Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Thurs nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts with FREE Prizes!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE Live AFA Seminar! See locations and details.


Scam free! Check out Christian Filipina - Meet Asian women with Christian values! Members screened.
Exclusive book offer! 75% off! How to Meet, Date and Marry Your Filipina Wife



View Active Topics       Latest 100 Topics       View Your Posts       FAQ Topics       Switch to Mobile


Women Are Innately More Valuable Than Men

Discuss and talk about any general topic.

Moderators: jamesbond, fschmidt

Women Are Innately More Valuable Than Men

Postby Dragon » Wed Oct 31, 2012 5:59 am

I've always been interested in relationship dynamics, game, and evolutionary psychology as a means to understand why things are the way they are with women. It helps me put things into perspective and I feel it gives me a leg up when interacting with women. It is sort of a hobby of mines to think about these things and come up with my own analyses and conclusions.

So I present you with the premise for this post: Women Are Innately Worth More Than Men and Why Liberalism Is Dangerous

The fact of the matter is, reproduction is cheap for men and expensive for women. Sperm is cheap. Eggs are not. Most healthy men produce sperm in relatively large quantities daily. Eggs only come every so often. Reproduction is painful for women and physically resource-intensive. Women are more vulnerable to health risks and (in the past when modern medicine was nonexistent) even death. In contrast, reproduction for men is cheap and easy from a biological standpoint. They just have to show up in the woman's presence, drop their pants, deposit sperm, maybe cuddle a little, and be on their merry way.

The sad truth is that a lot of males are disposable from a biological perspective, because sperm is cheap and plentiful. In only takes a small quantity of males to impregnate A LOT of females. Because for millions of years, humans and their ancient ancestors have this sort of biological contrast, females have evolved to be more picky about their mates than men. "Only the best if possible, since my first pregnancy might be my last."

Again, I iterate: Because reproduction is expensive for women, they are biologically the more valuable gender.

This is the basis for Hypergamy. A lot of people have denied it, but I believe it to exist. "Hypergamy (colloquially referred to as "marrying up") is the act or practice of seeking a spouse of higher looks, socioeconomic, caste or status than oneself."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergamy

This is why women are usually attracted to men with wealth, status, confidence, and leadership. In ancient times, men with those qualities were often the leaders of their tribes, so they possessed more resources than other men and were capable of caring for multiple wives. Game theory has traditionally been used to attract women by emulating this "alpha" tribe leader paradigm. Looks matter too, but I don't think they are of that great of importance to women compared to men, though this is arguable. American/British/Aussie women seem to place greater emphasis on it than, say, Eastern European women. But this is another topic for another time.


To really hit the nail on the head, check this out:

http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm

http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/200 ... questions/

"The “single most underappreciated fact about gender,â€￾ he said, is the ratio of our male to female ancestors. While it’s true that about half of all the people who ever lived were men, the typical male was much more likely than the typical woman to die without reproducing. Citing recent DNA research, Dr. Baumeister explained that today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men. Maybe 80 percent of women reproduced, whereas only 40 percent of men did."


Yes, genetic scientists have researched that perhaps 40% of males in human history were ever able to reproduce. To put in this context, the MAJORITY of men (60%) that ever lived were reproductive dead ends. As opposed to the majority of women (80%) who were able to reproduce.

Now, you may be asking about the second part of my premise. Why is Liberalism dangerous? For that, we have to talk about traditional culture and religion. Traditional culture usually goes hand in hand with religion in a traditional society, so when I say one, I also mean the other.

Now I'm somewhat agnostic, and tend to stay away from anything religious to keep a neutral stance. Most people bash religion because of their supernatural, unsubstantiated beliefs. I would argue, however, that religion is preferable to atheism (and it's bastard brother Liberalism) and generally healthier for a society. Why? Because religion and traditional culture has always been family-oriented, putting restrains on male and female behavior and:

Traditional cultures and religions have always ensured that the average, hardworking guy gets a mate.

Courting use to be easy. If you liked a girl, you would ask her father/family for permission to court/marry her. If you were a decent, hardworking guy, the chances that you would succeed were good. It didn't matter that you were sort of average and plain-looking.

When societies like those in the West become liberal and lose any semblance of traditional culture and religion, it becomes difficult:


When there are no more social restraints like those imposed by traditional culture/religion, women default to natural biological imperatives. Meaning that women will start only seeking the "best" mate possible. Average guys get screwed.


This is one of the reasons why Western women are the way they are. Most guys should look elsewhere (abroad) for a mate.
Last edited by Dragon on Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
I am a terrible person.
Dragon
Junior Poster
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:31 am







Postby Falcon » Wed Oct 31, 2012 6:42 am

This is highly interesting insight.

