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

reply to post by the.lights


You gotta admit though for those who have to wait a long time just to find their mate it can and does kill them inside to see all the others competing, and well it just makes you feel like a total and complete loser of the lowest kind that nature rejects.. unless we all can learn to practice brahmacharya from young age, and have the right environment and schooling available for them to be able to do this.. otherwise it may become lonely and painful, not to mention sex deprived, unless you can otherwise learn to transmute and sublimate the sexual energies until the right time.

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

So, according to this paper too.. the old saying "there's someone for everyone" is not really true.

And.. "the world needs love".. this isn't going to happen anytime soon either.

I guess some people forget that we're not entirely the animals we used to be.. we certainly did not evolve from apes in the short amount of time the history books would have you believe. If this is so then that means we were probably "helped along the way" and perhaps that left some of us not ready yet to accept or integrate into this new form of humanity.

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

Originally posted by The Quiet Storm
reply to post by the.lights

 

You gotta admit though for those who have to wait a long time just to find their mate it can and does kill them inside to see all the others competing, and well it just makes you feel like a total and complete loser of the lowest kind that nature rejects.. unless we all can learn to practice brahmacharya from young age, and have the right environment and schooling available for them to be able to do this.. otherwise it may become lonely and painful, not to mention sex deprived, unless you can otherwise learn to transmute and sublimate the sexual energies until the right time.

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

Not at all. That's perception getting the better of someone. But yes, I do concede that loneliness and pain can come from this too. But better to be like that than just throwing yourself at anything that moves without taking the time to find true compatability. I believe it is wrong to judge onself so harshly by looking at the behaviours of others - although this is easier said than done, I admit.

Finding the right person outside for you can only come when you find the right person inside. Once you truly know yourself, feel confident and happy in your own skin, then all else follows.

Would you rather be shy, introverted and lacking in confidence when it comes to meeting someone? Or would you rather be like those identified in this study - cocky, overconfident and ultra competitive?

There are just as many men and women looking for the former as the latter. Some like the aggressive, over confident, individual, others like the shy, retiring, thoughtful and sensitive type. We are all different. And we should celebrate those differences.

reply to post by the.lights


I don't think any woman would like the shy-type you described. Some will but there are many that wouldn't, and would even be repulsed. And the over-confident one you too pointed out is a bit extreme.

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

I disagree..

Those are two extremes. Actually, most people are a mix of all sorts of behaviour types.

I actually come across more women who are looking for men who are nurturing, good with kids, dependable and committed; who will stay the course. They are not interested in guys who are going to be around for 5 minutes then move on to the next piece of meat.

Id like to point out that this isn't the jungle and those laws don't really apply anymore.

Any one with a laptop and a dating site account can be as successful sexually as the pretty boy at the bar. And for the men that are afraid of initiating contact with women; That's your fault not the woman's.

There are just as many lonely women out there as there are lonely men.

It's a brave new world, welcome to the monkey house!

[edit on 15-6-2010 by whaaa]

Dating websites are not what they claim. The same thing happens on dating websites as in the dating scene 'out there'.

and it would help if women could see that sometimes it is hard for the man to approach the woman, especially when there are all these labels given to men, such as pigs, stalkers, rapists, perverts, creeps, etc.

or gangsters hawking you down. especially if they know the woman or are closely affiliated (or probably 'ex's").

or old people quick to judge you.

you don't want to scare off the woman.. and 99.9 percent of women carry a shield and stare you down and act all intimidating with their clothing, their persona, their looks, etc.

So yea.. it's hard to put sex right up on the table. Therefore one would have to resort to more deceptive tactics, like what you see in the PUA communities, or else. And even then.. some women might be quick to judge you because they expect you to be all sex driven and upfront (ie knowing what you want and knowing how to get it, or, simply "knowing what you want", it's a common phrase women will say to judge males), she will think of you as being asexual, gay, or feminine, uncompetitive, uninterested, lazy, weak, or scared (and for good reason), because you can go to jail, lose your job, your life, your social standing, your money, your dreams, your sense of well being, just for showing 'interest' in a woman.

