t getting married. And sure the population doesn’t need to grow indefinitely but it can’t exactly shrink indefinitely either. So at some point probably some initiatives will have to be made to encourage people to have more kids.

[–]TheYoungFaithfulWoman 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JiraiyaDoesResearch[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points 2 years ago* (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]YveisGreyPurple Pill Woman 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]JiraiyaDoesResearch[S] -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]YveisGreyPurple Pill Woman 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]JiraiyaDoesResearch[S] 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It's true that having children is more costly for women but only in a male dominated societies. There is no biological necessity for women to be the primary caretaker. While I agree that pregnancy is a massive, potentially risky investment that a woman must make to reproduce it's also true that babies can't do taxes. Just because a baby is born doesn't mean that it will survive instead requiring a massive energy investment to raise the offspring. Yet aside from breastfeeding for the first few years there is no reason why women need to be the ones spending most time with their children.

In a society where women only get pregnant but every other task related to caring for offspring is delegated to men they would be one ones who benefit from billionaire women. So that makes me wonder why unpaid care work is mostly done by women in our current society and whether women genuinely want a reversal of gender roles or at least for men to invest more into offspring or not.

[–]YveisGreyPurple Pill Woman 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]JiraiyaDoesResearch[S] 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]KingMurphy15No Pill 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]JiraiyaDoesResearch[S] 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dweller_of_the_AbyssRed Pill Man | Paradise Lost - Gothic -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]uglysaladisuglyPurple Pill Woman 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Strong_Coffee_3813Blue Pill Woman 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]uglysaladisuglyPurple Pill Woman 6 points7 points8 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

We would probably be better off collectively indeed. But it seems that we didn't yet achieve such a degree of sociality. Selfish interests still weigh a lot in how we behave.

Why isn't it the other way around then?

This is a big question, social background, social conditioning? Maybe thousands of years of males competing against each others and being more and more strong and aggressive ended up selecting for more passive and submissive females? We don't know and I believe that it is more interesting to explore how determined we are to act a certain way than to try to explain how we got determined.

There is tradeoff to everything. Most people follow what they think most people do. Some people are outsiders and tend to question things more and be a bit less socially malleable than others.

[–]JiraiyaDoesResearch[S] 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That makes sense. I bet you've heard of parental investment theory? It's that the sex who invests more energy in total into offspring end up being the "picky" one and it does always have to be females selecting males. For example in a bird species called Phalaropes it's actually the female birds who are larger, stronger and more dominant than the male birds. The reason being that while the females lay eggs it's the males who do the vast majority of care work such as incubation and raising the chicks.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe historically it was women who invested the most energy into offspring while men went out to start wars or something. So maybe it's the uneven distribution of care work in our species that causes inequality between women and men. Men simply had the power to make women take care of the children. So maybe equality in the household leads to equality in the workplace.

I personally don't think we are "genetically determined" to do anything though I don't believe in free will either ever since I read the book "behave" that kinda goes in that direction

Edit: just saw your other comment with the birds. And I agree

[–]BrainMarshalPurple Pill Dammit Jane We Are Men Not Action Figures! [Man] 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TapZealousideal5974 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Because instinct and lack of impulse control. Choosing submissive femboys for 99% of human history and prehistory was a bad idea, so women have an instinctive aversion to doing so, even if in a Machiavellian way, it might actually help them politically today in a more peaceful world. It's like asking why most people take sugar in their tea even though most people are consooming more than their RDA of carbohydrates and are giving themselves diabetes and obesity.

TBH I don't even really blame them; I don't even mean this in a finger-pointing, incel way. If anything, it's quite possible or even likely that keeping the instinctive desire for aggressive, dominant men around is a good thing in the very big scheme of things, because society can and does break down every once in a while and then you need the old unreconstructed men around rather than Le Nice Guys to take care of business. Our proverbial WALL-E world may not be around forever.

[–]bloblikeseacreaturewhitepill woman 9 points10 points11 points 2 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CarHungry -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]uglysaladisuglyPurple Pill Woman 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SoldierExcelsiorRed Pill Man 12 points13 points14 points 2 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]DontCryJenniferPurple Pill Woman 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SoldierExcelsiorRed Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sexy_TriceratopsLoose Woman 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]SoldierExcelsiorRed Pill Man -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sexy_TriceratopsLoose Woman [score hidden] 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]SoldierExcelsiorRed Pill Man [score hidden] 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sexy_TriceratopsLoose Woman [score hidden] 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SoldierExcelsiorRed Pill Man [score hidden] 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Silly-Cloud-3114No Pill 26 points27 points28 points 2 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]K4matayonblackpill man 7 points8 points9 points 2 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]-KalosNo Pill Man 9 points10 points11 points 2 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]K4matayonblackpill man 8 points9 points10 points 2 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]YveisGreyPurple Pill Woman 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]-KalosNo Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Silly-Cloud-3114No Pill 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]K4matayonblackpill man 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrainMarshalPurple Pill Dammit Jane We Are Men Not Action Figures! [Man] 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]-KalosNo Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BrainMarshalPurple Pill Dammit Jane We Are Men Not Action Figures! [Man] 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Silly-Cloud-3114No Pill 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]shadowrangerfsPurple Pill Man 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Silly-Cloud-3114No Pill 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]shadowrangerfsPurple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Silly-Cloud-3114No Pill 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]balhaeguPatriarchal Barney Man 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Silly-Cloud-3114No Pill 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]balhaeguPatriarchal Barney Man 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Silly-Cloud-3114No Pill 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bloblikeseacreaturewhitepill woman 30 points31 points32 points 2 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]howdoiw0rkthisthingWoman who’s read the sidebar 7 points8 points9 points 2 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]uglysaladisuglyPurple Pill Woman 15 points16 points17 points 2 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]martuz_cn 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]uglysaladisuglyPurple Pill Woman 15 points16 points17 points 2 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

