Men are dying for sex: Mating competition explains excess male mortality

well, I would say that the problem is that women in general just want credit cards, so, well, men are obligated to kind of working (jobs) A LOT to have sex ... thats the truth, I wont extend this, it is not necessary, pretty obvious...

ok ok Astyanax.. I dont agree with some of what you're saying.

badboys are NOT necessarily the most fit. They can be physically strong or get their way with brute force, but it's JUST THAT, they have no intellect. The ones that do have intellect, well they have intellect because they were able to develop it, AFTER they got women with brute force. The guys who were nice, never got women in the first place, and so that left them weak-minded and unable to develop as much intellect, of the cold-hard calculating type (which it is mostly for brutes) since they were left weakened. But in each case, the badboy is at least insensitive, and a prick, with little emotional conscience or emotional intelligence.

I don't in any way support the "badboy" concept, which is what most PUAs do, and even the so called "badboys".

PUAs also support the unconscious/subconscious mind so much too, because that way they can get people to give up their power by being unconscious to their manipulations. The more belief is given to the unconscious and autonomic mind the more powerful it becomes, and the more unconscious people become.

They do this, and then misinterpret biology to suit their agendas and their marketing schemes.

Not everything has to be unconscious.

We gotta stop looking at it in extremes. As if there's no such thing as a good and smart guy, or a strong, and smart guy who's also a nice guy when he wants to be etc.

The media gives us only 2 extremes: the badboy, and the doormat nice guy.

As to the women being more attracted to 'badboys' during their fertile period of the menstrual cycle: that's bull.

Naturally she wants a guy who has testosterone.. if a nice guy, or rather 'good guy' can have the testosterone necessary, she'll want the nice guy. The higher the testosterone the more the guy wants sex, which means, the more Sexually aggressive he may get... which in some cases is the reason why 'badboys' act 'bad'. Because they have testosterone bugging the hell out of them, and driving them crazy so they become riskier. But if a guy already has a girl, he wouldn't need to be bad, he would just need to have the testosterone and the rest will fall into place.

Actually another reason why a bad boy may act bad as a result of testosterone bugging him, is because he's attatched to (and most men are) the competitive fear-anger-agression-drama type of sex that comes with ordinary mediocre ejaculatory type of sex which causes a tumultuous increase of hormones leading to a sharp decline after ejaculation, leaving him unsteady and mentally and emotionally weak. If a person learned the sacred type that daoists, tantric sex practitioners and karezza practitioners follow they would be transmuting and sublimating the sexual energies through the vagus nerve and the kundalini circuit leading to hightened states of consciousness, intelligence and yes non-ejaculatory orgasms which means a new dimension of sex.

The problem is.. that women tend to confuse a male with high testosterone as being the same as a 'bad guy', and vice versa. It's more about testosterone, than 'being a bad guy'. Women also confuse themselves thinking that a guy who just overpowers with brute force is going to be the more fit.

Testosterone makes males aggressive for sex, not aggressive in general. The male mind had pretty much evolved (like u said) to only compete and accomplish things for sex. If there was no sex, we (males) wouldn't be motivated to do anything and wouldn't even exist, for we are sexual beings. Take the women/sexuality away and the males are not "masculine" anymore they end up simply rotting away.

I'm referring to this:

Now here's the twist in the tale: on average, women find both these kinds of men attractive, but at different points in their menstrual cycle. During the fertile phase, they tend to be attracted to macho men; for the rest of the cycle, they are attracted to good providers. This is a well-established effect nowadays. It's not hard to see what it implies: women are genetically programmed to marry nice guys, cheat with bad boys, bear the bad boys' kids and get the nice guy to help bring them up.

Just replace 'macho man' with 'bad boy/bad guy'.

The woman, just wants a guy who is sexually more deviant. In public that's hard, and for a guy who's been taught that women are fragile and should be shown courtesy, and not be treated as solely a sexual object (at least until they get to know her) for the time being, that's also hard. There's always the fear of him being labeled a number of things: sick, pervert, stalker, criminal, deviant, pig, etc. And a nice guy doesn't want to come across too aggressive, or strong/forward. He wants to respect the girl. Sometimes the testosterone is so high that to express it will be too harsh, so it doesn't get expressed at all. It just makes it so that the only guys who are willing and able to make sexual risque type humor (ie cocky-funny), and brutish, are the ones who are so full of themselves that they are insensitive. Which means that the woman will only be able to get the idea of sex with this type of guy rather than the nice or good guy, simply because the good guy doesn't mention sex whatsoever, and doesn't get the concept of sex associated with himself. So the woman unconsciously just ends up being with the badboy. Thus leaving the guy who just wanted to be a good guy, lonely. If women want to find something different they'll have to see through this dynamic so they can start finding interest in the good guy, which is usually after the so called 'first impression' period because a good guy is usually not going to incite sexual thoughts in a woman because he's been taught to be courteous, non-aggressive, even non-sexual until the right time. Not that sex is evil, but sacred.

