The question keeps coming up but the answer is simple. Why does society value women for their youth and looks and men for their wealth and strength?

[RingOfFire]

I think that the reason this question keeps coming up is because some people do not want to accept the clear answer.

It all goes back to nature. Survival and reproduction is obviously the most important function of any species since without it the species would fail to exist. So nature and evolution shape the characteristics of males and females of a species so that it promotes successful reproduction and survival of the offspring who then reproduce again to perpetuate the process.

In humans, part of that successful process is a family unit: a mother, a father and children. This is the basic building block of successful human survival.

Males and female humans are programmed by this natural process to fulfill different critical roles to ensure the family unit is strong, productive and successful. Females are programmed to attract males and stimulate them to reproduce to promote formation of the family unit. Therefore there is extra weight given to the female's value based on their ability to visually stimulate (another way to say that is that they are valued for their looks). This is why females spend much more time and money on things like makeup, clothing, jewelry and other physical adornments than men. It's in their genetic programming to want to enhance their looks. Looks are not the ONLY trait that their value is measured by, but it is one of traits with the highest weighting, another being their ability to bear children. And that one is why age is important in the analysis of a human female's value because unlike males, once females reach about 35 years old, their ability to bear children rapidly deteriorates. This is all a nature based value system programmed into the human species.

Human males on the other hand are valued for their ability to provide and protect. They are bigger and stronger than women so this is their natural role in the successful family unit. And this is why females put extra weight on a male's wealth, ability to earn money, and his physical size and strength when assessing his value. Again, as with females these are not the ONLY traits that are used to value males but they are some of the most heavily weighted.

Society naturally (even if subconsciously) uses these standards to evaluate the contribution an individual makes to the success of the species. That's why you see so many female celebrities admired for their looks and so many male celebrities admired for their wealth or physical abilities (such as sports).

This all comes from nature and evolution and is programmed into males and females in their DNA.

[nastyb]

so what? evolution says that men are wired to "spread their seed" basically to impregnate as many women as possible.

YET, men have been able to stay in marriages for millions of years.

I think that humans civilization is different from being uncivilized wild zoo animals.

women have no value in society other than looks because of PATRIARCHY.

Notice how single women are shamed while single men aren't. A single woman is called a crazy lady with 50 cats while a single man is called a bachelor.

Notice how women who dont want children are shamed while it is completely ok for men who dont want children.

Take a look at how single moms are shamed while men who abandon their kids are never looked down upon

A career woman who wants to make a lot of money is called "materialistic" while a man who wants to make a lot of money is called "ambitious"

It all boils down to Patriarchy and sexism

[Kaamraj]

The insititutino of marriage is relatively recent, for most of history only few alphamen have reproduced while most men could not.

[nastyb]

@Kaamraj

marriage have existed for thousands of years. its not a recent concept.

if men were evolutionarily wired to spread their seed... marriage wouldn't have existed for thousands of years.

[Kaamraj]

@nastyb - Note that I said relatively recent, marriage as an institution is few thousands of years old (about 4500 years) whereas human history streaches about 2 mil years. The institution of marriage was made against evolutionary compulsions when humans began to settle down into cities and practice agriculture so that most men do not spend their time fighting and devote themselves to building society as farmers, builders, potters, soldiers, metal smiths, etc. Without marriage and without any stake in the next generation, most men would not participate in society.

[nastyb]

@Kaamraj

4500 years is still 4500 years.

if men were wired to spread their seed... marriage would have never been created.

Not only would it never been created... it wouldn't have LASTED for thousands of years.

[nastyb]

@Kaamraj

[ The institution of marriage was made against evolutionary compulsions when humans began to settle down into cities and practice agriculture so that most men do not spend their time fighting and devote themselves to building society as farmers, builders, potters, soldiers, metal smiths, etc.]

thats fucking Bullshit.

many many raging wars have occurred since the origin of marriage.

in fact.. there was so much violence in our history books that war was considered common.