The baseline rule is sexual dysmorphia arise from sexual selection and if the males exhibit:

being stronger, bigger, more aggressive and overall more violent than females (which is weird as carrying offsprings or laying eggs normally require more strength and size). Then it is a marker of intrasexual selection were females are not the driving force selecting males, it's males that fiercely compete against each other to access the females who simply submit. Logically, this way, the stronger more aggressive males will be the ones reproducing more.
being colorful, having impractical and resource costly display such as feathers, etc. Displaying complex and costly mating rituals like building extravagant nests, doing strange dances, singing, spending days grooming or caring for others, etc. Then it is a sign that the selection was inter sexual. Males propose and show off their best qualities and females choose with whom they'll mate.

[–]YveisGreyPurple Pill Woman 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Fascinating stuff sounds like humans are a bit of a mix but more driven by intrasexual competition and that seems extra likely under patriarchy which is essentially male competition (only men can rule, inherit, earn etc…) and which ever man wins gets the women and the women don’t really have a say in the matter.

What’s interesting of course is humans are social and not all males can employ this alpha strategy so then you get beta types buying gifts, diamonds, flowers basically doing a “display” for female affection. This is what most men are familiar with.

And all of this is made extra complicated by the fact that humans babies are incredibly vulnerable and weak and require a massive amount of investment so that fathers have to be involved. So even alpha males end up providing resources to females acquired through their competitive efforts which certainly increases the female’s receptiveness. It seems humans have progressively tried to work away from violence and engage in other forms of competition to decide who is alpha ex putting violent men in prison giving intelligent cooperative men lots of resources.

[–]JiraiyaDoesResearch[S] 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]uglysaladisuglyPurple Pill Woman 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Exactly! And there is general phenotypical "fingerprints" associated with both.

It is also worthy to note that there is often a mix of both, but one is usually vastly more powerful in driving evolution.

I know the Intra sexual selection is a lot less instinctive to grasp but it's easier if you think about plants. Sexual selection in angiosperms (flowering plants) is fucking WILD and most of it is intrasexual. Male functions competing against each other is the major drive of the evolution of flowers that explains the diversity we observe despite the fact that flowering plants are the youngest kind of plants (they appeared somewhat at the same time than mammals which is very recent.

Intra-sexual selection

Male flowers or male organs of hermaphrodite flowers produce a shit ton of pollen, extremely invasive pollens, pollens that fly super extra far away or have structures that "wash" visiting pollinator from the other pollen they were already covered in to replace it with theirs.

Inter-sexual selection

Female flowers have incompatibility mechanisms to accept only certain type of pollen or there is genetic and molecular mechanisms which may select some pollens over others.

[–]spacemanspectacular 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]uglysaladisuglyPurple Pill Woman 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]YveisGreyPurple Pill Woman 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]uglysaladisuglyPurple Pill Woman 5 points6 points7 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bloblikeseacreaturewhitepill woman 5 points6 points7 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]balhaeguPatriarchal Barney Man 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]bloblikeseacreaturewhitepill woman 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]balhaeguPatriarchal Barney Man 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bloblikeseacreaturewhitepill woman 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]neinhaltchadRed Pill Man 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PriestKingofMinosLoser Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bifewova234Man 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]JiraiyaDoesResearch[S] 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]bifewova234Man 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]KamuiObitoPurple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]bifewova234Man 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]KamuiObitoPurple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]bifewova234Man 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DamagedByPessimism 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Suspicious_Glove7365No Pill Woman 20 points21 points22 points 2 years ago (62 children) | Copy Link

[–]PriestKingofMinosLoser Pill Man 11 points12 points13 points 2 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

Anti-social and criminal men have more sexual success than their pro-social and non-criminal counterparts. There really is no reason for women to behave this way but they still do, likely in accordance with some innate desire this manifests itself as hybristophilia. As long as extroverted and aggressive men are more sexually successful other men will try to copy that behavior. In the extreme cases if it still imposes no costs then men will keep doing whatever they are doing even if its criminal.

How come men don’t just settle for whatever ugly women they can get?

Some do but desperation is a turn off for many women. Being physically unattractive also imposes more of a penalty on men than women in terms of reproductive success so they have to get some leverage, usually with money or status.

[–]pop442No Pill 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]GloomyWalk5178 10 points11 points12 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PriestKingofMinosLoser Pill Man 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]YveisGreyPurple Pill Woman 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Suspicious_Glove7365No Pill Woman [score hidden] 2 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]PriestKingofMinosLoser Pill Man 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Suspicious_Glove7365No Pill Woman 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]PriestKingofMinosLoser Pill Man 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

This is pretty well supported stuff and not just limited to anecdotes about insane women marrying convicted serial killers or men on death row.

