Do men have an evolutionary deficiency that makes them less sexually lucrative to women? Or does it vary by the times were in?

gtbreddit1 · 2026-02-01T01:31:47+00:00

It's simply that reproduction costs males almost nothing but costs females a lot. So the optimal mating strategy is different for males than it is for women.

For males it's impregnate almost any female you can, because in half an hour or so you'll be ready to impregnate another.

For females it's be impregnated only by the best males, because being impregnated by a lesser one costs you the opportunity to be impregnated by a better one for about a year.

Our sexualities evolved to conform to these strategies, so even though reproduction is rarely the goal of sex for humans now, our sexualities are still calibrated by these evolutionary pressures.

Siukslinis_acc · 2026-02-01T06:59:40+00:00

There is still the biology of sex=pregnancy for women. Pregnancy means body changes (some can even screw you up for the rest of your life), taking care of a child. Heck, even abandoning part of yourself for the sake of a child as your life will jever be the same.

Not to mention the menstrual cycle which oftentimes creates a small window in a month that makes women horny enough to even want sex.

So yeah, the deficiency is that tue men don't get pregnant, but the women do. Women might be more inclined to have sex with men if their bodies would be like mens - not getting pregnant and having a hormonal cycle like men do.

YeaNobody · 2026-02-01T01:27:10+00:00

Men are simply less sexually lucrative to women then women are to men...that's just how it's always been. Less to see on us...more to see on women means more desire in women means more value to more people versus men.

BigZaddyZ3 · 2026-02-01T01:56:34+00:00

Could be any number of reasons honestly…

Perhaps patriarchy caused a sexual imbalance (in terms of physical attractiveness between the genders) because women didn’t have the ability to choose their partners fully. Therefore the male side of the species wasn’t subjected to the same level of sexual selection pressures that women were. (Leading to women as a whole becoming better looking than men as a whole. While the average male genotype declined due to a lack of selection pressures.)
It could also be that centuries of sending off the most fit, athletic strong men to die in wars led to many otherwise good/attractive gene-sets going to waste on the male side but not on the female side.
It could simply a natural function of evolution to have the men compete at a higher level because biologically-speaking, one man can impregnate multiple women. Meaning that not as men are necessary to keep the species going.

Could be any combination of the above, or some other reasons entirely I guess. I doubt this is the type of thing you can get a simple answer for realistically.

Disastrous_Agent9307 · 2026-02-01T04:34:41+00:00

As others have mentioned, sexuality is naturally more costly for women whether it's a biological hard stop date which finishes somewhere in their 50s or 60s depending although tends to begin in their 40s somewhere or actual pregnancy or the fact many STDs are mostly annoying for men, but can render women infertile...it's just a more costly prospect.
Men have greater variability biologically speaking, their chromosomal make-up tends to render them more fragile in certain major ways that are what get you your Einstein's and your drooling vegetables in greater numbers than you will with ladies. And you're more likely statistically to get losers than winners. There's also some emerging data that even little boys are more fragile developmentally and prone to damage from environmental and parental factors that while damaging to girls are relatively more damaging to little boys (not that any child should endure such circumstances).
Male personality profiles and chemical make-ups are generally more volatile and difficult/unsympathetic to deal with interpersonally and on a societal level. I've said somewhat often that by being so disagreeable and aggressive, men naturally are sort of "harder to love". And I'm not saying women are easy to love for the record, merely easier given the covert nature of being agreeable and the lack of testosterone fueled anger and risk-taking.

On these factors alone, you're going to naturally get more men that aren't sexually successful or are evolutionary dead ends so to speak.

Could the times we live in mitigate or contribute to these three factors, yes. Absolutely.

The age we're living in is a strange one because we're relatively speaking at the lowest risk to women (category 1) that we've ever been, with the exception of recent obesity, older motherhood, and additives to our food, we're at the healthiest and safest environment for little boys in the womb that has ever been and they're largely less likely to endure various mental health traumas (fathers have always been difficult to keep in the home whether that's social reasons, plague, war, etc.) (category 2), but the real thing plaguing them is they're also in the highest requirement for agreeability that has probably EVER been expected with the least available training and consequences for failing to meet that standard of agreeability (category 3).