And just because a guy can't control his sexual desire doesn't nessecarily mean he is the better mate or has more testosterone, he can just control it better... all guys have to learn to control their sexual desire in some way, even if it is high... besides i dont think testosterone as I said earlier makes a man more generally aggressive, but rather for sex.

[edit on 13-6-2010 by The Quiet Storm]

Originally posted by The Quiet Storm
badboys are NOT necessarily the most fit. They can be physically strong or get their way with brute force, but it's JUST THAT, they have no intellect.

Here are a few other attributes of human male reproductive fitness, taken at random:

• A big bank account
  
  
• The ability to make a woman laugh
  
  
• The ability to sing or play an instrument affectingly
  
  
• A persuasive, not necessarily truthful tongue
  
  
• The ability to spot that a woman is bored, lonely or horny before anyone else does
  
  
• being a man of honour - that is, one who is willing to place himself at a personal disadvantage for the sake of others or of his own good name

Human sexual competition is varied and complex. It isn't just strength and brains that come into it; lots of other factors do. Cunning, for example: I know a man who always targets married women for his amours, because he reckons they are both less demanding (outside the bedroom) and more discreet than single ones. Being good at getting dressed fast in the dark, hiding in wardrobes and shinnying down drainpipes are clear attributes of this guy's reproductive fitness.

Nature doesn't care. As far as she's concerned, nothing succeeds like success.

I don't in any way support the "badboy" concept, which is what most PUAs do, and even the so called "badboys".

What is a PUA?

As to the women being more attracted to 'badboys' during their fertile period of the menstrual cycle: that's bull.

Waynforth, Delwadia, Camm: The influence of women's mating strategies on preference for masculine facial architecture. 2005, Evolution & Human Behaviour, vol. XXVI, no. 5

Peters, Simmons, Rhodes: Preferences across the Menstrual Cycle for Masculinity and Symmetry in Photographs of Male Faces and Bodies. 2009, PLoS One (published online)

Havlicek, Roberts, Flegr: Women’s preference for dominant male odour: effects of menstrual cycle and relationship status. 2005, Biology Letters of the Royal Society

Gangestad, Simpson, Cousins, Garver-Apgar, Christensen : Women's preferences for male behavioral displays change across the menstrual cycle. 2004, Psychological Science vol. XV, no. 3

Puts, D.A: Mating context and menstrual phase affect women’s preferences for male voice pitch. 2009, Elsevier Publications

Garver-Apgar, Gangestad, Simpson: Women’s Perceptions of Men’s Sexual Coerciveness Change Across the Menstrual Cycle. 2007, Acta Psychologica Sinica, vol. XXXIX, no. 3

and even

Navarrete, Fessler, Fleischman, Geyer: Race Bias Tracks Conception Risk Across the Menstrual Cycle. 2009, Psychological Science, vol. XX, no. 6

Bull? Really?

Naturally she wants a guy who has testosterone.

It isn't about testosterone; that's oversimplified pop science. It is about what we call 'fitness advertisements', characteristics that have evolved to show off the quality of the advertiser's genes.

If there was no sex, we (males) wouldn't be motivated to do anything and wouldn't even exist, for we are sexual beings. Take the women/sexuality away and the males are not "masculine" anymore they end up simply rotting away.

And women wouldn't?

You're absolutely right that men wouldn't be motivated if there were no sex. It is male sexual competition that built most of human culture and civilization. It is also the ultimate cause of every war, tribal skirmish, gladiatorial combat, pogrom and genocide ever prosecuted.

But you are mistaken if you think this is true of men alone. If you think we are obsessed with sex, you haven't spent much time around women. They are focused on men and babies to an extent that few men can even conceive.

Sex and reproduction are, in fact, the primary order of business, the principal item on the human biological agenda, for men and women alike. As far as nature is concerned, we exist only to have grandchildren.