Convicted criminal offenders had more children than individuals never convicted of a criminal offense. Criminal offenders also had more reproductive partners, were less often married, more likely to get remarried if ever married, and had more often contracted a sexually transmitted disease than non-offenders.
Importantly, the increased reproductive success of criminals was explained by a fertility increase from having children with several different partners. We conclude that criminality appears to be adaptive in a contemporary industrialized country, and that this association can be explained by antisocial behavior being part of an adaptive alternative reproductive strategy. (Yao et al. 2014)
As predicted, violent men secured more in-pair copulations, on average, than nonviolent men, and monthly rates of violence positively correlated with in-pair copulation frequency. In humans, as in nonhuman primates, FDV by males may facilitate greater sexual access to a female.
Alternatively, female choice may account for the relationship between FDV and in-pair copulation frequency (but see Muller, Thompson, Kahlenberg, & Wrangham, 2011). Cross-culturally, women prefer men who are dominant as partners (Conroy-Beam, Buss, Pham, & Shackelford, 2015), and thus it may be that dominant men or men who express more masculine personality traits are also more aggressive, have more frequent (noncoercive) in-pair copulations, or both. (Barbaro & Shackelford, 2016)

See also Table 8.11 from this selected work as well as other lines of research (here & here). I think part of this is explained by criminal men living a high risk fast life strategy where they simply engage in impulsive and self-destructive behavior. But it does give them more sexual opportunity than non-criminal men. Still, why some women pursue men already convicted and cut off from society is really interesting.

[–]Suspicious_Glove7365No Pill Woman 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]PriestKingofMinosLoser Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The authors of each study postulate their ideas on why this happens, but I'm not here to make a strong causal argument, merely point out that there is a relationship between criminal and or anti-social behavior and improved reproductive success. Regarding sample size, as long as the sample is properly randomized it's usually going to be fine. In the case of gangs you typically can't generate large samples to begin with.

Married men don't really refute this because they have slightly less sexual success than criminals or anti-social men who end up with more partners and children to different women. To some degree you can blame the men for simply being more sexually promiscuous but on another level there are women choosing these men.

Despite the fact that fathers who engage in high levels of antisocial behavior make up a small proportion of fathers overall, they are responsible for a disproportionate number of births. For example, Moffitt and colleagues (2002) found that although men who engaged in high levels of antisocial behavior constituted only 10% of a birth cohort, they accounted for 27% of the babies fathered by the time the men were age 26. (Jaffee et al. 2003)

[–]Suspicious_Glove7365No Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]YveisGreyPurple Pill Woman 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GloomyWalk5178 [score hidden] 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

This argument has been thoroughly dismantled.

I will have to use virginity statistics as a proxy for the harder-to-measure romancelessness statistics, but these are bad enough. In high school each extra IQ point above average increases chances of male virginity by about 3%. 35% of MIT grad students have never had sex, compared to only 20% of average nineteen year old men. Compared with virgins, men with more sexual experience are likely to drink more alcohol, attend church less, and have a criminal history. A Dr. Beaver (nominative determinism again!) was able to predict number of sexual partners pretty well using a scale with such delightful items as “have you been in a gang”, “have you used a weapon in a fight”, et cetera. An analysis of the psychometric Big Five consistently find that high levels of disagreeableness predict high sexual success in both men and women.

If you’re smart, don’t drink much, stay out of fights, display a friendly personality, and have no criminal history – then you are the population most at risk of being miserable and alone. “At risk” doesn’t mean “for sure”, any more than every single smoker gets lung cancer and every single nonsmoker lives to a ripe old age – but your odds get worse. In other words, everything that “nice guys” complain of is pretty darned accurate. But that shouldn’t be too hard to guess…

Generally speaking, assholes tend to flourish. This should be obvious, but I can understand why it would be embarrassing to admit as truth.

[–]Suspicious_Glove7365No Pill Woman -2 points-1 points0 points 2 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]PriestKingofMinosLoser Pill Man 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Suspicious_Glove7365No Pill Woman -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]PriestKingofMinosLoser Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Suspicious_Glove7365No Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

There seems to be a constant effort on this sub to turn bad men’s behavior into a “women made me do it” thing, which I think is a weak argument because of the evidence of all the good men who seem to have no issue attracting women.

Study 1

It’s harder to predict what women find attractive in a man overall. Men are the ones who a lot more unified in what women they find attractive. I’m pointing this out to make sure we remember that it’s not smart to make women out to be this unified opinion.

But anyways, going off of our conversation, I’m more curious to ask you what you consider a “good guy” vs an “asshole”. Like what’s your personal definition? I always feel like this conversations start going haywire because women are imagining an abusive wife beater and men are imagining a guy with tattoos who has confidence.

[–]PriestKingofMinosLoser Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Because women's preferences are so ambiguous it complicates how men approach women. At least some men are able to make it work being more forward and even aggressive. I've met men who pretty openly told me that playing games, being rude, apathetic, or hitting on other women got them what they wanted. Far fewer have said playing the respectful route worked. It's fairly random but I see the good people do okay.

