I Am Not an Easy Man

[Syne]

Sounds like mostly beta males who blame others for their own shortcomings.
No one, especially women, finds whiny attractive.

[Secular Sanity]

Sounds like mostly beta males who blame others for their own shortcomings.

I think humans are too complex to label them as alphas or betas.  If there is such a thing, most of them are probably in our prison system. But this well known associate professor of economics is comparing this to income inequality.  

"If we are concerned about the just distribution of property and money, why do we assume that the desire for some sort of sexual redistribution is inherently ridiculous?"

"One might plausibly argue that those with much less access to sex suffer to a similar degree as those with low income, and might similarly hope to gain from organizing around this identity, to lobby for redistribution along this axis and to at least implicitly threaten violence if their demands are not met. As with income inequality, most folks concerned about sex inequality might explicitly reject violence as a method, at least for now, and yet still be encouraged privately when the possibility of violence helps move others to support their policies. (Sex could be directly redistributed, or cash might be redistributed in compensation.)"

And this article about sex workers and robots??? I don’t think that hookers and dolls are going to increase your status.  

The Redistribution of Sex

It’s not like this discussion is out of the realm of science or evolutionary psychology, though. This type of Darwinist shit is typical.  

It’s not about getting the girl, is it?  We’re seen as commodities and status symbols.  I’ve never really taken that to heart before, but now that I think about it, I remember times when guys that I went to high school with, who’d joined the military would write me and ask if they could have a picture to tell the other guys that we were dating.  Males are more concerned with how other males view them.

Sexual Economics, Culture, Men, and Modern Sexual Trends

"Sexual marketplaces take the shape they do because nature has biologically built a disadvantage into men: a huge desire for sex that makes men dependent on women. Men’s greater desire puts them at a disadvantage, just as when two parties are negotiating a possible sale or deal, the one who is more eager to make the deal is in a weaker position than the one who is willing to walk away without the deal. Women certainly desire sex too — but as long as most women desire it less than most men, women have a collective advantage, and social roles and interactions will follow scripts that give women greater power than men. We have even concluded that the cultural suppression of female sexuality throughout much of history and across many different cultures has largely had its roots in the quest for marketplace advantage. Women have often sustained their advantage over men by putting pressure on each other to restrict the supply of sex available to men. As with any monopoly or cartel, restricting the supply leads to a higher price."

WTF?  

Do men want more power for reproductive advantages or is sex just a way to obtain more power?

IOW, is male-male competition done in order to achieve greater reproductive success or is it solely to obtain more power?

It’s more about the damn power than reproduction, isn’t it? 

Oscar Wilde was right, wasn't he? 

“Everything in the world is about sex except sex. Sex is about power.”

[confused2]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/apr/08/gender.uk

Why do ordinary, respectable men visit prostitutes? These interviews with customers at Australian brothels provide a rare insight into how some men see not just sex, but women....

"Sex doesn't necessarily mean anything to a male. I mean, it might develop into something, but initially it doesn't mean anything other than sheer excitement. But I don't think women understand that."

End extract (with thanks) from:-
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/apr/08/gender.uk

[Syne]

Sounds like mostly beta males who blame others for their own shortcomings.

I think humans are too complex to label them as alphas or betas.  If there is such a thing, most of them are probably in our prison system.  

Simple experience tells us there is a definite division between assertive and unassertive men. And just like every heuristic, it doesn't need to be "proven".
Prisons are largely filled with the insecure who act out and overcompensate, as opposed to real strength that also demonstrates control. I believe Jordan Peterson has said something to the effect that the hero has to be a controlled monster. Noble men have to be able to take extreme action, even monstrous under normal circumstances, but under the control of balancing the action to the need.

But this well known associate professor of economics is comparing this to income inequality.

I agree with his assessment of income redistribution. It does seem that people are actively trying to foster envy and resentment for political gain. As it pertains to incels, "hookers for Hillary" (who do treat sex as a commodity) comes to mind.

"If we are concerned about the just distribution of property and money, why do we assume that the desire for some sort of sexual redistribution is inherently ridiculous?"