I won't address your other points in detail. We have all met with disappointment in our love and sex lives; adopting a belief system simply to rationalize and excuse those disappointments is not a prescription for clear thinking. Applying moral and judgemental tags to other people's sexual behaviour, scapegoating both women in general and men who are sexually more successful than oneself, is a rather transparent strategy. One's pain and disappointment should not be allowed to twist one's thinking in this way. Rationality is a priceless possession.

Besides, you seem to me like a young man. Have patience; the girl worth winning wasn't found, let alone won, in a day.

[edit on 14/6/10 by Astyanax]

PUA = pick up artist. Specifically I'm speaking of the PUA community that started off as a newsgroup on the internet in the early 90s and shot off a lot of other internet websites such as sosuave.com spouting techniques like "Cocky and Funny" to get laid.

I understand, yea that women do want to look for the man with the better genes, but my problem is with how some people seem to think brutality is the only thing that makes a male a better mate, thinking just because he can do things with brute force he can win at everything.

Gee, who would have thought that 99 percent of all wars and violence in the world is caused by sexuality. I wonder if women care or even know about this to want to help? Women do have quite a bit on their hands, and they do have power.

Also, you seem to put a lot of trust in scientific journals or scholarly articles... the media can and does manipulate scientific findings for their own agendas and brainwashing the masses. I care more about data than interpretations, and who knows some experiments done are flawed sometimes.

[edit on 14-6-2010 by The Quiet Storm]

and many times the woman doesn't even care about how much "better or worse" genetically the guy is.. as long as he can seduce her.

[edit on 14-6-2010 by The Quiet Storm]

Women also like to know that other good men are suffering at the hands of their brutal sexuality. They let their 'badboys' say and whisper vulgarities and lewd things to them, treat her like #, knowing that other guys who were taught to treat a woman differently (ie with respect) would cringe and just die knowing an 'innocent good girl' lets another guy treat her like sh*t even if it's wrong and he's not good enough. Then she flaunts it around like she's "bad". Also, while she has sex, the man gets a rush off of treating her like #, and a whore, beating her up, and the girl acts all 'bad' because she was being submissive to that type of stuff and being a killer, killing other guys in the process, and especially good men. They get off on knowing that they are killing other good men, and laugh all sinisterly like.

The sado-masochistic REALITY of the BRAINWASHED culture of sexuality these days.

It's not 'evolutionary psychology'. It's BRAINWASHED psychology that the media entrains the masses.

[edit on 14-6-2010 by The Quiet Storm]

Orignally posted by The Quiet Storm
the media can and does manipulate scientific findings for their own agendas and brainwashing the masses.

Hmm. We seemed to be having a sensible conversation up to this point. Now please note:

1. Those are articles from scientific journals, some peer-reviewed, some awaiting review. They are not media aimed at the masses.
   
   
2. I am not one of 'the masses', thank you very much indeed.

many times the woman doesn't even care about how much "better or worse" genetically the guy is.. as long as he can seduce her.

Women don't know they're looking for good genes. They just look for men they find attractive. Evolution has already programmed them to find men with good genes attractive. This is precisely why resenting their choices - as you seem to do - is futile. Suck it up like a man.

Women also like to know that other good men are suffering at the hands of their brutal sexuality.

This sounds like the complaint of a resentful loser, and reflects no credit on you. I seriously advise you to change your ideas.

I refuse to address your other accusations against women, but I'll tell you one thing: that hot chick you've been lusting after is never going to come near you as long as you nurse an attitude like that.

[edit on 15/6/10 by Astyanax]

reply to post by Silver Shadow


It has everything to do with 'chasing skirt'...

One thing the article - albeit as excellent as it is - neglects to mention, is the testosterone factor. As you know, this hormone governs much of male behaviour and effects such things as sex drive, competitiveness, and aggression. By default, males put themselves at greater risk over an average lifetime by taking more chances and risks and putting themselves in harms way - whether it be playing rugby, driving a car too fast, indulging in dangerous sports, drinking too much, going to war, or whatever. In actual fact, more males are born each year than females, but by around 20 years of age, the numbers are equal and by age 30, the number of women born in any year outnumbers men, and this pattern continues onward up until old age.

Either you fall into line with natures pattern, or you try to work outside of it (as I do). One of the great things about 'intelligence' - if you have it - is not allowing yourself to be governed or defined by the patterns of social behaviours that are considered the norm. You do not have to accept what society and/or nature has defined for you if you don't want to. You can, to a degree, live within the system, whilst also living outside of it.