I consider genuinely good behavior the ability to try and do and want whats best for the other person regardless of whether or not you benefit. Respect boundaries, take no for an answer immediately, be honest about what you want, actually take an interest in empowering them, don't get in the way of their ambitions (or at least always working to compromise if something comes up) and checking in on their well being. Do you want whats best for them or do you just want them? Thats how I try to approach things.

the evidence of all the good men who seem to have no issue attracting women.

Sure, but there are a significant number of men who exhibit fairly bad behavior and get women as well. There are at least some men who are genuinely good in their intentions who simply don't make the cut. It's circular reasoning and basically just unfalsifiable to say they must be "fake nice guys".

[–]GloomyWalk5178 [score hidden] 2 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Suspicious_Glove7365No Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rude-Statistician920Red Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]Suspicious_Glove7365No Pill Woman -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rude-Statistician920Red Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]Suspicious_Glove7365No Pill Woman 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rude-Statistician920Red Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]Suspicious_Glove7365No Pill Woman 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rude-Statistician920Red Pill Man -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]Suspicious_Glove7365No Pill Woman 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rude-Statistician920Red Pill Man -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]AdEffective7894sEnergy vampyre man -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Suspicious_Glove7365No Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kingpinkatyaNo Pill Woman 7 points8 points9 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sexy_TriceratopsLoose Woman 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AdEffective7894sEnergy vampyre man -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Suspicious_Glove7365No Pill Woman 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Clementinequeen95 13 points14 points15 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Salt_Mathematician24Blue Pill Woman 9 points10 points11 points 2 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]JiraiyaDoesResearch[S] 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Salt_Mathematician24Blue Pill Woman 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]-KalosNo Pill Man 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]N-Zoth [score hidden] 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Sandshrew922No Pill 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Just_Natural_9027 9 points10 points11 points 2 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aafan_BarbarroMan 7 points8 points9 points 2 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]Just_Natural_9027 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aafan_BarbarroMan 7 points8 points9 points 2 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]Just_Natural_9027 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aafan_BarbarroMan 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]Just_Natural_9027 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aafan_BarbarroMan 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]-KalosNo Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aafan_BarbarroMan 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]-KalosNo Pill Man -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JiraiyaDoesResearch[S] 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]januaryphilosopherWoman/20s/Irish/UK/Maths teacher/radfem/healthy BMI/bi/married 9 points10 points11 points 2 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]PriestKingofMinosLoser Pill Man 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]januaryphilosopherWoman/20s/Irish/UK/Maths teacher/radfem/healthy BMI/bi/married 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PriestKingofMinosLoser Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is all pretty obviously incorrect, especially for the 21st century English speaking world. Across history women were about twice as likely to reproduce as men. They've always had some say in whose genes get to keep going, even in the most patriarchal of ages. Men exhibit more variability in reproductive success. Even now men are still much more likely to either end up fathering no children or multiple children to different women. Men are more likely to have no partners, or lots of partners. Men are more likely to never marry, or if they do marry, get married multiple times. Don't assume the most successful men are representative of the norm.

Men have more social status in general and women know their status is defined in relation to a man.

This goes both ways. Women have more inherent sexual value in part because female gametes are rare relative to male ones. I would concede average men have more material status by earning more income. But women have things men want as well and also represent a kind of status symbol for men to acquire the way a "good man" might be for a woman.

Men set this relationship structure up to make relationships easy and "earned" for them.

This really doesn't make sense and is frankly wrong. A lot of what exists is the result of random unplanned human action not design. As evidenced by all the whining on this sub, a non-trivial group of young adult men really do struggle to date or find a long term partner. There are actually somewhat more single young adult men than women and slightly more men in 2022 reported having no intimate partner than women. The current system, which evolved, is clearly not well optimized for many men. If you think this system is easy, try dating as a regular man. A better designed system would not be the current one with expensive and intricate mating rituals (dating) that have very high rates of failure for men. It would be to simply maintain a system of arranged marriages where older adults dictate the terms for younger adults.

Men often refuse to date women with more money or status because they do not wish to risk having less power.

It's mainly the opposite and no fault divorce makes this irrelevant even if you get married. "Single women complain about the lack of 'educated' men in the dating world in a VERY controversial discussion about finding love". You can find other articles in mainstream news sources about his phenomena. Actual research confirms this.

Women on Tinder are more selective than men on Tinder.
Women on Tinder have a preference for highly educated men.
Men on Tinder are not intimidated by highly educated women.*
On Tinder, preferences for educational assortative mating are absent. (Neyt B, Vandenbulcke S, Baert S. 2019.)

Blue collar men don't have a problem with educated women. Educated women have a problem with blue collar men.