"One might plausibly argue that those with much less access to sex suffer to a similar degree as those with low income, and might similarly hope to gain from organizing around this identity, to lobby for redistribution along this axis and to at least implicitly threaten violence if their demands are not met. As with income inequality, most folks concerned about sex inequality might explicitly reject violence as a method, at least for now, and yet still be encouraged privately when the possibility of violence helps move others to support their policies. (Sex could be directly redistributed, or cash might be redistributed in compensation.)"

All redistribution is ridiculous. The problem is people thinking they are owed something. It's a mental sickness, whether it involves the efforts of others (income) or sex.

And this article about sex workers and robots??? I don’t think that hookers and dolls are going to increase your status.  

The Redistribution of Sex

It doesn't seem to have anything to do with status. It's just something people want and some people think they deserve in an age of erroneously calling everything a right (namely a positive right, that requires others have a duty to provide for you).

It’s not like this discussion is out of the realm of science or evolutionary psychology, though. This type of Darwinist shit is typical.  

It’s not about getting the girl, is it?  We’re seen as commodities and status symbols.  I’ve never really taken that to heart before, but now that I think about it, I remember times when guys that I went to high school with, who’d joined the military would write me and ask if they could have a picture to tell the other guys that we were dating.  Males are more concerned with how other males view them.

Men seem to have an evolutionary psychology of seeking the most appealing/fertile mate, but also of promoting the most capable men, which positions them to get the most appealing mates. Like most things in life, it doesn't appear to be a zero-sum strategy. Status is what seems to attract/acquire the high status female, rather than the female conferring status. It seems that it's mostly women who think high status women confer status, because they are evolutionarily predisposed to social proof. To successful men, status symbols (cars, watches, pretty wives, etc.) just advertise existing status, reaffirming the promotion from other men.

It's losers who think women are commodities, probably because they are acutely aware of their own personal scarcity. Beta males seek status symbols in lieu actual status, because they are insecure around other men.

Sexual Economics, Culture, Men, and Modern Sexual Trends

"Sexual marketplaces take the shape they do because nature has biologically built a disadvantage into men: a huge desire for sex that makes men dependent on women. Men’s greater desire puts them at a disadvantage, just as when two parties are negotiating a possible sale or deal, the one who is more eager to make the deal is in a weaker position than the one who is willing to walk away without the deal. Women certainly desire sex too — but as long as most women desire it less than most men, women have a collective advantage, and social roles and interactions will follow scripts that give women greater power than men. We have even concluded that the cultural suppression of female sexuality throughout much of history and across many different cultures has largely had its roots in the quest for marketplace advantage. Women have often sustained their advantage over men by putting pressure on each other to restrict the supply of sex available to men. As with any monopoly or cartel, restricting the supply leads to a higher price."

WTF?  

That seems pretty basic. What vexes?

Do men want more power for reproductive advantages or is sex just a way to obtain more power?

IOW, is male-male competition done in order to achieve greater reproductive success or is it solely to obtain more power?

It’s more about the damn power than reproduction, isn’t it? 

Oscar Wilde was right, wasn't he? 

“Everything in the world is about sex except sex. Sex is about power.”

Both, as reproductive success has largely been an evolutionary matter of achievement success. Achievement isn't just about power though. It's about security and means, especially when it comes to reproduction.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/apr/08/gender.uk

Why do ordinary, respectable men visit prostitutes? These interviews with customers at Australian brothels provide a rare insight into how some men see not just sex, but women....

"Sex doesn't necessarily mean anything to a male. I mean, it might develop into something, but initially it doesn't mean anything other than sheer excitement. But I don't think women understand that."

End extract (with thanks)  from:-
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/apr/08/gender.uk

Wow, I wouldn't call them respectable. Maybe that's what passes for respectable in OZ.

[confused2]

I disagree with the proposition that sex is about power - it may be for some people - but not (I think) for Mr (or Ms ?) Average. Clearly this is difficult to prove either way.. I'm going for a scattergun approach which may (or may not) hit some vital spot.

More insight into the secret world of men...
http://dilbert.com/strip/1991-04-07

---

Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) isn't what I would call a particularly pleasant or sentimentral sort of chap. I note his definition of success (with women) from all possible options - appears to be holding hands and walking off into the sunset.

[Secular Sanity]

Why do ordinary, respectable men visit prostitutes?

