I consider myself a man of science. I try to approach problems and deal with them logically, using observations previously recorded to handle new problems. So of course my interest was piqued when someone I knew posited that men are needier and more complicated than women.
An interesting theory. But to properly examine it, one must understand the concept of sexual selection and its two aspects: male competition and female choice.
Which brings us to point one: men are needier [in relationships] than women. This is true. In a natural/primal setting, the males are generally love-'em-leave-'em kinds of guys. Their main objective is to reproduce as much as they can. Humans, in their infinite wisdom, have decreased the emphasis on this to the point where it has become a footnote in male purpose. Civilization dictates that, instead of finding a partner for the sole purpose of reproduction, males find females for life companionship. With the effective removal of their natural tendency, men forced themselves to adapt to the new form of male competition by becoming mostly nice guys (donks and doop doops excluded). As mostly nice guys--and in response to social pressures/stigmas associated with being alone--men began to need more reassurance from their mates that the female would not abandon the male. With such a strong emphasis on mating-for-life, men had to become more emotional and more romantic in order to gain the favor of women. This paradigm shift went largely unnoticed in women, who continued to select the more savage, uncivilized men. Thus, the adapted males find themselves at a disadvantage, despite being the more favorable and balanced mates. The adapted males that find themselves in relationships need periodic reassurance from their women that the women--who have not completely adapted to the new system they helped create--will not abandon their mates for savage males--who have failed to adapt.
Point two: men are more complicated than women. Men are simple creatures. They only need a few things to sustain themselves besides the obvious of food and water. They need affection (physical and emotional), fraternity (companionship, etc), and stimulation (adventure, etc). Affection includes things like relationship reassurance, hugs, cuddling, and sex. Fraternity includes bros, buddies, doods, dudes, and good times. Stimulation includes doing cool stuff, video games, hobbies, and good times.
Men only seem needier than women because they're more romantic. They jump through hoops and over hurdles and obstacles just to be with women. Women stand and wait for their man to come sweep them away. Women, for all of their feelings and emotions, are actually quite callous. They need as much as men do, but they want a lot more.
In conclusion, girls are dumb and probably have cooties.
An interesting theory. But to properly examine it, one must understand the concept of sexual selection and its two aspects: male competition and female choice.
Which brings us to point one: men are needier [in relationships] than women. This is true. In a natural/primal setting, the males are generally love-'em-leave-'em kinds of guys. Their main objective is to reproduce as much as they can. Humans, in their infinite wisdom, have decreased the emphasis on this to the point where it has become a footnote in male purpose. Civilization dictates that, instead of finding a partner for the sole purpose of reproduction, males find females for life companionship. With the effective removal of their natural tendency, men forced themselves to adapt to the new form of male competition by becoming mostly nice guys (donks and doop doops excluded). As mostly nice guys--and in response to social pressures/stigmas associated with being alone--men began to need more reassurance from their mates that the female would not abandon the male. With such a strong emphasis on mating-for-life, men had to become more emotional and more romantic in order to gain the favor of women. This paradigm shift went largely unnoticed in women, who continued to select the more savage, uncivilized men. Thus, the adapted males find themselves at a disadvantage, despite being the more favorable and balanced mates. The adapted males that find themselves in relationships need periodic reassurance from their women that the women--who have not completely adapted to the new system they helped create--will not abandon their mates for savage males--who have failed to adapt.
Point two: men are more complicated than women. Men are simple creatures. They only need a few things to sustain themselves besides the obvious of food and water. They need affection (physical and emotional), fraternity (companionship, etc), and stimulation (adventure, etc). Affection includes things like relationship reassurance, hugs, cuddling, and sex. Fraternity includes bros, buddies, doods, dudes, and good times. Stimulation includes doing cool stuff, video games, hobbies, and good times.
Men only seem needier than women because they're more romantic. They jump through hoops and over hurdles and obstacles just to be with women. Women stand and wait for their man to come sweep them away. Women, for all of their feelings and emotions, are actually quite callous. They need as much as men do, but they want a lot more.
In conclusion, girls are dumb and probably have cooties.
Comments
I would also disagree with the fact that most guys are nice guys.
And I argue that men are only 'romantic' because they've figured out what women want. It's not that they have some sudden impulse to do something sweet. They do it because if they don't, women get mad. Kthx.
Also, maybe women are too cynical to truly appreciate romantic intimations. Women shouldn't get mad when they don't receive romantic gestures--they are gifts, not guarantees!