|
How come....
This is a question that has been with me forever, It's something that I bet a lot of guys have wondered about.
As a guy I am the provider. I know, women's rights's blah,blah,blah. Women make their own money, blah, blah, blah. Show me a woman making 75k dating the stock boy at Walmart. I am the protector. I gotta clear the house when you hear a bump in the night. I kill the spiders. I share equally in the housework cause that's just how the world works today. In romance I make nearly all the gestures, flowers, dinner, etc In bed you 'let' me get some, even though I really work at getting you off. What I'm saying is in a man/woman relationship, I carry quite a bit of the weight. My perspective is that I carry most of it, but for the sake of argument let's say it's equal. Now, there are so many more of you (ladies), I think the last stat I saw said 6 to 1. Now I factor in the homosexual um, factor. I don't now any stats about gay v. straight, so again for the sake of argument let us assume that 6 to 1 is cut down to 3 to 1. The laws of supply and demand says that us guys should be sought after with vigor. After all, we are rarer. Why is that not the case? How come I gotta work so hard to get with you? How is it that you have guys competing for your affection? I'm sure my question is not as clear as it should be, but I'd love to hear from the ladies. Fellas, feel free to chime in. |
First off, you are doing it wrong.
My wife is now a stay at home mom 'aka' house wife. She does most of the housework, she shovels the snow, she used to mow the lawn (service now), she takes out the garbage (I take in the empty cans), she takes care of the kids about 85% of the time. The home is now her 'job' I help out, but only when she can't keep up or has other things going on. If she were still working it would be very different, but shes not so it isn't. I am the protector but I'm 90lbs heavier, stronger, and more prone to needed violence by the nature of being male. And thats the key, the nature of being male. As a male being strong protectors and providers is what women find attractive. We have VERY little investment in sex historically, unlike a woman who gets pregnant, so we try to convince them to give it up. Now maybe this doesn't translate in the age of birth control and paternity law suits well, but you dont' erase 4 billion years of evolution in the course of a couple of generations. This is why a semi-attractive female can walk into a bar and find someone to have sex with that night without much effort, while a semi-attractive male is normally left sucking his beer. Its like this in just about all species for a reason. Just be glad you are human, in many mammals if you are not the head male you wouldn't be getting any from anyone. |
Please be happy. You could of been married to one of these.
http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/h...12058076de.jpg Just foolin around...merry merry. |
I agree with Us to a degree.
In history and nature it makes since to me still that the strongest protector and best provider should be the most sought after. The least of these men should be the least courted. But still... Let's give this community some numbers, using my 3 to 1 assumption. Three hundred women vie for 100 men in this fictional place. The best guy had his pick, right? Theoretically the worst guy should be able to pick from the remaining 201 women. That's not the case. The best guy here still gets his choice, but even he has to jump through a hoop or two to get what he wants. How come? And We have a huge stake in sex, as it pertains to procreation. That head male in nature beats the shit out of the others in order to secure his lineage You let her shovel snow? Dude that's heavy work. By the way this is just a philosophical question |
Quote:
I think that when women are young, they have a certain ideal, or shopping list, when they look at men. As we grow, we start to let go of the fairy tale notions and find that a man with wit and personality begins to look sexier as we get to know him. He makes us feel safe, maybe because he's so intelligent and savvy. We come from different backgrounds. I think it's fairly safe to assume most of the ladies that you'd find at TFP were raised to become strong women and told that there were options out there. By the time most of us became adults, we had gone to college or work. That doesn't mean there aren't women who'd prefer to be home raising a family and maintaining the home, but those women are going to be very choosy. And the dedicated career woman? Forget it! Just drop your resume and she'll let you know. Last but not least, don't forget the woman who wants it all -- family and career! Things have also changed in that the biological needs are secondary to our need for love, companionship and relationships. If the man we are biologically attracted to doesn't fulfill those needs, he gets kicked to the curb. Besides, we all know that women control the world! :cool: Let her shovel snow? :rolleyes: |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Here is my opinion on this Issmmm.