Well, I can’t imagine having to pay for it, but my brother was up for Mother’s Day, and we were discussing this very topic.  He’s single and one of his married friends was telling him about massage parlors.  You know…the things that take place after you tip them. He asked me if I thought it was unethical.  I told him that it could very well be.  You never know with the sex industry with sex slaves, minors, and all.  But, C2, men have been using their sex drive as an excuse since the beginning of time.  We’re not all that different in this area.  I think our sex drive is just as high.  The stigma and social constructs were the only thing holding us back. I would never pay for sex but some women may.  Who knows, gender power shifts may contribute to more women having more of it. Times have changed.

Both, as reproductive success has largely been an evolutionary matter of achievement success. Achievement isn't just about power though. It's about security and means, especially when it comes to reproduction.

Um, Syne, we’ve argued this point before…it’s not about reproduction, that’s for sure, because we only needed a sex drive for that.  

That seems pretty basic. What vexes?

The problem I have with it, I suppose, is that he’s reinforcing the incel’s view.  I included a few excerpts from this chapter that he wrote, but read this whole thing if you have time.  Also, I don’t think I’ve ever really thought about it in economic terms before, but I guess that even friendship is a resource, and the fact that we can’t be friends is somewhat troubling.

We were talking about opposite sex friendship, C2. Even you know that it’s impossible. If it weren’t, it wouldn’t be something that you’d have to surrender once you’re married.

You are, of course, correct.

The Most Underappreciated Fact About Men by Roy Baumeister

To be sure, debates rage in many areas as to how much of behavior is a direct result of innate tendencies versus how much depends on what your mother made you do, what you copied from your peers, what you saw on Oprah, and other aspects of socialization and learning, as opposed to being prompted by your genes. It is increasingly fashionable to explore how innate and environmental factors work together, which, after all, is the essence of this book’s approach to understanding how culture exploits men.

But if evolutionary theory is right about anything, it is right about reproduction. Making babies is at the core of it. Hence, when we talk about what produced success at making babies, we are likely to be on grounds where nature outweighs nurture. The term “survival of the fittest” is often erroneously repeated as a one-line summary of Darwin’s theory. The phrase was actually coined by Herbert Spencer, not Darwin. More important, though, it has now become regarded as misleading. Survival has come to be regarded as secondary by the recent generations of evolutionary theorists. Reproduction is the key. It’s all about reproduction. The bottom line in natural selection, which drives evolution, is reproducing. Actually, even that isn’t even quite precisely right. Oak trees produce thousands of acorns every year, but not all of them become trees, and many that start growing don’t survive to make more acorns and more trees.

[…]Of course, individual men don’t regard making babies as their overriding goal, even if evolution has molded them to do things that happen to produce more children. Biology has not made men want children as much as they want sex. Biology managed to get men to participate in reproducing the species by making them desire sex, regardless of babies. Acting on that inclination, men have invented ways of having sex without making babies (another victory of culture over nature!). Successful men do not necessarily want to have a hundred babies, but they often do want to have sex with a hundred women. And the culture they have created cooperates. Today’s highly successful men have multiple sex partners (perhaps not a hundred, though some do), but often they carefully avoid having a bumper crop of babies. Indeed, the norms and laws that promote monogamy mean that successful men must conceal their sexual dalliances, and toward that end preventing pregnancy is vital.

[…]So natural selection and the tough reproductive odds have ensured that modern men are descended, not necessarily from men who wanted to have dozens of babies, but from men who wanted to achieve greatness and rise above other men. The men who lacked the impulse to seek greatness did not pass on their genes very successfully. As a result, the passion to seek greatness flows in the blood of today’s men.

I disagree with the proposition that sex is about power - it may be for some people - but not (I think) for Mr (or Ms ?)  Average. Clearly this is difficult to prove either way.

This was my line of thought. C C has posted studies showing how power changes our brains.  There’s also plenty of studies indicating that a person of power feels, not only more entitled to sex, but they have a misconception about how subordinates view them.  They think they’re more desirable than they actually are, which sets the stage for all kinds of unwelcome behavior.

I was reading “The Winner Effect” by Dr. Ian Robertson.  If our social status can alter our molecular expression of genes in our brains, and if he’s right about the fact that winning previous contests increases your chances of winning the next one that may explain certain hierarchical structures.   If testosterone and other feel good chemicals are increased in both males and females with each success, the surge of testosterone would create more receptors, so that the next time you’re in a contest the testosterone and other compounds would have a bigger effect on your brain. Instead of just looking at the effects of chemicals on our brains, we should also be thinking about how our behavior can alter our chemical structure. It’s bidirectional.

