[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
But I don’t think most women want that, and most of the women (and even young girls) I know are serial monogamists. So they start out in their teens with the boyfriend they lose virginity to, that’s a year, then maybe two short things, then say the boy they start college planning to marry but that doesn’t work out, so another brief single phase…couple more…then comes the serious LTR.
Sure, women who troll bars night in, night out…but that’s not most of them, any more than orion or Angry Chicken represent “most men.”
[/quote]
You just described my wife’s entire sexual history LOL.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
But I don’t think most women want that, and most of the women (and even young girls) I know are serial monogamists. So they start out in their teens with the boyfriend they lose virginity to, that’s a year, then maybe two short things, then say the boy they start college planning to marry but that doesn’t work out, so another brief single phase…couple more…then comes the serious LTR.
Sure, women who troll bars night in, night out…but that’s not most of them, any more than orion or Angry Chicken represent “most men.”
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
According to the CDC, only %10 of women between the ages of 25 and 44 have had sex with more than 15 men.
Unfortunately, I went to school with none of them.[/quote]
Keep in mind those numbers a heavily skewed by inner city populations. I think what Emily said above is spot on for the typical middle class american female.[/quote]
For those of us living in inner city, those numbers are heavily skewed downward by those living in more rural areas. :)[/quote]
People tend to forget a lot of women get into serious relationships quite early in their adult lives. They may play around a bit in college but many of them will find “the one” (for atleast 10 years --50% of marriages in the US end up in divorce) in their mid to late 20s. It’s always surprising when really attractive women get married so early, anthropology 101 logic would dictate these women have greater access to the gene pool and would on average wait longer before finding the best mate. I think some of these women are tired on men chasing them and just settle so they don’t have to play the game anymore because let’s be honest, the game can get tiring.
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
People tend to forget a lot of women get into serious relationships quite early in their adult lives. They may play around a bit in college but many of them will find “the one” (for atleast 10 years --50% of marriages in the US end up in divorce) in their mid to late 20s. It’s always surprising when really attractive women get married so early, anthropology 101 logic would dictate these women have greater access to the gene pool and would on average wait longer before finding the best mate. I think some of these women are tired on men chasing them and just settle so they don’t have to play the game anymore because let’s be honest, the game can get tiring. [/quote]
You could make the argument that, physically, their value is highest at their earliest marriageable age. You sell a stock at its peak price, if you know it is going to devalue. Some women who don’t cash in early are essentially investing their youth in a different asset - their careers. Perhaps, as a woman ages and advances in her career, she gains access to a better genetic market; but that is speculative. There’s no firm reason to believe that a woman’s dating market is any better at 35 than it is at 25, and considerable reason to believe it gets substantially worse.
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
People tend to forget a lot of women get into serious relationships quite early in their adult lives. They may play around a bit in college but many of them will find “the one” (for atleast 10 years --50% of marriages in the US end up in divorce) in their mid to late 20s. It’s always surprising when really attractive women get married so early, anthropology 101 logic would dictate these women have greater access to the gene pool and would on average wait longer before finding the best mate. I think some of these women are tired on men chasing them and just settle so they don’t have to play the game anymore because let’s be honest, the game can get tiring. [/quote]
You could make the argument that, physically, their value is highest at their earliest marriageable age. You sell a stock at its peak price, if you know it is going to devalue. Some women who don’t cash in early are essentially investing their youth in a different asset - their careers. Perhaps, as a woman ages and advances in her career, she gains access to a better genetic market; but that is speculative. There’s no firm reason to believe that a woman’s dating market is any better at 35 than it is at 25, and considerable reason to believe it gets substantially worse.[/quote]
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
But I don’t think most women want that, and most of the women (and even young girls) I know are serial monogamists. So they start out in their teens with the boyfriend they lose virginity to, that’s a year, then maybe two short things, then say the boy they start college planning to marry but that doesn’t work out, so another brief single phase…couple more…then comes the serious LTR.
Sure, women who troll bars night in, night out…but that’s not most of them, any more than orion or Angry Chicken represent “most men.”
[/quote]
Well, those girls are serial monogamists too.
They just have very short lived relationships. [/quote]
[quote]orion wrote:
Ah, you followed my links, did you not?[/quote]
No, not a one. I just have a semi-functioning brain. I was responding to the assertion that “anthropology 101 logic would dictate these women have greater access to the gene pool and would on average wait longer before finding the best mate.” Economics 101 says otherwise. That is like saying someone with lots of money has greater access to high quality investments and would on average wait longer to invest. The premise does not imply the conclusion. Given that specific set of facts in isolation, an investor would take marginally longer to decide what to invest in (or hire that function out), mostly likely due to correlation between having funds and being a more educated investor. You might make a “paradox of choice” argument, but that has less to do with anthropology 101, and more to do with the structure of modern Western societies.
Of course, that doesn’t mean I believe any of the argument. Just that I am capable of arguing within the paradigm.
[quote]orion wrote:
Ah, you followed my links, did you not?[/quote]
No, not a one. I just have a semi-functioning brain. I was responding to the assertion that “anthropology 101 logic would dictate these women have greater access to the gene pool and would on average wait longer before finding the best mate.” Economics 101 says otherwise. That is like saying someone with lots of money has greater access to high quality investments and would on average wait longer to invest. The premise does not imply the conclusion. Given that specific set of facts in isolation, an investor would take marginally longer to decide what to invest in (or hire that function out), mostly likely due to correlation between having funds and being a more educated investor. You might make a “paradox of choice” argument, but that has less to do with anthropology 101, and more to do with the structure of modern Western societies.
