Historically, throughout our evolution, a woman's sexuality was her most valuable "asset" to men. Eggs are rare, and reproduction takes her sexuality off the "market" for a long time. Low supply of female sexuality drives up it's value to men.
The reality is that in a successful mating couple, both man and woman give ongoing investment, over years or decades. Both contributions are valuable. A mating pair with a deadbeat dad (doesn't provision) or a deadbeat mom (doesn't care) is a shitty mating pair.
-
-
Assume you're correct. The difference between men & women still exists. WOMEN are instinctively attracted to the security a man provides, IN ADDITION to everything else you say men & women are attracted to in a mate. That one, big need, unique to women, has big implications.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
So, just like any rational female will look for a dad with Beta (who will provision, not run), any rational male will look for a woman with Beta (who will care, not abandon). Your posited weird dynamic where women need providing men but men don't need caring women is just wrong.
-
Your mistake is assuming that men and women are equals -- are carbon copies of each other. They are not. You base everything on the false premise that "men and women are functional equals."
-
Men and women contribute different things to evolutionary fitness, but they both contribute. And it is men whose ongoing contribution is less essential - far easier to have 1000 great-grandchildren with an absent dad (Genghis Khan?) than an absent mom.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.