But they still expect us to do all the work in initiating contact while they turn their heads away and make everything as HARD AS POSSIBLE for every male to "prove their worth", yet at the same time look at us as being despicable for even trying.

So yea... please women try not to expect that men do everything for you, at least you can be helpful.

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

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

Excess male mortality isn't a new discovery. Men die on average 3 years younger than women for a variety of reasons none having to do with competetive mating behavior.

You want us to go back on all fours or swing through the jungle?

Pick up artists like Mystery would have you think that since he's a magician and he uses "tricks" to get women to like him.. in real life actually he acts like an a-hole brute because he knows about the "'a-hole gets all the girls and the good guy finishes last' dynamic", so he opts for the a-hole. His character on TV or even perhaps in some of his pick up material he sells is much weaker than he is in real life. Same goes for pretty much every "pick up artist" who wants to sell their stuff. For them it really is about who acts "badder" "meaner" "rougher" and "tougher". And this is what's going on in the mating world for the most part, even if in subtle ways. The male has to brutally pwn every other male, while the women laugh at any of the other males. They (the women) might want to say or even think they're not this way, but they are even if they don't know it themselves.

Sigh...

and if I'm wrong then I'm sorry but this is just the way it seems according to my experience and the conclusions I've come to.

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

Originally posted by above
Interesting discussion!

Internet porn is a great weapon in combatting the female dominance via sexual power. It is just a basic biological fact that men seek sex more then women. 'she who has the goods dictates the price.'

Not anymore! fool yourself into settling for porn, and be healthier and richer by ignoring the women and all the expenses they cause!

Howling with laughter....Star for you and also added you as a friend!

LMAO

porn actually supports the brutal reality.

it doesn't in any way help. it shows women being coerced, and a host of other things that shouldn't be support but since it's in porn it's ok to 'think about'.

Oh goody, an argument!

Originally posted by the.lights
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... until... you are old, decrepit and clapped out. And then, what are you left with...?

None of this is of any concern to nature, and it is nature which determines your existence and the purpose of it.

You, of course, are free to disagree with nature and choose to define your own purposes. Many people do - or rather, they think they do. Few realize how little freedom of action nature permits us. The decisions we think we make for ourselves, believing them to be independent and rational, are critically affected by our instincts - for it is instinct that shapes our desires, our motives and our actions.

The beauty of being intelligent and human is, you get to choose, and rise above the so-called 'norms' of the animal kingdom.

That is just a comforting illusion, like the illusion of free will. You, like everything and everyone else, are both the product and the subject of physical determinism. The ambit of your freedom is woefully circumscribed.

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.

All sorts of sexual arrangements exist in nature, from rampant promiscuity to mating-for-life (though adulterous behaviour is often observed, for example among songbirds). Social animals tend to go for mate competition leading either to harem formation or to the mating of pairs of roughly equivalent fitness and hence desirability. For humans, the common model is serial polygyny; this is a compromise between male and female mating strategies. All this is pretty well-established, with plenty of evidence to substantiate it. Sexual competition may tire you, but nature isn't interested in intellectual fashions; she sticks with the tried and tested.

There are those of us who don't live by, or subscribe to, this interpretation of life and mating laid out in these findings.

You may not subscribe to it, but you certainly live by it. As a member of the human species, you have no other option.

Human society is a much more multi-layered complex organism than this research gives credit for.

Would you be so kind as to substantiate this claim with a few facts? Thank you.

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.

First, nature does not care about your healthy, happy, ripe old age. You have not evolved to be happy or old; you have evolved to reproduce, propagate your genes, and die to make way for the next generation.

There are good biological reasons as well as solid evidence for this, both of which have been presented and discussed on ATS often enough.

Second, the claim that sexually unadventurous men are happier, healthier and live longer is debatable. It is true that men who withdraw from mating competition tend to suffer less stresses, diseases, etc., and so are likely to live longer. You will note how few such men are. Why is that? Because they fail to pass on the genes for those traits.

Besides, if you yearn for a long life devoid of honour, adventure, glory and variety, all I can say is you're welcome to it. Living a hundred years as a gloomy, unfulfilled, self-muzzled as-good-as-eunuch certainly isn't my idea of happiness. Cowardice and lack of initiative are not widely reputed for making their possessors hapy.