A lot of human sexual behavior makes far more sense when looked at from the perspective of evolutionary biology. Some recommended reading:


Why Is Sex Fun?: The Evolution Of Human Sexuality
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Sex-Fun-Evolu ... 465031269/

Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality
http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Prehisto ... 061707805/

Sperm Wars: Infidelity, Sexual Conflict, and Other Bedroom Battles
http://www.amazon.com/Sperm-Wars-Infide ... 560258489/

The Evolution Of Desire
http://www.amazon.com/The-Evolution-Of- ... 46500802X/

The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature
http://www.amazon.com/The-Mating-Mind-S ... 38549517X/

Spent: Sex, Evolution, and Consumer Behavior
http://www.amazon.com/Spent-Sex-Evoluti ... 143117238/

The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature
http://www.amazon.com/The-Red-Queen-Evo ... 060556579/

Why Women Have Sex: Understanding Sexual Motivations from Adventure to Revenge (and Everything in Between)
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Women-Have-Se ... 003RCJPBI/

What's Love Got to Do with It?
http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Love-Got-Do ... 385477023/

The Disposable Male: Sex, Love, and Money: Your World through Darwin's Eyes
http://www.amazon.com/Disposable-Male-M ... 977655237/

The Myth of Monogamy: Fidelity and Infidelity in Animals and People
http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Monogamy ... 805071369/
Falcon
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1651
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2011 11:59 pm

Postby Teal Lantern » Wed Oct 31, 2012 12:15 pm

Falcon wrote:This is highly interesting insight.

A lot of human sexual behavior makes far more sense when looked at from the perspective of evolutionary biology.


Evolution didn't force vaginamony (perpetual fees for services no longer available :roll:) or force providing for someone else's kids. Take those out of the equation and the slags can have at their liberation & empowerment. No problem. :wink:
не поглеждай назад. 8)

"Even an American judge is unlikely to award child support for imputed children." - FredOnEverything
User avatar
Teal Lantern
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2686
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 11:48 pm
Location: Briar Patch, Universe 25

Postby fightforlove » Wed Oct 31, 2012 2:27 pm

Traditional cultures and religions have always ensured that the average, hardworking guy gets a mate.


It is said that the amount of pre-marital sex rose from next-to-nothing to a calculable amount in the 1920s, when automobiles and telephones became common. Pre-marital sex became increasingly common in the 60s and 70s after social liberalism crushed the old religious/traditional establishment and commercialized sex and sexuality. By the 1980s, the majority of Americans approved of and were engaging in pre-marital sex.

Let's consider one more factor though: western nations, particularly the United States, have been capitalist economies. Capitalism, with its emphasis on competition and merit, inevitably leads to ownership of property, accumulation of wealth, assets, etc. Some people end up as haves and others as have-nots. Moral capitalists would argue that this inequality is the product of merit (you get what you deserve). However, in a socially liberal society like ours, one could argue that many people do not get what they deserve. I'm not here to start a political debate on capitalism vs. socialism, but whether you think rich people and poor people got what they deserved or not, I think we can all agree that there is indeed a lot of economic inequality in our society.

Historically, most "liberals" in the United States have focused on social liberalism, i.e. civil rights, women's rights, gay marriage, etc. rather than hard-core left-wing economic activism. If this changes and America starts to move leftward economically (welfare, regulation of business, income redistribution, etc), could it serve as a sort of “social engineeringâ€￾ to control or refute hypergamy? Some liberal feminists even consider seduction a more nuanced form of rape. Could there come a day where, with the influence of economic egalitarianism, we could reach a certain level of sexual egalitarianism? A world where the average Joe gets his living wage and his average Jane? What I'm getting at here is: could we come to a point where frustrated males could be given a platform in liberalism and the above quoted sentence could be restored via secular liberalism?!?!?? If so, I would think the prerequisite would have to be the institution of a less competitive, more economically egalitarian society. Just food for thought.
fightforlove
Junior Poster
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2012 9:41 pm
Location: on an adventure between Wisconsin and Jalisco

Postby Ghost » Wed Oct 31, 2012 4:09 pm

Interesting ideas, fightforlove.

I guess the way sex/sexuality is in 21st century America, it is "trickle down sex," i.e., if you aren't an "alpha," then you better work hard and maybe some sex will come your way if you are lucky.

And then monogamy could be called "sexual socialism," i.e., a "redistribution of p***y" so that beta males and non-hot men will have access to a woman, his own biological children, and a place in society.

Not to say I choose these terms, and these metaphors are far from perfect. I could just as easily describe mid-20th and 21st century America's ways with sex as "Sexual Terror" (as a reference to the French revolution) as Roger F. Devlin did, and frame it in terms of a (well intentioned?) revolution gone horribly wrong.