Thus, while you're getting fewer dead ends physically speaking and women are the most open to random sexuality they've ever been...the agreeability factor is really fucking the borderline cases over.

wtknight · 2026-02-01T02:16:38+00:00

Men's value varies based upon the times that people live in. In a primitive society where wild animals were a danger and hunting was a crucial part of survival (although not as important as gathering), men were more valuable than in a western society where the mental labor that women can perform often can earn them enough money to live without the need of men. Women in such a scenario become extremely picky and do not need men who are not going to add something additional to their already privileged lives.

society000 · 2026-02-01T05:03:29+00:00

It clearly doesn't vary by time. Genetic science shows that every human has twice as many female ancestors as they do male ancestors. This means that of all the men ever born, half never passed along their genes. This could be partially explained by men dying before they mated, and women and girls being stolen by stronger men, but the most likely answer is the simplest: roughly half of the men in our 300,000 years of existence were simply not attractive enough to women, and the women would rather share a more attractive man than settle for and be the single wife of an ugly man.

Monogamy likely only became the norm in civilization to actually give men a purpose, and women were disenfranchised to have to rely on a man for resources. Now that women are being given their freedom back (this is a good thing), we are more likely to see polygynous relationships pop up, though, thanks to technology, it's likely that extremely attractive men will have large harems of women.

Most men are simply doomed to never experience love from a woman other than their mother. It would've been a kindness to smother us in the crib than fill our heads with pretty lies about ever being 'worthy' of love.

caption291 · 2026-02-01T05:39:06+00:00

If both sides are playing to win men win trough patriarchy.

Women's strategy is a losing strategy that works because their teammate is trying to teach them how to play instead of crushing them at the game.

Blacktransjanny · 2026-02-01T02:48:47+00:00

Theoretically we only need 1 (very happy) man to save the human race, but if there was only 1 woman...

AutoModerator · 2026-01-31T23:43:46+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Livid-Log7463 · 2026-02-01T04:57:48+00:00

Unfortunately the facts are that it only takes a minority of men reproducing in excess to keep us going, so you could say it’s the opposite, men are too good at reproducing too the degree that through supply and demand it becomes valued so little. As for social factors, men’s priority in reproduction is to ensure it happens while women’s is to exclude men first then select for the best, and in a more connected world like we have there is more men to see and therefore more men to exclude.

Careful-Wrongdoer343 · 2026-02-01T05:17:44+00:00

In addition to what others are saying regarding inherent biological reproduction patterns, yes, the modern men is deficient compared to his counterpart.

We used to spent our entire lives, and, more importantly, formative years chewing hard foods and exercising non-stop, which ensured our skulls and therefore faces developed correctly. The agrarian revolution changed this and we started seeing the first ugly faces not related to disease or damage.

The industrial revolution and now the current digital age further exacerbate this deficiency by encouraging even less exercise, producing ever more deformed visages.

The current human is malformed compared to it's natural state, and this affects men so much more because good genetic health in males is mostly signaled through a well-formed, strong skull which shapes a beautiful face.

Throwawaypmme2 · 2026-02-01T07:29:27+00:00

Its by design. When government stepped in and basically became the man in marriage and relationships, there's just no real drive to pair up instantly anymore. Because even if you screw up, there's so many safety nets that why do women realistically need men even with high inflation and everything?

Everyone around me has noticed third spaces dropping, relationships getting harder, and less people getting married. If you take away the government safety nets and make women rely on men the same way men rely on women currently, things would be a bit more normal. Thats a different conversation, and I doubt many people want to have that conversation too

SamuraiGoblin · 2026-02-01T11:00:26+00:00

It all comes down to reproduction cost. It is tremendously high for women, and extremely cheap for men.

This means that females had to become very selective. And for that reason, women have innate (sexual) value, whereas men have to prove theirs.

Cool_Ranch_2511 · 2026-02-01T12:40:02+00:00

You're treating women as if they come from a different species and have their own genetics, that's total pseudoscience garbage. Arguably, adornment the biggest differentiator in what makes women sexually lucrative to men and vice versa, stuff like push up bras, makeup, high heels. Adornment used to be male-coded for thousands of years, it used to be men who wore makeup, they wore jewelry and bright colored clothes. It was a display of power and status, so even if it's hard to imagine it made women of that age horny as fuck for men.

