Preface: Men want women, women need men
This is the reality of the world. A reality that is deeply offensive to women. A reality that is vehemently denied with cries of: sTrUhNgZ iNdUyPyNdYnT wYmYnZ who needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle…
Nevertheless, the reality of the world is that women without men would die off, in a very short time.
Women absolutely need men, period. They are incapable of adequately manipulating the environment to produce (and maintain) enough stuff to live on.
Men always did the bulk of the heavy lifting to keep society going. Men are still responsible for the bulk of all the critical infrastructure, to this very day. Men do not need women to survive.
Thus, women absolutely need men, but men don't need women. Men want women.
The question is: why? What can a woman offer to a man that sparks such insane desire within him?
There are several theories, each with their own flaws. I will address three common answers to this question.
Sex - men want women for sex
This is definitely true. Men do want women for sex. However, this cannot be the full answer.
If sex was the primary motivation for men's desire for women, hedonistic casual sex would have been the primary thing that men chased throughout history.
It isn't though.
While it's true that people always chased after fine side dishes - it's also true that marriage has always been a higher value for most men. Even for those who managed to get some on the side. It's even in the name: side piece.
"Why buy the cow, if you can get the milk for free?". This is a saying that speaks about women who only have sex to offer. That's when full investment in her brand is a stupid waste of money. But men throughout history did "buy the cow".
Sex is extremely important, but it is not everything. It is not worth the enormous cost and responsibility of marriage - for sex alone.
Family - men want women for family
This as well, is definitely true. Men do want women for family building. However, this too cannot be the full answer.
If family was the primary motivation (for men's desire for women), there would be no reason to marry for a lifetime. Marriage would be an arrangement for the duration of birthing and raising the children.
Additionally, there would be no reason for older widowers to remarry. As they cannot build a new family with a postmenopausal woman.
Yet, second marriages have always been a thing. If family was the primary motivation for men's desire for women, second marriages would have been exceedingly rare throughout history.
Family is extremely important, but it is not everything. It is not worth the enormous cost and responsibility of marriage - for a lifetime(!!!) - for family alone.
Companionship - men want women for companionship
This one is laughable. Sure, there is some truth to this. Sure, having someone around makes life less lonely. Sure… but let's respond to this one as well.
Marriage is a lifelong commitment that is exceedingly expensive. Women are expensive and men have to pay said expenses.
Women are also highly emotional. Their emotional roller coaster is annoying at best. Their way of thinking often makes no sense to us. There are many other parts of their personalities that drive us crazy in one way or another.
We put up with it out of duty to our commitment. We tolerate it and try to be patient, out of love. But if it was companionship that we sought - a male roommate would be immeasurably cheaper and with less drama.
Thus, it is only delusional pampered women, who claim companionship as their reason to marry. Even this claim, is often a euphemism for something else…
Conclusion
Now that, these three - commonly touted - reasons, have been shown to be lacking. It raises the question: what is the motivation behind the insanely powerful desire that men have for women?
Why in the world, would a man take on such enormous responsibility, such an enormous investment, with such enormous risk? What value can a woman possibly bring to his life that would outweigh all of this?
(Here I have addressed three common reasons for why men want women. I did not address the answer of - for LOOOOOVE - because 1) what does that even mean? And 2) that topic requires its own discussion. This will partially be addressed in the next post).
In this post I asked a question. Next post will have an answer. Before I provide the answer, I'd like to allow the question to simmer and stew.
Cheers!
wswZtyqNGQ 1y ago
Peer pressure!
But seriously, though: societies that promote male-female bonding tend to succeed in a process that has a comparative advantage to societies of other variations. Hence we see a evolutionary-theoretical process of "survival of the fittest" of societies where the balance tends towards male-female bonding. The proximate causes for this balance are academic.
SSeuSS 1y ago
IMOs
We have never lived that long. Your neo cortex comes with this conclusion, but small head doesn't comprehend.
Male threat and competition, maybe. same thing as above - we might have innate distrust because we might get killed in sleep
my answer is we have same drive as animals, to get us to survive our bodies created dna drive/chemicals in brain to make us WANT TO FUCK like rabbits and to bond/cooperate to give the offspring the best chance to survive and develop. Glazed with chemicals not to kill them all in 1min rage. Rest was natural selection.
Interesting thing is how all this fucking chemicals get into existence in such complicated manner and in such variety.
Loneliness-inc Mod 1y ago
This is simply not true.
Life expectancy may have been shorter in the past, but women also died in childbirth and disease. In harsher times, there are more widows and widowers - not fewer.
According to your small head - a postmenopausal woman is utterly unattractive.
This just strengthens the question, posed in the post.
Friendship always existed. It's not that difficult to find a close friend to live with. Definitely much easier than living with a woman.
Animals don't marry.