Of course, that doesn’t mean I believe any of the argument. Just that I am capable of arguing within the paradigm.[/quote]
Soooo… you see it all… but you are not sure how to weigh it?
[quote]orion wrote:
Soooo… you see it all… but you are not sure how to weigh it?
Maybe some social experiments are in order?
[/quote]
My problem with that kind of analysis is that the value of any given attribute is not static. Those kinds of theories want to pretend that women have one or two highly correlated “currencies” in the dating market. Every person has a combination of qualities, and other people not only rate those qualities subjectively, they assign value subjectively. Everyone might agree that a “good sense of humor” is important, but we might differ on what we consider humorous. And I might be the kind of person who really cares about having a partner who makes me laugh, and you might be just as happy to watch a Chris Rock video (or nothing at all).
So then you try to take all of this and jam it into a simplistic supply and demand economic model. It makes no sense. The best you can do is loose correlation. Which, if we had to bet on the likelihood of a series of pairings actually occurring, would mean that we’d tend to win money. But it does very little to inform the individual. Worse, this folk-wisdom (or loosely correlated statistical information) is co-opted by evolutionary psychologists who spin whatever data there is into their own special brand of just-so stories.
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Aha, it resembles much more of a normal distribution than I thought, I’m surprised there isn’t more of a positive skewness with the average around 6". The total area of that probability frequency graph equals 100% so if we take that graph as being representative of the total population, the probability of a 7"+ dick is likely around or even slightly less than the 10% I used in my previous calculation on page 6.
So all you average dick and small dick guys don’t needa worry – fucking is a game of odds! [/quote]
But for every point above 6 (when you rate a chick on a scale of 1-10), there in an exponential curve of probability that she will be banging guys with big dicks. It’s a sliding equation. Ba dum pshhh!
[quote]orion wrote:
Ah, you followed my links, did you not?[/quote]
No, not a one. I just have a semi-functioning brain. I was responding to the assertion that “anthropology 101 logic would dictate these women have greater access to the gene pool and would on average wait longer before finding the best mate.” Economics 101 says otherwise. That is like saying someone with lots of money has greater access to high quality investments and would on average wait longer to invest. The premise does not imply the conclusion. Given that specific set of facts in isolation, an investor would take marginally longer to decide what to invest in (or hire that function out), mostly likely due to correlation between having funds and being a more educated investor. You might make a “paradox of choice” argument, but that has less to do with anthropology 101, and more to do with the structure of modern Western societies.
Of course, that doesn’t mean I believe any of the argument. Just that I am capable of arguing within the paradigm.[/quote]
Soooo… you see it all… but you are not sure how to weigh it?
Maybe some social experiments are in order?
[/quote]
You recognize, right, that you are altered by these “experiments”? When you become a participant, you also become a test subject. My observation in reading your reports is that your participation is having adverse effects on you and, by extension, your dating pool.
[quote]orion wrote:
Soooo… you see it all… but you are not sure how to weigh it?
Maybe some social experiments are in order?
[/quote]
My problem with that kind of analysis is that the value of any given attribute is not static. Those kinds of theories want to pretend that women have one or two highly correlated “currencies” in the dating market. Every person has a combination of qualities, and other people not only rate those qualities subjectively, they assign value subjectively. Everyone might agree that a “good sense of humor” is important, but we might differ on what we consider humorous. And I might be the kind of person who really cares about having a partner who makes me laugh, and you might be just as happy to watch a Chris Rock video (or nothing at all).
So then you try to take all of this and jam it into a simplistic supply and demand economic model. It makes no sense. The best you can do is loose correlation. Which, if we had to bet on the likelihood of a series of pairings actually occurring, would mean that we’d tend to win money. But it does very little to inform the individual. Worse, this folk-wisdom (or loosely correlated statistical information) is co-opted by evolutionary psychologists who spin whatever data there is into their own special brand of just-so stories.[/quote]
Weeeeelll…
Is it all statistics?
Yes?
Does it work to get you laid?
Yes, precisely because it is statistics.
Is Evopsych just so stories?
Yes.
Must there be “just so” stories if the TOE is correct?
Yes.
Do we fall, evolutionary speaking, between Gorillas and Chimpanzees?
Yes.
Does that mean that those just so stories have some empirical backing.
Not enough that you cannnot deny it, but enough if you you are open for any answer that makes sense.
[quote]orion wrote:
Ah, you followed my links, did you not?[/quote]
No, not a one. I just have a semi-functioning brain. I was responding to the assertion that “anthropology 101 logic would dictate these women have greater access to the gene pool and would on average wait longer before finding the best mate.” Economics 101 says otherwise. That is like saying someone with lots of money has greater access to high quality investments and would on average wait longer to invest. The premise does not imply the conclusion. Given that specific set of facts in isolation, an investor would take marginally longer to decide what to invest in (or hire that function out), mostly likely due to correlation between having funds and being a more educated investor. You might make a “paradox of choice” argument, but that has less to do with anthropology 101, and more to do with the structure of modern Western societies.
Of course, that doesn’t mean I believe any of the argument. Just that I am capable of arguing within the paradigm.[/quote]
Soooo… you see it all… but you are not sure how to weigh it?
Maybe some social experiments are in order?
[/quote]
You recognize, right, that you are altered by these “experiments”? When you become a participant, you also become a test subject. My observation in reading your reports is that your participation is having adverse effects on you and, by extension, your dating pool.[/quote]
Thats very Heisenberg of you, how have my experiments regarding you affected you in bad manner?