You are viewing relationships as a value exchange - this is an outdate concept that applied to a time when marriage was arranged by families who bargained with their children. Times have changed – yet the most important relationship freedom we’ve gained thought the feminist revolution hasn’t been addressed – the idea of personal choice! Relationships are about connection and chemistry. Money, chores, gifts are important to maintaining a healthy relationship and personal value but they do nothing to actually further the emotional and chemical connection between two people. You can’t fuck a girl with diamonds and expensive dinners. That Wal-Mart stock boy you mentioned earlier will be just as likely to sleep with a woman making 75k a year as a guy making equal her wage IF he has his shit together and doesn't view his value by his bank account. So all that aside. If you truly want to be progressive. If you truly want to respect women then; love them not for what they offer, and how that balances out against your check book, but for how they make you feel. At the same time believe in your own inner worth and realize that the most attractive parts of you are free and don’t need to be advertised. Once you’ve got that down you can begin adding all the material aspects. |
Quote:
You guys aren't getting it. |
Quote:
The ratio is not important, because women trump men. :D Some of us would rather be alone than settle for anything but the best. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
I guess the old line of "quality over quantity" would apply here. Statistics would say one thing, but life just doesn't work in such strict mechanical terms. It's not enough to just show up. You have to have a reasonable amount of qualities that they desire, which varies from each individual. Ontop of that you have to factor in the different personalities, different lifestyles, different ways of thinking etc, and it gets pretty damn complicated.
|
Firstly, I'm not gonna rag on you for trying to figure this one out. It's completely understandable that a man would want to know how all this works and try to use that to whatever advantage he could. But I think that trying to apply logic to a situation like relationships simply won't work. In my personal experience, logic works great when you're building bridges, rebuilding engines or trying to cure cancer. Relationships, not so good.
|
Some of us would rather be alone than settle for anything but the best.[/QUOTE]
I was waiting for someone to say that. Call it the "women’s movement" or whatever; it boils down to want vs. need. You need us to survive, we merely choose to be with you for personal satisfaction, not out of necessity. Just as you had said earlier you’re this big provider, hunter, gather...whatever. We can have all of that on our own, so when we do decide to choose you it is not because you can support us financially, kill the big scary bug, or shovel our driveway, it is because we recognize your inner worth and want to share that with you. |
If you (male or female) don't have to put some work into finding someone who you're happy with, you either share a very special connection or you're with the kind of person who will take whatever they get. The latter is fine when you're just looking for someone to fuck at the bar, but for the long-term, not so much.
|
Quote:
|
Well, honestly, the secret got out that I'm amazing in bed. So now I have man after man after boy trying to "tap this ass." (Did that make me sound cool? I really did try.)
I can't get the poor bastards to go away. Well, until I mention the word "relationship." Then they go screaming with their tails tucked. |
I think Jewels has it about right...but I also think that the simple three letter word (SEX) is WAY more important than anyone has mentioned.
Men are horny...women know this...and they (at least most of them) know that! If I held something that you thought about night and day, I think I could make you do whatever I wanted! If life is a chess game, men are simply pawns....and women are every other piece on the board! |
Ok, first, I think your ratio is a little off.
According to the UN Statistics Office, in the USA in 2005 there were 103 women to every 100 men. Where I live, in Portugal, it's 107 to every 100. Granted I don't know the ratio of single heterosexual women to single heterosexual men. I think there are certain tasks or activities that women generally would like their guy to do for them at times, but they are still quite willing to do them themselves when they must and when they want to. I think particularly the idea of the guy being the protector is a romantic notion that most women like occasionally. I'm sure lots of guys also like to feel they are the protector occasionally too. Guys occasionally like to feel mothered, and many women take on that role occasionally because they also like it. The idea of the guy being the provider is no longer as important, to most women I think. To me anyway, it has no relevance. That doesn't mean relationships today can't be on a more balanced level, so that both people in the relationship have the power to make choices. That's not how it was before. I think that it's a good thing that we are all more responsible for our own path in life. It may seem to you that you're the one putting in the most effort to get a girl to pay attention to you. I feel that often it works the other way, at least for me. You see, it's all about perspective. One relationship I was in, I felt like I was being pushed into the "housewife" and "nurturer" role often. It's a two-way street. I do agree that there is a game involved, when it comes to getting someone to go out with you, most of my girl friends play it, but it's just a form of protecting yourself. You don't want to be the initiator and you also don't want someone to step all over you. A little give, a little take. I personally am not one to sit around and wait for what I want, generally. But I have also learned that often, if you reach out and just "grab" it, guys suddenly aren't that interested. One of my friends has said to me: you choose, but you have to make him think that he chose you. I personally don't like the "game", but it's there. I apparently suck at it and I just wish things were a lot more sincere. |
"One of my friends has said to me: you choose, but you have to make him think that he chose you."
