There is No Longer Someone for Everyone

There is No Longer Someone for Everyone


One of the common myths about dating is that there's a soulmate out there for everyone. Dating services have made millions promoting the idea that your perfect partner is out there, you just need to try harder to find them. This seems to make sense since there are an equal number of men and women. The reality is that in promiscuous culture, a small percentage of men can monopolize sex with a majority of women. When this happens, the matching up process does not occur, and singles end up floating indefinitely around the dating pool.


The Attractiveness Hierarchy

In the monogamous marriage system of the past, the majority of men and women found mates and got married. In that system, singles knew roughly where they were ranked in overall attractiveness and married a mate of roughly equal rank as soon as they could, usually by their early 20's. There were strong economic and sexual pressures to marry early, and this motivated singles to quickly find a mate of roughly equivalent attractiveness rather than wait for their "perfect soulmate." In the monogamous system, if one waited too long, the pool of eligible mates shrank, and it became more difficult to find a quality partner. (See The Pill and the Decline of Dating and Marriage).

In today's society, birth control removes the incentive for singles to settle into their place in the attractiveness hierarchy. Because women freed from birth control can have sex without marriage, they can engage in temporary physical relationships that have no marriage potential while they wait and hope for Mr. Right. These strings of temporary relationships help women meet their short-term emotional needs but delay them from pursuing serious marriage partners. Men have a greater evolved desire for unfettered sex, and generally prefer more sex partners rather than a commitment to marriage and raising children. Because women are willing to have premarital sex, the attractive men who have ready access to many new sex partners have little incentive to pursue marriage at all. They generally prefer to circulate among women rather than settling down.

(Note: Robert Trivers' 1972 parental investment theory proposed that men's stronger sex drive and stronger desire for variety in their partners is the result of a basic biological difference between the sexes. In order to procreate, men need only invest the few minutes to have sex, while women must invest at least nine months of pregnancy to bear the child. From a biological standpoint, sperm is cheap and easy to produce, while wombs are much, much more valuable. Women possess the more valuable reproductive resource, so sex and pregnancy imply a much greater investment on the part of women.

A result of this investment differential was that before the invention of contraception, sex improved the reproductive potential of man much more than it did a woman. When a man had sex with more women, he could have more children. One prolific example, Moulay Ismail the Bloodthirsty, fathered 888 children out of a harem of 500 women. A woman, on the other hand, can have only one child per nine months no matter how many men she has sex with. Because of this differential, over the course of evolution, women became pickier about the quality of their sex partners while men became the more sexually aggressive and less choosy gender.)


Circulating around the Pool

The promiscuous system allows very attractive men to avoid commitment and be continually available for sex. Because these men can have more sex, women have sexual access to more attractive men than they would have been able to attract as marriage partners under the monogamous system. However, there is a downside for many women and men. For most men, it means that the few particularly desirable men at the top of the attractiveness hierarchy can monopolize many of the women. By having many relationships, many sex partners and even multiple wives in serially monogamous fashion, the most attractive men can consume the prime reproductive years of multiple women. For biological reasons, a woman's fertile lifetime is much shorter than a man's, making it even easier for some men to consume an unequal share of female reproductive resources. When some men consume more than their share of women, there will necessarily be other men, lower on the attractiveness hierarchy, who will have no suitable women available for marriage at all. This also means that all of the men who are not at the top of the hierarchy must lower their standards.

Most men don't realize that rampant promiscuity hurts them. They think that the pill and sexual revolution have brought them a sexual boon. They don't realize that promiscuity prevents them from finding high-quality women. The monogamous marriage system allowed a man only one woman, which meant that virtually all men got at least one woman. In the monogamous system, attractive women were more evenly distributed so the majority of men were able to attract more desirable women than they could attract under the promiscuous system.

