Disclaimer: In this post I'm going to talk about men and women in general terms and "on the average". I understand completely that not every man is stereotypically male, that not every woman is stereotypically female, and that gender identity can be fluid and even binary. Nonetheless, science still makes meaningful and important distinctions between men and women "on the average", and that's what I discuss here.
(Photographer: Me. Subject: My wife, Cindy)
Given that evolutionary psychology explains so much about human nature and society, it's truly sad that so many of us are ignorant of its findings. I certainly was until only a few years so. Perhaps the reason we are all so clueless on this subject is that the conclusions of evolutionary psychology are, as we shall see, very politically incorrect--offensive to both the political left and the political right.
Evolutionary psychology is the study of how evolution has shaped our psyches and therefore our societies. Its key insight is that male sperm is superabundant (and therefore "cheap") while female eggs are, by comparison, exceedingly rare (and therefore prized and competed for). When we consider that males produce and (potentially disperse) their sperm daily (or even potentially hourly) while females produce a fertilizable egg only once every 28 days on average (and then only during times when they are not already pregnant), the disparity in potential procreative success between men and women leaps into focus.
In short, males can theoretically produce far more children over a lifetime than females. For instance, the most children known to have been born to a single female human over a lifetime is 69, while the most the most children known to have been born to a single male human over a lifetime is...1,042!!
Given this procreative disparity, it's no surprise that evolution has "programed" each sex to pursue different strategies for passing its genes to the next generation.
For men, potential reproductive success is simply a linear function of the number of times they mate with fertile females. If you're male, there's little evolutionary advantage to being choosy about your mate since sheer numbers work in your favor: The more females you mix genes with, the greater the odds of eventually hitting the genetic jackpot--that is, of producing offspring that are better adapted to their environment. Thus, young men can take nearly limitless bites at the genetic apple and, as the male stereotype suggests, often do.
By contrast women get comparatively few bites at the genetic apple, and so they evolved to be much more sexually selective. While a stereotypical young man might be inclined to bed any women who can fog a mirror, the stereotypical women is understandably much, much more discerning. At a genetic level, few women want to waste one of their comparatively few reproductive chances on a marginal man.
Because eggs are so rare compared to sperm, and because women are understandably so choosy about their mates as a result, women hold all the evolutionary sexual power. This is evidenced in part by the extraordinary lengths to which males go to gain female attention and sexual favor:
In all species in which the female makes greater parental investment than the male (such as humans and all other mammals), mating is a female choice; it happens when the female wants it to happen, and with whom she wants it to happen, not when the male wants it to happen.
***
This is why men throughout history have had to conquer foreign lands, win battles and wars, compose symphonies, author books, write sonnets, paint portraits and cathedral ceilings, make scientific discoveries, play in rock bands, and write new computer software in order to impress women so that they will agree to have sex with them. There would be no civilizations no art, no literature, no music, no Beatles, no Microsoft, if sex and mating were a male choice. Men have built (and destroyed) civilizations in order to impress women so that they might say yes. Women are the reason men do everything. (Exerpt from Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters by Alan Miller and Satoshi Kanazawa).
This last point cannot be emphasized enough: Evolutionarily speaking, women are the reason that men do everything.
Why do so many powerful male politicians and business men "risk it all" for a fling with a sexy young woman? Doing so seems absurd until we recognize, as evolutionary psychologists do, that "having it all" is just a means to an end, and that end is access to women. Women in fact are the "all", and these powerful men got exactly what they were evolutionarily programmed to seek.
By contrast, because the genetically fit female already has what most every male wants, she need do relatively little to successfully mate with exceptional males. She need not compose symphonies or construct temples or launch wars or steal resources to gain access to sperm. For any genetically suitable female, working or competing for sperm makes as much sense as working or competing for...air.
Given this birthright evolutionary power over men's psyches, women could easily rule the world. But...they don't. Why?
Well, for one, why bother? Ruling is a chore, after all. Why labor when there's no evolutionary payoff? Evolution disfavors wasted effort.
