Reproductive success has different meanings to both genders. For males, frequent mating with different females maximises the number of eggs they fertilise. Females have limited number of eggs that is not increased by mating. The female energy expenditure in gestation and parental care is usually higher. they maximise their reproductive success by ensuring careful selection of the male genes (intersexual selection) and investing in the survival of the offspring.
In view if these biological differences, males had to evolve and develop features whose sole function is to advertise their reproductive value. Other males have to compete for the privilege of mating by intimidating, deterring or defeating same-sex rivals (intrasexual selection).
In the human species, males are not particularly impressive, ie, they did not develop biological features (beyond the sexual dimorphism) aimed at increasing their reproductive success. Human males are, indeed, rather plain and boring when compared to other males of the animal kingdom. To counteract a questionable gene quality, human males came up with other strategies: increased economic level, improved social status, etc, that give the female increased odds for the survival of the offspring. Social hierarchies also work as intersexual selection rather than competition.
Within certain matting systems, particularly those that tend toward monogamy, men exert chioce. On the other hand, numbers of females are superior to males. In a desperate attempt to secure the attention of a man, women are lowering their standards so much they are suffering relentless cultural objectification and allowing it. Males are reaping the fruits of the plentifullness available, maximising the number of females they have intercourse with.
The online dystopia is an acute and painful expression of female dejection. I imagine if blokes invest so little in their efforts as to write crap introductory messages like ‘xx’, ‘ur beautiful’ or ‘how’s u’, it is because there is a good chance their advances are not rejected. By answering worthless jottings and engaging into dull-witted chats, women are accepting- and advertising- that they are no more than walking vaginas eagerly waiting in line to be pollinised by tossers.
In view if these biological differences, males had to evolve and develop features whose sole function is to advertise their reproductive value. Other males have to compete for the privilege of mating by intimidating, deterring or defeating same-sex rivals (intrasexual selection).
In the human species, males are not particularly impressive, ie, they did not develop biological features (beyond the sexual dimorphism) aimed at increasing their reproductive success. Human males are, indeed, rather plain and boring when compared to other males of the animal kingdom. To counteract a questionable gene quality, human males came up with other strategies: increased economic level, improved social status, etc, that give the female increased odds for the survival of the offspring. Social hierarchies also work as intersexual selection rather than competition.
Within certain matting systems, particularly those that tend toward monogamy, men exert chioce. On the other hand, numbers of females are superior to males. In a desperate attempt to secure the attention of a man, women are lowering their standards so much they are suffering relentless cultural objectification and allowing it. Males are reaping the fruits of the plentifullness available, maximising the number of females they have intercourse with.
The online dystopia is an acute and painful expression of female dejection. I imagine if blokes invest so little in their efforts as to write crap introductory messages like ‘xx’, ‘ur beautiful’ or ‘how’s u’, it is because there is a good chance their advances are not rejected. By answering worthless jottings and engaging into dull-witted chats, women are accepting- and advertising- that they are no more than walking vaginas eagerly waiting in line to be pollinised by tossers.
No comments:
Post a Comment