4 ms·

Women would rather be the second wife of George Clooney than the first wife of Joe Average. Simple as that.

michaelmrose 7y ago
Turns out there are still more than enough women for all of us. Joe average actually has little challenge getting a mate same as before. The guy 3 steps down is the one with a problem that isn't manifestly different than its ever been.
- bubblewrap 7y ago
  Doesn't the data discussed in this threat directly contradict your statement of "there are more than enough women for everyone"? And so does historical data, isn't it the case that many men didn't reproduce historically, which can be seen through genetic analysis? Edit: cursory googling turns up this, for example: https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success (8,000 Years Ago, 17 Women Reproduced for Every One Man) Also from the article: "In more recent history, as a global average, about four or five women reproduced for every one man."
  - sridca 7y ago
    Baumeister indicated this in his book that I read a long time ago, but it is more like 2:1, > throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced. https://psy.fsu.edu/~baumeisterticelab/goodaboutmen.htm https://psy.fsu.edu/~baumeisterticelab/goodaboutmen.htm As someone who favours individualism and was brought up in a culture where arranged marriages are the norm I found this most shocking and interesting at the same time.
    - Fjolsvith 7y ago
      The MGTOW movement is really throwing a wrench into this. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/7bdwyx/inside-the-global-collective-of-straight-male-separatists https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/7bdwyx/inside-the-global-...
      - bubblewrap 7y ago
        I don't understand what you mean? Surely the MGTOW movement is not increasing the proportion of men who successfully reproduce, given that they seem to be about not reproducing?
  - michaelmrose 7y ago
    A survey about how much sex respondents are having doesn't tell you WHY they are having less sex. Historical reproduction ALSO isn't useful when contraception is now a prevalent thing the numbers would in no way match. Regarding the last I couldn't find the claim that 4 to 5 women reproduced for every man so I'm just going to assume you misread. I cannot imagine how this could possibly be so unless you meant within a narrow age range considering men can reproduce for most of their lives and women most do so within a narrow range. Looking at the same graph at the head of the page in 1998ish there was about 20% of the most effected age range who hadn't had sex in a year. It's now 28 and in fact the graph goes up and down and it seems that other age ranges are less effected.
    - bubblewrap 7y ago
      The sentence reads "In more recent history, as a global average, about four or five women reproduced for every one man." - in my browser it is directly above one of the charts. I think by recent history, the mean thousands of years, not the last ten years. So most of the time before contraception was available. Men being able to reproduce for most of their lives doesn't help much if they have nobody to reproduce with. I guess it helps if you can afford young wives even as you get older.
toasterlovin 7y ago
Some women pursue this strategy. But I don't think it's anywhere near most. Having a husband who will prioritize providing for you and your children above anybody else is a really valuable thing to have.
- bubblewrap 7y ago
  George Clooney is probably at least 1000 times richer than Joe Average. So he could provide better for 50 women than Joe Average for one. Of course it doesn't seems as if he is taking on 50 women, so the women are stuck with Joe Average for the most part. Just because women would prefer George Clooney, doesn't mean they can get him. And sure, modern society (at least for a while) has made monogamy the norm. Doesn't mean it is best suited for women's preferences.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > George Clooney is probably at least 1000 times richer than Joe Average. So he could provide better for 50 women than Joe Average for one. Assuming all of a woman’s needs are financial, sure. But unless he is hiring Joe Averages to provide personal attention and emotional support (and there are issues with the viability of that), not really in the universe of what appears to be real human needs.
    - toasterlovin 7y ago
      Exactly this. And having a mate who is exclusively committed to you can have a much better distribution of outcomes at the bottom end than an allowance from some rich guy who isn't very invested in you. After all, if somebody isn't committed enough to make you their one and only, why should you believe that they'll keep sending money your way.
      - bubblewrap 7y ago
        I'm not arguing women should prefer Clooney over Joe Average. Just what the general disposition of the human race is. Obviously there are all sorts of strategies for life, and all sorts of aspects to consider. It's just a general tendency, not a hard cut rule.

