Most men don't get laid?

[Symbolic]

I remember years ago seeing this program on the discovery channel. It was about sexual attraction between men and women. I remember it saying that women, regardless of how they were rated by thier looks, got the same amount of sex. Like a ugly fat woman got just as much sex as a jessica alba woman. But for men, the good looking men got like 90% more sex than the average and below men.

 

Well here it is years later and I see in a magazine (scientific american maybe, i forget, i randomly buy different science type magazines) and a similar study was in there saying that a small amount of men court a larger majority of the women.

 

I did some google search but I can't find anything. I guess I suck at searching on google maybe? lol.

 

What do you all think of this?

[ProtestTheHero]

I have zero idea about the actual research behind this, but I've heard this mantra from the pick up community for forever. They are always saying 10% of men get with the majority of the women (albeit with the incentive to get you to pay to be one of the 10%, lol).

 

I think cultural practices speak more to this than anything. ALL types of women are approached due to subjective differences in the preferences of men (who are "in charge" of approaching), so most women have opportunities to have as much sex as they want should they be receptive to those sort of advances.

 

Now, while women's preferences can be just as diverse, women approach men way less often. Men are rarely put in a position where all they have to do is say yes or my place and then it's happy time, lol. It's just how things are set up -- few women are comfortable approaching men, and few men are attractive enough for the women to "man" up and do it.

 

So, since average to below average guys are not presented with as many opportunities to get laid as average and below average women (or women in general), I'd say there's some truth to it -- but I wouldn't begin to speculate on the actual numbers...but it wouldn't surprise me at all.

[Bad Wolf]

I remember years ago seeing this program on the discovery channel. It was about sexual attraction between men and women. I remember it saying that women, regardless of how they were rated by thier looks, got the same amount of sex. Like a ugly fat woman got just as much sex as a jessica alba woman. But for men, the good looking men got like 90% more sex than the average and below men.

 

Well here it is years later and I see in a magazine (scientific american maybe, i forget, i randomly buy different science type magazines) and a similar study was in there saying that a small amount of men court a larger majority of the women.

 

I did some google search but I can't find anything. I guess I suck at searching on google maybe? lol.

 

What do you all think of this?

 

I believe it, especially since it's the guys that have to do all the work, chicks just need to sit there and fend everyone off.. while the shy or less experienced guys get nothing..

[dr_styles]

I've seen a phrase around here along the lines of "10% of men have sex with 90% of women". Well regardless of the exact wording, it's the same point.

[capbit]

There are certainly cultural factors that needs to be factored into any study. Take for example the middle east, where many countries there tolerate polygamy. Men sometimes have two or more wives, which in turn would exclude other men from reproductive opportunities, as polygamy ultimately creates a shortage of available women.

 

There are also social pressures, as men are generally evaluated in terms of their success in life whereas women are measured by how attractive they are. Forty, fifty years ago there was only a handful of beautiful people, and we treated them like royalty. Now, not surprisingly, there are more beautiful people than their ever was and competition is much more fierce.

 

Ok, I think I'm just rambling now..

[Carl5000]

I would have thought status and wealth was more important.

 

Attraction if all a women wants is hot sex.

Status and wealth for a long term relationship and with the goal of having children.

[Huzzah_89]

I believe it, especially since it's the guys that have to do all the work, chicks just need to sit there and fend everyone off.. while the shy or less experienced guys get nothing..

 

agree 100%

[Carl5000]

I believe it, especially since it's the guys that have to do all the work, chicks just need to sit there and fend everyone off.. while the shy or less experienced guys get nothing..

 

Probably because many men have the 'any hole is a goal' mentality. Which is due to how our brains, our old dated limbic system is wired. Our drives, willing, wants are very similar to that of the ape. Only that we have a very large cunning, cultivated neo-cortex for rational thinking and thought - which thinks it's captain of the ship, when really it's the limbic system that is running the show. The neo cortex is mostly used for cunning, deception and for social intelligence - how to manipulate others is the leading theory and why we evolved intelligence. Now male apes are a cross between a challenger and pair bonding species. Down to our size on average being larger than a females. What a challenger ape will subconsciously do is try to mate with as many women as possible and spread as many genes amongst the pool. Irrespectful of the quality of the females genes. It's the numbers games,. the probabilitistic game of trying to spead alot his genetic code.

