Are The Sexes Evenly Matched In Terms Of “Dating Power”?
by Sam Fox
Just in time for Valentine's Day, yours truly just so happens to run across yet another "myth busting" diatribe that supposedly "debunks" a supposedly common Manospherian trope -- the idea that Women, taken together as a group, have "all" the cards when it comes to the mating dance. As I've previously shown in my post about the false dichotomy between Inner and Outer Game, such "myth busting" notions actually gives us Manospherians a golden opportunity to set the record straight, put the facts out there, and create the maximum amount of agita in the hearts of the haters, of which there have cropped up quite a few in our time. We here at J4G thank the haters in the Femosphere and elsewhere throughout the Cathedral, for giving the Manosphere so much of its time and energy -- you flatter us! -- and consider all your attention proof if there ever was any, that the 'sphere has you all running scared -- and scared you should be. Very, very scared.
In today's post, we examine the question: do Women, have an "unfair" dating advantage -- or, do the sexes -- Men and Women both -- have "equal" amounts of dating "power", as the Egalitarians would have us believe?
Let's find out...
Squid Ink: The Obfuscation Tactics Of The Debunkers
Before we do, we must first examine and then obliterate, some of the obfuscating and diversionary "arguments" put forth by those who would "debunk" the Manospherian claim per the above; I refer to such tactics as "squid ink", in reference to the aquatic animal that sprays such ink as a way to confuse and befuddle potential predators hot on its trail. Like the squid, the so-called "debunkers" can and will spew all manner of rhetorical "ink" in a discussion in an effort to confuse and befuddle their interlocutors. Unfortunately for them however, squid ink doesn't work on me; and I smell blood in the water...
Squid Ink Argument #1: Just because a Woman could walk into a bar and announce that she wishes to have sex with a Man or number of Men there, does not mean that it is something she wants or desires; nor does this mean that she has an "unfair" dating advantage.
Obsidian's Response: Actually, if ever there was a way or method by which we could test the theory as to who has more "dating power", the single's bar/niteclub environment is it, as the entire enterprise trades on the inherent asymmetry between Men and Women along these lines. If Women did not enjoy an inherent dating advantage, there would be no need for "Ladies Night", bottle service, "VIP" rooms, "speed dating" and the like (for those who scoff at such a thing, consider this -- could there be a true "gender role reversal" along these and related lines? Would bars and niteclubs remain financially viable if they had instead "Gentleman's Night"? Would the escort business thrive if instead of female escorts, there were males -- with Women as the "Johns"? To ask these questions, are to answer them, of course -- and hence again, proves my point). Moreover, if indeed Men and Women were evenly matched in terms of "dating power", Women would be buying just as many drinks for Men as the other way around, and we all know this not to be the case. All of these devices/schemes and so on, exploit the fact that Men, taken together as a group, do NOT have equal "dating power" out on the open mating market, which bars and niteclubs are proxies for. That Women, even a plurality of them, do not relish the idea of going to one and announcing that she wishes to have sex with one or more Men in said bar/club, does not change this fact; all it means is that Women, in aggregate, are much choosier about who they have sex with -- something that we'll examine later in this post.
Squid Ink Argument #2: Sexually frustrated/disenfranchised Men in the Manosphere, wish to impose a "Communist" take on the sexual marketplace (SMP) -- essentially demanding that there be a (hot, of course) "Woman in Every Pot", to paraphrase US President Herbert Hoover's campaign slogan.
