I want to know why the male is more fortunate for getting sex and attention from the female than the female is from getting it from the male. I know some females think this way and for all I know they might all think this way (even if they secretly hold the belief). I mean I know there is something like a 10 to 1 female to male ratio in the world. If anything it is the females that should be grateful for having a guy wanting to be with you rather than those nine other girls. What is this all about? Is it just arbitrary, part of the whole romance thing, that women demand us to show our gratefulness for their love like it is perhaps something more sacred or special than the love we give to them or is this all just another double standard?
Hey, Cap: Have you completely lost it (lol) (not really)???
Your information is way off and I don't think there is any difference at all in attraction between the sexes in general...it's an individual thing. I think maybe some people may experience what you describe but certainly not the majority. Where do you get your statistics? Where did you get the information on which you based your post or was this just your own personal observation?
I don't think most of your points are valid for most of us but they certainly may be your perspective. I'd hate to have your perspective on this particular issue.
Under "Current population" the fifth choice from the top is "population by gender." For some reason the link to that page was bad when I tried to put it in this post, so you'll have to go to the site, and then select the population chart.
However, in the United States population females do slightly outnumber men, though nothing like a 10 to 1 ratio. I didn't have time to check the US population by age but women in the US tend to live a few years longer than men, so that probably accounts for at least part of the discrepancy.
To move on to your larger question: it's too difficult to address in the amount of time that I have, but I'll give a brief synopsis of the explanation that evolutionary psychologists and sociobiologists like Robert Trivers have come up with. Please bear in mind that this is an ultimate explanation (i.e. big picture, not the motives that people walk around with and consciously or even subconsciously act upon).
In short, historically speaking, female mammals, including humans, have more parental investment in their offspring (the outcome, historically speaking, of courtship/romance/sex). When you look at all animals, the sex that puts more investment (time, resources) into the production and care of offspring is the choosier sex. As I already mentioned, among mammals it's the female. There are certain species -- some types of birds, and of course seahorses are a famous exception -- it's the male. Whichever sex is more invested is the choosier, and the other sex competes for their attention.
Caveat #1: Human males have always been invested in their offspring, just not as much as females (who by default invest their entire bodies for nine months of gestation, and historically speaking a year or two of breast-feeding). We are fundamentally different from even our nearest biological kin (chimpanzees) in that we have evolved as a species to cooperate much more than other apes do. One man and his spear will not bring down a predator, and would have a hard time getting enough game to feed himself and his family -- regardless of environment or context, cooperation has always been part of the human condition. The other great apes cooperate too, but with nowhere near the complexity and dependency upon cooperation that humans have. That means two things: in the most primitive conditions, both human parents needed to actively participate in the rearing of children (providing food, protection, instruction), and other mechanisms, besides the drive to mate, are equally important and inextricable from the human condition. Check out Trivers theory of reciprocal altruism as the governing principle of human cooperation.
Caveat #2: Because we are very different from other animals, even other mammals, and even other great apes, making direct comparisons between the mating behavior of other species and humans has limited validity.
Sorry, that's all I've got time to write now.
Last edited by midori; 22nd April 2004 at 11:47 AM.
Reason: fixed bad link
Professional men , upon payment of dues, may become charter members. Women do not qualify for charter membership. They can only be associate members. To be selected as an associate member, a woman must be
Quote:
35 or younger, unmarried, childless, college educated and willing to submit a head-to-toe photograph, to prevent unattractive women from making the cut.
Also, to keep things from getting stale, the Club ensures
Quote:
that there would be a steady stream of fresh pretties at the club, Mr. Lopez-Pierre planned to rotate 20 percent of the associate members, who pay no dues, every three months. The goal, he said, was to present members with undeniable marriage material.
The Club will function almost as a brothel for these successful men who will feast on marriage hungry Black and Latin women. The law of supply and demand in action. I doubt these women feel particularly powerful with respect to these men.
Pardon my observations if they don't please you, its just sometimes I like to conduct thought expiraments in my brain (sort of like Einstein did I guess) only mine are more based on the social than the scientific as were Einstein's famed expiraments. With these expiraments I sometimes like to think about things in a way that is somehow not overly bound to "traditional thought" and that is at the same time perhaps not totally detached from traditional thinking. And so, many of you may have found what I wrote before rather disturbing or disagreeable.
I'll be honest, the scientific information presented here did little to further my understanding not because it was untrue which I will not claim, but more because I don't particularly see humans as that similar to other animals. I think that often human intelligence is nearly often always underrated in civilised society and I feel that even those considered of low intelligence often have their intelligence underrated. Added to this is that the various sciences are finding out that human intelligence is not always merely brain power but can be measured and exhibited in other ways, i.e. emotional intelligence. I just feel that we are so superior even to the ape, dolphin and other animals that are considered to be highly intelligent and non-human.
In addition, I feel that there are those people that do essentially model their behavior after animals and I always have to concede that but I think that my point above can even be true for people that exhibit a higher level of thinking, acting and being (than that of the "higher" animals), and not just for people that are grunts and ape their way through life.
As to the statistics I can only conceed that I made a mistake. I have heard the figure I used many times but apparently it is way off. Perhaps the 10 to 1 figure was in reference to a certain population and it was presented out of context. In any case, I think my point still stands as a matter of consideration.
Regards,
Capitald
Last edited by capitald; 22nd April 2004 at 7:17 PM.
I'll be honest, the scientific information presented here did little to further my understanding not because it was untrue which I will not claim, but more because I don't particularly see humans as that similar to other animals.
Then I guess you didn't read the whole thing, in particular caveats 1 & 2. The way in which humans are connected to animals in the evolutionary psychology explanation I gave is that in terms of parental investment in the animal kingdom (which humans do belong to), the sex that invests more in the offspring is the choosier sex. That is a sufficient explanation for the way that lions and koalas and dogs mate -- but there's a whole lot more going on with humans. Nonetheless that basic condition does hold true for humans too.
First of all evolution makes sense, as do most theories that hang around for a while, but its still a theory. Therefore, we don't have absolute certainty that we even came from animals, at least the higher ones. And what is an animal but an animated being? Saying we are an animal is not really saying anything except that we have the conscious power to move ourselves.
Secondly, I do not see how the father invests less into the child than the women. That sounds like reverse mysogeny. No, on second thought, it just sounds a little crazy.
Thank you, I didn't know or think for that matter that they had a word for that. Actually, I think I might have known it before and forgot it. Anyway, I like how I said it before, misogyny is much more of a powerful sounding and ugly word than misandry.
In any case, I do think there the male and females have roles that are very different in the mating game and it may be partially that way because the women is the one that gives birth, which I think is what midori was partially saying.
ADVERTISEMENT In association with Amazon, a portion of your purchase helps support LoveShack.org
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 9:55 PM.
Please note: The suggestions and advice offered on this web site are opinions only and are not to be used in the place of professional psychological counseling or medical advice. If you or someone close to you is currently in crisis or in an emergency situation, contact your local law enforcement agency or emergency number.
Linear Mode