 

Whereas, a women will have to be more choosy and selective about who she will mate with. As she knows she'll have to invest 16 years of her life rearing a possible child aka she'll have to put alot more resources and time into it than the man. Therefore, she will try to sleep with the top 10%, top notch genetic material. Why do you think women like tall, well built men? it's from their evolutional past and there is nothing rational about it ie why do they require tall, well built and strong offspring in our current culture? it is a worthless trait. It proves how out dated our brains are. Tall, well built, strong men and offspring were useful and attractive to women 50,000 yrs ago for obvious survival benefits. These traits have little use in the 21st century.

 

it's because were progressing as a species faster than evolution can keep up. We have so much outdated, BS in our brains that is of zero use today. The flight, fight, freeze responses of the limbic system are a great illustration of it.

 

edit; last point, as i know a person will refute it haha. If you think we have control of attractive, desire, wanting, willing then you ask yourself a simply question "Do you will the thoughts that come into your mind"? ie Most of these are coming to you unconsciously. The drive for food, sex, water etc and you neo cortex, ur consciousness just reacts to ur unconscious. It's like a slave to ur drives, passions and wants. This quickly illustrations how little control we have. And freud was right. When he said the unconcious which is the amydlala and limbic system is all powerful. We just have all these outdated drives, attractive mechanisms for survival taht we don't even need.

 

Like the other guy..I'M RAMBLING!! haha.

[Huzzah_89]

No offense but I dont believe in evolution^

[fragmint]

its not just some 'belief' that people have , its a lot of facts and common sense.

 

if you were going to have kids and wanted a family - what kind of person would you choose? someone who you think would give you ugly , dumb kids or someone who you think would give you smart, pretty kids? someone who is financially stable so they might be able to help your kids or someone who is broke and probably wont be able to help at all?

[Bad Wolf]

No offense but I dont believe in evolution^

 

Even though there's rock hard evidence....

[Carl5000]

No offense but I dont believe in evolution^

 

LOL, I don't believe in evolution either I prefer that i'm special, made in gods image and by design.

[corvidae]

Whether or not you 'believe' in evolution the fact is that women gestate the foetus which takes a lot of time and resources, hence back in the old caveman days women had to be very fussy about what sort of offspring they gave all their precious resources to, which meant being fussy about their mate.

 

Speaking for myself, I never get laid. Women aren't interested in me because I am not good-looking enough. End of story.

[InBruges]

Even though there's rock hard evidence....

 

There's none. No one can explain how genes would mutate into more complex functioning systems. It's just a theory.

 

That's why it's the theory of evolution, not the law of evolution.

[ProtestTheHero]

its not just some 'belief' that people have , its a lot of facts and common sense.

 

if you were going to have kids and wanted a family - what kind of person would you choose? someone who you think would give you ugly , dumb kids or someone who you think would give you smart, pretty kids? someone who is financially stable so they might be able to help your kids or someone who is broke and probably wont be able to help at all?

 

I have no doubt that you are right, but it's a strange thing to try to plan given all the variables. My mom was voted best looking in high school. My dad was called "the jig" and was valedictorian...lol, you really have no idea how your kids will turn out since you can't really control those things outside of scientific/medical interference.

 

I imagine it has more to do with stability than anything else.

 

Will the anti-evolution people go find a forum (or something like fox news) to debate that issue, please? You'll get this thread locked, and arguing against something that is accepted in the scientific community is an uphill battle here.

[fragmint]

...theories are composed from FACTS.

[In the Dark]

If women do pick thier mates by thier looks, I've seen some total disasters.

I have seen some pretty couples give birth to some ugly babies.

[fragmint]

I have no doubt that you are right, but it's a strange thing to try to plan given all the variables. My mom was voted best looking in high school. My dad was called "the jig" and was valedictorian...lol, you really have no idea how your kids will turn out since you can't really control those things outside of scientific/medical interference.

 

I imagine it has more to do with stability than anything else.

 

Will the anti-evolution people go find a forum (or something like fox news) to debate that issue, please? You'll get this thread locked, and arguing against something that is accepted in the scientific community is an uphill battle here.

 

 

 

no you can't control how your kids will REALLY turn out, but if someone is going to risk it im willing to bet they will put their money on an attractive person having a higher chance of making an attractive baby than someone 'ugly' or less attractive.

 

and its not really 'planning' its just the whole instinct thing

[InBruges]

...theories are composed from FACTS.