[–]MelodicCrow2264 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]januaryphilosopherWoman/20s/Irish/UK/Maths teacher/radfem/healthy BMI/bi/married 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]MelodicCrow2264 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]januaryphilosopherWoman/20s/Irish/UK/Maths teacher/radfem/healthy BMI/bi/married 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]MelodicCrow2264 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]januaryphilosopherWoman/20s/Irish/UK/Maths teacher/radfem/healthy BMI/bi/married 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]MelodicCrow2264 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]januaryphilosopherWoman/20s/Irish/UK/Maths teacher/radfem/healthy BMI/bi/married -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]MelodicCrow2264 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Obvious_Smoke3633Purple Pill Woman 17 points18 points19 points 2 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]No_Mammoth8801With Incels, Interlinked. No Pill Man 11 points12 points13 points 2 years ago* (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]AdEffective7894sEnergy vampyre man 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Obvious_Smoke3633Purple Pill Woman -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]No_Mammoth8801With Incels, Interlinked. No Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]Obvious_Smoke3633Purple Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]No_Mammoth8801With Incels, Interlinked. No Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Obvious_Smoke3633Purple Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]No_Mammoth8801With Incels, Interlinked. No Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Obvious_Smoke3633Purple Pill Woman -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]No_Mammoth8801With Incels, Interlinked. No Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]JiraiyaDoesResearch[S] 5 points6 points7 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]YveisGreyPurple Pill Woman 10 points11 points12 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dweller_of_the_AbyssRed Pill Man | Paradise Lost - Gothic 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Obvious_Smoke3633Purple Pill Woman -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kingpinkatyaNo Pill Woman 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Expensive-Tea455Purple Pill Woman: i like a long haired, thick Chadrone 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]AdEffective7894sEnergy vampyre man 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Expensive-Tea455Purple Pill Woman: i like a long haired, thick Chadrone 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]YveisGreyPurple Pill Woman -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Expensive-Tea455Purple Pill Woman: i like a long haired, thick Chadrone 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 years ago (46 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aafan_BarbarroMan 14 points15 points16 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thelajesticBlue Pill Woman 5 points6 points7 points 2 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aafan_BarbarroMan 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]thelajesticBlue Pill Woman -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aafan_BarbarroMan 6 points7 points8 points 2 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]thelajesticBlue Pill Woman 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aafan_BarbarroMan 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]thelajesticBlue Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Throughout history powerful people have married for money, more power, connections. Even if they're not with a golddigger a lot of these people will have strategic pairings that are based on others of the same social class/similar power dynamics, or someone who gives them something. There might be genuine love there but that's then exactly the same scenario as every other man who gets married, which the majority of them do, so not an indicator of success. There will be exceptions to this general scenario but no, overall I don't think people like this are "successful with women" in the way that normal people think of it. They're not on tinder getting laid or spinning plates or whatever, they're often married fairly young to someone who's socially acceptable whether or not they really love each other. They might have affairs, and those will probably be with golddiggers.

[–]Aafan_BarbarroMan 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]-KalosNo Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Nah many wealthy men are in healthy relationships with their spouse, it's not just gold diggers. But a lot of those women in these relationships were either wealthy or royalty themselves or were with him supporting him before he became succesful. By "patriarchal" I'm guessing you mean sexist/traditional and those aren't exactly what these guys are.

The ones who are traditionalists tend to love attracting and entertaining gold diggers. Gold diggers that know he isn't a suitable mate in other areas but try to get what they can out of him anyway, even shit like child support. Traditionalists love women who have nothing and the dynamic that gives them in these relationships, they love the power and control it gives them over these women. They aren't with women for love, they love being a trick and they love having a bunch of these gold digging women. And those women love separating these men from their money. Just like their traditional grandmas, they deal with men who will provide for them rather than deal with someone they actually love. There's someone for everyone

[–]UpbeatInsurance5358Purple Pill Woman -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aafan_BarbarroMan 5 points6 points7 points 2 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]UpbeatInsurance5358Purple Pill Woman -3 points-2 points-1 points 2 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aafan_BarbarroMan 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]UpbeatInsurance5358Purple Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]KamuiObitoPurple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]UpbeatInsurance5358Purple Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JiraiyaDoesResearch[S] -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]KamuiObitoPurple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Embarrassed-Tune9038Fecal Pill 6 points7 points8 points 2 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]-KalosNo Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dweller_of_the_AbyssRed Pill Man | Paradise Lost - Gothic 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]-KalosNo Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dweller_of_the_AbyssRed Pill Man | Paradise Lost - Gothic 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]-KalosNo Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Embarrassed-Tune9038Fecal Pill -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Embarrassed-Tune9038Fecal Pill 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheRedPillRipperAn open mind opens doors. 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Savings_Builder_8449Man 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TheRedPillRipperAn open mind opens doors. 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PurplePillDebate-ModTeam[M] 0 points1 point2 points 2 years agolocked comment (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheDuellist100No Pill [score hidden] 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PurplePillDebate-ModTeam[M] 0 points1 point2 points 2 years agolocked comment (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ktdotnovaPurple Pill Man 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]JiraiyaDoesResearch[S] 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SaBahRubBlue Pill Woman 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cicero_JohnsonPurple Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Tragically, those exact hierarchies originating from the sexual selection pressure of women end up turning into political and economic hierarchies of men who then end up using their power to oppress other men and women.

Partially true. What is called a "patriarchy" is actually more akin to an Plutocracy. The rich benefit and rule, with lower class males and females left to do their assigned roles and make their assigned sacrifices. Men and Women who can maneuver their way into the ruling class benefit mightily indeed, and have a vested interest in keeping all lower classes down.