Obsidian's Response: That the bright spark who uttered this "argument" would use terms like "Communist", "disenfranchised" and refer to a presidential campaign slogan, suggests that she thinks that purported Manospherians would attempt a political solution to a mating problem -- and if this indeed is the case, why not? After all, hasn't Abortion (Roe v. Wade), the Pill, No-Fault Divorce, changes in Bastardy laws, the Violence Against Women Act, to name just a few, had profound impacts on the American sexual marketplace in our time? And, aren't all of these interventions inherently political in nature? If so -- and I think it fair to say that no reasonable person, regardless as to where they actually fall in terms of the current debate, would disagree -- then why shouldn't there be political interventions brought to bear on the inequities Men face in the modern day American SMP? For example, and I've discussed this before (in response to the bunk the very same lady blogger attempted to foist upon an unsuspecting public, I might add -- thank you for being the gift that keeps right on giving!) -- would making prostitution legal/destigmatized/socially sanctioned, have an effect on the SMP? Not only would my surmise be "yes", but that we actually have evidence, historically, that this would be the case -- which explains how and why there are indeed heavily invested political forces in our time, that fight tooth and nail to keep it from happening. And that's just for starters -- those same forces that attempt to control Male sexuality also fight tooth and nail against ending Paternity Fraud, to cite another clear-and-present example. Or Roe For Men, to cite another. Or attempts to make Game in general and Pickup Artists in particular, illegal. And so on. If indeed there are Men in our midst who are reproductively disenfranchised -- as my erstwhile lady interlocutor proffers -- then it is hard to see how or why said Men should NOT avail themselves of the very same levers of social, political and economic power to address their concerns, just as Women, indeed and more recently, Gays and Lesbians have done.
Advertisement
https://www.loveawake.com/free-online-dating/United-States/Massachusetts/city-of-Boston.html?page=86
https://www.loveawake.com/free-online-dating/United-States/Nevada/city-of-Las-Vegas.html?page=86
https://www.loveawake.com/free-online-dating/United-States/Florida/city-of-Orlando.html?page=86
More Flawed Arguments: The Anecdote Problem And The Entitlement Question
Squid Ink Argument #3: "It's hard out there for Women, too!" -- essentially, that not "all" Women have it so good in the dating/mating market; Women who are older, or aren't deemed to be "conventionally attractive", or who are disabled, etc., have it just as hard as do Men, when it comes to dating.
Obsidian's Response: That there are unattractive Women on the open mating market and that they encounter difficulties, does not address the question as to whether Women, taken together as a group, do or do not have a dating advantage over Men taken together as a group. For example, for the above "argument" to work, our interlocutor would have to account for why and how, down through human history, twice as many Women have genetic heirs as Men, and that there were three times as many bachelors as spinsters. All of this is per widely known and accepted DNA testing, by the way -- something that our interlocutors conveniently left out (or were they ignorant of?). A quick perusal of world history and even current events informs us that even the most homely of Women can be seen with baby strollers and carriages; a quick tour of the local maternity ward or indeed, a 'hood near you, again, bears this out, and is right in line with human historical record along these lines. If indeed the sexes were anywhere near evenly matched in terms of mating power, how then are we to account for these easily observed facts?
Squid Ink Argument #4: Men who advance the argument that Women have an "unfair dating advantage" are being dishonest -- they aren't talking about "all" Women (see above), but rather, they're talking about the "hot" Women they cannot attract -- and as such, evidence their unwarranted sense of entitlement.
Obsidian's Response: I don't know about anyone else, but I for one am very thankful that my interlocutor has brought up the question of "entitlement", because it occurs to this writer, that the ONLY time such an issue is broached, is with regard to Men -- NEVER, is it mentioned when it comes to Women. Do we really need to recount the many, many ways that Women tout how much they "deserve" thus and so in a potential mate? Need we trot out the infamous "lists" of "must haves" so many Woman harbor, regardless of her own SMP positioning? In no way do I bring up the aforementioned in an attempt to sidestep the claim being made -- I can fully and readily concede my interlocutor's point, and have indeed seen it firsthand. But that doesn't nullify my point either -- and does beg the question as to why "entitlement" is wrong when Men engage in it, but completely OK or benign whenever Women -- again, regardless of how "worthy" she is -- does it. Perhaps the very question we are examining, can shed light on this phenomenon, hmm? Think about it -- if indeed Women are the more valuable reproductive sex, it would then make sense as to how and why they could "get away" with being more "entitled" to "deserving/deserving more" in or from a potential mate; and if indeed Men are the lesser-valued reproductive sex, it would then make sense for any individual Man to "make demands" to be seen as unseemly in some way; he should be grateful that he "got lucky".
Think about it...