Finally, the argument is moot in any event. Each of us occupies his own place in the male pecking order, high or lowly. Unreflective or poorly educated men rationalize their position with fallacious arguments. Losers in the sexual competition vilify and try to make scapegoats of those more successful than themselves. It is nature - yet again, nature - that determines our views on the subject for us. They are the fruit of our need for status and self-justification, and determined by our personal selective fitness.

*

Originally posted by The Quiet Storm
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'?

No, because it doesn't. There are numerous studies that demonstrate this. The belief that beauty and sexual attraction are culturally modulated is based on anthropological research from the Sixties that focused on minor differences between cultures rather than the huge similarities that exist among all human beings. Such research has long been discredited by subsequent findings in evolutionary biology and psychology.

You seem to be very concerned with 'media brainwashing'. Well, you're talking to someone who has spent most of his life in advertising and the media. I've never seen any evidence of 'brainwashing' but it would be stupid to deny that various groups and interests use the media to try and change people's attitudes and behaviour. That is what the media are there for in the first place.

If such persuasion (or brainwashing if you prefer the term) is to succeed, it must play on our deepest motivations, our most critical, often unconscious, needs, fears, desires and guilts. It cannot hope to change them.

That is how the art of persuasion works. It doesn't compete with nature; it falls in line with her dictates.

'Media brainwashing' cannot alter or warp human sexual preferences. Even massive cultural instutions going back thousands of years, such as arranged marriage, have not done so. Substantive changes in human sexual preference occur over evolutionary time, not from one fashion season to the next.

*

Originally posted by The Quiet Storm
How can anyone think that we are really geared for countless casual relationships when we live such short lives?

Not countless. Remember, human mating strategies go back to the time when we lived in small hunter-gatherer bands. Within each band there was only a handful of available females. This number was supplemented as often as possible by raids on other bands; the only time the band's low-order males ever got laid at all was probably after a raid on somebody else's women. But nature has maximized our chances by making male reproductive investment very small (often as little as a few hours' courting followed by a few minutes' sex) and easily repeated.

We start getting old at 23... then what Old man with young girl?

Yes, if the old man's status in the social group is high enough. That's his reward for having good genes, for winning out in the mating competition. If his status is low, then it's the trashpile for him. Life is tough.

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.

Men are attracted to young women because youth is a sign of fertility and easy childbearing, as well as indicating that the woman will live long enough to care for the children until such care is no longer needed.

Young women are - heaven be praised! - often attracted to older men. You'll have noticed, though, that they're rarely attracted to poor old men, or low-status males of any age. Women are attracted to high-status males, and older men who have achieved some status in life are sure bets. That's all there is to it - they're not doing it specially to annoy you.

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?

You forget that, for a woman, a child is a massive investment. For nine months, she must carry a debilitating parasite in her womb; then, having given birth to it in excruciating pain, she has to nurse it for eighteen months and take care of it for another twelve years or so. That's the limiting factor, right there: the kids themselves. That is why female human mating strategy differs from the male; a woman seeks to attract the highest possible quality of genes and then invests all her energy in nurturing a small number of offspring. As a result, women are less promiscuous than men (though not, of course, any less prone to adultery).

*

Originally posted by The Quiet Storm
So, according to this paper too.. the old saying "there's someone for everyone" is not really true.

No, actually there is. What happens is that individuals eventually lower their expectations and mate with someone at their own level of status, attractiveness and genetic fitness.

That's why the world is so full of unfit, ugly, stupid, immoral people.

And.. "the world needs love".. this isn't going to happen anytime soon either.

There's plenty of love in the world, never fear.

*

Originally posted by whaaa
Id like to point out that this isn't the jungle and those laws don't really apply anymore.

Hi, whaaa. It was never the jungle, it was the savannah and we are still the same creatures we were when we lived there. The laws still apply, in spades.