For women, the transition to the promiscuous system has made it more difficult to find a marriage partner as well. The attractive men don't commit because they have new sex partners constantly available. Lower-status men shun marriage because they hope to gain more options as they gain status and rise into the ranks of the highly attractive. Women who are accustomed to having sex with highly attractive men also don't want to "settle" and marry the kind of less sexy man that would be willing to marry. Men don't want to to be settled for, either. This means that both men and women remain circulating in the dating pool for long periods without settling into marriage. Shows like Sex and the City and movies like Bridget Jones' Diary resonate because this experience is so common among modern metropolitan singles. As promiscuity increases, marriage declines and fewer singles can find lifelong partners.

<Link Removed by Admin>

[urfan2c]

Deja vu...

Comments
Great post - I agree that it holds well for the majority of people.

In practice, women might "settle" for a man because she is entering the phase of her life where the norm is to marry (in small towns, this could be the early 20s. In larger cities, late 20s or 30.) She may also be feeling the biological need to reproduce.

Though not as severely as before, starting from high school forward, the pool of eligible mates starts to shrink. People enter into long-term relationships and are as unavailable as they would be if they were married. There is a desire among singles to find someone who has never been married before - a divorce is a strike against someone looking for a mate. There becomes some kind of urgency to "find someone" before there's no one left.

There are also the men and women who don't "try" for the alpha females or alpha males because they will not tolerate the sort of behaviour these partners exhibit. So a female might date beta males exclusively, because she refuses to have a partner who is promiscuous and afraid of commitment. Same for the males and beta females.

I think the behaviour that is most visible is the kind that is *different* than what has been the norm (the promiscuous behaviour). There are still quite a few young people that behave in the "traditional" manner.

And while promiscuity may be hurting both males and females (lack of mates), it is also speeding up society's "screening process" for selecting what is desirable. Those males who have the characteristics society approves of have the most sex. Those males who don't have the characteristics society approves of have less (or little, or no) sex.

Posted by: Karen at February 28, 2005 06:42 AM

************************************************** ********
i disagree. what we are seeing here is media, and hence society, putting a huge standard on men for them to be desireable. in the past it was a suit, now a gargantum list. there has been no comparable uping the standard for women, hence the obesity problem of today's women and the "its always the man's fault" routine.
how many alpha males are out there? i have met maybe one in my years. most guys are trying to find a decent chick because that is all that is in the cards. where are the players?
anyone who has lived outside the u.s. knows that this is true. i would suggest young men to find some kind of gainful employment overseas and stay there.

Posted by: pat at February 28, 2005 05:27 PM

************************************************** ********
Pat - obesity is a problem for males, too.

Society has placed higher expectations on women, as well. What is considered a well-rounded modern woman must have a university education, an ambitious career, a great body, and a serious romantic relationship (or be a great wife and mother.)

The way your post reads, it sounds like you are angry at women. Do you really believe women won't bear any responsibility and men are always getting the short end of the stick?

Posted by: Karen at March 1, 2005 08:00 AM

************************************************** ********
Karen, you are woefully wrong. It is clear that in our society, much more is demanded from men in relationships than women. For example, how many women would balk if a man asked only that a potential wife be able to cook, take care of a home, and be the primary caretaker for the children? Yet, men are expected to pander to woman's every emotional, physical, and monetary need without end.

You are also very wrong in thinking that there is a such thing as an "alpha female" for human beings. You clearly misunderstand the vast differences between how men and women select mates, and are assigning equality when there in fact is none. Women are now following their biological instincts, instead of their brains, and pursuing, "exciting, sexy" men, the alpha-male types least likely to make good husbands. This is the core of the problem, changing female selection patterns.

Posted by: John at March 1, 2005 10:33 AM

************************************************** ********
For example, how many women would balk if a man asked only that a potential wife be able to cook, take care of a home, and be the primary caretaker for the children? Yet, men are expected to pander to woman's every emotional, physical, and monetary need without end.

John, clearly we associate with different types of women. I have a friend and acquaintances who are happily established as stay-at-home moms and housewives. This is an arrangement both they and their husbands want.

As far as "pandering", I would expect that attitude of entitlement from a someone immature and dependent. Not all women are immature and dependent to the point you are suggesting. The women I associate most with are all financially independent and derive emotional support/fulfillment through friends, family, and their partners. What physical needs are men expected to pander to?