The Scientific Reality: Evolution, Female Choice, And Reproductive Investment
Now that we have cleared all the squid ink out of the room, we may now approach the central question as to whether one sex -- Women -- have "totalitarian power in dating" -- or whether the sexes -- Men and Women alike -- have equal shares of power in the dating dance. Early on in this post, I gave a few glimpses into this question by citing clear and present examples and instances where it was hard to see how the latter proposition could be true, and where the former was in fact quite evident by even the most casual of observation (or, if you're a Woman, direct experience). Now we take things one step further, by going right to the source of EvoPsych: Darwin.
EvoPsych holds that human nature itself is an outgrowth of Humanity's long history of interaction with the Earth's environment over time, and as well, with each other. This latter point is hugely important, because it focuses in on what Darwin called sexual selection. Among the many things he discovered in his research, was the fact that there were deep and profound sex differences between the males and females of just about any species. If indeed the proposition is true, that the sexes have "equal dating power", how then are we to account for these differences? Why would they have them at all? What purpose would they serve?
Darwin also discovered in his researches, that the female of just about any species, was far and away more choosy in whom they mated with, than the males. Again, if the sexes are equally matched in terms of dating power, how then are we to explain this fact? Why would the sexes be so very different along these lines? Our interlocutors don't address this. Of course.
But, Darwin discovered, that Female Mate Choice was the driver of pretty much all mammalian mating -- which explains how and why there are more bachelors than spinsters throughout the animal kingdom. This is because, at least in large part, those males lacked the desirable traits that females selected for, and instead shunned them for mating. This is true in humans as well; recall the DNA study undertaken which showed that more Women have genetic heirs than Men -- twice as many, in fact -- and that there are three times as many bachelors as spinsters, again, down through human history. If indeed the sexes were evenly matched in terms of dating power, as our interlocutors claim, how then do they account for this fact, among a great many others? They don't.
Eggs Expensive, Sperm Cheap: The Economics Of Reproduction
It is now common knowledge that the sexes are not the same when it comes to the raw building materials it takes to reproduce (even our erstwhile lady interlocutor acknowledges this truth, yet how she is able then to keep up the cognitive dissonance with her "argument is quite well beyond my capacity). Women are born with roughly 400 eggs -- that's it -- and they degrade over time. On the other hand, the average Man will produce, over the course of his lifetime, some 16 gallons of sperm, with nowhere near the kind of degradation in quality that Women will experience with their eggs. Simple Econ 101, that is, Supply and Demand, then informs us, that the eggs are more valuable in reproductive terms than the sperm under most conditions and for all intents and practical purposes. Being that this is indeed the case, it would be astonishing if Men and Women acted in exactly the same way when it came to the mating/dating arena, wouldn't it? Again: if indeed the sexes are equally matched in terms of "dating power", how then are we to explain the above? What evidence can we offer to explain it? The interlocutors don't say.
Following up on the above point, we also now know, that it takes only one act of sex for a Man to potentially reproduce -- an event that can take seconds(!) and then walk away -- whereas for a Woman, that same "one act of sex" takes a bare minimum of nine months, the rigors and real dangers of childbirth, and at least another year weaning the child. Again: how do the "Sexes Have Equal Power In Dating" Crowd, account for this?
Real-World Evidence: Bars, Clubs, Porn, Swingers And Online Dating Asymmetries
If indeed the sexes are evenly matched in terms of "dating power", how then are we to account for the Swinging community, where there are clear and present, often stark, differences between Men and Women? There, even old(er), less attractive Women take precedence in importance and indeed hold more sway over the proceedings, than young(er), strapping Men. In fact, single Women are highly sought after in such environments, whereas single Men are almost universally shunned -- only those Men who are able to bring along a Woman, may enter to begin with.