Wow....very nicely said! |
Quote:
Issmmm -- I think if your ratios were true, then men really would hold more power over women, regardless of how horny we are. Men would be like the Nintendo Wiis of the dating world... but a 6:1 or 3:1 ratio of women to men just doesn't exist (or if it does exist somewhere, please let me know :thumbsup: ). |
Well I was writing some hugely complicated analysis of human genetics and society, but maybe I'll save that for a master's thesis.
The bottom line is, it is that way, because everyone makes it that way. Men go after women because...they do. If men stopped seeking out women, women would seek out men, but that's not how it currently works. Though you can individually CHOOSE not to seek out women, it's not going to get you anywhere because that's not everyone else's m.o. Social change happens, and it's much faster than genetic evolution, but it's still a lot slower than individuals' timescales: Life is short. We are currently in the middle of a large social change in gender roles. Once upon a time men had a specific role and women had a specific role, but they're merging. In time things will become more balanced. For now there are still a lot of vestiges of men as providers/protectors and women as child raisers. Men initially got their provider/protector role due to their additional physical strength, but that's all made irrelevant by mechanization. You don't need any physical strength to operate guns and machines, and no amount of physical strength will save you from a bullet. We are now in the information age where intelligence is a more significant factor in your value to society. This is also the age of birth control where we choose when to raise children and we're generally choosing to do far less of it. Men may still be predisposed to seek out women fit for childbearing and women to seek strength and economic power, but now that in the modern era women can "provide" equally well as men and don't have the large energetic requirement of bearing children much of their adult lives, social and genetic evolution will respond accordingly. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
A double standard? ;) |
Yea, your ratio is terribly wrong.
In a small microcosm of society (such as my University), you can have population disparities. Enrollment in my Unversity is 6:1 women to men, but worldwide the population is so close to 1:1 that it's almost indistinguishable. And even 6:1 at my college doesn't really mean much, as the women still have a large pool to choose from; the city itself approaches the world-wide 1:1. |
Quote:
Quote:
Long story short, yes we are evolving, but trying to predict the direction based on what would be 'best' may be a disappointment. |
Assumption: There are more females than males, therefore females should work harder to get males.
Reality: Our hardwiring is the opposite of this. Females choose the mate in humans more often than not. This is not to say that females do not feel sexual or emotional attraction, or that they don't pursue males, but in the end more often than not it is simply reality that the woman decides if the pairing is permanent or that sexual relations are going to happen. |
From the 2007 CIA World Factbook:
Sex ratios: at birth: 1.05 male(s)/female under 15 years: 1.046 male(s)/female 15-64 years: 0.996 male(s)/female In the prime dating group (15-64), the difference is negligible, as I noted above. male 100,995,752 female 101,365,035 |
Quote:
Certainly people who have many children will influence the genome to a larger extent than people who have fewer, but reproductive fitness no longer has much of an effect on that, in addition to change in the entire meaning of reproductive fitness. Now it's more a matter of choice than fitness (maybe in evolutionary terms wanting to have more children = fitness, but I'm more referring to the ability to reproduce, which most humans have more or less equally now in monogamous societies), and that's largely influenced by society. Then we could go into how much genetics influences society, but that's a whole other can of worms. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Okay, I'm not going to address later posts really, but more the OP's observations.
Anthropologically and biologically, relationships and sex are based entirely on reproduction. Women's reproduction is limited by their biology; how many eggs they produce, how often one matures, what time of the month they have sex, etc. Men's reproduction, on the other hand, is limited entirely by access to females. Want to contribute to the next generation? You have to find a female and THEN impress her and get her to have sex with you. At the right time of the month, too. It is interesting to note that during the less fertile periods of their menstrual cycles, women prefer men like their fathers. Safe providers, usually more caring. These are the men they usually remain in relationships with (or marry) because these men are more likely to become better caretakers for their children. The fact that they have sex with them during less fertile times of the month contributes to a monogamous bond between the two. At the more fertile times of the month, though, women often "go for" the attractive, muscular, "impressive" males who will contribute more desired evolutionary attributes to their children. So, when women cheat on their husbands, they are often more choosy and it is most often during their most fertile time of the month. Because women's reproduction is limited by biology and time, and because they have a much larger investment in offspring, they are more choosy when approaching mates. When men cheat on their wives, they often go "lower" in standards.. because they can reproduce with any (fertile) female, contributing more of their genetic material to the next generation. I can find some of the articles from a previous class discussing these things, if anyone wants to read them. I'm an anthropology nerd, so I love this kind of stuff. |
Quote:
Really? |
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:47 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project