Having said all of that, the Division of Labor and Responsibilities between men and women can, and has shaped societies where women feel that they benefit more from the division than men do, and do not want "equality". That is why the largest group that was most adamant against the Equal Rights Amendment were Southern Females. While one might think they would object to having separate powers between men and women especially under a strongly religious society, the reality is that most of them saw benefits of forcing men to go out and fight/work/die to support hearth, family, and country.

But, yes it all boils down to women are the only ones who can gestate offspring, and as long as you have a few males to provide sperm, the rest can be sacrificed as needed.

[–]63daddyPurple Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WerevulviPurple Pill Woman 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

While I think women's sexuality is actually a component to this, men's sexuality is as much if not more so the reason behind men's actions. You can't blame women for your own libido. That is your own responsibility and not something women owe you to satisfy. Men also made laws against prostitution and masturbation and pre-marital sex, only making it harder for themselves.

So while women's actions and feelings have absolutely affected men's actions and feelings, the biggest issue with "patriarchy" is men who act like they're entitled to women's bodies/sexuality because 1) they can't handle their own "blue balls" and 2) they hate that they have very little control in reproduction, as well as 3) it's much harder for a man to know if a child is his or not.

These have been the main reasons for why men in power have been obsessed with controlling women's sexuality throughout history. Would have been more to their advantage to advocate for frequent masturbation and pre-marital sex, make a huge investment into brothels and praising sex workers, and even ban marriage altogether. As this would have secured men get their sexual needs covered for even in the absence of women who willingly choose them. Pretty much the opposite of what men in power have been doing throughout history. The only thing they really did in their favor was making sex within marriage mandatory up until fairly recently.

To clarify: I don't think any (or most) of those law suggestions would be good for women, and I do NOT think those would be actually good laws in any kinda way. I'm just listing them from the perspective of what I think sexually frustrated men would benefit from without taking into consideration women's consent and bodily autonomy, because that's what I imagine actually sexist men in power want. Especially some hundreds of years ago when "patriarchy" was more of an actual thing still permeating society. Because nope, instead they pussy-blocked themselves with peculiar chastity laws and still somehow managed to blame women.

But yes, I do get that a big reason for the reduction of sex outside of marriage was to reduce the spread of STD's and fatherless children, before birth control and STD protection was invented, with just a bit of a religious twist because they didn't have the science yet. But still.

[–]wtknightBlue-ish Gen X Slacker - Man 6 points7 points8 points 2 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aafan_BarbarroMan 5 points6 points7 points 2 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]KizkaBlue Pill Woman 8 points9 points10 points 2 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aafan_BarbarroMan 6 points7 points8 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Virtual_PieceRed Pill Man 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]-KalosNo Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Virtual_PieceRed Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]-KalosNo Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Virtual_PieceRed Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]-KalosNo Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kingpinkatyaNo Pill Woman 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wtknightBlue-ish Gen X Slacker - Man 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dweller_of_the_AbyssRed Pill Man | Paradise Lost - Gothic 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]wtknightBlue-ish Gen X Slacker - Man 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aafan_BarbarroMan 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]wtknightBlue-ish Gen X Slacker - Man -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aafan_BarbarroMan 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]wtknightBlue-ish Gen X Slacker - Man -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aafan_BarbarroMan 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]wtknightBlue-ish Gen X Slacker - Man 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]shadowrangerfsPurple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aafan_BarbarroMan 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]shadowrangerfsPurple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Virtual_PieceRed Pill Man -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Aafan_BarbarroMan 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Embarrassed-Tune9038Fecal Pill -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]wtknightBlue-ish Gen X Slacker - Man 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Embarrassed-Tune9038Fecal Pill 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]wtknightBlue-ish Gen X Slacker - Man -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Embarrassed-Tune9038Fecal Pill 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]wtknightBlue-ish Gen X Slacker - Man 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]analt223 7 points8 points9 points 2 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]uglysaladisuglyPurple Pill Woman 10 points11 points12 points 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I'm a pretty hardcore feminist and navigated in extremely alternative, left environments. I actually ended up hating most of them as much as I hated right wing, alt right guies. I remember once, a bit drunk, I implied that maybe, maybe they could try to overcome their social conditioning (there is zero other conditioning to these people, it's as stupid as the "its instinct and biology" takes we read here), and just stop trying to date manly guies at the top of the "squat hierarchy". It was not very well received.

I personally believe that if we don't like what patriarchy do to us, we should take matters in our hand and also make the changes. I was happier in all my relationships with my agreeable, prosocial and sensitive boyfriends that I ever was before. I also surround myself with this kind of friends and now, when i meet these girls by chance, I feel like we live on two different planets hearing their complaints about the males around them. I'm like, why would you surround yourself with them? And then I remember they only "preach" about "deconstruction", but they are not willing to do it themselves.

They complain about no women in the bands playing but none of them do any music. They complain about men taking all the space in front of the concerts, but none of them go there. They complain about sciences being patriarchal tools and only for males but they look down at me for deciding to science.

There is great feminism, and there is trendy social media liberal bullshit.