This article reminds me of a guy on television who was in his late thirties who went to public school and had kept in touch with most of his former classmates. He said that one day he looked at his old class photo and counted the number of former classmates who'd died in car crashes. He said he was shocked at the number of guys who'd died.

It's all relative. The quiet, unassuming, mostly peaceful, happy go lucky guys that keep themselves to themselves tend to live long. There is not always the genetic advantage to this behaviour as the evidence shows. Darwinism in action.

[edit on 15-6-2010 by the.lights]

reply to post by the.lights


They totally ignore that alot of males are too passive to be interested in females.

I think like so many things ego maniacs that are scientists, cannot stand it others are right that have no degrees, while they studied all there lifes.

reply to post by andy1033


Right.

It works both ways. Not all women necessarily like to play the game either... Actually, I'd argue the more intellectual among us - men and women - tend to look at the others in the play pit, sigh and say 'whatever...' I know I do.

One of the great things about being human is that we don't necessarily have to conform to the social 'norms' they have put in place for us. Sometimes we have to, that's just the way it is. Othertimes we are free to do things 'outside of the box'.

And anyway, what's the point in bagging a leggy, 6ft Amazonian beauty if, 5-10 years down the line, she takes off with someone half your age, takes half your wealth with her, and ends up with custody of the kids.

I think I read somewhere - having a beautiful woman in your life can be very destructive, because your nerves are much more heightened to the fact that she might leave you at any time or be seduced elsewhere so you are always on edge. Much better to go for the free spirit with her own mind and without baggage. I believe there are plenty of people out there who are not defined by these social behaviours and who can be trusted to settle with as life partners. You just have to find them

reply to post by andy1033

They totally ignore that alot of males are too passive to be interested in females.

'A lot of males'? Don't judge everyone by your own standards, Andy.

I've met men who were too shy to approach women and I've met men who were too gay to be interested in them. But 'too passive'? No man is too passive to be interested in sex unless he has been mechanically or physically castrated. If anyone knows different I shall be eager to hear from them.

You have spoken on ATS before about your lack of interest in women, Andy. That's one of the reason why I said, earlier, that you cannot be thought of as an average person, and why your experience is not representative of the majority.

I think like so many things ego maniacs that are scientists, cannot stand it others are right that have no degrees, while they studied all there lifes.

What has this got to do with the topic, my self-proclaimed brainwashee?

reply to post by the.lights

What's the point in bagging a leggy, 6ft Amazonian beauty if, 5-10 years down the line, she takes off with someone half your age, takes half your wealth with her, and ends up with custody of the kids?

The point would be that you have done royally by your genes, amply fulfilling the purpose for which you exist in the first place.

First you mingled your genes with those of one of Nature's true aristocrats, thereby giving them the best possible shot at survival into the next generation.

Then you stood by her to help raise the gene carriers through those critical years of childhood, the years when they are most helpless and at risk.

Next, through the alimony, you made provision for their future care.

Last and best of all, you then managed to persuade the Amazon, now ageing and no longer at her childbearing best, to take herself and the demanding little pests she whelped off your hands for good, leaving you free to find and knock up as many more natural aristocrats as you can lay your mitts on.

Remind me again, what was it you were complaining about?

[edit on 15/6/10 by Astyanax]

reply to post by Astyanax


Na, being too passive is something that applies to this too. Everyone is hormones, and if you have no hormones turned on, you will not be interested, what do you think happens at puberty?

Whether that means a man is gay or striaght or metrosexual, does not matter, if he is too passive he will not be interested in sex fact, and i think you will find that life does have those males.

Originally posted by andy1033
Na, being too passive is something that applies to this too. Everyone is hormones, and if you have no hormones turned on, you will not be interested, what do you think happens at puberty?

Yes, and this rarely happens.

Do you have facial, pubic and axilliary hair? A normal-sized penis and descended testicles? Or are you like a big baby, a beardless eunuch? Only in the second case could it be said that you have not matured sexually.

Whether that means a man is gay or striaght or metrosexual, does not matter, if he is too passive he will not be interested in sex fact, and i think you will find that life does have those males.

When I find one, I'll be sure to let you know. I'm a sociable kind of chap, with literally hundreds of friends and acquaintances - real ones, not Facebookers and internet pen-pals - and I'm over fifty years old besides.

So you'll understand why I shan't be holding my breath over this.

reply to post by Astyanax


My life has proven you wrong, and all this bogus science wrong, on this.

I was too passive to be interested in females fact, and that goes against everything bogus science has to say about these things. Also females should be taught at school that some males are just too passive to want anything more than talking.