[nastyb]

back then, people definitely were not anti war. quit making shit up.

[Kaamraj]

@nastyb- Read what I said again, I said fighting, as in fighting among themselves, if they fight for a polity (city-state, kingdom, empire, etc) they they're not really fighting against themselves for resources but fighting for their society to expand its reach. This is why during the stone age there were no empires because you never had more than a few men for any cause. I did mention soldiering as one of the professions that men were recruited into as a result of agriculture and marriage, to either expand or defend their homes.

Men or any male mammal is made to spread its seed, the very fact is that sperm is cheap. A male mates with as many females as he can in the wild until he either dies, doesn't find any more females or is checked by another male.

One good example of this is Gengis Khan who literally impregnated thousands of women, 1/200 men in the world can trace their lineage from him.

[nastyb]

@Kaamraj

if men were not made to be monogamous, marriage would never have been doable for thousands of years. marriage wouldn't even have been created because as according to you... men are incapable of being monogamous.

this statement alone proves everything you've said to be false.

[nastyb]

@Kaamraj

there is nature vs nurture...

sometimes "evolution" doesn't override our common sense, morals or civility.

just because you find a 15 yr old girl with curves to be sexy, it doesn't mean you would marry or have kids with her.

600 years ago, men would pay premium price to have sex with infants and little girls because their pussies were tighter. It is human nature to want better sex. It is evolutionary to enjoy sex.
but does evolutionary instinct override morality?
is it morally right to have sex with little girls?

[Kaamraj]

@nastyb - morality is not absolute, what is moral for you may be immoral in another culture or time. Nature also doesn't care about what is morally right or wrong, it only cares about what works. Regarding the age of consent, in some places it's 14, 16, 18, 21, 25, etc, so legally speaking there is no global consensus. Evolution triumphs morality most of the time, however never have men who are not criminals ever as you said "paid a premium to have sex with infants and little girls" and those criminals who did pay that amount then, still pay that amount now, but they are criminals not the norm.

[nastyb]

@Kaamraj

hundreds of years ago, people had kids at a very young age because people had significantly shorter lives. During the roman empire, the average age of death was 33. Prior to the roman empire, the average age of death was 25.

[nastyb]

@Kaamraj

[morality is not absolute, what is moral for you may be immoral in another culture or time. Nature also doesn't care about what is morally right or wrong, it only cares about what works.]

there is a difference between civilized humans and zoo animals. Zoo animals are raised without morals or structure or values. They do not know the difference between wrong or right. They have no understanding of empathy and kindness. They just do whatever the hell they want. Humans are raised with morals, structures and values.

A lion might eat its own child but a human would know better than to eat its own child.
Its very common for dogs to abandon their offpsring. but a human knows to not have babies if she doesn't want them.

[Evolution triumphs morality most of the time, ]

evolution does not triumphs morality. you dont see teen girls getting impregnated or raped by old men in america.

you don't see little girls being raped in america.

you don't see all husbands cheating on their wives because they are wired to "spread their seed". Most husbands don't cheat. If most husbands cheated, all marriages would be divorced and there will be no such thing as marriage.

[Kaamraj]

@nastyb
Poeple in most parts of the world still have children young, part of this is because their own life expectancies are limited and more limited is the woman's window of reproductive success. That's another reason why men across time and cultures have preferred younger women.

You think humans have more morals than zoo animals? Was it not humans who enslaved other humans based on their skin color, or who colonized most of the world for centuries or exterminated millions on state sponsored pogroms to enforce what they call ethnic cleansing.

A lion never eats its child as it's their own DNA and humans also abandon their children.

I said that it's a man genetic strategy to have sex with as many women as possible, where did I say that it has to be by force?- In nature that right is reserved for the alpha male who secures exclusive reproductive rights. But saying that, every man wants unlimited sex but only a few can exercise their right. That is why most husbands cannot cheat, but still more than half of the marriages in the western world end in divorce, mostly initiated by the woman.