[–]GridReXXMEANIE LADY MOD ♀💁‍♀️ 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]badgersoniceWoman -cing the Stone 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]uglysaladisuglyPurple Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]uglysaladisuglyPurple Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Aafan_BarbarroMan 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MuscletovGray Pill Man 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MelodicCrow2264 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]bloblikeseacreaturewhitepill woman 7 points8 points9 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]MelodicCrow2264 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bloblikeseacreaturewhitepill woman -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]alwaysright12 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]MelodicCrow2264 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]alwaysright12 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]analt223 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]alwaysright12 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]analt223 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dweller_of_the_AbyssRed Pill Man | Paradise Lost - Gothic 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]alwaysright12 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dweller_of_the_AbyssRed Pill Man | Paradise Lost - Gothic 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]alwaysright12 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]-KalosNo Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]analt223 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TermAggravating8043 6 points7 points8 points 2 years ago (57 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aafan_BarbarroMan 5 points6 points7 points 2 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]TermAggravating8043 10 points11 points12 points 2 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aafan_BarbarroMan 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]TermAggravating8043 12 points13 points14 points 2 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aafan_BarbarroMan 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]TermAggravating8043 9 points10 points11 points 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aafan_BarbarroMan 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TermAggravating8043 12 points13 points14 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aafan_BarbarroMan 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ta06012022Man 6 points7 points8 points 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dweller_of_the_AbyssRed Pill Man | Paradise Lost - Gothic 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aafan_BarbarroMan -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ta06012022Man 9 points10 points11 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ta06012022Man 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]howdoiw0rkthisthingWoman who’s read the sidebar 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]TermAggravating8043 7 points8 points9 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]howdoiw0rkthisthingWoman who’s read the sidebar 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]meangingersnapPurple Pill Woman 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]howdoiw0rkthisthingWoman who’s read the sidebar -3 points-2 points-1 points 2 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]TSquaredRecoversBlue Pill Woman 7 points8 points9 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]howdoiw0rkthisthingWoman who’s read the sidebar 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]lgtv354 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nobuddi [score hidden] 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]howdoiw0rkthisthingWoman who’s read the sidebar 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aafan_BarbarroMan 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]howdoiw0rkthisthingWoman who’s read the sidebar 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aafan_BarbarroMan 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]howdoiw0rkthisthingWoman who’s read the sidebar 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aafan_BarbarroMan 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]howdoiw0rkthisthingWoman who’s read the sidebar -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PriestKingofMinosLoser Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]howdoiw0rkthisthingWoman who’s read the sidebar 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Andre27Purple Pill Man -2 points-1 points0 points 2 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]TermAggravating8043 7 points8 points9 points 2 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[+]Andre27Purple Pill Man -6 points-5 points-4 points 2 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]-KalosNo Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Andre27Purple Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TermAggravating8043 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Andre27Purple Pill Man -4 points-3 points-2 points 2 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]TermAggravating8043 7 points8 points9 points 2 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]MelodicCrow2264 -2 points-1 points0 points 2 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]TermAggravating8043 5 points6 points7 points 2 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]-KalosNo Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]KamuiObitoPurple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Virtual_PieceRed Pill Man -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The patriarchy was created by nature as a survival strategy. Women bare the burden of child care which causes them to be more selective when choosing mates, this intern meant that if men wanted sexual opportunity then they needed to provide security. This was (when human society was more simple) food and some level of shelter (when humans were hunter, gatherers) but then as society got more complex, security started to include different things (money, status, protection). Women were never incentivised to participate in this competition because firstly, throughout all of pre modern society, acquiring power was incredibly dangerous and difficult and secondly, they had other options. Then we get into modern society where the world is safer than at any point prior including acquiring power (which at this point is also comparatively easier) so the women who grew up in this time notice that they live in a system run by men (patriarchy) and that's unfair so they demand equality, got it and we come to today

[–]TermAggravating8043 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]eyewavePurple Pill Man -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TermAggravating8043 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]operajunkiePurple Pill Woman 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]addings0 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]operajunkiePurple Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]addings0 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]KamuiObitoPurple Pill Man -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]metasekvoia 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]No-Rough-7390Red Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]TSquaredRecoversBlue Pill Woman 14 points15 points16 points 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]PriestKingofMinosLoser Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]No-Rough-7390Red Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]TheDuellist100No Pill [score hidden] 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]IronDBZCommunist 10 points11 points12 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PapayaSubstantial672 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Virtual_PieceRed Pill Man 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]No-Rough-7390Red Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Virtual_PieceRed Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]No-Rough-7390Red Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Virtual_PieceRed Pill Man -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]No-Rough-7390Red Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXMEANIE LADY MOD ♀💁‍♀️ 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]JiraiyaDoesResearch[S] -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXMEANIE LADY MOD ♀💁‍♀️ 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Common-Ferret-1435Purple Pill Man -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Women do cause hierarchies among men, and you see it all throughout the animal kingdom.

It’s either females choosing the most successful male, whether that’s because he has the biggest antlers or tail feathers or nest building skills, or the male that dominated and killed off all the other males, in the end it’s the female rewarding the male with mating selection.

Women claim sec isn’t a reward or punishment, but that’s just women lying about everything, again, and pretending they’re just angels who love everyone.

With some species it’s the most powerful, biggest, most aggressive male that ”wins”. With others, it’s the one that can provide the best looking nest or interpretive mating dance.

One is raw physical power, genetic “chad” power, and one is providing resources you see in many species of birds.

Luckily with humans, the female seeks to maximize both chad power and resources, which luckily is somewhat difficult in one man, so you have AF for the preferred genetics, and BB for the preferred resources.

