I am not here to discuss the statement in the title as a CMV but the article with that title.

I don't think that there is any way past reading it all, if you don't, don't bother commenting.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200807/men-do-everything-they-do-in-order-get-laid-i

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200807/men-do-everything-they-do-in-order-get-laid-ii

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200807/men-do-everything-they-do-in-order-get-laid-iii

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200807/men-do-everything-they-do-in-order-get-laid-iv

If you read the articles you can stop reading this post here.

Part 1 The age crime/genius curve

All men are essentially the same.

For a quarter of a century, criminologists have known about a persistent empirical phenomenon called the “age-crime curve.”

the tendency to commit crime and other analogous, risk-taking behavior rapidly increases in early adolescence, peaks in late adolescence and early adulthood, rapidly decreases throughout the 20s and 30s, and levels off during middle age.

which might be called the “age-genius curve,” is essentially the same as the age-crime curve. Their productivity -- the expressions of their genius -- quickly peaks in early adulthood, and then just as quickly declines throughout adulthood.

The age-genius curve among their female counterparts is much less pronounced and flatter; it does not peak or vary as much as a function of age.

There are some exceptions. Some artists, writers, and scientists remain productive into their middle and old ages, just as there are a few career criminals who commit crimes all their lives. But, in general, the pattern of youthful productivity holds for most, regardless of what field they happen to be in.

Why do criminals usually desist from committing crimes as they age? Why does the productivity of creative geniuses also often fade with age?

Additional info: http://www.sicotests.com/psyarticle.asp?id=445

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23595417

we find that criminal offending peaks in adolescence, even after controlling for variation in economic status.

Maybe criminals get better/smarter as they age, but what about the genius curve? Maybe it's due to brain changes.

Part 2:

It turns out that a single evolutionary psychological theory may be able to explain the productivity of both creative geniuses and criminals over the life course. According to this theory, both crime and genius are expressions of young men’s competitive desires, whose ultimate function in the ancestral environment would have been to increase reproductive success.

In the physical competition for mates, those who are competitive may act violently toward their male rivals. Their violence serves the dual function of protecting their status and honor, and discouraging or altogether eliminating their rivals from future competition.

Men who are less inclined toward crime and violence may express their competitiveness through their creative activities in order to attract mates.

There are no reproductive benefits from competition before puberty because prepubescent males are not able to translate their competitive edge into reproductive success. With puberty, however, the benefits of competition rapidly increase. Once the men are reproductively capable, every act of competition (be it through violence, theft, or creative genius) can potentially augment their reproductive success.

There are also costs associated with competition. Acts of violence can easily result in the man’s own death or injury, and acts of resource appropriation can trigger retaliation from the rightful owners of the resources. A man’s reproductive success is obviously compromised if the competitive acts result in his death or even injury.

True, being competitive might result in their death or injury, and they might therefore lose in the reproductive game if they are too competitive. However, they also lose by not competing.

So there is little cost of being competitive, even at the risk of death and injury; the alternative -- being a total reproductive loser -- is worse in reproductive terms, which once again is the reason the death penalty cannot deter young men.

The cost of competition, however, rises dramatically with the birth of the first child and subsequent children.

However, a man’s energies and resources are put to better use by protecting and investing in his existing children. In other words, with the birth of children, men should shift their reproductive effort away from mating and toward parenting.

Both the age-crime curve and the age-genius curve can be explained as the mathematical difference between the benefits and costs of competition.

Young men rapidly become more violent, more criminal, and creatively more expressive in late adolescence and early adulthood as the benefits of competition rise, but then their productivity just as rapidly declines in late adulthood as the costs of competition rise and cancel its benefits.

These calculations have been performed by natural and sexual selection, so to speak, which then equips male brains with a psychological mechanism to incline them to be increasingly competitive immediately after puberty and to make them less competitive right after the birth of the first child. Men themselves do not necessarily make these calculations consciously. They simply do not feel like acting violently, stealing, or conducting additional scientific experiments, or they just want to settle down after the birth of the child, but they do not know why. The intriguing suggestion here is that a single psychological mechanism may be responsible for much of what men do, whether they are criminals or scientists.

We all act as if we have children by the time we reach early adulthood, whether we do or not, because we are descended, and inherited our psychological mechanisms, from our ancestors who did.

Part 3 Female choice

In all species in which the female makes greater parental investment than the male (such as humans and all other mammals), mating is a female choice; it happens when the female wants it to happen, and with whom she wants it to happen, not when and with whom the male wants it to happen.

This is why men throughout history have had to conquer foreign lands, win battles and wars, compose symphonies, author books, write sonnets, paint portraits and cathedral ceilings, make scientific discoveries, play in rock bands, and write new computer software, in order to impress women so that they will agree to have sex with them. There would be no civilization, no art, no literature, no music, no Beatles, no Microsoft, if sex and mating were a male choice. Men have built (and destroyed) civilizations in order to impress women so that they might say yes. Women are the reason men do everything.

Part 4 Marriage stops crime

Criminologists have long known that criminals tend to “settle down” and desist (stop committing crime) once they get married, while unmarried criminals continue their criminal careers.

marriage has the same desistance effect on perfectly legal, conventional activities, such as science. A comparison of the “age-genius curve” among scientists who were married at some point in their lives with the same curve among those who never married shows the strong desistance effect of marriage on scientific productivity.

It therefore appears that scientists rather quickly desist after marriage, while unmarried scientists continue to do important scientific work.