20% of men get 80% of women?

Post Reply New Topic

Humans are naturally serial-monogamous, I didn't say we are naturally polygamous.

But the 1 man - 1 woman forever is an artificial product.

Monogamy has a great advantage of limiting STD spreading and for bonding, which is advantageous for the offspring.

By the way, strict Monogamy is very rare in nature, out of the 5000+ mammal species, only 5% are strictly monogamous, among those (the 5%) are the wolves and foxes.

Which again why is so stupid to debunk the "Alpha man" thing by referring to wolves, yeah, we get it, wolves don't have alpha males, but that doesn't mean humans don't.

Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 16 Mar 2016, 7:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

All long-term committed relationships begin with the initial attraction, as well as the early "hot for you" phase, both of which firmly follow the 80/20 rule. No one leapfrogs from "hi, how are you" to "together forever" (which I misguidedly tried to do with my first girlfriend). So there is no real way to bypass the 80/20 rule, except to act in ways that make women think you're an alpha male, even when you're not. A.k.a. PUA.

First, the 80/20 rule only applies to NTs. Second, even NT women will lower their standards in order to get a partner. NT women might very well aspire to get the alpha-male, but few of them will persist with that, unless they are alpha-females themselves. Because online dating sites have many more males than females, the females can afford to be more picky than they would be in real life, which explains part of the pattern seen on OkC. Another factor with online dating is that many people are there only to play-around, and have no serious interest in getting a partner that way, which also causes women to increase their demands.

That is interesting. Wolves do have a strong 'Alpha Male' sense. Or at least I got that from a recent study that showed the pack became very stressed/vocal when the Alpha was removed from view. Much more then when your average Joe Blow pack member was removed. It may be more of a 'Leader' situation in the case of a pack however.

^^ not really, the alpha sense was actually seen in wolves in captivity - but not in nature.

In nature, alpha wolf = daddy or mommy.

Yeah, and then the alpha sense is also only seen in humans in captivity (IOW, in advanced cultures), and not in nature (typical hunter-gather societies).

I don't believe for a moment that non-monogamy is linked to neurodiversity because it requires emotional multitasking that most ND people are incapable of. ND people are highly rigid and resistant to change. Poly types are those who can handle rejection in large amounts without being affected by it because the move in and out of relationships just like many "alpha" male types.

And FYI, there are more and more NT women who are choosing single motherhood. Particularly those who are involved in countercultures and alternative lifestyles because not only are they able to provide financially for their offspring but they are not willing to give up their sexual freedom for a meaningful, long-term relationship.

Violence among males is a problem for civilizations but it is very common in tribal societies as a way for men to compete with each other and women to select the strongest males. And there ARE tribal societies where men do not raise children and women are non-monogamous, like the Tlingit.

I think that is incorrect. Polyamory doesn't require any emotional multitasking at all. To the contrary. Polyamory is the absence of emotional multitasking, and most importantly, the absence of emotional competition between several people. If having feelings for more than one person triggers competition, then you are not truly polyamory. That's also why polygamy in some Middle Eastern cultures is not polyamory. It's an artificial context where the women involved are forced to tolerate each others, and they probably typically will compete with each others a lot.



Certainly, but that has no connection to polyamory. These women chose to be single because they have too high standards, and then have short-lived associations with alpha types instead. People that are polyamory chose to live long-term with multiple people. They don't avoid long-term relationships.



It's possible, but I'm not convinced. Most of these stories are from Africa, or other tropical regions, and the Tlingit are from Northern Asia if I remember it correctly, and I doubt they can be compared with tropical people.

What is your evidence that NT people actively prefer monogamy as opposed to non-monogamy? Because in western societies the stigma against female non-monogamy is actively eroding as more and more women are participating in hookup culture and modern technology makes it easier for women in particular to cheat behind their partners backs.

There is a much better explanation for female monogamy that does not involve evopsych: The concept of property and inheritance. When a woman with multiple partners gets pregnant, it is often impossible to determine who the father is without DNA paternity testing and this makes it impossible to keep track of who's related to whom. That's why marriage was invented along with the requirement of monogamy.

When women have babies they need A provider, but it need not be the biological father.

Just a tangent but something that kinda jumped out at me.

One real change in recent years is the age people first marry.

Sweden leads with an average age of 36 for men and 33 for women, but it looks like most all countries are following the trend. When I was born the average age was around 20-21.

My great grandmother was married at 13. (Italy)

I wonder if the trend will continue and how far it will go. Will marriage only become something done in retirement communities?

I don't find hooking up/casual dating to feel very natural and whenever it's happened to me I actually thought the guy was genuinely interested in a relationship with me only to be dissapointed and feel rather used once I found out they really just wanted to hook up for sexual purposes. I suppose if both parties initially agree it's just a hook-up and neither expect anything more from it then perhaps it would be a better experience....however I'll likely never personally experience that as I am now in a LTR.

I also have to say I have never found the stereotypical 'alpha male' in the least bit attractive. Even if they have an appealing physical appearance that persona just ruins it...I don't want a guy who's trying to one up everyone and be 'the best' all the time who treats everyone like a competition.

Also in the animal world some animals mate for life, so there is really nothing 'unnatural' about monogamous relationships in humans as it occurs in nature. And how do we know monogamous relationships didn't come before 'marriage culture' whatever the hell that is? Also the idea of having women just sleep around producing offsping they then have to care for doesn't sound very efficient...whilst a couple having a child and both raising it sounds a bit more natural. That aside there are still a significant amount of people who strongly dislike the idea of seeing more than one person romantically at a time...so natural instinct or not it's still pretty ingrained anyways.

Also some of you have mentioned levels of attractiveness, and even where you stand on the scale...Can someone please link me to this universal scale of attractiveness so I can determine whether me and my boyfriend are attractive or not. I think he's attractive and he thinks I am but according to this attractiveness scale people seem to go by that I can't wrap my head around maybe we're both super ugly.

Attractiveness has kind of a dual nature: It is subjective but there is some statistical objectivity to it. Bear in mind that you are only ONE PERSON and your preferences don't necessarily reflect statistical patterns(there are always outliers, you very well might be one of them).

But when it comes to women, I think I can say that for more than 50% of men, extreme body types are a turn-off. If you're exceedingly skinny or morbidly obese. What guys like is when your waist circumference is noticeably smaller than that of your hips. If your waist is much, much larger than your hips or your waist/hip ratio appears to be 1:1 that is unappealing to most men.

20-80 looks way too balanced to be true to me. I'd expect something more like 5-95.

"Yeah, and then the alpha sense is also only seen in humans in captivity (IOW, in advanced cultures), and not in nature (typical hunter-gather societies). :wink"

Hey, I agree with you on that.

Hunter-gatherer societies were and are still more economically egalitarian, think of it as primitive communism.

But what about sexuality? Did a man and woman stayed "married" for good? Does all males have equal chances of mating? or is it based on some male performance in something?

Its extremely subjective.

But I think it can be much simplified. To me only one person's opinion is important: the person you want to be partners with. If they are satisfied with you, nothing else really matters. And if you have become partners do not forget them in this way, but always try to keep yourself satisfying to them as well as your own self esteem.