Are Women the selectors in the dating game?

[Cynewald]

Men have to try and display or 'peacock' their best qualities to snare a female, be it with social power, inteligence, humour, kindness or good looks (good genes).

Women only have to look healthy/attractive, it's their most vital asset.

Agree?

[Óttar]

Spot on. The ladies have it good. For men it is a tooth and claw struggle. You had better have a good job and lots of energy. When I'm out trying to get chicks I get pooped out. All that talk about shitty sitcoms and insurance premiums.

[Osprey]

Be miles ahead of everyone else and your game is puff!
Bingo, the ladies are yours!

[Breedingvariety]

Men have to try and display or 'peacock' their best qualities to snare a female, be it with social power, inteligence, humour, kindness or good looks (good genes).

Women only have to look healthy/attractive, it's their most vital asset.

Agree?
At least men can win in fair game. Women live in the world of determinism. J/K

[Quorra]

Yes. Women are the selectors.

[PetiteParisienne]

By and large, I'd say so, yes.

[arcticwolf]

They are with one exception, if you are very smart, you control the game, you can make them want you even if you are not their type. The brain is the ultimate aphrodisiac and the biggest sex organ. ;)

[Allenson]

No question about it. Particularly now in the 'modern age'. Even ugly chicks can get action pretty much anytime they want. ;)

As for guys, looks only go so far in attracting a woman--take it from me, a handsome but somewhat poor lad. :coffee:

[Stefan]

The fact that women in the tropics could support themselves and their young may have had the sinister effect of making rape more biologically adaptive. In cold climates, where women and children could not survive without a man, the impulse to rape was seldom passed on because any resulting child was likely to die. In the tropics, where mother and child had a better chance of surviving, it would have been maladaptive not to rape. This may explain high rates of rape among African populations.

Self-supporting females in the tropics also meant that dominant men could maintain more than one woman, whereas in the north, it was beyond the abilities of most men to support more than one woman and her children. In the north, because it was the sex that hunts that could offer or withhold meat, it was men, rather than the women, who were in a better bargaining position for choosing mates. They selected for beauty, which is a good proxy for health and fertility and this, according to Mr. Fuerle, led to increased beauty in Eurasian women.

African men, on the other hand, chose multiple wives on the basis of their ability to gather food or raise crops rather than beauty. At the same time, polygamy meant that some men had no wives at all, and the remaining, smaller number of women were in a position to take their pick from among the men. Since African women, unlike northern women, could support themselves, they chose men, not according to whether they were “good providers,” but according to their beauty. Thus, writes Mr. Fuerle, African men are more handsome than African women. This may also explain data that suggest African women have higher IQs than African men: Since women selected men for beauty rather than ability, there was not as much of a premium on intelligence.

Mr. Fuerle points out that Eurasian women who live in advanced societies can now support themselves, and need not mate with the men who can best provide food and shelter. This means they can choose according to appearance — which means future generations of Eurasian men may be more handsome but less intelligent.

Another racial trait that may have been influenced by environment is the willingness to cooperate. In the north, men had to work together to bring down big game and to establish rules for sharing meat. Cooperation and respect for rules were less necessary closer to the equator, and this may explain high rates of crime and sociopathy among Africans.

[Incel King]

I refused every girl that wanted me, because wasn't fell in love with them and that's reason why I never had a girlfriend. Sounds weird, especially because I'm male, but it's truth.

Are women the selectors?

In my case not.

[ficuscarica]

I refused every girl that wanted me, because wasn't fell in love with them and that's reason why I never had a girlfriend. Sounds weird, especially because I'm male, but it's truth.

Are women the selectors?

In my case not.

I already did the same and so did other male friends. So maybe women are the selectors more often, but not always.

[Arthas]

Men have to try and display or 'peacock' their best qualities to snare a female, be it with social power, inteligence, humour, kindness or good looks (good genes).

Women only have to look healthy/attractive, it's their most vital asset.

Agree?

They are not only the selectors in the dating game, they are the selectors in the whole aspect of sex and reproduction in virtually every context. I've heard that many thousands of years ago it was the other way around.

[Breedingvariety]

Are Women the selectors in the dating game?
Individuals with higher "mate value" are selectors (in general).

[CommonSense]

Yes, such is the case in every society, other than those where religion and tradition have a firm grasp on everyday life. Only a very minor, top percentage of men who have adequate looks and wealth are able to choose.

[Papa]

I think it's cultural.

It's not like in the relation male-female the males are the only ones demanding...

Someone has to make the first step nonetheless, and it has been a male thing so far.