How about the Porn (for Men) world, where, contrary to popular opinion, Women make far and away more money and have more influence than do Men (with the notable exception of a handful of veteran male actors -- the true Alpha males of the porn world)? This is true even down to the "pro-am" and "gonzo" levels of porn -- in other words, porn that focuses on amatuers and "no-name" actors. At every point in the porn world chain and scale, Women make more money than do Men, and, Women have more say in what goes down, or what does not go down, than do Men. In fact, it is not at all unusual for a relatively unknown Woman actress, to refuse working with a relatively well known Man actor, for thus and so reason -- and it will stick. And if said relatively well known actor isn't possible, said relatively unknown actresses can totally derail, if not destroy, his career, by badmouthing him -- such a thing nearly happened to T.T. Boy, who started up Evasive Angles as a result.
Earlier in my post, I mentioned speed dating, Ladies Night at bars and niteclubs and so forth; now I bring in another dimension for our interlocutor's consideration: online dating services. OKCupid, Plenty of Fish, Match.com and many other services, always have more Men than Women on them, where it is documented that Women, even the lesser attractive ones, always get more responses from Men than lesser attractive Men get from Women -- and unless I miss my guess, it is the Men who pay the higher fees -- Women either get reduced fees or pay nothing at all. Again, if the sexes are indeed equally matched in terms of "dating power", how are they to explain all of these phenomena? Saying that "Ew! Women don't relish bedding down the first Man that she sees at a bar or niteclub" is NOT answering my questions. Saying that "Most Women don't want to work in Porn" is NOT answering my questions. Saying that "Most Women don't want to be Swingers" is NOT answering my questions. Saying that "It's hard out there for fill-in-the-blank Women, too!", is NOT answering my questions. Saying that "The kind of attention most Women get from most Men is not the kind of attention from the kind of Men she wants" is NOT answering my questions. If you're serious when you make or suggest the claim that the sexes are somehow evenly matched in terms of "dating power", you then have to explain how and why they are, with compelling evidence that rivals or exceeds that which I have presented in this post. Anecdotal, vague platitudes designed to placate the hindbrains, mainly of certain Women (but a not insignificant number of Men too) who do indeed have it hard out there on the open dating market, do not a compelling counter-argument make.
Female Preference, Alpha Selection, And The Romance Novel Corpus
As for the notion that "all" Women don't desire an "Alpha male" -- of course not. But then, please cite for me, and by this I would need to see links, who actually made such a statement to begin with? I'll wait...
In the meantime though, I'll say this -- "all" Women may not desire an "Alpha male", but it is very clear that MOST do. How do I know that, you ask? A little birdie called "A Billion Wicked Thoughts", in a chapter called "Ladies Prefer Alphas"(!) told me:
The romance novel has long been described as "pornography for women". This is a somewhat misleading and unfair comparison. After all, would we characterize gangbang porn as "romance for men"? However, the comparison is apt in one respect. As we've seen in previous chapters, porn reveals the sexual cues that activate male desire. "The romance novel is a chronicle of female mate choice", assert Catherine Salmon and Donald Symons in their book, Warrior Lovers, in which the heroine overcomes obstacles to identify, win, and marry the hero, who embodies the physical, psychological, and social characteristics that constituted high male mate value during the course of human history.
The above excerpt is important because it frames the proper context for what we are attempting to suss out here, as to whether a plurality -- not "all" -- Women do or do not prefer Alpha males. According to the Romance Writers of America, romance fiction generated $1.37 billion in sales in 2008. The romance genre has the single largest share of the fiction market. More people buy romances than detective novels, thrillers, science fiction, or science nonfiction. At least 74.8 million people read a romance novel in 2008...and more than 90 percent of these readers are women.
Ogas and Gaddam, the authors of "A Billion Wicked Thoughts", goes on to explain that romance novels -- for all practical purposes "Porn for Women" -- eclipses Porn for Men in terms of sales. Sure, you could quibble over the fact that the sales year numbers they cited is, as of 2014, a bit dated -- until you factor in things like the rise of ebooks, "slash" and other forms of "fan fiction", "erotic romance" like the runaway smash hit "Fifty Shades of Grey" and so forth. Simply put, for all the attention Porn for Men gets, Porn for Women is so ubiquitous, it's like comparing the water that surrounds a fish. Again -- "all" Women may not go in for "Porn for Women", but couldn't we say the same thing of Men -- that "all" of them don't go in for "Porn for Men"? Of course not, because saying such a thing is in practical terms, silly; the point here, then, is that quite a few -- a plurality of Women, in fact -- DO go in for "Porn for Women" -- and as we're about to see, they ALL do indeed go in for a particular type of guy.