I use "alpha female" to describe those women most desirable to men. Those especially young, fertile, sexually available, and exhibiting good genes through physical attractiveness. There is a definite under-class of women who don't have all or any of these characteristics, and command less "value" on the dating market as a result. So my example above might mean a man deciding he wants a woman who may not be especially beautiful, but is willing to commit and isn't constantly trying to get a "better" partner.

If you dislike my use of terminology you could suggest an alternative.

What enticements (rather than deterrents) would you use to change female selection patterns? If the aforementioned "pandering" that is "expected" is already repugnant to you, what is the solution?

Posted by: Karen at March 1, 2005 12:23 PM

************************************************** ********
Agreed. Excellent point that the "someone for everyone" b.s. is a smokescreen concealing the fact that Alpha Males have always monopolized access to women. Even in a monogamous system, you still had women who were the mistresses of married men, and women who were impregnated by Alpha Males and wound up marrying some poor Beta Male dolt. As Geoffrey Miller of "The Mating Mind" says "[Reproductive]competition means that some individuals win and some lose." The problem is that brainwashed Beta Males (and here I speak from experience) think it's enough just to be a good guy, and are totally clueless as to the to-the-death battle going on for the most desirable women.


John, I think that changing female selection patterns is no more useful than trying to change male selection patterns. I think if we're all honest, as much as men say they're looking for a kind, intelligent, caring woman, they really want a young, gorgeous nymphomaniac with big breasts.

Posted by: Sgt. Raymond at March 11, 2005 07:35 PM

************************************************** ********
Sgt. Raymond - LOL, I guess I'm not one of the most desirable women. My boyfriend won me over by being a good guy. All he had to do was be sweet - no alpha male posturing required.

Perhaps all men want a young, gorgeous nymphomaniac with big breasts for sex . If men need to interact with women in any other way other than sexually (say, having a conversation with her or sharing a home with her), they may start to find other characteristics worth considering.

Perhaps a beta male would prefer a non-young, gorgeous-nymphomaniac-with-big-breasts type of woman as a wife because she might be less prone to infidelity. Any kids she has will be his. She's not his #1 choice but then 100% of his resources go towards his offspring.

A beta male with a young, gorgeous nymphomaniac with big breasts wife might have his #1 choice, but she might be more prone to infidelity and maybe only 50% of his resources go towards offspring that are actually his.

A beta male who marries a woman can ensure that his offspring are provided for and survive to adulthood. An alpha male (or any male) who squirts and leaves has no assurance of this - he just takes the chance that a young, healthy-looking woman will care for the child. (If he leaves, the woman could abandon the child in favour of children fathered by a male who sticks around.)

I'm speaking under the assumption that passing genes along is the man's goal. If the goal is just to have sexual access to women (regardless of whether you have access to her reproductive resources), well... That's another discussion entirely.

Posted by: Karen at March 14, 2005 01:43 PM

************************************************** ********
I think you're right, Karen, in the Beta Male's reasoning. Men basically have two strategies--mate guarding or womanizing. Animal studies show that the less desirable males are more likely to compensate by being good parents. Beta males try to form a more lasting and guarded relationship with a single female. Their prime goal is to prevent other males from having sex with their mates.

Alpha Males choose a strategy of trying to have as many partners as possible, including others' mates.

Rape would be an example of a man having sex with no parental investment, yet it is a procreation strategy that works.

There is a pair bond that lasts anywhere from two to four years, which is long enough to help ensure the survival of children, and also about the same time that most marriages blow up.

Posted by: Sgt Ray at March 17, 2005 07:21 PM

************************************************** ********
Karen said: "Society has placed higher expectations on women, as well. What is considered a well-rounded modern woman must have a university education, an ambitious career,..."

I don't think men are demanding that their potential wives have degrees and high flying careers. I'm certainly not.

Posted by: Darren at July 8, 2005 03:15 PM

[MochaLove37]

Interesting... :)

[DBlack]

Please DO NOT copy and paste an entire conversation thread from another site. Thx.

[moments2rememba]

very interesting

[UglymanCometh]

More science dropped, thanks seminole.