[titanix2]

That’s exactly the theory developed by circles like the red pill. More access to potential partners with less social control lead to a winner take all situation. In addition, and it is addressed in the OP, women try to get partners which are higher on the social scale while men mostly focus on beauty.

[ycombinete]

Which makes total sense, given the different evolutionary drivers that men and women are motivated by. The problem with most narratives is that they moralize what is essentially an amoral phenomenon.

[simonh]

It quickly becomes very much a moral question if any of the women become pregnant.

I do realise though that you're posting in the context of a society in which the necessary causal chain between sex and pregnancy has been broken, but the moral systems we have built around sex and relationships are predicated on that link for perfectly rational and valid reasons. Also ultimately we still need people to have children and bring those children up. The moral factor in sexual behaviour can't simply be discounted.

[toasterlovin]

And I'll just add that the link between sex and children is nowhere near completely severed. I am aware of tons of people who have had children A) before they planned to, and B) with someone they weren't in a serious relationship with.

[akvadrako]

Morals and evolution are tightly coupled. For starters, if you consider the practical morals society lives by, many of them are about controlling reproduction. That's one of the primary purposes of our moral institutions (religion).

At a deeper level, both morality and evolution are all about encouraging survival of genes.

[treis]

>That’s exactly the theory developed by circles like the red pill.

In the sea of disgusting theories and toxicity that is the red pill there is one thing that they got right: Men should approach and try to "pick up" as many women as possible. The guy that's 1/10 as desirable as another guy will get more dates if they attempt to "pick up" 20 times as many women.

Of course, it's a bit like the Red Queen running as fast as you can to stay still. If every man tries approaching 20 times the women eventually you end up back where you started but worse. You can see it online. The success rates for men outside of the top 5% are abysmal. You almost have to spam in order to have any reasonable chance of getting dates.

[raducu]

Just how is this a good advice if it's a bad thing if most men do it?

A better advice would be for men to understand this tendency of women, what it means to be attractive to women and make an informed decision if they want to play the game of becoming more attractive to women.

They can also learn to reverse the game in their thirties and only date women 4-5 years younger, thus penalizing women who wait until their last fertile minute to settle down.

[treis]

>Just how is this a good advice if it's a bad thing if most men do it?

Because if you don't your outcome is worse than it otherwise would be. It's like weight cutting in boxing. Ultimately it serves no purpose. Both fighters do it so neither gets an advantage. Neither fighter can stop doing it, however, since it would give an advantage to the other fighter.

>A better advice would be for men to understand this tendency of women, what it means to be attractive to women and make an informed decision if they want to play the game of becoming more attractive to women.

These aren't mutually exclusive options. Making yourself more attractive will, of course, increase your chances for success.

>They can also learn to reverse the game in their thirties and only date women 4-5 years younger, thus penalizing women who wait until their last fertile minute to settle down.

Excluding a group isn't going to increase your chance of success.

[WrtCdEvrydy]

> penalizing women who wait until their last fertile minute to settle down

And then you hear 'there are no good men'

[bubblewrap]

Women would rather be the second wife of George Clooney than the first wife of Joe Average. Simple as that.

[toasterlovin]

Some women pursue this strategy. But I don't think it's anywhere near most. Having a husband who will prioritize providing for you and your children above anybody else is a really valuable thing to have.

[bubblewrap]

George Clooney is probably at least 1000 times richer than Joe Average. So he could provide better for 50 women than Joe Average for one.

Of course it doesn't seems as if he is taking on 50 women, so the women are stuck with Joe Average for the most part.

Just because women would prefer George Clooney, doesn't mean they can get him.

And sure, modern society (at least for a while) has made monogamy the norm. Doesn't mean it is best suited for women's preferences.

[dragonwriter]

> George Clooney is probably at least 1000 times richer than Joe Average. So he could provide better for 50 women than Joe Average for one.

Assuming all of a woman’s needs are financial, sure. But unless he is hiring Joe Averages to provide personal attention and emotional support (and there are issues with the viability of that), not really in the universe of what appears to be real human needs.

[toasterlovin]

Exactly this. And having a mate who is exclusively committed to you can have a much better distribution of outcomes at the bottom end than an allowance from some rich guy who isn't very invested in you. After all, if somebody isn't committed enough to make you their one and only, why should you believe that they'll keep sending money your way.

[bubblewrap]

I'm not arguing women should prefer Clooney over Joe Average. Just what the general disposition of the human race is. Obviously there are all sorts of strategies for life, and all sorts of aspects to consider. It's just a general tendency, not a hard cut rule.

[michaelmrose]

Turns out there are still more than enough women for all of us. Joe average actually has little challenge getting a mate same as before. The guy 3 steps down is the one with a problem that isn't manifestly different than its ever been.

[bubblewrap]

Doesn't the data discussed in this threat directly contradict your statement of "there are more than enough women for everyone"?

And so does historical data, isn't it the case that many men didn't reproduce historically, which can be seen through genetic analysis?

Edit: cursory googling turns up this, for example: https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success (8,000 Years Ago, 17 Women Reproduced for Every One Man)

Also from the article: "In more recent history, as a global average, about four or five women reproduced for every one man."

[michaelmrose]

A survey about how much sex respondents are having doesn't tell you WHY they are having less sex.

Historical reproduction ALSO isn't useful when contraception is now a prevalent thing the numbers would in no way match. Regarding the last I couldn't find the claim that 4 to 5 women reproduced for every man so I'm just going to assume you misread. I cannot imagine how this could possibly be so unless you meant within a narrow age range considering men can reproduce for most of their lives and women most do so within a narrow range.

Looking at the same graph at the head of the page in 1998ish there was about 20% of the most effected age range who hadn't had sex in a year. It's now 28 and in fact the graph goes up and down and it seems that other age ranges are less effected.

[bubblewrap]

The sentence reads "In more recent history, as a global average, about four or five women reproduced for every one man." - in my browser it is directly above one of the charts.

I think by recent history, the mean thousands of years, not the last ten years. So most of the time before contraception was available.

Men being able to reproduce for most of their lives doesn't help much if they have nobody to reproduce with. I guess it helps if you can afford young wives even as you get older.

[sridca]

Baumeister indicated this in his book that I read a long time ago, but it is more like 2:1,

> throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced.

https://psy.fsu.edu/~baumeisterticelab/goodaboutmen.htm

As someone who favours individualism and was brought up in a culture where arranged marriages are the norm I found this most shocking and interesting at the same time.

[Fjolsvith]

The MGTOW movement is really throwing a wrench into this.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/7bdwyx/inside-the-global-...

[bubblewrap]

I don't understand what you mean? Surely the MGTOW movement is not increasing the proportion of men who successfully reproduce, given that they seem to be about not reproducing?