But there is another reason that women don't have more influence in the world: Men over millennia have gone to extraordinary lengths to prevent them from exercising their birthright sexual power--that is, to prevent them from employing their sex appeal in ways that gain them great influence. For instance, via the tools of religion and tribal "custom", men have conned women into believing that gaining an advantage in life by "selling" what all men are "buying" (that is, sex appeal) is somehow shameful, at least when done outside of certain societally acceptable, male-dominated institutions (e.g., marriage).
Men almost always try justify restraints on female sexual power in noble terms. For instance, former President Jimmy Carter recently spoke out against legalizing prostitution on the grounds that society must protect women from the men who would objectify them. Really?! I'm reminded of the Imams who insist that Islam honors and protects women by requiring them to wear burkas. Bullshit. Islam controls and limits them by doing so. There is no honor in a burka, and there sure as hell isn't any protection in it. Likewise, we do not honor or protect women when we employ various devices (like shame or anti-prostitution laws) to deny them the benefit of their most evolutionarily valuable asset.
What's most disappointing to me about society's repression of female sexual power is that men have recently been aided in their efforts by the most unlikely of allies--feminists. Feminists have inadvertently joined men in promoting a rather insidious untruth--that it's shameful for women to compete with and for men using their birthright sex appeal. Feminist women, males and the religiously-minded have convinced most women that selling sex appeal "objectifies'" and "dehumanizes" the female.
Bullshit! Do we objectify or dehumanize men when we allow them, without shame or scorn, in fact with praise, to market their most evolutionarily valuable asset (their physical brawn)? Do we objectify or dehumanize the intelligent among us when we allow them, without shame or scorn, in fact with praise, to market their most evolutionarily valuable asset (their mental capacities)?
Women are simply born with what, at the most instinctual, visceral level, men want more than anything else. Consequently, women have enormous power. But they have been conned into ceding it, shamed into abandoning it. Given the centuries of scorn heaped on sexually powerful women, it's no wonder that so many now associate sex with misogyny and oppression. And it's no wonder that they would seek to deny their oppressors what they most desire.
But in doing so they diminish their own power and influence. They forfeit their birthright. Power comes not from denying the oppressors their desires but by actively exploiting those desires.
Women will be truly equal only when they discard the societally-imposed shame, embrace their inherent sexuality fully, and demand whatever they will for access to it. Only when their most evolutionarily-valued asset is freely and openly marketed will they be truly empowered. Only then will they be able to exercise the societal influence that is their absolute birthright.
This is one reason why I'm so excited about Steem. Steem is censorship resistant. Its decentralized blockchain enables any woman who might be so inclined to fully embrace her birthright sexuality in a safe way that pays and rewards her directly--no middle man, no pimp, no overlord. And as those rewards accumulate, so too her social influence (that is, her Steem Power). Being blockchain based, this influence can never be seized or coerced away.
I won't be surprised at all if some of the most influential whales on Steem ultimately prove to be wicked-smart, highly-articulate and sexually-empowered women. As it should be.
Edit: Anyone interested in the topic of evolutionary psychology should consider reading the following books:
Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters
Sex at Dawn
Perv: The Sexual Deviant in All of Us
Female sexual constraint is not only the work of men, it is also the work of fellow women - in the cartelization of the sexual assets - which in turn makes men work more for it.
When a woman breaks this cartel, the first ones to call her a SLUT, many times, are women.
Cool post. I also write through the lens of evolutionary psychology (I touch on this in my intro post) and playfully dub myself creator of the hashtag #ilovemen. :) Your words are still simmering in my mind...my brain is gearing up for a post about transcending evolutionary impulses for maximum joy and happiness. You have given me food for thought. I expect there will be a response post forthright. Thank you and have a wonderful day!
Very awesome post. You make some very Great points. Women really do make the world go round. They have so much power, whether they know it or not.
I am very curious to see how @stellabelle responds to this. Your points are well argued and as a guy I can attest to the fact that women have an irrational power over me. From stellabelle's past posts it is clear that she used her 'power' to earn money, fame, and bed men. Despite her past, she has expressed many times how she felt used, abused, and mistreated by the men.
