- Joined
- Aug 30, 2015
- Messages
- 714
Why won't women approach men?
Male female interactions seem to go against the rules of economics .
If we both agree that for the perpetuation of the species,women need men as much as men need women,and if the number of women is equal to the number of men,
Then the supply is absolutely equal to the demand
Why is it then that in most species it is the male chasing the woman,would it not be evolutionarily advantageous if both of them would seek each other out and meet halfway?
Now this is a problem that I am eager to hear your theories on,
And I would like to hear your thoughts on my hypothesis
The MALE side of the EQUATION
Now the male mechanism for this is widely understood and I don't think I will be writing anything new here,but just
as a refresher course il just outline it.
Genetics plays a role in personality
In a scenario where the male has a personality of aggressively pursuing females,then that particular individual will have a higher chance of having more offspring,and the offspring will inherit his female pursuing genes.
In a scenario where the male was shy and coy,they would have less children than the aggressive male,and so in each successive generation ,
Infancy depending on how shy the male is,it might die without getting a chance to pass on its meek mild mannered coy sex avoiding genes.
Anyway The aggressive polygamous hedonistic males sleeping with strangers will be having more children(and more generations) than the shy coy males,
after enough iterations this would result in a world where practically all the males are descendants of aggressive sexual seeking males.
The males would inherit these genes,
The female side of the equation
This is the side ,where i am yet to find a fulfiling solution,
I will offer a novel explanation,as with most novel explanations,it might be something that is totally wrong,
it might also be something that is totally known,and it is only me who was ignorant of it being known( in my ignorance and arrogance.)
Now as we have seen regardless of age,or species.
a male who has a personality that makes it want to have sex with every femele is very successful biologically.
Now for a female things would are obviously different.
Because if we look around at most vertebraes,we find females that are shy and coy,this must mean that this personality type must have been more advantageous for females than being sexually aggresive.
But why is this?
A lot of biologist say this Is because biologically the female invests more heavily in child rearing than the male,
(to make a child the female has to carry it in the womb at great personal discomfort ,whereas to make a child all a man has to do is ejaculate)
I disagree with this theory because the investment is constant.
In other words ,wether the female was sexually aggressive or wether she was shy and coy,her investment would be the same.
Infact If a female was running around looking to fuck anyone,she would probably have more children than the coy shy female who needed to be forced,charmed ,coerced or persuaded.
Being coy would not be advantageous,it is true that the female invests more but this is not a factor because wether she is coy or she is aggresive ,the investment is the same
A social scientist might point out that a shy coy female who needed to be persuaded before engaging in sex would have a higher probability of finding a man that would help with the rearing of the young,while a female who just fucked strangers would have to rear the child alone.
Again I reject this argument .
The argument seems to makes sense,but only because you are a human reading this.
That argument is only valid for species where the male has a role in child rearing.
In animals like cats,rabbits,flies and leopards where the male has absolutely no role in child rearing,that argument fails to explain why it is that the females of this species are still coy,and it is the males that have to pursue them.
In other words wether a female house cat got fucked the first minute it met the male,or wether it played hard to get for a month is irrelevant ,in both scenarios the male still won't help with child rearing,so why would evolution have favored the coy shy females that we see,over the sexually aggresive females that failed to survive?
REEZ THEORY OF HOW STRUCTURAL DIFFERNCES IN THE SEXES CAN INFLUENCE NATURAL SELECTION
Foreword
Most differences between sexes are caused by sexual selection(the sexual preferences of any given sex)
Differences between species are usually caused by natural selection(the preferences of the environment )
I am hesitant to categorize this theory as natural selection because my hypothesis revolves around not the enviroment,but the females own anatomy
I will place it under natural selection not because i am confident it fits there,but because I am confident it doesn't fit under sexual selection
Without further ado
Immature males aren't able to procreate,
however if a particularly sexually aggresive male child attempted to mate,they would do not come off the worse from the attempt.
So with males the earlier you attempt to procreate the better.
In the worst case scenario you will come off unscathed ,in the best case scenario you will get a descendant with your aggresive genes.
With females it is not so rosy.
Just like its male counterpart An immature female cannot procreate,however
If she makes an attempt too early the results may be very disastrous.
Even at the best of times ,intercouse ,pregnancy and childbirth are very biologically strenuous events for the female.
But for an underage female these events range from permanent damage to fatal .
Evolution has been described as design by a blind watchmaker,a bunch of random abitrary traits manifest themselves from genes,
Organisms with advantageous traits survive long enough to pass on those advantageous genes,organisms with disadvantageous traits die without having passed on those disdvantageous genes.
Now a female who has been born with a very strong sexual urge,
Might start to look for sex,when her body is not yet mature enough to procreate,intact she doesn't even have to look for it,there are males all around looking for sex,all the Female would have to do to het sex is to not actively repel it.
This event will be very painful,it will be traumatic both emotionally and phsically,
.we are only looking at things that will effect her ability to pass on genes.
It has been heavily documented in humans,that if an underage girl has sex,the physical trauma might make her sterile.
Minors will also have a higher chance of getting complications during childbirth ,in a far by gone age before civilization ,complications invariably spelt death for both mother and child.