[RingOfFire]

Look we love to think we are so post natural and sophisticated. But the fact is that we still have to eat, drink and suffer through various bodily functions, illness and death. In our millions of years of existence we still have not found a way to bypass that. I think it is unmitigated hubris to think we have somehow escaped our natural behavior and we are living in a post natural society. We are constrained by our natural physiology whether we are willing to accept that or not. Nature doesn't care about what is fair or the politically correct spin du jour in the current infinitesimally short tick of the natural world's timeclock. It's the ultimate reality. You can either live in sync with nature, or fight it and be perpetually bitter that it refuses to conform to your fantasy. Your body, your choice. 😉

[Adaeva]

Humans have existed for 3 million years, prior to 3 million years ago, their ancestors are not defined as humans. That is probably arbitrary as there is no easy cutoff or starting point. Regardless, thousand of years and tens of thousands of years is recent. Therefore, marriage is a very recent concept. Furthermore, 8,000 YEARS AGO, 17 WOMEN REPRODUCED FOR EVERY ONE MAN. That is yesterday and that is not marriage.

[YAsQuen]

bad female bad

[RingOfFire]

🤣
...

[nastyb]

@Kaamraj

[You think humans have more morals than zoo animals? Was it not humans who enslaved other humans based on their skin color, or who colonized most of the world for centuries or exterminated millions on state sponsored pogroms to enforce what they call ethnic cleansing.]

[You think humans have more morals than zoo animals? Was it not humans who enslaved other humans based on their skin color, or who colonized most of the world for centuries or exterminated millions on state sponsored pogroms to enforce what they call ethnic cleansing.]

doesn't matter what happened back then because there were morals or values. Same thing as back then during the caveman days, murder was legal. You can kill your own mother and eat her- this is entirely legal. As society modernized, there became government, morals, values, laws.

do we enslave people anymore? NO!

back then in america, girls as young as 16 used to be married to a 50 yr old men.
do we see that anymore? NO!

back then in christopher columbus era, men used to pay premium to have sex with infant baby girls. do we see that anymore? NO

back then, there was slavery. do we see that anymore? NO!

As society modernizes, people get more civlized and moral.

you can't justify cheating simply because men are wired to spread their seed.

if men are not wired to be monogamous, marriage would never have been a concept for thousands of years.

[nastyb]

@RingOfFire

ok. so if your wife is attracted to a younger man hotter and sexier than you then , would it mean its ok for her to have sex with him?

[RingOfFire]

"ok. so if your wife is attracted to a younger man hotter and sexier than you then , would it mean its ok for her to have sex with him?"

How is that question related to anything I've said? What did I say that would speak to that conclusion one way or another?

[nastyb]

@RingOfFire

well YOU SAID natural biological desires / instincts OVERIDES all sort of rules, morals, values.

so would it be right for your wife to have sex with any man she finds hotter than you?

you can't answer that right? haha

[JacobJordan]

patriarchy doesn't exist in the USA. that is a literal fact. Also on another note men absolutely shame guys who abandon their kids. they get clowned unbelievably hard. No one shames single women at least not the way you describe. yes people will call single women crazy cat lady when she is older far older. but when she is young and single no one cares. Men do not shame women for not wanting children though I have seen a lot of women with kids shame other women who do not want kids. While I understand your frustration the reality is far different than you perceive it to be.

[YAsQuen]

marriage and civilization are hugely intertwined and dependent on each other. Marriage gives the average man a reason to care about society. Men are clearly hornier then women.

[RingOfFire]

I think that a more detailed way to look at it is that men are more *consistently* horny than women.
Women can get pretty horny too, but it usually is only during a certain time in their monthly cycle and after a more intense stimulation of some kind. Men are horny and ready to go all the time.