Turns out there are still more than enough women for all of us. Joe average actually has little challenge getting a mate same as before. The guy 3 steps down is the one with a problem that isn't manifestly different than its ever been.

bubblewrap 7y ago
Doesn't the data discussed in this threat directly contradict your statement of "there are more than enough women for everyone"? And so does historical data, isn't it the case that many men didn't reproduce historically, which can be seen through genetic analysis? Edit: cursory googling turns up this, for example: https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success (8,000 Years Ago, 17 Women Reproduced for Every One Man) Also from the article: "In more recent history, as a global average, about four or five women reproduced for every one man."
- sridca 7y ago
  Baumeister indicated this in his book that I read a long time ago, but it is more like 2:1, > throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced. https://psy.fsu.edu/~baumeisterticelab/goodaboutmen.htm https://psy.fsu.edu/~baumeisterticelab/goodaboutmen.htm As someone who favours individualism and was brought up in a culture where arranged marriages are the norm I found this most shocking and interesting at the same time.
  - Fjolsvith 7y ago
    The MGTOW movement is really throwing a wrench into this. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/7bdwyx/inside-the-global-collective-of-straight-male-separatists https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/7bdwyx/inside-the-global-...
    - bubblewrap 7y ago
      I don't understand what you mean? Surely the MGTOW movement is not increasing the proportion of men who successfully reproduce, given that they seem to be about not reproducing?
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  A survey about how much sex respondents are having doesn't tell you WHY they are having less sex. Historical reproduction ALSO isn't useful when contraception is now a prevalent thing the numbers would in no way match. Regarding the last I couldn't find the claim that 4 to 5 women reproduced for every man so I'm just going to assume you misread. I cannot imagine how this could possibly be so unless you meant within a narrow age range considering men can reproduce for most of their lives and women most do so within a narrow range. Looking at the same graph at the head of the page in 1998ish there was about 20% of the most effected age range who hadn't had sex in a year. It's now 28 and in fact the graph goes up and down and it seems that other age ranges are less effected.
  - bubblewrap 7y ago
    The sentence reads "In more recent history, as a global average, about four or five women reproduced for every one man." - in my browser it is directly above one of the charts. I think by recent history, the mean thousands of years, not the last ten years. So most of the time before contraception was available. Men being able to reproduce for most of their lives doesn't help much if they have nobody to reproduce with. I guess it helps if you can afford young wives even as you get older.

toasterlovin 7y ago

Some women pursue this strategy. But I don't think it's anywhere near most. Having a husband who will prioritize providing for you and your children above anybody else is a really valuable thing to have.

bubblewrap 7y ago
George Clooney is probably at least 1000 times richer than Joe Average. So he could provide better for 50 women than Joe Average for one. Of course it doesn't seems as if he is taking on 50 women, so the women are stuck with Joe Average for the most part. Just because women would prefer George Clooney, doesn't mean they can get him. And sure, modern society (at least for a while) has made monogamy the norm. Doesn't mean it is best suited for women's preferences.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > George Clooney is probably at least 1000 times richer than Joe Average. So he could provide better for 50 women than Joe Average for one. Assuming all of a woman’s needs are financial, sure. But unless he is hiring Joe Averages to provide personal attention and emotional support (and there are issues with the viability of that), not really in the universe of what appears to be real human needs.
  - toasterlovin 7y ago
    Exactly this. And having a mate who is exclusively committed to you can have a much better distribution of outcomes at the bottom end than an allowance from some rich guy who isn't very invested in you. After all, if somebody isn't committed enough to make you their one and only, why should you believe that they'll keep sending money your way.
    - bubblewrap 7y ago
      I'm not arguing women should prefer Clooney over Joe Average. Just what the general disposition of the human race is. Obviously there are all sorts of strategies for life, and all sorts of aspects to consider. It's just a general tendency, not a hard cut rule.