Can someone explain the Sociological and Biological reasoning behind the belief that 'women choose men.'

[Bipedal Primate]

Or can anyone recommend any research or articles with a decent explanation on this topic.

Thanks :-)

[Kevin Beal]

If you are an employer with an ad out for a job and multiple people apply, it's a relationship based on mutual advantage and shared values, but the employer is obviously the one doing the choosing in that equation.

 

This analogy works if you accept that it's typically "men propose and women dispose". There are some really hot or otherwise alpha guys out there who have multiple women interested in dating them at a time, right? But, this is not most guys by any stretch. On the flipside it seems to be the case that any reasonably attractive woman has multiple men who would like to date them, even if she doesn't realize it.

 

Maybe this is wrong, but I believe that this is more or less the logic behind the statement "women choose men".

 

Also, there is a perception among most men (and I would assume women too) that women have a lot of inherent value. They are able to create life! Whoa. That's a pretty big deal. But men have to demonstrate their value more (it seems to me), like in how good they can be at providing resources or establish some kind of status through other means.

 

It's not like the opposite case is never true, but generally speaking...

[FreedomPhilosophy]

Or can anyone recommend any research or articles with a decent explanation on this topic.Thanks :-)

 

This probably relates to the high operational sex ratio between men and women under natural conditions.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlFj57ASDSI contains related material

[zippert]

Or can anyone recommend any research or articles with a decent explanation on this topic.Thanks :-)

 

I am no expert in that field, so I don't know the academic research. David Buss wrote on this topic and cited academic research. So if you look at the footnotes of Mr. Buss, you'll get the reasoning.

 

I am wondering, why you even need like field studies or academic texts. The fact, that men generally approach the women to initiate a romantic relationship is obvious. So maybe there isnt even a study on this, like there is no study about that it gets dark at night in the US.

 

So the question remains, if this is natural or somehow artificial induced, e.g. by some tribe leader.

 

I would argue it is natural. Because eggs are rarer than sperm. Because of that the Bateman's Principle kicks in.

 

 

sperm are cheaper than eggs. A single male can easily fertilize all female's eggs: she will not produce more offspring by mating with more than one male. A male is capable of fathering more offspring if he mates with several females. By and large, a male's potential reproductive success is limited by the number of females he mates with, whereas a female's potential reproductive success is limited by how many eggs she can produce. This results in sexual selection, in which males compete with each other, and females become choosy in which males to mate with. As a result of being anisogamous, males are fundamentally promiscuous, and females are fundamentally selective.

 

This results in Briffault's Law.

 

 

The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.

 

To explain it simply: A group of women want to reproduce(getting 2 kids). They only need one man to inseminate them. A group of men want to reproduce, they need a woman each, who is willing to get 2 kids or a woman for 2 men who is willing to get 4 kids.

 

A male can be the father of 1000s of kids, like dschingis khan. A female only of at maximum 69, but in normal cases 10.

 

Marxist Analogy:

Given that you can freeze sperm and women can easily aquire alot of frozen sperm, it follows that women own 100% of the means of reproduction. A male therefore in order to reproduce has to offer his workforce, for example by doing the approaching, giving money, etc.

 

This leads to a 2 class system of oppression. the bourgois(master) and the working class(slave).

 

Look, in Berlin there are poor guys from the balkan, who wash your car at a red light and then ask for money. Most times they get rejected, but they move on working the whole day for just a few euros, only enough to eat. They have the lowest social status assigned in the german society, whereas the car drivers have middle to high status. Same with the PUAs.

 

I worked in a toy store. This store never did advertising, but was full of buyers all the time. The toys were needed. It was a special store with toys you don't get at normal shopping stores. These toys were rare and needed just like eggs. The buyers approached them.

 

last time I visited that store and moved out a guy gave me a flyer, advertising for a party. guess why? Because there are many parties in town and his was not visited enough just like sperm. They were approaching potential customers.

 

Guess who is bourgois and who is working.

 

But this is not a marxist forum here and if it would be I would get kicked out now, because of misoginy

 

see also:

List of people with the most children

[Tyler H]

Another reason is that because men can really just mate and move on, women must be selective in who they copulate with.  If a pregnancy results then the man can possibly take off, but the woman is stuck with the responsibility for at least 9 months and the difficulties inherent therein (possibly death back in the day).  This adds to the fact there there are a lot more men willing to have sex with a lot more women than vice versa, which leads to the women being in demand and therefore left with the responsibility of choosing from among the proposers.

 

Does that help?