Here are the ten most common professions of the hero, derived by psychologists Maryanne Fisher and Tami Meredith from the titles of more than 15,000 Harlequin romance novels:
Doctor, Cowboy, Boss, Prince, Rancher, Knight, Surgeon, King, Bodyguard, Sheriff
Conspicuously absent from the list of romance heroes are blue-collar workers (no janitors or welders), bureaucrats (no claims adjusters or associate marketing managers), and traditionally feminine professions (no hairdressers, secretaries, or kindergarten teachers). All of the hero professions are associated with status, confidence, and competence. As Henry Kissinger famously said, "Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac." Power is a reflection of a man's rank in the dominance hierarchy, and women are attracted to the men at the top or near the top. The man at the very top is known as the alpha male.
Aww, suki-suki now! Now we’re getting to the good stuff. Let’s continue:
Now let's consider what this means for how to be what women want. Alphas are natural leaders -- that's pretty much the definition of the alpha -- with a strong protective streak and a fierce confidence in their own abilities. They're who women reach for when the bullets start flying. If anyone in the future from this point going forward poses such a question to you, all you need do in response is show them the evidence above.
In case you haven’t been aware, there’s been a kind of “Who’s on First?” running debate over the past few years as exactly what, constitutes an Alpha male – well, the above, written by a Woman who pays her light bill by making the ladies panties wet, has to my mind at least, settled the matter. If anyone in the future from this point going forward poses such a question to you, all you need do in response is show them the above quote.
So, before we continue, let’s sum up what we’ve got thus far:
1. Most Women prefer Alpha males.
2. The Alpha male in the sexual/mating mind of Woman is clearly defined.
3. We have all manner of evidence from across the animal spectrum, as to these preferences -- and when it comes to human females, the Romance Novel is a powerful corpus of evidence. Among other things.
One more lengthy quote is called for here, to put to bed, at the last, these silly “questions” and “arguments” as to the core of Female Desire; let’s go for it:
“Study after study has demonstrated the erotic appeal of male dominance. Women prefer the voices of dominant men, the scent of dominant men, the movement of dominant men, and the facial features of dominant men. The social organization of most primates features a very clear dominance hierarchy. Chimpanzees and baboons boast alpha males, who obtain that position through a combination of physical strength and political savvy, while alpha gorillas attain their status through brute size and strength. Scientists believe that the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex may be responsible for processing cues indicating social status or dominance, and it appears that almost all female brains are susceptible to dominance cues.”
“Biologists have discovered that the ventrolateral region of the prefrontal cortex in female chimpanzees is associated with the determination of other chimps’ position in a dominance hierarchy. The sexual authority of the alpha is also recognized by the Pickup Artist culture made famous by Neil Strauss in his book The Game. This male “seduction community” has developed a set of techniques its practitioners use to seduce women. The techniques are designed to activate women’s psychological cues in the same way that Botox, collagen, and implants are designed to artificially trigger men’s visual cues. One of the central commandments of pickup artists is to “always be alpha.” As seduction community spokesman Roissy states on his blog, “You don’t have to be an asshole, but if you have no choice, being an inconsiderate asshole beats being a polite beta, every time.” (pp. 96)
Without question, Roissy has said a number of quite controversial things over the years – I have personally taken him to task on what I consider his gratuitous and unnecessary mean spiritedness and rank racism myself, numerous times – but when it comes to the stuff we’re talking about right here – Female Desire – is he flat out wrong? And if so, why in the world would two world class scholars in the computer and brain sciences like Ogas and Gaddam, quote him? Or, for that matter, Strauss? Could it be because these guys – Roissy and Strauss – are on to something? That what they’ve seen, observed and done over the years, lines up uncannily with the emerging science, and other forms of evidence along these lines – like those oh-so-ubiquitous romance novels?