[AnnaSorokin]

Because a young and beautiful girl needs to find a rich man to support her monthly skin care products and buy luxury goods. Rich men want to find a little fairy who will charm everyone. Who would be willing to face a yellow-faced woman at home every day?

[RingOfFire]

Now that is humor worthy of intense appreciation.

[AnnaSorokin]

Haha. I think there should be a lot like this in real life. Girls like us who are not very beautiful can only rely on their own wisdom and hands to make money to satisfy their desires.

[RingOfFire]

Interesting choice of screenname there. My sympathy if by some longshot that is your actual name.

"Anna Sorokin (Russian: Анна Сорокина; born January 23, 1991), also known as Anna Delvey, is a con artist and fraudster who posed as a wealthy heiress to access upper-class New York social and art scenes from 2013 to 2017."

[AnnaSorokin]

Oh my God, why am I so unlucky? Why do I have the same name as a liar? What's wrong with her now? Maybe I'm not in New York and haven't heard of her.

[RingOfFire]

That's what they all say.

[AnnaSorokin]

Then she must be a very beautiful woman to join your upper class circle.

[RingOfFire]

Ehhhh... she didn't appeal to me.

[AnnaSorokin]

Haha, it’s a good thing you weren’t tempted by beauty, otherwise you would have been deceived by her too.

[RingOfFire]

I did not know her. When I saw your screenname it sounded familiar. So I looked it up. I remember hearing about her in the news.

[AnnaSorokin]

Is it such a big thing? It’s even on the news. I’m going to check it out now.

[RingOfFire]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Sorokin

[AnnaSorokin]

Is she in jail or on parole now? I don’t know if these questions are true or false. I do admire her for how she deceives men, haha

[RingOfFire]

Learned a few new tricks did you?

According to the last update in the article she is on monitored parole living in a tiny apartment in New York City.

[AnnaSorokin]

This just lets ladies know that men are easily deceived for beauty. Now her every move is under surveillance and she can no longer enter the upper class circles. I am so unfortunate to meet a liar with the same name.

[RingOfFire]

Life can be very cruel.

[KC-Sunbeam]

Who'd be willing to face a yellow-faced woman? Isn't that kind of racist?

[Guanfei]

It's just instinct. Men are providers and protectors, and any sign they're better at those 2 things makes them more important, attractive and therefore more valuable.

Same for women, who are nurturing and caring. Being young and beautiful shows they ready and able to mate, and raise offsprings. Once age kicks in, their chances of getting pregnant get lower.

Overall, most of what people like and dislike in general come from instinct, even our values.

[RingOfFire]

You are not supposed to believe that today. Soon the Democrats will call that "hate speech" and arrest anyone who says it. That's where their agenda is going.

[jshm2]

You are simple, it would seem.

Societies have different norms as per their requirements, virtues and ideals. What is "beautiful" in one, may be "ugly" in another.

You're overgeneralizing what people and societies you've never heard of, want in their people.

[RingOfFire]

You cannot discuss a broad topic like this without "generalizing." There are very few things that could be discussed without that.

As to there being differences between what is considered beautiful or ugly between cultures, that does not change the validity of my conclusion since you can apply whatever standard you want and within that society and the same principles apply. Women who are considered beautiful by whatever standard applies in that particular cultural society have a greater value and status.

Nature is the same everywhere on planet earth and in every society. It is the overriding force that determines human behavior.

[BlackBeauty90]

What's wealth?

In societies that don't use currency - and they exist still - money literally has less value than toilet paper & which only purpose is for lighting a fire. Whereas what these people see as value has less worth than toilet paper to societies that use currency.

What's strength?

In societies that are predominantly still farm based - as in Europe - strength is measured by will power & determination, etc. Whereas in softer western "civilized" societies how is strength measured? By how much a dumbbell you can lift weighs?

What's beauty?