[Wuzzums]

Check out "The Red Queen: Sex and Evolution of The Human Nature" by Matt Ridley.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Red_Queen:_Sex_and_the_Evolution_of_Human_Nature

 

It goes in length describing mating habits of peacocks. The parallels with your basic human mating are evident. It even gives an evolutionary explication to why women sleep with assholes (and get pregnant by them) but choose to marry resource plentiful males.

[Frosty]

The asymmetry in choice mirrors the asymmetry in reproductive biology. An egg is worth more than sperm, the mother is inconvenienced far more by child birth than the father is. Because the burden of child birth is a very big risk for the female they need to be very picky about finding the right male to be a father to their children, compared to males who can inseminate and run with many partners with little or no cost.

 

Evolution did a good job of baking these predisposed behaviours into our biology, survival of the fittest, which ever genetic markers are responsible for predisposed behaviour that increase the spread of genes are the ones that survive to be passed on, that means men are biologically predisposed to spread their seed among as many women as possible and women are predisposed to being picky about who they copulate with.

 

Most of the evidence strongly leans towards men approaching women and asking women out, women usually are on the receiving end of multiple offers and they get to pick between them, It's just a fact of life. It's also why I'm not a huge fan of the dating game and why I rarely ask women out, the whole thing feels more like a rat race for men where the woman settles for whoever they think is best their biology can buy them, nothing I really want to be a part of quite honestly and partly why I'm a MGTOW.

[MMX2010]

I will offer a counter-argument and an answer.

 

The counter-argument attempts to refute the "eggs are rarer than sperm, and therefore worth more" statement.  I don't believe this, because sperm-by-itself has little power or worth, and egg-by-itself has little power or worth.  The perceived relative power and worth of egg over sperm is exclusively because sperm and egg must meet in the womb, which women own and control.  (Hence, the argument goes that if ever an artificial womb could be developed, the perceived value of womanhood would instantly and dramatically plummet.  This would also be ironic in that artificial-womb-technology would be the first example of any technology which dramatically reduced the perceived value of womanhood; the rest have always raised the perceived value of womanhood.) 

 

The answer stems from Charles Darwin, discoverer of evolutionary biology, who coined the term "sexual selection".  "Sexual selection" is defined as "the traits which exist in male organisms solely because females of that species find those traits sexually attractive". 

 

This definition has some highly crucial components:

 

(1) There's no alternative, equality-based definition which reads: "the traits which exist in female organisms solely because males of that species find those traits sexually attractive", and this is because no-such-traits exist!  In "sexual selection", the traits all run in one direction, because the power runs in one direction. 

 

(2) The definition itself was produced during the Victorian Era in England, smack in the middle of perceived female powerlessness, so it was outright rejected by the male scientists of the time-period. 

 

(3) The modern scientist most responsible for the resurrection and re-examination of "sexual selection" is Geoffrey Miller who, within the first twenty pages of his most important scientific book, , said in his best White-Knight voice, (something to the effect of), "I also require that the explanations and implications of this theory be emotionally satisfying.  After all, these are out ancestors we're talking about: our mothers, fathers, grandmothers, and grandfathers."  This requirement made me throw the book across the room because: (a) no open-minded scientist gets to impose "emotional satisfaction requirements" upon any scientific investigation, and (b) his own damn theory strongly implies that, because the power all runs in one direction from men to women, he's strongly tempted to cater to women's emotional needs with scientifically-illegal demands for "emotional satisfaction". 

 

(4) By far, the most important component is that "Sexual selection is viewed as a special type of natural selection." - but natural selection is viewed, for the most part, as positive.  You have the traits you have because your environment selected for them, and when those traits become maladaptive because the environment has changed, you're supposed to hate the environmental-change and not yourself, or God, or society, or whatever. 

 

The traits men acquire because of sexual selection, though, have no guarantee of being good for the species-as-a-whole, nor good for men-as-a-whole.  In fact, there's a large collection of traits acquired under the definition "runaway sexual selection" which are NOT good for the males who possess them, and NOT good for the species as a whole, but are ONLY good for the women who enjoy them. 

 

----------------------

 

Overall, both "sexual selection" and "runaway sexual selection" are, by far, the most important scientific-terms that no one in modern America discusses with an open-mind.  They are also the largest sledgehammers against all forms of feminism. 

[Bipedal Primate]

Wonderful Explanations! I have a much better understanding thanks to everyone's input. :-)

Cheers!