Associative mating (people choosing mates of similar status and desirability to themselves) amply explains the addtional points you make in your post.

wow so it seems you're very educated on this cult of biology.

and of course women will agree because they are evil.

j/k maybe....

being able to cite multiple sources is a very good skill to acquire since it can make any argument seem more credible, especially in mainstream science.

and even if we are the way you make us out to be, or we were... it was due to our evolution, and we are continually evolving. We aren't the same animals we used to be a long long time ago. You paint a very ruthless, cold and grim reality. I don't even think it should have a place in our current reality unless we became our early ancestors again. Are we living in a jungle? Are we even fit to live in a jungle without our tools?

haven't you noticed that there are lots of situations where a man with good genes never gets 'sexually selected'? Oh, but it seems the only way to judge a man's character and his genes is by how many women he has and the quality of them.

[edit on 16-6-2010 by The Quiet Storm]

you people make me want to bash my head off the keyboard. seriously this shouldnt even be an issue its a natural thing. dont get the girl? maybe ur not supposed to. not every person in the world is supposed to have a mate. suck it up and deal with it. maybe it comes down to ur just too ugly?

Originally posted by The Quiet Storm
wow so it seems you're very educated on this cult of biology.

It isn't a cult, Quiet Storm. It's science.

even if we are the way you make us out to be, or we were... it was due to our evolution, and we are continually evolving. We aren't the same animals we used to be a long long time ago.

You're right; we are still evolving. But mating competition is a very ancient and widespread practice among animals. The kind of status contests we've been talking about have been around at least as long as songbirds have: about 50 million years, or fifty times as long as humans. Probably it's a lot older.

In some form or other, competition for mates is almost universal. In many species, such as wasps, it takes the form of violent, injurious rape - certain wasp penises have drilling or cutting attachments used to insert sperm packets inside the female in places where they stand a better chance of impregnating her than the sperm of other males that may have mated with her earlier. How would you like it if human mating competition was carried out along similar lines? Or if we formed 'mating balls' like anacondas, nine males and one female wrestling together, the males all fighting to get to the female? Or were shock ovulators like rabbits, so that women had to let themselves be gang-banged until a strong enough man detached a fertile egg from her ovary with a particularly violent thrust?

No, we shan't be 'evolving out of' male sexual competition in a hurry. And - think about it - we certainly shouldn't want to. Doing so would increase genetic drift in the human species, allowing for the wider spread of unfit genes, making everybody more vulnerable to parasites, disease, accidents and other threats - sapping our fitness as a species. It may also cause humanity to split into two or more incompatible species - how's that as a prescription for genocide?

You paint a very ruthless, cold and grim reality.

So I've sometimes heard. Personally, I don't see it like that at all. Whatever the forces that make us and compel us, to be human is an ineffably wonderful thing. Our feelings are real, because they are real to us. It doesn't make any difference that they are governed by the cynical algebra of natural selection between genes; knowing that doesn't make the feeling any less real. It just changes the way we think about it - though, as you've probably noticed already, we can rationalize our feelings any way we like but that doesn't stop us feeling them.

And for that, my friend, it is nature we have to thank. Be grateful that we are animals. Do angels fall in love?

haven't you noticed that there are lots of situations where a man with good genes never gets 'sexually selected'?

No. This never happens, because fitness is defined precisely as the ability to survive and reproduce. Men who are consistently rejected by women fail to meet the basic criterion for reproductive success.

Oh, but it seems the only way to judge a man's character and his genes is by how many women he has and the quality of them.

A gene is a gene. They pass back and forth between men and women. A man's genes are not just his - they belong to his ancestors and to his descendants too. Actually, the relationship of possession is the other way round: genes don't belong to people, people belongs to their genes. Our genes made us to protect and propagate themselves. That's what biological organisms are: gene survival machines.

So what is being judged when a woman chooses a man is really just the combination of human genes he carries. Character shouldn't come into it unless it, too, is a mark of genetic fitness. And it probably is, but that's another argument.

Remember that among humans, women choose mates and men compete to be chosen (this is true even among societies that practise arranged marriage, since it is usually the mother of the bride-to-be who makes the final choice among prospective bridegrooms). A woman whose choice is based only on rugged good looks and machismo is likely to find herself burdened with a child and quickly abandoned. Other things being equal, that child is less likely to reach adulthood than the child of a woman who chose a man who was loyal, and stayed to help rear it. The genes for love and loyalty have outcompeted the genes for jawline and swagger.