That was all flipped during the Enlightenment And women became more like status symbols of families so adornment was reassigned to women. Mass produced makeup is probably the biggest revolution in female adornment in history. Meanwhile it's now a rule that adornment is effeminate, so men are evaluated on raw genetic attractiveness. Back before this switch, women were evaluated primarily on natural cues for fertility (and also modesty and morality to an extent).

PuzzleheadedGrab8375 · 2026-02-01T16:05:02+00:00

No, the whole concept of a “evolutionary deficiency” is kinda dumb tbh. Evolution is a permanent process of optimisation. Individuals with deficiencies just die without reproducing. So if there are differences in men and women it’s because from a survival perspective those differences make sense.

And i think what evolution “did” can be summed up as follows: Men are expandable. For a human society to function properly (in the sense of reproducing quickly) we need significantly less men than women. One men can have children with dozens of women at a time. A woman can inly have children with one men at the time.

So it’s just logical, that men thrive to become the biggest, badest mf who easily thrives in a competitive environment. Women on the other hand are inclined to search for the biggest badest mf, so he’s not gonna die while she’s pregnant and the kids are young.

And nowadays this seems like a big discrepency, because it’s generally frond upon to be the biggest, badest mf, but we also say anyone can have any (legal) preferences they like. That means mens survival strategy is framed as a bad thing (i don’t wanna say it’s a good thing, this is just an value neutral statement), while woman’s survival strategy is still considered to be valid.

This obviously leads to a situation where we have a mismatch in what men are inclined to be and what women expect men to be.

mashedturnip · 2026-02-01T18:35:12+00:00

The evolutionary deficiency is being a seed package instead of an egg carton.

Males that function as caretakers, however, are the ones who are competed over

Junior-Campaign-6326 · 2026-02-01T18:50:44+00:00

Men have also lost financial status to women and therefore women don't particularly desire men the same way. Economics heavily regulates the value of men. When the economy is bad the value of men goes down. Is it any coincidence that independent women and boss girl era speak started to take off during the 2008 financial crisis and economically we never recovered- so men's status never recovered. Most women see men as roommates to split bills with- that's highly unattractive to women when she can split bills with another women. Its as if men morphed into asexual beings that women interact with.

midnight_blue77 · 2026-02-01T20:49:31+00:00

It's not a "deficiency." You're making the same stupid error feminists make in comparing apples to oranges, men to women. We do not function the same. What men are attracted to and what we optimize for is NOT what women are attracted to and what they optimize for. This is making the stupid assumption that women are attracted to men in the same way in which men are attracted to women. They're not.

The discrepancy is due to what each of us actually wants.

Men want sexuality, intimacy, and faithfulness/loyalty from a woman. Our wants are so basic and so broad that literally the majority of women can satisfy the majority of men. Unless - as we are witnessing in modern times - women collectively become so fucking egregious, horrible, and dysfunctional that they cannot even meet these basic ass desires that men have. Women who are disgusting, dysfunctional, insane, and treacherous. That is why these same women gravitate towards their equals in the male population and date and make babies with disgusting, treacherous, dysfunctional pieces of shit.

Women want utility, security, and thrill/emotion from men. I used to think they also wanted loyalty but reality says otherwise. They cannot possibly want loyalty from a man to the same degree that we do when they instinctively/emotionally cheat on their men all the fucking time by having a lineup of orbiters and simps at her disposal ready to monkey branch at any moment's notice. This means that the vast majority of men cannot possibly satisfy the vast majority of women's desires because, functioning as a hierarchy, women will gravitate towards the top 1% of for whatever they perceive at the top tier. For reference look at HoeMath's Hypergamy Chart.

Women are much more evolutionarily geared to quite literally survive and thrive based on sexual pull.

