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



View Active Topics       View Your Posts       Latest 100 Topics       FAQ Topics       Mobile Friendly Theme


Women Are Innately More Valuable Than Men

Discuss and talk about any general topic.

Moderators: fschmidt, jamesbond

Dragon
Junior Poster
Posts: 512
Joined: October 23rd, 2012, 6:31 am

Women Are Innately More Valuable Than Men

Post by Dragon » October 31st, 2012, 6:59 am


Last edited by Dragon on October 31st, 2012, 8:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
I am a terrible person.

Falcon
Experienced Poster
Posts: 1844
Joined: November 7th, 2011, 12:59 am

Post by Falcon » October 31st, 2012, 7:42 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


Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality


Sperm Wars: Infidelity, Sexual Conflict, and Other Bedroom Battles


The Evolution Of Desire


The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature


Spent: Sex, Evolution, and Consumer Behavior


The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature


Why Women Have Sex: Understanding Sexual Motivations from Adventure to Revenge (and Everything in Between)


What's Love Got to Do with It?


The Disposable Male: Sex, Love, and Money: Your World through Darwin's Eyes


The Myth of Monogamy: Fidelity and Infidelity in Animals and People

User avatar
Teal Lantern
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2767
Joined: August 14th, 2012, 12:48 am
Location: Briar Patch, Universe 25

Post by Teal Lantern » October 31st, 2012, 1:15 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

fightforlove
Junior Poster
Posts: 537
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 10:41 pm
Location: Somewhere Near Chicago

Post by fightforlove » October 31st, 2012, 3:27 pm



Ghost
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 5749
Joined: April 17th, 2011, 2:23 am

Post by Ghost » October 31st, 2012, 5:09 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.)

Jester
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 7875
Joined: January 20th, 2009, 10:10 am
Location: Chiang Mai Thailand

Post by Jester » November 1st, 2012, 8:13 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: 7875
Joined: January 20th, 2009, 10:10 am
Location: Chiang Mai Thailand

Post by Jester » November 1st, 2012, 8:23 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


Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality


Sperm Wars: Infidelity, Sexual Conflict, and Other Bedroom Battles


The Evolution Of Desire


The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature


Spent: Sex, Evolution, and Consumer Behavior


The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature


Why Women Have Sex: Understanding Sexual Motivations from Adventure to Revenge (and Everything in Between)


What's Love Got to Do with It?


The Disposable Male: Sex, Love, and Money: Your World through Darwin's Eyes


The Myth of Monogamy: Fidelity and Infidelity in Animals and People
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?

fightforlove
Junior Poster
Posts: 537
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 10:41 pm
Location: Somewhere Near Chicago

Post by fightforlove » November 1st, 2012, 2:55 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.

Ghost
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 5749
Joined: April 17th, 2011, 2:23 am

Post by Ghost » November 1st, 2012, 7:06 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.

Falcon
Experienced Poster
Posts: 1844
Joined: November 7th, 2011, 12:59 am

Post by Falcon » November 2nd, 2012, 12:23 am

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.

Maker55
Junior Poster
Posts: 522
Joined: December 17th, 2011, 1:08 am

Post by Maker55 » November 2nd, 2012, 1:23 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.

NorthAmericanguy
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2199
Joined: November 1st, 2010, 4:16 am

Post by NorthAmericanguy » November 2nd, 2012, 1:55 am

Good topic because it gets to the heart of the matter. I'm going to post my thoughts when I get more time.

Dragon
Junior Poster
Posts: 512
Joined: October 23rd, 2012, 6:31 am

Post by Dragon » November 2nd, 2012, 4:52 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.

Jester
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 7875
Joined: January 20th, 2009, 10:10 am
Location: Chiang Mai Thailand

Post by Jester » November 2nd, 2012, 4:56 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:

Ginger
Freshman Poster
Posts: 391
Joined: November 1st, 2012, 9:39 pm
Location: somewhere out there

Post by Ginger » November 2nd, 2012, 12:07 pm

:)
Last edited by Ginger on July 3rd, 2013, 2:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I do not promise to be gingerly :P

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “General Discussions”