[J. D. Stembal]

Do you mind sharing the reason for your question? Being a heterosexual male, I am well aware this is the case in practice. The woman almost always chooses the man in sexual relationships, and the role is rarely reversed. One of our inherent problems as men is that we are so desperate to seek positive approval from women to validate our concepts of manhood, that we will latch onto the first woman who doesn't reject us out of hand. This tends to create problems in the love lives of men as it sets us up for abuse at the hands of women.

[Bipedal Primate]

you wrote: "Do you mind sharing the reason for your question?"

 

I was watching Stef's YouTube presentation at the recent men's conference and I was surprised when he stated that women choose men and that women are the gatekeepers...... etc.

 

I had never heard anyone say this before, so I started thinking about it internally, but kept coming up blank. After a couple days of thought, I still wasn't able to figure it out myself. This is why I decided to ask here.

 

By the way, the very first person to reply gave a fantastically clear and concise explanation. Thanks Kevin Beal. :-)

[Slavik]

you wrote: "Do you mind sharing the reason for your question?"I was watching Stef's YouTube presentation at the recent men's conference and I was surprised when he stated that women choose men and that women are the gatekeepers...... etc.I had never heard anyone say this before, so I started thinking about it internally, but kept coming up blank. After a couple days of thought, I still wasn't able to figure it out myself. This is why I decided to ask here.By the way, the very first person to reply gave a fantastically clear and concise explanation. Thanks Kevin Beal. :-)

Well, think of the relationships you have had.  Do you remember who asked who out? Was it you who asked men out, or was it them?  If it was men who asked you out, that means they proposed and you made a choice to say yes or no, it rather boils down to this.

[J. D. Stembal]

Stefan has also used the analogy of being a salesperson to explain the power disparity in dating. When you are asking a prospective admirer out on a date, you are essentially selling yourself. The one selling the goods is always the party in the inferior position. That's why rejection burns so much - at least the first dozen times, then you get used to it.. If you are met with refusal, it is easy to fall into the line of thinking that you have little to offer as a potential mate. For humans, that often feels like a fate worse than death. (I AM GOING TO DIE ALONE!)

 

I hope the above comments can add some more helpful perspective.

[Frosty]

I was watching Stef's YouTube presentation at the recent men's conference and I was surprised when he stated that women choose men and that women are the gatekeepers...... etc.I had never heard anyone say this before, so I started thinking about it internally, but kept coming up blank. After a couple days of thought, I still wasn't able to figure it out myself. This is why I decided to ask here.

 

This seems to be fairly common knowledge among men, I suspect that many men would describe women as having the choice between suitors and that women are perfectly aware of this disparity for the most part, it's hard to imagine many men noticing this disparity and simultaneously believing women have no idea it exists.

 

I don't mean to offend or question your honestly but to me it strains credulity that this isn't common knowledge among most women. for this reason I'd really like more women weigh in on this. As Slavik asked, it would be interesting to hear the history of womens dating and what percentage of times they approached men vs men approaching them, I think Stefan at the mens rights conference said the statistic was around 95% male to female?

 

To men the predominant indicator of this is sexual promiscuity, acquiring sex for the average man is not trivial, which is why men praise each other for sleeping with lots of women, maybe its that scarcity that reminds us on a fairly constant basis that the bottleneck sexual encounters is definitely controlled (limited) by women, look at gay men and promiscuity is significantly higher than both heterosexual and lesbian individuals.

[King David]

LOL, sorry but I find it hilarious that you have made it this far in life completely unaware of the power that women yield over men.  Now that these guys have rationalized it for you, all the men you got to do what you want for all these years make perfect sense I guess. 

 

KD

[Kevin Beal]

You could just ask what her experience is with this and if it makes sense. She was curious and asked, and she was receptive to our arguments. No need to be a jerk.

[MMX2010]

You could just ask what her experience is with this and if it makes sense. She was curious and asked, and she was receptive to our arguments. No need to be a jerk.

 

Right.  It would've been more emotionally vulnerable to say, "I felt confused, flabbergasted, and highly annoyed that Bipedal Primate was unaware that 95% of relationships were initiated by men asking women out." 

[J. D. Stembal]

To men the predominant indicator of this is sexual promiscuity, acquiring sex for the average man is not trivial, which is why men praise each other for sleeping with lots of women, maybe its that scarcity that reminds us on a fairly constant basis that the bottleneck sexual encounters is definitely controlled (limited) by women, look at gay men and promiscuity is significantly higher than both heterosexual and lesbian individuals.