Yes, that is why women have also evolved physical markers for fertility, meekness, and neoteny in order to literally appear as less of a threat or a rival to men and more as someone that is endearing, desirable, and needs provision and protection from us. The feminists tell on themselves when they idiotically accuse us of "weaponized helplessness." In contrast, men evolved physical markers for dominance, utility, and robustness and dangerousness. Women are built like mini coopers, men are builty like trucks-102d822f25c16988bc17f06e222685e8.jpg). Women are evolved to survive in a world of men, their entire being is about figuring and then manipulating men. Men, however, are built to survive and world of hostility (nature) and unpredictability (against other men), hence, why we are built like trucks - for utility and ruggedness. Just as trucks are meant to be off-road women are built for man-made roads and don't fare very well out in nature away from civilization.

Robot_Alchemist · 2026-02-01T23:22:04+00:00

Sexually lucrative?

-Kalos · 2026-02-01T23:57:19+00:00

According to the data, most men in the history of humankind didn't pass on their genes. Around 4000-8000 years ago there was a significant bottleneck where 1 man passed on their genes to every 17 women. Maybe it fluctuates due to significant societal/resource/war time/political factors but men have always passed on their genes less than women have. We have it pretty good today all things considered, no matter how much doomerism there is online

Alarmiorc2603 · 2026-02-02T01:09:59+00:00

Not really becuase hwne it comes to success until very recently and even arguably now the winner kind of takes it all. And men are more likely to have tons of kids, so overall id bet if you did the math the avg man probably has more kids.

Dertross · 2026-02-02T13:32:53+00:00

It's certainly the times we live in.

You only need to look at every non-western first world technological civilization in history. Women weren't dependent on men merely because men subjugated women. Civilization is extremely labor intensive. Animals can be deadly. Disease. Weather. Famine. Water sources. Construction. Tool building.

No one could really afford to live an isolated life where they can impersonally acquire everything they want or need with a token of exchange they acquired from an impersonal employment schema. Not even getting into how most jobs women have in technological society aren't the type that literally destroy your body, as in historical times.

"Men want women more than women need men" is entirely predicated on technology and a modern mixed economy that balances socialist safety nets and a free market.

pie-mart · 2026-02-04T13:59:34+00:00

I would argue that sexually men pose a huge risk. Pregnancy and possible death. That is scary to women and often overrides regular desire.

The act of engaging sexually with a man poses immense and irreversible risks.

And even if we are totally horny, it is impossible to engage as readily as men do in sex.

If there wasn't as much risk and stigma around sex, we would all be more sexual

ChewedMyWayOutOfThat · 2026-02-01T03:56:14+00:00

Do men have an evolutionary deficiency that makes them less sexually lucrative to women?

Yes. It's called malignant narcissism, which explains the absurdly high rate of orgasm for men and absurdly low rate of orgasm for women when they have sex with men.

Robot_Alchemist · 2026-02-01T23:22:43+00:00

Oh man, you’re pretty far off on what women actually want

Popeoath · 2026-02-09T05:53:00+00:00

Both. Modern society exacerbates men's natural disadavantages while curtailing their natural advantages.

FearInoculumTool · 2026-02-01T03:23:04+00:00

No man, don’t be fucking silly. The problem is that men are conditioned to have extremely low self esteem and that leads them to be needy and desperate, which is a huge turn off for women. Learn to love yourself and not need women for approval and validation and love, and they will be swarming you like flies swarm a pile of horseshit..

bondepart · 2026-02-01T10:30:41+00:00

Evolutionary psychology is made up nonsense

Jetpine9 · 2026-02-01T01:40:55+00:00

What's "female intuition" have to do with it? The Evo Psyche rationale, as I understand it, is that women are less inclined to be wooed by the beta bucks guy since provisioning is taken over more by the state, at least in the west. The ideal being complete economic support for single mothers and their children, to insure that women's genetic material survives, and to give women the freedom to breed with whom they choose; the best genes she can attract, even if that guy isn't the best at providing.

Title	Do men have an evolutionary deficiency that makes them less sexually lucrative to women? Or does it vary by the times were in?
Author	ElectronicMetal9123
Upvotes	6
Comments	78
Date	January 31, 2026 11:43 PM UTC (6 months ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1qsi6t2/do_men_have_an_evolutionary_deficiency_that_makes/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/do-men-have-an-evolutionary-deficiency-that-makes.1572433 https://theredarchive.com/post/1572433

Comments