And the truth is that they usually do.

I am not painting a simplistic Tarzan-and-Jane picture of humanity. To see it whole, you must factor in a datum I've been insisting on from the outset: humans are social animals. We practise reciprocity, exchanging goods and favours, which puts a premium on honesty and fair dealing. We form social groups and bonds, which puts a premium on loyalty and being able to avoid disputes or resolve them without violence. We undertake complex group activities, which puts a premium on cooperativeness and good communications skills (and also creates a demand for leadership skills that goes beyond group dynamics and male status competition). Like all higher animals, we are willing to put ourselves at some risk or disadvantage to help those we recognize as kin - and in our vastly extended, complex societies, the definition of 'kin' becomes very elastic. Thus compassion and confraternity are born.

The realities of child-rearing for women also promote certain virtues. As I've already explained, the enormous reproductive cost human females have to bear causes them to place a premium on male loyalty and fidelity (in addition to wealth and status, of course). But there's more: it is probably also what caused love to evolve in the first place.* Love could be nature's way of keeping Pop around until the kids are no longer a round-the-clock burden on Mom. First he loves Mom, then he loves Junior. Until, that is, that infamous six-foot Amazon turns up... oh, well, that's nature too. Remember, it makes sense for Dad to spread his genes around as much as he can.

Last, but very far from least, just look at what men have done in their eagerness to impress women. This takes us back full circle to my first post: all the glories of civilization - art and architecture and music and literature, religion and philosophy and science, exploration, war and conquest - have their roots in male sexual competition. There are those who insist that language itself arose from it.**

And what this means, of course, is that the traditional macho attributes are not the only, or even the best fitness markers any more. We may have not changed much, but our environment has. Sexual competition has changed it by giving rise to modern civilization, and in the process the attributes of successful competion have changed too.

So you see, the viewpoint pressed upon us by evolutionary psychology is not heartless, vicious or hopeless. It could not be, unless it were false, because it attempts to explain human behaviour, and human behaviour is not always, or even usually, heartless, vicious and hopeless. There is, as I said earlier, plenty of room for love in the world - and plenty of love to fill it, too.

*Yes, love evolved, as all human feelings are evolved.

**In different company, I may be called a male chauvinist for this. I think I've made it pretty clear, however, that I am not. I am all for equality between men and women, and believe that no woman should ever be deterred from any activity or role in life she chooses to pursue merely on account of her sex. It is telling, however, that most women have no interest in being or acting like men, even when they take up the same occupations.

[edit on 17/6/10 by Astyanax]

reply to post by Astyanax


what if all the other animals were engineered to make us believe in this cruel reality?

Originally posted by Astyanax
No, we shan't be 'evolving out of' male sexual competition in a hurry.

I do not think so, i think behind the scenes technology is already being made to harness natures abilities in these terms, and they will be replaced one day.

You can all talk about stuff that nature did for us and how humans breed, but one day it will be gone. One thing my life has shown me is that humans are pretty stup1d creatures still, and this process will be replaced one day.

reply to post by The Quiet Storm

what if all the other animals were engineered to make us believe in this cruel reality?

We would know all about it because the Man in the Moon would tell us so.

I dont really have a problem with women choosing 'the good ones'.

It's moreso the rule that she must be with 'the most dominant and most promiscuous ones'.. because as we all know most of the times the most dominant are not always the 'most good' or whats good for us, and I'm not one to promiscuous, or so I say, but it's a choice I would live with, and I would hope my woman could too... at least until I dont care anymore? I don't see that happening much right now either.

But yea, if you dont see anything messed up about brutally violent competition, the 'need' to be violently dominant, then I dont know what else to tell you. You must enjoy to see the violence and wars that sexuality would cause.

And the women live in their own fairytale worlds unknowing, or perhaps supportive of all the violence. ALL, by their very own nature. It's maddening, because they support our death. There have been very good men, scientists, engineers, that ended up celibate the rest of their lives? Why so? Was it perhaps because they were on a whole other level, but the fact that humanity, and women couldn't recognize them, or the men just saw everything as chaotic and chose not to participate in it?

[edit on 17-6-2010 by The Quiet Storm]