We live in a culture where governments turn our own power against us. Any women who doesn't own her own power will find her power subjugated to a man. Some men intentional insult and demean women to lower their self esteem which in turn causes the woman to give up her power.
Moral of the story, love and value yourself above all.
The question with respect to porn rests entirely on how and why it is used. Like a gun, it can be used for fun or harm.
Speaking in evolutionary terms, a man who can get many woman to submit to him is more fit than a man who respects women. This is why jerks often get the beautiful women. Good guys who value women do not resort to tactics that are proven to work.
Wow, this is a great subject! I just wanted to stop by quickly and comment, but I'll be back to add my thoughts to it. I'm off to do non-Steem related things...
CG
You are leaving out one important demographic that is not included in your desirable list: women who by age or choice do not have reproductive abilities. I see that the entire reason this article was written is to encourage women to expose themselves for the male gaze. You have purposely not included physically undesirable women or women who do not wish to be gazed upon by males in your list. This is the male version of reality.
I agree with you on many points as you've raised a number of generalities. However you have completely excluded the women who are actively changing the world and who do not use their sex appeal to do so: Vandana Shiva is one. The problem with the male perspective is the male gaze which can never seem to get enough. It finds craftier and craftier ways to twist logic in the hopes of ensnaring more women and convincing them that the only power they have to rely upon in sexual in nature.
You assume that all women are interested in subjecting themselves to men. This is extremely short-sighted and illustrates your myopic view of women.
Your sexually selfish desire is thinly veiled.
Did you not read the very first paragraph of my post (the disclaimer)? It contradicts most of what you just said above. I most definitely did not "assume that all women are interested in subjecting themselves to men". Having said that, I fail to see how embracing one's sexuality constitutes "subjecting" oneself to men. The whole point of my post was to contradict that common worldview.
And lastly, regarding your last sentence, there's no need to resort to ad hominem. I tried to articulate as best I could the findings of the science of evolutionary biology, and to reason therefrom. I think I made a rational argument. I'm interested in any rational criticisms or refutations of those arguments that you might offer, but simply saying that evolutionary biology constitutes a "sexual fetish" isn't helpful.
Also, sex appeal has nothing to do with "reproductive capabilities". Evolution hard wired us to be attracted to certain indicators of reproductive capability regardless of whether or not it actually exists in a given individual. As evolutionary psychologists have shown, sexual attractiveness is remarkably consistent in every culture and throughout all times.
For instance, most men regardless of time or culture, find youth, long hair, small waists, large breasts, lighter hair and lighter eyes to be, on average, more sexually compelling than the opposite because these are, in fact, evolutionary ”markers" or "cues" for fertility. Women likewise find certain well-know physical attributes to be sexy in men, but they also look beyond the physical when measuring a man’s sex appeal—to things like wealth, influence, position, stature, etc.
I never intended to suggest that sex appeal is the only way women can influence the world, just the easiest and most obvious, and one that has been actively denied them by men. Of course there are women who make a tremendous impact on the world regardless of their sexual attractiveness. The more of them the better. But its damn near criminal that men have conned women for centuries into abandoning their greatest source of evolutionary influence—their sex appeal and their ability to choose their mates.
In any event, I think your view of sexuality is too narrow. Men (and women) find all different types of things (ages, body types, etc.) sexy as evidenced by Internet Rule 34: “If it exists, there is porn of it.”
The feminine desire for attention and to bee seen is not really accepted in our culture. I think a woman have the right to do whatever she pleases with her body. If she chose to use her beauty to gain power she should be free to do so. If she wish to transcend her gender that should also be accepted. Female power is feared by men for good reason because it threatens the masculine need for dominance and control. The feminine powers are often unpredictable, as no one really knows what the woman wants, not even herself. There is no right or wrong way to be feminine, and femininity is so much more than innocence and beauty. If the world is truly ready to embrace the feminine, as we all hunger for love and vast possibility at this point in time, we must be willing to embrace the feminine force in its entirety, not just the cute and sexy side of it. It is dangerous to limit feminine power to sexuality, every young woman today is too aware of the fact that her most valuable asset is her body. And that her body does not belong only to herself. The female body is inviting, open and willing to embrace. I do not think that female sexuality is limited to picking the right genes for your offspring. With the feminine power sex is not only reproductive, but a means to deeper connection and intimate relationships.