Those who would “argue” that “all” Women don’t desire Alpha males, must, if they’re intellectually honest that is, grapple with and answer these questions.
Are The Sexes Equal In Terms Of “Dating Power”?
Now that we have cleared all the squid ink out of the room, we may now approach the central question as to whether one sex – Women – have “totalitarian power in dating” – or whether the sexes – Men and Women alike – have equal shares of power in the dating dance. Early on in this post, I gave a few glimpses into this question by citing clear and present examples and instances where it was hard to see how the latter proposition could be true, and where the former was in fact quite evident by even the most casual of observation (or, if you’re a Woman, direct experience). Now we take things one step further, by going right to the source of EvoPsych: Darwin.
EvoPsych holds that human nature itself is an outgrowth of Humanity’s long history of interaction with the Earth’s environment over time, and as well, with each other. This latter point is hugely important, because it focuses in on what Darwin called sexual selection. Among the many things he discovered in his research, was the fact that there were deep and profound sex differences between the males and females of just about any species. If indeed the proposition is true, that the sexes have “equal dating power”, how then are we to account for these differences? Why would they have them at all? What purpose would they serve?
Female Mate Choice
Darwin also discovered in his researches, that the female of just about any species, was far and away more choosy in whom they mated with, than the males. Again, if the sexes are equally matched in terms of dating power, how then are we to explain this fact? Why would the sexes be so very different along these lines? Our interlocutors don’t address this. Of course.
But, Darwin discovered, that Female Mate Choice was the driver of pretty much all mammalian mating – which explains how and why there are more bachelors than spinsters throughout the animal kingdom. This is because, at least in large part, those males lacked the desirable traits that females selected for, and instead shunned them for mating. This is true in humans as well; recall the DNA study undertaken which showed that more Women have genetic heirs than Men – twice as many, in fact – and that there are three times as many bachelors as spinsters, again, down through human history. If indeed the sexes were evenly matched in terms of dating power, as our interlocutors claim, how then do they account for this fact, among a great many others? They don’t.
Eggs Expensive, Sperm Cheap
It is now common knowledge that the sexes are not the same when it comes to the raw building materials it takes to reproduce (even our erstwhile lady interlocutor acknowledges this truth, yet how she is able then to keep up the cognitive dissonance with her “argument is quite well beyond my capacity). Women are born with roughly 400 eggs – that’s it – and they degrade over time. On the other hand, the average Man will produce, over the course of his lifetime, some 16 gallons of sperm, with nowhere near the kind of degradation in quality that Women will experience with their eggs. Simple Econ 101, that is, Supply and Demand, then informs us, that the eggs are more valuable in reproductive terms than the sperm under most conditions and for all intents and practical purposes. Being that this is indeed the case, it would be astonishing if Men and Women acted in exactly the same way when it came to the mating/dating arena, wouldn’t it? Again: if indeed the sexes are equally matched in terms of “dating power”, how then are we to explain the above? What evidence can we offer to explain it? The interlocutors don’t say.
Obligatory Parental Investment
Following up on the above point, we also now know, that it takes only one act of sex for a Man to potentially reproduce – an event that can take seconds(!) and then walk away – whereas for a Woman, that same “one act of sex” takes a bare minimum of nine months, the rigors and real dangers of childbirth, and at least another year weaning the child. Again: how do the “Sexes Have Equal Power In Dating” Crowd, account for this?
More Examples From The Real World
If indeed the sexes are evenly matched in terms of “dating power”, how then are we to account for the Swinging community, where there are clear and present, often stark, differences between Men and Women? There, even old(er), less attractive Women take precedence in importance and indeed hold more sway over the proceedings, than young(er), strapping Men. In fact, single Women are highly sought after in such environments, whereas single Men are almost universally shunned – only those Men who are able to bring along a Woman, may enter to begin with.