My life has proven this science paper bogus, and i knew this at 13, long before i had any factual evidence in our world of how my life would play out.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by the.lights

 

What's the point in bagging a leggy, 6ft Amazonian beauty if, 5-10 years down the line, she takes off with someone half your age, takes half your wealth with her, and ends up with custody of the kids?

The point would be that you have done royally by your genes, amply fulfilling the purpose for which you exist in the first place.

First you mingled your genes with those of one of Nature's true aristocrats, thereby giving them the best possible shot at survival into the next generation.

Then you stood by her to help raise the gene carriers through those critical years of childhood, the years when they are most helpless and at risk.

Next, through the alimony, you made provision for their future care.

Last and best of all, you then managed to persuade the Amazon, now ageing and no longer at her childbearing best, to take herself and the demanding little pests she whelped off your hands for good, leaving you free to find and knock up as many more natural aristocrats as you can lay your mitts on.

Remind me again, what was it you were complaining about?

[edit on 15/6/10 by Astyanax]

And in the process put yourself at risk of STD'S through multiple sexual partners, the physical and mental stress of constantly moving from one woman to the next, not settling down, not having a stable family life or home environment, drifting aimlessly through life from one woman to the next, until eventually women don't even look at you with a passing glance in the street because you are old, decrepit and clapped out. And then, what are you left with...?

Um, no, I'd rather the opposite. The beauty of being intelligent and human is, you get to choose, and rise above the so-called 'norms' of the animal kingdom.

And actually, much of the animal kingdom also follow the latter path, mating and partnering for life to ensure stability and happiness. The whole sexual competition side of human life is quite tired, if you ask me.

And no, this argument is not one of complaint. Just expressing the idea that the argument is derivative and assumes much. There are those of us who don't live by, or subscribe to, this interpretation of life and mating laid out in these findings. Human society is a much more multi-layered complex organism than this research gives credit for. And those who take the path of stability tend to live to healthy, happy, ripe old age, whilst those outlined in this argument burn out, fall by the wayside or end up dead through their behaviours. Survival of the fittest...?

What was your argument again...?

reply to post by Astyanax


What if, what if, the media brainwashes women and all people to find certain characteristics as attractive and others as not. Don't you think that would override true "evolutionary psychology" of finding 'the good genes'?

Like I said it's not always about finding the 'good genes' the media and culture plays a big part in this.

reply to post by Astyanax


Well.. we only live for so long.

How can anyone think that we are really geared for countless casual relationships when we live such short lives? We are supposed to be in our prime at 19 years of age. We start getting old at 23... then what? Old man with young girl? I think girls make us guys want younger and younger girls since at the young ages they always want to go for the older guys, then when they get old they go for younger guy. And they want to liberate themselves at mid-age during their crisis because they figure they're getting too old, and they've been messing with the wrong dudes the whole time, so might as well just live while you can and have casual sex with lots and lots of people.

It's messed up. If we had children as many times as we had casual sex how could nature really keep up with all those children, let alone parents? or do we send them all to uhm.. where?

If this is the cruel reality that's happening, and we are supposed to be the lives the best way we can, and humanity is supposed to work as a whole, then why can't we at least give it thought to make it better for all?

[edit on 15-6-2010 by The Quiet Storm]

Total bull paper as normal.

Anyone not bringing someone into a world full of 90% murderers should be glad.

My life has proven this paper to be garbage, and just wants to reinforce rubbish enforced by the media whores.

Originally posted by andy1033
reply to post by Astyanax

 

My life has proven you wrong, and all this bogus science wrong, on this.

I was too passive to be interested in females fact, and that goes against everything bogus science has to say about these things. Also females should be taught at school that some males are just too passive to want anything more than talking.

My life has proven this science paper bogus, and i knew this at 13, long before i had any factual evidence in our world of how my life would play out.

maybe you weren't passive, you just aren't interested in participating in the cultural hegemony and the sexual practices of most people and see pleasure and love as that. You see that you don't even need to compete. Maybe this is passivity, but femininity? That's probably up for debate as that may be determined by societal beliefs. It's harder for guys that are like that. They don't want to compete because they dont feel like they should have to compete, others would say 'oh well they'll die'. But it kills them inside. It kills me. Perhaps you came to associate sexuality with this harsh view and found no interest in it.. and since you said from a young age.. that can definitely affect your adulthood.

[edit on 15-6-2010 by The Quiet Storm]