Beautifully said, and I mostly agree. The only point I would disagree with is that "every young woman today is too aware of the fact that her most valuable asset is her body". I don't find this to be the case at all. If they truly do realize it, they are shamed out of exploiting it, and when they do release it, they generally do so in ways controlled by men.
Nobody consciously approaches sex in the manner indicated by evolutionary psychologists--that is, nobody choose their partner by deciding whether or not he/she has "good genes." But, as shown by evolutionary psychologists, the things we almost invariably find sexy are indeed indicators or markers for good genes. We are instinctually attracted to good genes, not consciously.
In the beginning of our evolutionary history sex was purely a means to produce healthy offspring. Then health and beauty would be the most attractive assets for sure. But the woman soon discovered that she could trade sex for food and protection, and the man discovered that he could turn to her for emotional support and care. And so the female was soon celebrated for her healing powers and protection instinct. The sexual relationships would early on have transcended the purely reproductive purposes and thus began to involve psychological comfort, trust and community. Great things can happen when a woman use her powers for good.
I think the lens of evolutionary biology can only go so far in providing an analytical framework for issues that are socially inflected. Evolutionarily significant time frames can see many social revolutions. We are far more than our biology. We are social creatures and our behavior is determined by the conditions of our lives and experiences that shape us. Context is very important.
Interesting post however I fail to see the link with Porn?
Also talk of "birthright evolutionary power" is a dangerous road to tread and is the kind of antiquated rhetoric that has been used in the past to justify all manners of atrocities (particularly against women). No-one has a "birthright" over the mind or body of other human beings, thankfully as a species we have evolved beyond this kind of thinking (well at least most of us!).
The link to porn is explained in the last paragraph of my original post. Porn, properly used on a platform like Steemit, can be incredibly empowering to women.
My reference to birthright was not intended at all to imply that any person has birthright control over another, or the right to dominate another against his/her will. It was simply meant to suggest that women have birthright power over their own sexuality, and that expression of that sexuality shouldn't be controlled by others (church, state, tribe, men, shaming, etc.).
Porn/ the Porn industry/ the Sex trade has very little to do with empowering women. It is more to do with subjugating people (mainly vulnerable women) for the monetary gain and pleasure of other people (mainly men).
I cannot see how Steemit will not be a vehicle to liberate women from this, any more than the internet or Instagram has.
I agree that women have a birthright over their own sexuality. However what's this got to do with porn and exercising "birthright evolutionary power over men's psyches," as asserted in your OP? The majority of women I know want a monogamous relationship with a good man (or woman) of their choosing yet feel free to look and feel good for themselves, and be respected as human beings. They want little to do with the fact that men are effectively genetic pervs that cannot control their evolutionary urges to keep it in their pants! (which seems to be one of the basic tenant of your OP)
Yes, there are some women that want to freely flash their private parts, however this is a tiny minority. Rather than being overly concerned with being seen to "empower" this minority, Steemit should be careful not to be seen as a gateway for this minority to fall into the Porn industry proper.
I'm not advocating censorship, however I think we should exercise caution in what we seek to promote.
Healthy debate to have at this stage of Steemit development though.
You pretty much made my entire point for me. Porn currently is not about empowering women because men largely control it/them. Men currently control female sexuality through religion, through tribal custom, through shame and through coercion. They allow it to be expressed only in ways that benefit men and where they control it--for instance, in marriage and in the sex trade.
Steem has the potential to liberate women from male dominance over their sexuality because they can post and make money directly--without male middle men taking their cut and controlling the expression of their sexuality. In the same way that Steem liberates authors, artists, and content creators of all types, it liberates female sexuality. Instagram is owned largely by men who currently make millions/billions off what's posted there, including expressions of female sexuality.