How about the Porn (for Men) world, where, contrary to popular opinion, Women make far and away more money and have more influence than do Men (with the notable exception of a handful of veteran male actors – the true Alpha males of the porn world)? This is true even down to the “pro-am” and “gonzo” levels of porn – in other words, porn that focuses on amatuers and “no-name” actors. At every point in the porn world chain and scale, Women make more money than do Men, and, Women have more say in what goes down, or what does not go down, than do Men. In fact, it is not at all unusual for a relatively unknown Woman actress, to refuse working with a relatively well known Man actor, for thus and so reason – and it will stick. And if said relatively well known actor isn’t possible, said relatively unknown actresses can totally derail, if not destroy, his career, by badmouthing him – such a thing nearly happened to T.T. Boy, who started up Evasive Angles as a result. It’s all in the book “Stiffed” by Susan Faludi, in the chapter called “Waiting For Wood” – look it up. By the way, for those who still cling to the notion that some Women have it hard out there – what I am saying cuts across all genres of Porn, too – Midgets, BBWs, MILFs, you name it, they all have the same degree of influence and money making ability, when compared to the males acting in the very same movies, again, the very small handful of Alpha male porn actors notwithstanding. Unless you’re talking about Gay Porn, Men, taken together as a group, have very little power or sway, in the Porn world. Women rule.
Earlier in my post, I mentioned speed dating, Ladies Night at bars and niteclubs and so forth; now I bring in another dimension for our interlocutor’s consideration: online dating services. OKCupid, Plenty of Fish, Match.com and many other services, always have more Men than Women on them, where it is documented that Women, even the lesser attractive ones, always get more responses from Men than lesser attractive Men get from Women – and unless I miss my guess, it is the Men who pay the higher fees – Women either get reduced fees or pay nothing at all. Again, if the sexes are indeed equally matched in terms of “dating power”, how are they to explain all of these phenomena? Saying that “Ew! Women don’t relish bedding down the first Man that she sees at a bar or niteclub” is NOT answering my questions. Saying that “Most Women don’t want to work in Porn” is NOT answering my questions. Saying that “Most Women don’t want to be Swingers” is NOT answering my questions. Saying that “It’s hard out there for fill-in-the-blank Women, too!”, is NOT answering my questions. Saying that “The kind of attention most Women get from most Men is not the kind of attention from the kind of Men she wants” is NOT answering my questions. If you’re serious when you make or suggest the claim that the sexes are somehow evenly matched in terms of “dating power”, you then have to explain how and why they are, with compelling evidence that rivals or exceeds that which I have presented in this post. Anecdotal, vague platitudes designed to placate the hindbrains, mainly of certain Women (but a not insignificant number of Men too) who do indeed have it hard out there on the open dating market, do not a compelling counter-argument make.
In Summation
At the beginning of this post, I mentioned Valentine's Day -- a holiday that rivals Mother's Day in terms of being, for all intents and practical purposes, wholly female-focused. Just watching television commercials bears this fact out: notice all the "Kay Jewelers" and other adverts, ALL of whom are focused on the Man giving a gift to the Woman. Given what we've discussed above, it is hard to see how this is not an outgrowth of the biological realities that undergird our mating/dating realities. Men offer gifts to the Women as inducements to mate, and which is something that again, is seen throughout the animal kingdom; rare is the female that offers a gift to the male as an inducement to mate. Indeed, her granting access to her body reproductively, IS the "gift"(!) -- and as such, once again explains how and why, there can be no such thing, as "equality of the sexes" out there on the dating market.
Moreover, in the context of demands and expectations in a relationship, Women consistently filter Men far more aggressively than the inverse. Each relationship that doesn't lead to marriage is a filter process to help decode what they REALLY want in a partner. This dynamic operates at every stage of the dating process, reinforcing the reality that Women retain the selective power while Men must continually prove their worth and value.
Therefore, I submit, based on the evidence above, that the "claim" on the part of Manospherians, that Women DO indeed hold a plurality of the cards in the dating world, is TRUE. And until the interlocutors can provide compelling evidence to the contrary, it shall remain so.
As I've said before, and I will continue to assert: the easiest way to understand any problem, is to use Occam's Razor -- not a dull butterknife.
We here look forward to debunking more of the "myth busting" nonsense of the naysayers in the very near future.
Happy Valentine's Day!
Now adjourn your arses.