Anyway, women are the "more important sex" reproductively. They have a limited number of chances to procreate. Men have unlimited. Men have an unlimited demand for something that is limited in supply. And although there is birth control, artificial insemination, etc., the instincts caused by biological facts of our (much longer) past dictate how we behave towards despite the technology. And there's no changing human instinct. There is only directing or channeling it (i.e., monogamy.)
Ghost
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 5749
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 1:23 am

Postby Jester » Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:13 am

Ghost wrote:Interesting ideas, fightforlove.

I guess the way sex/sexuality is in 21st century America, it is "trickle down sex," i.e., if you aren't an "alpha," then you better work hard and maybe some sex will come your way if you are lucky.

And then monogamy could be called "sexual socialism," i.e., a "redistribution of p***y" so that beta males and non-hot men will have access to a woman, his own biological children, and a place in society.

Not to say I choose these terms, and these metaphors are far from perfect. I could just as easily describe mid-20th and 21st century America's ways with sex as "Sexual Terror" (as a reference to the French revolution) as Roger F. Devlin did, and frame it in terms of a (well intentioned?) revolution gone horribly wrong.

Anyway, women are the "more important sex" reproductively. They have a limited number of chances to procreate. Men have unlimited. Men have an unlimited demand for something that is limited in supply. And although there is birth control, artificial insemination, etc., the instincts caused by biological facts of our (much longer) past dictate how we behave towards despite the technology. And there's no changing human instinct. There is only directing or channeling it (i.e., monogamy.)


I'm not for monogamy, since it's against nature, but I think it's going to far to call it "socialism". A better term IMO would be "regulated" mating. Kind of like the old homestead laws, when the frontier was open. Every homesteader only gets so much land, and he has to work that land and live on it, for so many years, in ordr for it to become his forever. Still a matter of personal initiative, but with boundaries or limits.
Jester
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 7868
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:10 am
Location: Chiang Mai Thailand

Postby Jester » Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:23 am

Falcon wrote:
A lot of human sexual behavior makes far more sense when looked at from the perspective of evolutionary biology. Some recommended reading:


Why Is Sex Fun?: The Evolution Of Human Sexuality
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Sex-Fun-Evolu ... 465031269/

Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality
http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Prehisto ... 061707805/

Sperm Wars: Infidelity, Sexual Conflict, and Other Bedroom Battles
http://www.amazon.com/Sperm-Wars-Infide ... 560258489/

The Evolution Of Desire
http://www.amazon.com/The-Evolution-Of- ... 46500802X/

The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature
http://www.amazon.com/The-Mating-Mind-S ... 38549517X/

Spent: Sex, Evolution, and Consumer Behavior
http://www.amazon.com/Spent-Sex-Evoluti ... 143117238/

The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature
http://www.amazon.com/The-Red-Queen-Evo ... 060556579/

Why Women Have Sex: Understanding Sexual Motivations from Adventure to Revenge (and Everything in Between)
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Women-Have-Se ... 003RCJPBI/

What's Love Got to Do with It?
http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Love-Got-Do ... 385477023/

The Disposable Male: Sex, Love, and Money: Your World through Darwin's Eyes
http://www.amazon.com/Disposable-Male-M ... 977655237/

The Myth of Monogamy: Fidelity and Infidelity in Animals and People
http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Monogamy ... 805071369/


Falcon, what do any of those sources say about the type of WOMEN that a man should be targeting?

Let's say that Olaf the Viking is going on a raid, and wants to steal a woman or three.

Let's say that he can sail to Amazonia, which is heavily defended. Because of their defenses, he is pretty sure that he can steal one and only one (1) woman who will bear him three (3) warrior sons.

OR...

He can sail to Tranquillia, where the pickings are easy, and he can steal three (3) women, who will EACH give him three (3) sons - though they may not be such great warriors. Maybe each of these sons will be only half-effective at war-making and conquering. According to evolutionary biology, which strategy should he choose? Where should he sail to?
Jester
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 7868
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:10 am
Location: Chiang Mai Thailand

Postby fightforlove » Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:55 pm

Falcon, what do any of those sources say about the type of WOMEN that a man should be targeting?


Some of these books have been exposed as pseudo-science, but The Red Queen (written by a biologist and science writer) has held up well and sounds interesting. One of the scientific claims is that a woman is more likely to get pregnant from sexing with an adulturous lover than with a faithful husband. They refer to it as "good genes" shopping. I'd be curious to learn about how they biologically validated this.
fightforlove
Junior Poster
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2012 9:41 pm
Location: on an adventure between Wisconsin and Jalisco

Postby Ghost » Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:06 pm

Jester wrote:
Ghost wrote:Interesting ideas, fightforlove.

I guess the way sex/sexuality is in 21st century America, it is "trickle down sex," i.e., if you aren't an "alpha," then you better work hard and maybe some sex will come your way if you are lucky.