Women (and men) say that they want monogamy, but history, evolutionary psychology and their actions prove otherwise. In traditional cultures, 84 percent are polygynous, 16 percent monogamous and less than .5 percent polyandrous.
In virtually all species, the size of the males's testes (in relation to the rest of their body) varies with the promiscuity of species's females. Where men are competing with other men to spread their seed among multiple receptive females (who are having sex with multiple men in a short period of time), the number of sperm produced by each competing male matters. Larger testes that produce more sperm will produce more offspring on average than smaller ones that produce less, causing evolution to select for the former over time. By this measure we know, for instance, that human females have been more promiscuous historically than gorillas but substantially less promiscuous than chimps.
Though we often con ourselves otherwise, our current society is secretly and deceptively polygynous in a manner consistent with our genetic ancestry, and Alpha males continue to mate with more women and produce more offspring. We don't fully recognize this because we either lie to ourselves, deceive our partners, or hide behind fragile institutions (like marriage).
For instance, in the US, between 13 percent and 20 percent of men are unknowingly raising another man's child (and that's in the age of birth control!). These numbers are fairly consistent across countries. Pick your ten best male father friends and then realize that, statistically speaking, between one and two of them is unknowingly raising someone else's child. Evolutionary psychology has shown that the biological father is almost invariably someone who is genetically more well adapted or who has more material resources.
Wealthy and powerful men (Alpha males), even married ones, have on average far more sexual partners, and have sex far more frequently, than their non-Alpha peers, though they are no more likely to use the services of a prostitute than their poorer brethren.
In short, due to the ease and frequency of divorce, modern Western societies practice "serial monogamy". We pretend to be monogamous for a while, and then we move on to the next partner.
I'm pondering what @nanzo-scoop is saying in his last comment because I do think that, at first blush, if the average women came to Steemit and found it a raging pool of dudes beating off to women, they'd be less likely to return. At the same time, the idea that women don't like porn, that they don't enjoy it, etc, is a complete fallacy. BUT that does bring up the fact that only certain types of porn are likely to be rewarded. For example, it's demonstrable and proven that many women prefer gay porn over straight porn for various reasons (that I could make a post about but it would likely be down voted). However, a woman who uploaded some gay porn here to this predominately straight, dude-bro culture is pretty much guaranteed to have her porn preference voted down immediately by a Steem Whale. (I mean, all I posted was an essay about gay tv characters and it got down voted! I can't imagine the reaction to gay porn in this hardcore hetero male environment!) And, so, as long as the Steem Power is in heterosexual dude bro's hands, then the porn that would be valued here would be the exact same porn that is already valued everywhere else. It's a conundrum.
Your points may be valid, however they have a male skew. Your arguments against women wanting monogamy consisted entirely of examples of why men are polygamists and the practices of men!
If Steemit wants to attract and empower women, the focus should be on what women want (empirically) not on what men theorise that that women want (based on our biases). I don't think the ability to upload porn is high on the list for women.
@leta-blake
https://steemit.com/steem/@tuck-fheman/steem-life--vol-5--kill-the-smart-people
;)
Ha! As I said to the person who first introduced me to Steem when they were explaining that porn was discouraged, "Oh, it' s just a matter of time." Heh. I really don't have a problem with it.
"Do we objectify or dehumanize men when we allow them, without shame or scorn, in fact with praise, to market their most evolutionarily valuable asset (their physical brawn)?"
I would say yes.
Wow.
I like very much your article and your approach over religious and social rules. Like you, I think that "homo sapiens", like any species on the earth are in a "survival" state : food, protection against natural elements and reproduction. In many species, basically, the female choice her "Alpha"male.
This is a total nitpick on your post, but I know many, many, MANY feminists that have zero problems with porn. I am being that annoying person who chooses one sentence and pokes at it, but, yep. It stuck out to me, since I identify as a feminist and most of my friends do, and most of us watch porn. But, regardless, yay porn. :P
There's a difference between liking porn and respecting women who are in it. I'm sure many feminists personally enjoy porn, but I don't know many who think that porn actresses are doing the right thing from a feminist agenda perspective.
