Men want sex. Woman want other stuff, too. Where’s the confusion?
Overthrowing Darwin’s Number Two Theory
Darwin’s primary legacy, the theory of evolution, has robustly withstood years of scientific challenges. But now a team of Stanford researchers has published a paper in Science claiming they can top Darwin’s second monster: sexual selection theory.
The Stanford group says sexual selection theory wrongly models interactions between the sexes as competitive. The group has a new theory, social selection, which models mate selection as a cooperative game where parties seek to maximize group welfare.
Darwinian sexual selection is a theory of conflict: It asserts that men and women have different goals in terms of what they look for in a partner. Males want to have sex with several females in order to create as many offspring as possible, while females want to have sex with very few, high-quality males, who will give their eggs the best genes.
Further proof that Darwin was an idiot!
Males are much more simple and shallow than that theory suggests.If a female will f-#* them on a regular basis they will put up with almost any kind of emotional abuse.
Oh, please. Darwin was no idiot.
Those who insist on mis-applying his insights, however…
“viable teams?” Obviously they’ve never been married!
Seriously, though, IT’S JUST A MODEL. I very much doubt whether a male spiny hedgehog looks at a female and thinks either “Ooh, another quill in my hat” or “I bet we could have lots of healthy little ones together.” Nor does a female think “I wonder if this one will stick around? His quills are certainly quite stiff.” Just a model, guys. It doesn’t reflect reality.
Can’t we all just get along while we get off…
I was at the park yesterday sitting on a bench when I noticed two pigeons, one was the regular rat-with-wings (female) and the other a puffed-up-feathered one going after her. She didn’t mate with him. This was us millions of years ago. Male and female of our species were equal in physical strength. A male, early, human-bound species could not force a female physically to have sex with him. If he did he would encounter a 50/50 chance of being defeated or killed. If the female really resisted, but lost the battle of not being raped but died in the process of fighting, then the male would really be facing a 100% of losing a chance to advance his genes into a new generation. This was equality between the sexes at its best. Man was in danger. The female decided 100% of who was having sex. I watched as the pigeon dance continued. Another male was by himself perched up and fluffed just like the male that was chasing the female. The female approached him! And he walked away! The female did the chasing! Finally, he stopped and walked around her all puffed up. She left and he didn’t follow her. She came back and submitted. He mounted her. This is the way it works in the real world today. Men can’t get laid because they chase women. A real man who gets the ladies just does his business and lets women watch him (kind of like a rock star). When the female is ready, she will submit. Only, and only when she submits can sex be done.
Men lead, women follow.
If you submit to a woman, she will not want you as her mate. Hence, today, most women are depressed and unsatisfied with their boyfriends, mates and spouses. I never do what women tell me to do. If a woman ever uses sex as a ploy to get what she wants, I walk away. I don’t fall for their manipulation. Most men do. All geeks do.
We live in a world where men are afraid to hurt women or violate their “equality”. We live in a world where feminists have performed a virtual castration on the male species. Most men (98%) today are virtual eunics.
Men, get back your balls and don’t take shit from women. They will respect you for that. Never believe a woman’s words. When they submit, you are doing the right thing for the role you were supposed to play. Now, you play a faggot.
JFC!!
“Never believe a woman’s words”?
“Most men today are virtual eunics”?
“I don’t fall for their manipulation”?
David, it sounds like your are projecting your social inadiquacies on those pidgeons. You extrapolated a whole social/sexual behavior model from ONE skewed, isolated observation!
I agree with James that it IS just a model, but it is a model that has been built on thousands upon thousands of observations so it DOES reflect reality.
I haven’t actually read the book, but it sounds like she isn’t trying give Darwin’s theory the boot, but maybe add a modifier onto it or offer an laternate theory in situations where it doesn’t seem to fit.
Lighten up, play the social game. These comments are surprising to me because it seems like some are playing a completely different game.
laternate = alternate
“You extrapolated a whole social/sexual behavior model from ONE skewed, isolated observation!”
Kevin, I am a very observant person with much experience and much feedback from females. One time in a B&N I came walking out of the men’s bathroom when I walked past a woman roaming the bookshelves with her hand cupped underneath her left breast exposed out of her blouse! I did a double-take, took a few steps, paused and returned to her aisle. By then, she had put it back in place. I started up a conversation by asking her what book she could recommend (she was in the romance novel section). We talked. Finally I started illiciting values from her (this is a solid technique. see the online layguide: http://www.pickupguide.com/layguide/ ). She told me how guys she always dated would do everything she requested, “If I say jump, they jump, I say jump higher, they jump higher”. She was a hot looking babe that had T&A to prove it. You see, Kevin, women want MEN. The kind of men they read about in the romance novels. You want to know how to be what women want, read romance novels. I may be socially inadequate in certain situations, but I can read a woman like a pulp book. Kevin, the game you play is not wrong, but it also doesn’t work. And what works is always what counts in the end. And what works is what’s been proven. I have about a hundred notches on my bedpost. What about you?
david – *yawn* – gloating over your own sexual exploits is boring and immature, but thanks for sharing
Who says his FIRST theory is so robust. Even Darwin himself gave up on it, seeing that it was flawed, by the end of his life. But they don’t tell you that, do they?
James – they don’t tell you that because it’s not true and was made up by the woman who reported it (who wasn’t there).
Plus, unlike faith based preachers, scientists admit when there are gaps in a theory. Darwin did acknowlege where his theorys needed more work and the scientific community worked on them and found the evidence.
When you argue about something please actually know something about it.
Greg, not only is there no evidence for evolution, there are things in textbooks that were disproven in the 1800s, and the leftover “evidence” was proven to be a hoax. They try to guess the age of fossils by the layer of rock it was found in, but then they age the rock by what fossils they find in it = circular reasoning has no scientific base, rather an unreasonable faith-based belief in evolution. Evolution has nothing to do with science as the first 5 categories can’t fulfill the scientific method, and pound for pound is the most horrible thing to happen to humanity (Hitler, Stalin, humanism, etc.).
Ultimately you believe in “In the beginning, God”, or “In the beginning, dirt”.