And then monogamy could be called "sexual socialism," i.e., a "redistribution of p***y" so that beta males and non-hot men will have access to a woman, his own biological children, and a place in society.

Not to say I choose these terms, and these metaphors are far from perfect. I could just as easily describe mid-20th and 21st century America's ways with sex as "Sexual Terror" (as a reference to the French revolution) as Roger F. Devlin did, and frame it in terms of a (well intentioned?) revolution gone horribly wrong.

Anyway, women are the "more important sex" reproductively. They have a limited number of chances to procreate. Men have unlimited. Men have an unlimited demand for something that is limited in supply. And although there is birth control, artificial insemination, etc., the instincts caused by biological facts of our (much longer) past dictate how we behave towards despite the technology. And there's no changing human instinct. There is only directing or channeling it (i.e., monogamy.)


I'm not for monogamy, since it's against nature, but I think it's going to far to call it "socialism". A better term IMO would be "regulated" mating. Kind of like the old homestead laws, when the frontier was open. Every homesteader only gets so much land, and he has to work that land and live on it, for so many years, in ordr for it to become his forever. Still a matter of personal initiative, but with boundaries or limits.


Well, I agree that it is not natural for humans to be monogamous, but to have healthy, stable societies it is vital. And mens' needs for sex in a true patriarchal society would be met with prostitutes. Wives need to be 100% faithful to husbands. If they are allowed to commit adultery and it is socially and legally accepted, then society will destabilize and rot. So for a state of civilization, monogamy is needed.

But then again, what is the point of civilizations if they will just get corrupted by feminism, et. al.? And for that and other reasons I've just given up. I have no desire to contribute to society nor live monogamously. So I suppose it's a moot point.
Ghost
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 5749
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 1:23 am

Postby Falcon » Thu Nov 01, 2012 11:23 pm

Jester wrote:Let's say that Olaf the Viking is going on a raid, and wants to steal a woman or three.

Let's say that he can sail to Amazonia, which is heavily defended. Because of their defenses, he is pretty sure that he can steal one and only one (1) woman who will bear him three (3) warrior sons.

OR...

He can sail to Tranquillia, where the pickings are easy, and he can steal three (3) women, who will EACH give him three (3) sons - though they may not be such great warriors. Maybe each of these sons will be only half-effective at war-making and conquering. According to evolutionary biology, which strategy should he choose? Where should he sail to?


Both of them work. They're different evolutionary strategies.

Genghis Khan did the Tranquilia option, and he's been greatly successful. Some others did the Amazonia option, which has worked well too.
Falcon
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1651
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2011 11:59 pm

Postby Maker55 » Fri Nov 02, 2012 12:23 am

Men, I don't care about how these American women have become.

That's why I banged me a Costa Rican escort yesterday evening who was a '10'.
You're where you're at in life because of your thoughts.

What you think about the most is what you will eventually manifest in your life.
Maker55
Junior Poster
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 12:08 am

Postby NorthAmericanguy » Fri Nov 02, 2012 12:55 am

Good topic because it gets to the heart of the matter. I'm going to post my thoughts when I get more time.
NorthAmericanguy
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2182
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 3:16 am

Postby Dragon » Fri Nov 02, 2012 3:52 am

You know this sounds really sexist, but I don't think most women should work. Don't bring out the pitchforks yet, hear me out. The fact the women now have decent incomes skews the standard attraction and relationship protocols that have existed for eons across history. When wealth between the sexes is equalized, I feel women naturally concentrate on more superficial features in men. It is no coincidence that the PUA industry teaches you how to be superficially charming and "alpha" to attract women.
I am a terrible person.
Dragon
Junior Poster
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:31 am

Postby Jester » Fri Nov 02, 2012 3:56 am

Falcon wrote:
Jester wrote:Let's say that Olaf the Viking is going on a raid, and wants to steal a woman or three.

Let's say that he can sail to Amazonia, which is heavily defended. Because of their defenses, he is pretty sure that he can steal one and only one (1) woman who will bear him three (3) warrior sons.

OR...

He can sail to Tranquillia, where the pickings are easy, and he can steal three (3) women, who will EACH give him three (3) sons - though they may not be such great warriors. Maybe each of these sons will be only half-effective at war-making and conquering. According to evolutionary biology, which strategy should he choose? Where should he sail to?


Both of them work. They're different evolutionary strategies.

Genghis Khan did the Tranquilia option, and he's been greatly successful. Some others did the Amazonia option, which has worked well too.


:idea:
Jester
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 7868
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:10 am
Location: Chiang Mai Thailand

Postby Ginger » Fri Nov 02, 2012 11:07 am

:)
Last edited by Ginger on Wed Jul 03, 2013 1:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I do not promise to be gingerly :P
Ginger
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 391
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 8:39 pm
Location: somewhere out there

Next

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSNbot Media and 6 guests