in studying primate behaviour it was noticed that when the leading male is a jerk the rest conspire to 'overthrow' him. Murder him even.
Even in the animal world the females don't go for the most brutal and 'powerful' in the violent way.
It's bizarre that people attribute this characteristic to human females universally. There's no evidence for it except through eyes clouded with desire and envy. It's only because women who stay with shitty men stand out, being seen as tragic due to female intrinsic value among other things.
True but if males assume this is the case then it is a motive for some of them to seek power.
I don't think the biological impertive reductionism is the biggest factor. Perception definitely effects it. A look around shows few women opt for polygamy with some 'rich' and 'powerful' dude. Maybe its just easier for some people to believe.
Every "rich and (therefore) powerful" dude who really wants multiple women has them. But being rich and powerful is fairly difficult, (unless you inherited the ability to print money), so there are few such situations. The balance that has arisen is a consequence of ongoing cyclical competition for scarce resources.
Sure. Same for any handsome masculine dude regardless wealth. My guy friend whose slept with the most women is unemployed.
Most women dont opt to exclusivity with these guys either. Pussy is not some finite resource.
This is a reply to the child comment above. Since child comments are cut off for lack of further indentation.
My point was just that all undesirable variables can be offset by fungible resources. If you're ugly, you try harder for pussy or sometimes pay for pussy. If you're really ugly you only pay for pussy. All variables can be approximately separated out for planning purposes.
Girls who really want a smart guy are rare, but girls who really want a handsome guy are common. ...But the guy must be independent (he must have found a niche where he doesn't have to be smart). Independent wealth(ability to exploit one's environment, including predominantly-equal-intelligence human cybernetic networks) is the single most important variable, because, if it weren't, replication resources would have been squandered by being improperly allocated.
For the 50,000,000 years when muscle was as or more important than brains, and essential during frequent conflict, muscle was programmed by statistical selection into female sexual preferences.
Nature/"Evolutionary selection" tends to not squander replication resources. If it did, we(sociopaths+empaths) might look and/or act a lot different.
It's always important to remember that there is no "we," except in the statistical sense. "We" includes empaths and sociopaths. In nature, a hungry sociopath will eat an abandoned baby, whereas a hungry empath will pick up the baby and try to protect it from human and animal "state of nature/sociopathy-by-default". A hungry partial sociopath who is "on the sociopathic-spectrum" (stunted mirror neurons, stunted empathy) but is aware of the cybernetic systems created by empaths will bring the baby back to the tribe, as a means of currying favor or trust, so he's in a position to steal far more than one meal.
The last describes the position of political sociopaths in our society. They use their superior understanding of society to gain trust from people who are clearly less intelligent, but more moral than they are.
Some females may dislike this type of sociopath, but there are very clearly millions who do not.
There is no disincentive toward legalized bullying, largely because "anarchists" have subtracted themselves from the one technology that has slowly placed limits on organized sociopathic bullying: political technology. See: https://www.leadershipinstitute.org/resources/files/THE%20REAL%20NATURE%20OF%20POLITICS.pdf
This is a binary or "all-or-nothing" backlash against a position that is "statistically relevant." Earning power combined with decision-making power is highly sought, both by bad people and good. A good person has to be more skilled than a bad person to seek and win positions in government and industry, because bad people also have access to highly-effective "immoral strategies." This would be enough to make "good women" crave "bad men(sociopaths)," strengthening statistical distributions of "the warrior gene" (sociopath genetics) as "selfish genes." (Ignore the term "selfish genes" if you have not read Dawkins' book "The Selfish Gene," because you will almost certainly misinterpret the use of the term "selfish," if so.)
Cybernetic systems are a subset of evolutionary systems, and vice-versa. (One can emerge from the other, as dumb-molecules very slowly gave rise to colonies of bacteria, then colonies of insects, then more advanced brains and brain modules, and eventually the most advanced land-mammal brains gave rise to evolved software run at THz speeds.)
A statistically large number of women won't stay with a man who doesn't rape them. Few women, as a percentage of the whole number, want a man they can physically overpower. But millions do want such a man. This simply means that a smart weak man who wants a woman who can overpower him can find such a woman --but he has to exert more effort to do so. Also, he runs a greater risk of being tricked by a woman who does not share his goals.
Evolution saddled us with our current genetic situation. Those who fight(disbelieve) genetics are likely to lose. This is why voluntaryism should readily accept "pro-social" sociopaths (like Gary Johnson, etc.) into the fold, so long as they do not behave as sociopaths, and are watched closely for external corruption.
In short, there are no "universal" sexual desires, but to statistically profile "what there is a market for" need only deal with "large enough percentages to matter."
A huge percentage of women desire a man who is "more than adequate" to provide for her young. How much "more than adequate"? That estimate requires difficult calculation, so the female instead relies on reliable "signals" as a decision-making heuristic. This reliance on signals is not a conscious choice, it's evolutionarily selected for and built into sexual attraction.
If it were not, females would be physically superior to men, would dominate decision-making positions, and would be opened up to slaughter by competitors during pregnancy.
This is a consequence of 50,000,000 years of human evolution; of selection under "might makes right" tribal precursors to civilization.
What you're arguing over is whether 30% of women want an "alpha male" or whether 60% or even 90% want an alpha male. ...And how many of the percentage who secretly want an alpha male will settle for something less, or for a beta who knows when to pretend to be an alpha (in the bedroom!) so that evolutionarily-selected-for sexual preference "signals" can be satisfied or "tricked."
The latter seems to work just fine, and is easily incorporated into evolution's paradigm.