Of course, women lie about this but what else is new.

As we know, our intelligence allows human females to always choose the fattest, shortest, dusty, broke dues as their preferred mates.

The most successful male wins and is an absolute requirement for evolution to occur.

Anyone saying otherwise is doing something that rhymes with a dessert made of apples.

Sure you can argue that men are the heads of “patriarchy”, like that matters in some way, but whereas feminists lie about what patriarchy is, with some lie about it being “to oppress women, it’s really just the summation of exactly what women want.

Women demand a patriarchy. And no matter how much they lie they do based on their mating choices.

Which is why only lesbians can be believed. The real ones. Not the fake bored housewife ones “experimenting”.

[–]uglysaladisuglyPurple Pill Woman 6 points7 points8 points 2 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Common-Ferret-1435Purple Pill Man -3 points-2 points-1 points 2 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]uglysaladisuglyPurple Pill Woman 6 points7 points8 points 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Common-Ferret-1435Purple Pill Man -4 points-3 points-2 points 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]uglysaladisuglyPurple Pill Woman 6 points7 points8 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Common-Ferret-1435Purple Pill Man -5 points-4 points-3 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]uglysaladisuglyPurple Pill Woman 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Common-Ferret-1435Purple Pill Man -3 points-2 points-1 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]-KalosNo Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Common-Ferret-1435Purple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Virtual_PieceRed Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Difficult_Falcon1022 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]serpensmercurialisNo Pill Woman ☿ 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

The sexuality of straight women is the driving force behind patriarchy

No.

Women invest more energy into offspring meaning they are more picky and sexually selective towards men.

Humans are resource intensive. This isn't female sexual selection, this is survival. If males want their children to survive, then they need access to rival resources. This is the source of conflict. To blame "women's sexuality" for this is childish, stupid, and tells me you put zero thought into your argument.

This makes men more competitive amongst eachother inorder to be selected by women. At the same time competitive men become more violent, aggressive and status seeking inorder to win competitions that prove they are viable sexual partners.

Again, this is due to the fact that rival resources are needed to raise a child. Men have an interest in seeing their offspring survive, do they not? How are they going to do that without food, shelter, and the cooperation of the tribe?

Thus male hierarchies are formed to determine the winner of intra-male competition so women know who to select.

Also incorrect. Patriarchy exists to suppress these violent, hyper-dominant males through male-male alliances. Here is a lecture by Richard Wrangham that explains some of this. It is also laughable to say it's "so women know who to select" as if a large component of patriarcy isn't about controlling female sexuality and selection.

Tragically, those exact hierarchies originating from the sexual selection pressure of women end up turning into political and economic hierarchies of men who then end up using their power to oppress other men and women. Ironically women have created a system of their own oppression. Is patriarch just the result of biological selection pressures?

Men fighting to suppress other men's access to women and rival resources is women's fault. Of course that would be a take posted on this sub. But it's women who you guys say can't take responsibility. Pathetic.

[–]JiraiyaDoesResearch[S] 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago* (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]serpensmercurialisNo Pill Woman ☿ 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

So if patriarchy actually reduces male aggression through male-male alliances do you personally think you benefit from patriarchy because at least we don't have to deal with these hyper dominant males?

You are missing the point. The point is to reduce dominant male aggression towards less dominant males. Not women. Men are doing this for themselves to access rival resources needed to support their own offspring. Less dominant men are still plenty aggressive towards women, and part of patriarchy is subjugation of women by less dominant males through violence.

Also babies can't do taxes. Just because women get pregnant doesn't mean that they need to be the ones who raise offspring. If men did all the child care work post-pregnancy they would be the ones with the higher paternal investment thus becoming more picky than women.

Please address the argument I actually made, which was about the safety given by tribal cooperation and tangible rival resources needed to support a child such as land, food, and shelter. Things that males historically provide to their mates.

My personal conspiracy theory is that women actually don't want men to do domestic and childcare work because women would lose their sexual power over men

WTF are you talking about?

[–]JiraiyaDoesResearch[S] 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]serpensmercurialisNo Pill Woman ☿ 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]JiraiyaDoesResearch[S] 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]serpensmercurialisNo Pill Woman ☿ 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]JiraiyaDoesResearch[S] 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]serpensmercurialisNo Pill Woman ☿ 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]JiraiyaDoesResearch[S] 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sexy_TriceratopsLoose Woman 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]boom-wham-slamRed Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CraftyCoolerRed Flag | Man | Too Old -2 points-1 points0 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]obviousredflagScience Pilled Man 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]OtPayOkerSmayRed Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]obviousredflagScience Pilled Man 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]alwaysright12 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kingpinkatyaNo Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Smergmerg432 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PurplePillDebate-ModTeam[M] 0 points1 point2 points 2 years agolocked comment (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nicklebuck -3 points-2 points-1 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	The sexuality of straight women is the driving force behind patriarchy
Author	JiraiyaDoesResearch
Upvotes	140
Comments	497
Date	June 19, 2024 8:41 AM UTC (2 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1djeb8n/the_sexuality_of_straight_women_is_the_driving/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/the-sexuality-of-straight-women-is-the-driving.1522034 https://theredarchive.com/post/1522034

Comments