Animals don't remain committed through dead bedrooms, neglect and abuse.
If we'd act solely on our animalistic tendencies, our relationships would look vastly different.
SSeuSS 1y ago
I'm out of depth anyway. As that would go as far as how much bonding chemicals did we inherit from animals ancestors and how much our neocortex was influenced and how much feedback exists between both. As if we did inherit a lot we would just follow programming - bond - mate.
Postmenopausal women probably were super rare occurrence. We died young. Likely there was plenty of bond-mate cycles, especially in case of alpha. If we lived up to 100 it would not change as this is chemical cycle. What might change we would bond with one and mate with other.
We might be changing it now by checking out. That is if feedback exchange works between both heads and will take some time.
For single partner. As man could be and was polygamous, man could fuck fertile chick and have 2+ women taking care of children. I can see better chance of survival for offspring. Self test: if you could inseminate bunch of woman would you say no to be given postmenopausal slave women to take care of children. Would you be happy for your mother to help out.
All this combinations. We're much better NPCs than any other animals and options are almost unlimited as in what got us here.
Not saying though I'm not interested of next chapter.
[deleted]
Loneliness-inc Mod 1y ago
But why???
Do they really? Or do they just have a much smaller social circle?
Additionally, men's desire for women is orders of magnitude stronger than women's desire for men. So when a man wants a woman - his want will be stronger. By the same token though, when he's fed up with women, this too will be stronger.
This right here, is why it's so laughable.
Read this quote again. Read it a few more times, as it's your own words.
In this dynamic that you describe, there are two players.
The man, who has to pay an enormous cost - mentally, emotionally and financially (as explained in the post) - just to hang out, pay for dinner and laugh but no sex!
One is not like the other. This is why it's the womanly mindset that touts "companionship" as a reason to marry.
Very good point. I didn't address this point in the post, but it's easy to point how this too - cannot be the full answer.
Because you don't have to marry for this benefit. You don't have to buy the candy for life. You can simply rent or borrow it.
Thank you.
Stay tuned for an answer in part two.
whytehorse2021 1y ago
I can only answer for myself but I went through stages much like modern women do. As a young man I was focused on the hawt chicks for sex. Let's call it a man's hoe phase. After age 28 I was focused on settling down and starting a family. Let's call this the man's epiphany phase. I was able to "stick the landing" and get a wife and ultimately kids. I lived in a family for 20+ years and then I was more focused on companionship. Then I went back to the beginning and focused on hawt chicks for sex. Rinse and repeat ad infinitum.
moorekom Mod 1y ago
Men manipulate the environment. Women manipulate men.
Successful procreation. Every other reason stems from that biological imperative.
Building a family? To ensure that your offsprings get a stable and nurturing environment to become successful.
Sex? Procreation.
Companionship? To build a family together.
Marriage? Only a means to ensure that your offsprings are yours and that the offsprings do not get disrupted in their upbringing or fail at their own biological imperative.
Too many layers have been added to the bare bones facts, thanks to the desire of people to provide it a grandiose purpose. There is a purpose, whether it is grandiose or not: successful procreation. Many rules in society is to make sure the pack survives, even if it ends up costing men ultimately.
Loneliness-inc Mod 1y ago
This is definitely true. However, it is an incomplete explanation.
As you said - it is the motivating factor that kick-starts everything else. However, it does not explain why we branch out in the ways that we do.
And not only do we branch out - beyond mere procreation - we do so at an enormous cost to us men.
lurkerhasarisen Mod 1y ago
This is most of it... we're simply wired this way because we're sentient animals. Some actual animals also mate for life... we're not alone in that.
But I'll add that women bring something we men lack: femininity. If we think of masculinity and femininity as occupying a spectrum rather than being a strict dichotomy, we can easily see that some men are more masculine than others and some women are more feminine than others. By-and-large, though, men prefer women who are more feminine over women who have a lot of "masculine energy" (to borrow a pop-culture phrase).
I posit that much of the reason men complain about dating is that western women have been increasingly masculinized for multiple generations.
"We became the men we were going to marry" was one of the first recognitions that women were simply (and deliberately) becoming less feminine.
Since most guys aren't homosexuals, looking around at the available women must be pretty depressing. Who wants a second-rate man as opposed to a first-rate woman?
moorekom Mod 1y ago
Yes, a comedian called Patrice O'Neal put it very succinctly when he said that a woman's model of success and power is derived from that of a successful man. We don't see a lot of women trying to be as nurturing as Mother Theresa do we?
Femininity is just an indicator of her ability to nurture your offsprings. Unlike certain animals, human women did not hunt. That left them to do the emotional side of the nurturing. If she is contentious, there is going to be strife, which is not an ideal outcome.
Loneliness-inc Mod 1y ago
Definitely.
This needs elaboration. Some points will be addressed in the next post and beyond.