But I get it. Not all feminists are the same. Agreed.
Btw, in future versions of Steemit users will be able to filter out NSFW content. So nobody who doesn't want to see porn will be subjected to it.
I don't know many who think that porn actresses are doing the right thing from a feminist agenda perspective.
Almost every feminist I know has zero problems with porn actresses, and, the ones I know who have problems with porn itself have issues with the porn industry and the way it is run, not with actresses within it. I wonder how many feminists you've talked to about sex positivity? Sex positivity is a HUGE feminist movement and it absolutely embraces the idea of empowered women doing consensual porn.
Given your particular genre, I'm not surprised that most feminist you know are sex positive. However, the fact that "sex positive feminism" (rather than just "feminism") exists as a movement is a tacit admission that feminism (as originally conceived) was anything but. It's the latter that I'm criticizing.
I do recognize, however, that some modern feminist identify as sex positive, though they are still in the minority from my experience.
The other side of the sex-is-power coin is much uglier. Men, on the average, are stronger than women.
The only reason a woman can travel from point A to point B without being raped, the majority of the time, is because society (mostly the men in society) has given her that power. Female sexual power exists because men play along instead of enslaving, raping, etc. But any particular man at any given time might just say screw it and stop playing along.
All of those archaic, dark-age constraints on female sexuality also doubled as constraints on men destroying society. If an average man ends up married and has a few kids under a legal/religious arrangement where he agrees to support a woman in exchange for fidelity and sex, he'll settle down and work a normal job and support society. If not, there's a risk that he will fail to contribute, or even harm society, rape women, and so forth.
It's an interesting time in society. Female sexuality can't be unchained unless something else is done to tighten the chains on male power over women. If too many average guys end up out of the gene pool because women begin to only have sex with the highest bidders or the hottest guys, we'll need labor camps or something to keep those guys in check. It's not a pretty idea.
Perhaps, though evolution has a way of dealing with this too. Testosterone plummets among less fit males who are overlooked by women. Instead of becoming more aggressive against women they usually become less. It's the alpha males who have the highest testosterone levels. Lessor males usually submit.
This is why we should have female-only societies like bonobos, killer whales and elephants. The males are lone wolves who exist outside of the group while the females have the protection of the group. It makes a lot more sense than what we have now. This is the evolutionary reason that males don't form strong bonds with one another and why they have more physical strength. Because they are meant to go solo and have to be able to protect themselves.
https://steemit.com/introduceyourself/@charlot/why-steemit-charlot
Very late to the party but wanted to say this was a bloody excellent article.
do you want to hang out later today?
What the hell did I just read? Did I somehow travel back in time...? Yes, let's get paid in sex...
About women having power over the male sexuality: Forgetting about rape, eh? Yes, yes, women should be honored getting raped, because that's too an effort men take to get sex. Men can try to prevent their penisses from getting stiff, but women can't just lock their vaginas. And men are mostly physically more powerful. That's why rape and sexual harassment are problems for so many women.
Maybe, just maybe, like we overcame natural selection, we should not think we should build our society purely on biology. That's why nature gave us bigger brains. And I want to be recognized for what's in my head, not in my blouse.
Secondly, what's that crap that women could rule the world, but don't want to, because it's work!? Are you freaking serious?! There are a lot of women out there who would like to have more power. Are you saying we are lazy? What's next? That, because of their bigger dicks, people of colour could rule the world, but also are too lazy, so they liked it better to be slaves!? As a probably white male it's very comfortable for you to write this. As a woman I can tell you, it sucks to be one. No one listens to you, they won't take you serious, whenever we get angry it's "PMS". I work twice as hard as any man in my school, but do I get the reward for it? Hell, no. But every men does. It's not that we are too lazy to be in power: You men are not allowing us to be in power, it was like this for thousands of years and with people thinking stuff like that, it won't change for thousands of years, too.
And by the way: If there is anything, we don't need more of on the internet, it's porn. There are enough websites where you can "enjoy" this, steemit does not have to be a platform for it...