I have personally witnessed that in rabbits,in the event that the doe gets pregnant when she is too young,(4-5 months),she almost always never survives the child birth.
Also if we go away from such dramatic tragic endings,even if the worst that happens is just that the female gets severe emotional trauma,this might make her vehemently avoid sex in the future,
All these events result in a scenario where all the females that actively pursued sex,contributed a smaller number of descendants than the females who shunned it.
The females who had a personality that made them want to avoid sex,would have resisted sexual advances enough for them to mature.
Someone may note,and it is undoubtedly true that a female who went to the other extreme end of the spectrum ,a female who resisted sex even at her prime,would also not pass on her prudish sex resisting genes to any descendants.(because she would have no descendants).
Now if it is true that we are all descendants of aggresive males who pursue sex at every stage of their lives,and descendants of coy shy females who have an innate fear of sex ,that is especially pronounced at the earlier age sof their lives (0-6 months for rabbits,0-21 yrs for humans)
This would serve to explain our economic puzzle
Most females will always seek sex less aggresive,y than males,and some will even actively evade it,simply because it is the personality traits that must have been most advantageous for that sex,
Some females will exhibit this behavior throughout their lives,but even as it happens with humans,where once a certain age is reached the fear fades (I have yet,to see a woman in her thirties who sees sex as a big deal,and I am yet to see a woman in her twenties who doesn't ,most of my seducer friend avoid young women specifically for this reason).
Anyway,as I was saying , it is advantageous(or atleast not disadvanatgeous for the males to start seeking out sex as early as possible ,)while this is not true for their female counterparts.
,then we know see that the rules of supply and demand still apply,even though the number of males may be equal to that of females.
females Will still be more in demand because at any given time there are more males seeking females than females seeking males.
Now once this precedent has been set in motion ,females regardless of age,will usually never need to actively seek out males,because of the simple fact that they don't need to.,males are busy seeking them.
A female who spent her time seeking out males will do so at the cost of time she may have spent looking for food plus she may put heself at the risk of encountering predators.
This risks and cost are also encountered by males ,the only difference is ,if the male doesn't seek out the female ,he wont get a female to pass his cowardly lazy meek genes to .
But because males are already seeking females ,because of the supply demand difference ,a cowardly female will still get a male.without running the risk of getting lost,or eaten like a bold female.
So no matter what century you are on,and no matter what you think of equality
If you are a male,it will probably have to be you making the first move,not because of women are malicious,or manipulative or proud.
It is simply because most of the women who had personalities that pushed them to make the first move died,and their bold hedonstic first move making genes died with them.
Male female interactions seem to go against the rules of economics .
If we both agree that for the perpetuation of the species,women need men as much as men need women,and if the number of women is equal to the number of men,
Then the supply is absolutely equal to the demand
Why is it then that in most species it is the male chasing the woman,would it not be evolutionarily advantageous if both of them would seek each other out and meet halfway?
Now this is a problem that I am eager to hear your theories on,
And I would like to hear your thoughts on my hypothesis
The MALE side of the EQUATION
Now the male mechanism for this is widely understood and I don't think I will be writing anything new here,but just
as a refresher course il just outline it.
Genetics plays a role in personality
In a scenario where the male has a personality of aggressively pursuing females,then that particular individual will have a higher chance of having more offspring,and the offspring will inherit his female pursuing genes.
In a scenario where the male was shy and coy,they would have less children than the aggressive male,and so in each successive generation ,
Infancy depending on how shy the male is,it might die without getting a chance to pass on its meek mild mannered coy sex avoiding genes.
Anyway The aggressive polygamous hedonistic males sleeping with strangers will be having more children(and more generations) than the shy coy males,
after enough iterations this would result in a world where practically all the males are descendants of aggressive sexual seeking males.
The males would inherit these genes,
The female side of the equation
This is the side ,where i am yet to find a fulfiling solution,
I will offer a novel explanation,as with most novel explanations,it might be something that is totally wrong,
it might also be something that is totally known,and it is only me who was ignorant of it being known( in my ignorance and arrogance.)
Now as we have seen regardless of age,or species.
a male who has a personality that makes it want to have sex with every femele is very successful biologically.
Now for a female things would are obviously different.
Because if we look around at most vertebraes,we find females that are shy and coy,this must mean that this personality type must have been more advantageous for females than being sexually aggresive.
But why is this?
A lot of biologist say this Is because biologically the female invests more heavily in child rearing than the male,
(to make a child the female has to carry it in the womb at great personal discomfort ,whereas to make a child all a man has to do is ejaculate)
I disagree with this theory because the investment is constant.
In other words ,wether the female was sexually aggressive or wether she was shy and coy,her investment would be the same.
Infact If a female was running around looking to fuck anyone,she would probably have more children than the coy shy female who needed to be forced,charmed ,coerced or persuaded.
Being coy would not be advantageous,it is true that the female invests more but this is not a factor because wether she is coy or she is aggresive ,the investment is the same
A social scientist might point out that a shy coy female who needed to be persuaded before engaging in sex would have a higher probability of finding a man that would help with the rearing of the young,while a female who just fucked strangers would have to rear the child alone.