I do believe that the pursuit of power is the main force shaping human relations.  If power is like any powerful drug, too much of anything can have negative effects.

[confused2]

I do believe that the pursuit of power is the main force shaping human relations. If power is like any powerful drug, too much of anything can have negative effects.

If power is like (most/any) powerful drug ... over time you need more and more to get the same effect.

[Secular Sanity]

I do believe that the pursuit of power is the main force shaping human relations.  If power is like any powerful drug, too much of anything can have negative effects.

If power is like (most/any) powerful drug ... over time you need more and more to get the same effect.

Yep. Maybe the Greek was right, after all.

Nymph: Why do men want power?
Greek: Because it feels good.

"Now, throughout history, men practically had a license to cheat with little consequence, and supported by a host of biological and evolutionary theories that justified their need to roam, so the double standard is as old as adultery itself. But who knows what's really going on under the sheets there, right? Because when it comes to sex, the pressure for men is to boast and to exaggerate, but the pressure for women is to hide, minimize and deny, which isn't surprising when you consider that there are still nine countries where women can be killed for straying.

[…]And contrary to what you may think, affairs are way less about sex, and a lot more about desire: desire for attention, desire to feel special, desire to feel important. And the very structure of an affair, the fact that you can never have your lover, keeps you wanting. That in itself is a desire machine, because the incompleteness, the ambiguity, keeps you wanting that which you can't have."—Esther Perel
 
Orestis also said that the power struggle between men and women is like gravity, a push and a pull.

[Syne]

We’re not all that different in this area.  I think our sex drive is just as high.  The stigma and social constructs were the only thing holding us back. I would never pay for sex but some women may.  Who knows, gender power shifts may contribute to more women having more of it. Times have changed.

It's not about the relative strengths of the sex drive between the sexes, nor social construct. It seems to be about the relative ease of sating the sex drive. A man's can be sated by a relatively wide range of physical features alone (perhaps even broadened by perceived availability), where desire and arousal are pretty much the same thing barring any other moral compunction. While women's usually requires more than physical appeal, even without any social or moral qualms. They may think it doesn't because someone like Chris Hemsworth is physically attractive and already displays social proof and status, but for most men they meet, all those requirements are not instantly met. Whereas what a man finds arousing generally is. Women are just more willing to walk away from an offer of sex, which seems to speak to arousal, not drive.
But maybe there are women who really would just jump any hot guy who offers, even with the greater relative risk they take sexually, e.g. pregnancy, STDs, etc. (which are natural reasons women tend to have greater criteria for sex).

Both, as reproductive success has largely been an evolutionary matter of achievement success. Achievement isn't just about power though. It's about security and means, especially when it comes to reproduction.

Um, Syne, we’ve argued this point before…it’s not about reproduction, that’s for sure, because we only needed a sex drive for that.  

What, so because we have considerations other than sex and reproduction, those considerations MUST factor into sex and reproduction? That just doesn't follow.

That seems pretty basic. What vexes?

The problem I have with it, I suppose, is that he’s reinforcing the incel’s view.  I included a few excerpts from this chapter that he wrote, but read this whole thing if you have time.  Also, I don’t think I’ve ever really thought about it in economic terms before, but I guess that even friendship is a resource, and the fact that we can’t be friends is somewhat troubling.

There's nothing especial incel about the fact that all life is a marketplace, where all interactions are voluntary in the free world. As such, there will naturally be competition. Again, the only thing that perverts that is people thinking they have "rights" that others should provide for. You cannot have such positive rights and freedom. They are mutually exclusive. And so incels fantasize about rape and murder, two ways to remove a person's freedom (body autonomy and right to life), simply because they cannot compete and demand that others make up for their own shortcomings.

[Secular Sanity]

But maybe there are women who really would just jump any hot guy who offers, even with the greater relative risk they take sexually, e.g. pregnancy, STDs, etc. (which are natural reasons women tend to have greater criteria for sex).

Or locked in an underground bunker, or worse yet…a freezer.  

You know...those weren't bad answers.  Not bad at all.

Thanks, Syne!