 

A theory is just an idea that may, according to a person's or group's interpretation, fit a set of facts.

 

Take for instance Superstring theory or M-theory. It's nothing more than a mathematical idea that is being explored because the math can be made to work. But it's constantly being changed and upgraded in an attempt to fit events in the physical world. There's no evidence at all that it's correct.

[diabolik]

What do you all think of this?

I don't know about the numbers, but it's obvious that a minority of men have lots of sex, another minority of men get no sex, and there's a continuum in between, whereas any woman can get laid to her heart's content.

 

Even on ENA we see this. How many threads do we see from women bemoaning the fact that they can't find someone to have sex with? How many from guys?

 

PTH laid out the reasons in his first post in this thread, and I'd agree, except for the assertion that it's about looks. I'd define male 'attractiveness' as being much more than about looks.

 

But an important consideration is that our culture of lifelong monogamy tends to even things out a bit in the sense that almost every guy gets married, which theoretically gets him access to regular sex. And since almost every woman is looking for a marriage partner at some point, she will date and have sex with men during her search, which also increases sexual opportunities for the average man.

 

If not for this practice of lifelong monogamy, the disparity in sexual opportunities between 'attractive' men and 'unattractive' men would be far greater than it is today, and would continue beyond our pre-marriage years (though obviously it still does to some extent through adultery). Such a world would probably be very unstable b/c there would be too many sexually deprived men who would be agitating for change.

[ProtestTheHero]

no you can't control how your kids will REALLY turn out, but if someone is going to risk it im willing to bet they will put their money on an attractive person having a higher chance of making an attractive baby than someone 'ugly' or less attractive.

 

and its not really 'planning' its just the whole instinct thing

 

Yeah, I guess 50% chance of having an attractive child is better than 25% or whatever else it would be if both parents are ugly or something. I really have no idea how it works because it skipped me and my brother, lol. Seems kinda random to me, like you get some shared traits like bone structure and eye color but the rest...eh.

[dr_styles]

But an important consideration is that our culture of lifelong monogamy tends to even things out a bit in the sense that almost every guy gets married, which theoretically gets him access to regular sex.

 

A bit OT but if you're on eNA chances are you're ontrack to being the exception.

[Sunflour]

The research makes sense. Males have a biological imperative to spread their seed as widely as possible. Sperm, in biological terms, is cheap and easy to come by (pardon the pun). Whereas females have a biological imperative to choose the best genetic material they can get for the very limited number of offspring they can produce, and the strongest protector to help keep those offspring safe. Ergo: women need to be a lot pickier than men.

 

Obviously we aren't living in jungles and caves anymore, so whether those imperatives are functional or dysfunctional these days is kind of a toss-up. But it makes biological sense.

[Gratsy]

I have some thoughts to add. I don't buy all the "because cavemen did this and thats why we do this" type of thing. I think sex is highly desirable for men, and it is something that makes it harder for loyalties, but I think I read stats somewhere that men and women cheat the same amount. If you're a cheater, you're a cheater...there is no overriding scientific explanation.

 

 

As far as people having more sex...I know about 35% of the women in the circles I run in are virgins. Were your numbers taken from American people, or globally??

 

I don't think men just want to bang anything they can and I don't think women care only about looks.

 

Its true that some guys are more desirable on a whole...these guys are good looking, charming, and smiley, happy guys who have their own lives. But different people want different things. Some women find the type of guy who is explicitly defined by a lot of women liking him as a turn off, because it means he's probably been really spoiled by all those women. I don't think that there is this idea that 10% of guys have access to all the women. Maybe in the club where the only thing that matters is how you look, since the atmosphere is not where people go looking for their forever-mate.

 

If anything, I've seen men be militantly brutal to women who are overweight, compared to women just shunning a guy for not being goodlooking.

 

In fact, I think men can be way more picky than women.

 

About stupid things, though, like whether she is "wild" enough, or tan enough, or at the gym enough.

 

I've seen plenty of men who aren't that good looking get beautiful women because they had other desirable traits: humor, confidence, stability, loyalty...

 

As far as money goes, anyone who isn't an idiot would recognize that a FACTOR that is important for most women is the idea that they will be able to safely raise a family because the guy can provide food. It doesn't mean they want the richest guy ever, but that they want someone who can provide for obvious reasons ...like eventually starvation of her entire family.

[happylady]

What Gratsy said