Again I reject this argument .
The argument seems to makes sense,but only because you are a human reading this.
That argument is only valid for species where the male has a role in child rearing.
In animals like cats,rabbits,flies and leopards where the male has absolutely no role in child rearing,that argument fails to explain why it is that the females of this species are still coy,and it is the males that have to pursue them.
In other words wether a female house cat got fucked the first minute it met the male,or wether it played hard to get for a month is irrelevant ,in both scenarios the male still won't help with child rearing,so why would evolution have favored the coy shy females that we see,over the sexually aggresive females that failed to survive?
REEZ THEORY OF HOW STRUCTURAL DIFFERNCES IN THE SEXES CAN INFLUENCE NATURAL SELECTION
Foreword
Most differences between sexes are caused by sexual selection(the sexual preferences of any given sex)
Differences between species are usually caused by natural selection(the preferences of the environment )
I am hesitant to categorize this theory as natural selection because my hypothesis revolves around not the enviroment,but the females own anatomy
I will place it under natural selection not because i am confident it fits there,but because I am confident it doesn't fit under sexual selection
Without further ado
Immature males aren't able to procreate,
however if a particularly sexually aggresive male child attempted to mate,they would do not come off the worse from the attempt.
So with males the earlier you attempt to procreate the better.
In the worst case scenario you will come off unscathed ,in the best case scenario you will get a descendant with your aggresive genes.
With females it is not so rosy.
Just like its male counterpart An immature female cannot procreate,however
If she makes an attempt too early the results may be very disastrous.
Even at the best of times ,intercouse ,pregnancy and childbirth are very biologically strenuous events for the female.
But for an underage female these events range from permanent damage to fatal .
Evolution has been described as design by a blind watchmaker,a bunch of random abitrary traits manifest themselves from genes,
Organisms with advantageous traits survive long enough to pass on those advantageous genes,organisms with disadvantageous traits die without having passed on those disdvantageous genes.
Now a female who has been born with a very strong sexual urge,
Might start to look for sex,when her body is not yet mature enough to procreate,intact she doesn't even have to look for it,there are males all around looking for sex,all the Female would have to do to het sex is to not actively repel it.
This event will be very painful,it will be traumatic both emotionally and phsically,
.we are only looking at things that will effect her ability to pass on genes.
It has been heavily documented in humans,that if an underage girl has sex,the physical trauma might make her sterile.
Minors will also have a higher chance of getting complications during childbirth ,in a far by gone age before civilization ,complications invariably spelt death for both mother and child.
I have personally witnessed that in rabbits,in the event that the doe gets pregnant when she is too young,(4-5 months),she almost always never survives the child birth.
Also if we go away from such dramatic tragic endings,even if the worst that happens is just that the female gets severe emotional trauma,this might make her vehemently avoid sex in the future,
All these events result in a scenario where all the females that actively pursued sex,contributed a smaller number of descendants than the females who shunned it.
The females who had a personality that made them want to avoid sex,would have resisted sexual advances enough for them to mature.
Someone may note,and it is undoubtedly true that a female who went to the other extreme end of the spectrum ,a female who resisted sex even at her prime,would also not pass on her prudish sex resisting genes to any descendants.(because she would have no descendants).
Now if it is true that we are all descendants of aggresive males who pursue sex at every stage of their lives,and descendants of coy shy females who have an innate fear of sex ,that is especially pronounced at the earlier age sof their lives (0-6 months for rabbits,0-21 yrs for humans)
This would serve to explain our economic puzzle
Most females will always seek sex less aggresive,y than males,and some will even actively evade it,simply because it is the personality traits that must have been most advantageous for that sex,
Some females will exhibit this behavior throughout their lives,but even as it happens with humans,where once a certain age is reached the fear fades (I have yet,to see a woman in her thirties who sees sex as a big deal,and I am yet to see a woman in her twenties who doesn't ,most of my seducer friend avoid young women specifically for this reason).
Anyway,as I was saying , it is advantageous(or atleast not disadvanatgeous for the males to start seeking out sex as early as possible ,)while this is not true for their female counterparts.
,then we know see that the rules of supply and demand still apply,even though the number of males may be equal to that of females.
females Will still be more in demand because at any given time there are more males seeking females than females seeking males.
Now once this precedent has been set in motion ,females regardless of age,will usually never need to actively seek out males,because of the simple fact that they don't need to.,males are busy seeking them.
A female who spent her time seeking out males will do so at the cost of time she may have spent looking for food plus she may put heself at the risk of encountering predators.
This risks and cost are also encountered by males ,the only difference is ,if the male doesn't seek out the female ,he wont get a female to pass his cowardly lazy meek genes to .
But because males are already seeking females ,because of the supply demand difference ,a cowardly female will still get a male.without running the risk of getting lost,or eaten like a bold female.
So no matter what century you are on,and no matter what you think of equality
If you are a male,it will probably have to be you making the first move,not because of women are malicious,or manipulative or proud.
It is simply because most of the women who had personalities that pushed them to make the first move died,and their bold hedonstic first move making genes died with them.