 

You've stumbled onto an aspect of male sexuality that it often misunderstood by women The typical anxiety and rigmarole associated with courting women - The Game, as it is often called - leads some men to reject it and explore other avenues to sexual gratification and spiritual satisfaction, thus leading to the massive profits involved at all levels of the sex industry. It's much simpler to have a porn subscription than to study "the Game" so that you don't repeatedly get taken to the cleaners and then stiffed on the sex out in the dating pool. Personally, I blame the feminist movement for the state of male affairs, especially in the dating sphere. When was the last time you went out on a date with a woman who insisted on covering or splitting the check?

 

The mere existence of the PUA community should be an obvious indicator - the literal canary in the coal mine - that the power balance between the genders had been pushed totally off-kilter.

[Frosty]

In my limited experience it appears that women actually enjoy the courting period, they get to asses the suitability of their partner, generally speaking enjoy being romanced and treated to things such as meals, trips, gifts and lots of attention. Obviously to the male that's not as enjoyable, they usually end up paying and having to put in the effort, make the moves and be proactive about the whole situation, it's high stress that you get it right and often costly in terms of time and money.

 

Again it strains credulity that women in the main do not recognize that this is an asymmetric relationship, that the woman is using a position of power in order to obtain resources from the man.

 

While I detest modern feminism I actually disagree that it's them who are maintaining traditional gender roles of the man pays, I think it's done the opposite and started to turn the tide, I've been on dates with women who have insisted to pay half (not many mind you) I think those traditional gender roles of the man approaches and courts the woman, and the woman picks from her suitors is much older than feminism and rooted in biology and feminism wants to abolish that, I think it's probably more likely that a non feminist woman would want to maintain the status quo of the asymmetric relationship, chivalry, etc.

 

But certainly something is changing in society, easy access to porn, the lack of gratification for men in the dating game, the lack of face to face communication in general, increase in social issues among children especially, pressures from feminism which make men scared of the issues of consent, like you cannot initiate any kind of flirtatious touching/hugging or affectionate physical behaviour because some women are complete headcases when it comes to consent and take the issue too far. People will never again invite women for coffee in an elevator thanks to the insane ramblings of Rebecca Watson, it just makes the stakes too high for men. We now do not have clear social rules for what's acceptable and the risk of punishment for simply learning boundaries through trial and error is too high.

 

The PUA community is the logical outcome you'd expect when one gender controls the conditions that are conducive towards getting laid, you'd expect the people who lack the power in the asymmetric relationship to attempt to understand what gives them an advantage and to game the system for their own benefit. The PUA community is actually just a reflection of what a lot of modern women want from men, I think women find the idea offensive, not just because they're being manipulated but also because it's a reflection on their behaviour and expectations which aren't all that virtuous, after all if that kind of behaviour genuinely didn't work on a woman she'd have no reason to be upset at it.

[PGP]

I will offer a counter-argument and an answer.

 

 

I want to compliment you on this analysis. The sexual component of selection apart from and in interaction with the selection based on advantageous biological traits is one that I hear mentioned very little. 

[MMX2010]

 

The PUA community is the logical outcome you'd expect when one gender controls the conditions that are conducive towards getting laid, you'd expect the people who lack the power in the asymmetric relationship to attempt to understand what gives them an advantage and to game the system for their own benefit. The PUA community is actually just a reflection of what a lot of modern women want from men, I think women find the idea offensive, not just because they're being manipulated but also because it's a reflection on their behaviour and expectations which aren't all that virtuous, after all if that kind of behaviour genuinely didn't work on a woman she'd have no reason to be upset at it.

 

I've been reading a lot of Rational Male, RooshV, Matt Forney, Chateau Heartiste, and so on the last couple of days.  (So I can't remember which website told this story.) 

 

A man leaves a copy of "The Rational Male" on the coffee table, and goes to work.  When he comes home, his girlfriend (or sister) has read parts of it and is very upset.  He asks which chapters she has read, and she tells him.  He asks whether she disagrees with anything she's read, and she says she doesn't.  He asks what's the problem them.  And she answers, "Men aren't supposed to know this!" 

 

 

 

I want to compliment you on this analysis. The sexual component of selection apart from and in interaction with the selection based on advantageous biological traits is one that I hear mentioned very little. 

 

Thank you. 

[IndianaLee]

Or can anyone recommend any research or articles with a decent explanation on this topic. Thanks :-)

I believe women do most of the choosing. At least it seems that way to me from tradition if nothing else. I'm not sure there are any studies I've seen about this though. Interesting. :-)