Shallow fickle people identity beauty as physical because it is beyond their ability to offer real value in a relationship. People who are not fickle or shallow & who offer real value in relationships identify beauty by someone's personality, heart, character, etc.

What's youth?

In certain cultures & religions it is seen, in many ways, as perfectly acceptable and even very much encouraged to have sexual relations with barely teenaged girls. In other cultures & religions such conduct isn't just frowned upon but results in deserved jail.

[Singing_Hollow]

Yes you are right. Also beauty is different to different cultures. To some countries, a woman who has good hips is more attractive because they are seen as being able to produce better... it has a lot to do with genetics and strengthening DNA. Also like you said, if a man is wealthier, he is able to provide for the family his wife brings to him and therefore he brings value.

[TheorionMage]

'Quid Pro Quo' = THIS, in return for THAT. Functionally, PERIOD.
ALL other traits and resources are SECONDARY and THAT offends philosophical idealists~ Males will put up with MUCH if she makes him DESIRE to reproduce. And... SHE will tolerate MUCH if her physical needs for food, shelter and protection are met.

Its NOT 'noble' or honorable; its PRAGMATIC. Its the unpromulgated un-overtly taught 'lesson' contemporary human species culture teaches~ AWAY from 'Christian' guilt-tripping.

'Fecundity' breeding is the ultimate 'coin-of-the-realm'.
Early life experiences ESPECIALLY if immediately pleasurable, make POWERFUL life-long memories; as DO psychologically crippling unpleasant ones! 'Tantra' is SACRAMENTAL sexuality~

[lightbulb27]

Clearly said. Id suggest this concept of power…


Whise more attractive… john the baptist… very strong loner type or senator palpatine from star wars?


A lot of chicks would go with palpatine ad he has emotional power.


A few would go with the baptist due to looking at his good heart demeanor ir religious sense they get.


Emotional power charisma confidence are relevant. Women are looking emotionally… not just like sogs choosing the bugger more aggressive dog. Actually wolves do something similar …

[Hinaaaaa]

Cause women want better future for their kids... they want someone they can have a good family with... men want someone who is beautiful cause they are visual... also youth means fertility... a woman who can give birth to healthy babies...

[RingOfFire]

I think that's exactly right. Of course it isn't all or nothing. Men too want their children to have a better future and women too care about how men look. But some things are higher on the priority list for men and other things are higher on the priority list for women. Everything is not the same priority for both.

But I think you said it very well. 👍

[Anonymous]

It's all about genetics. Men and women are genetically programmed to be attracted to those things in the opposite sex due to millions of years of evolution.

It has always been the case that the children of women who bred with men who were strong, capable and had resources were more likely to survive to adulthood and pass on their genes.

And it has always been the case that the children of men who bred with healthy and fertile women (for which youth and beauty are proxies) were also more likely to survive to adulthood and pass on their genes.

[DaBiggestBird]

Let’s back peddle a wee bit sir, evolution is just as real as Pokémon and nature is nature, not some entity who holds the world in order like some Thanos knowledge. Adaptation is real for sure, but a dog-pig thing turning into a whale? I mean just think about that. But as of the actual topic we’re discussing, ehh……. Yeah sounds like baloney to me respectfully. Not saying this is inaccurate or anything putting aside the Mega Evolution theory thing but maybe we should just agree that these people are making things complex for no reason like literally every math lesson taught in school after 2nd grade. If you like someone you like someone. It’s basically black and white, not that deep. There is no reason for anyone to cry about it.

I would like to take a moment to emphasize that im not targeting you like a Russian air defense system targets it’s own jets or anything, just spitting some real stuff like Ben Shapiro when he absolutely burns a liberal or protester.

[Exterminatore]

Because women aren’t of much use for men beyond child bearing anymore. Attraction is required for arousal.


As for men, women want sperm donors, human ATM machines, bodyguards, a handyman, a mechanic, and a taxi service. So men’s utility is stressed.


So, to sum it up, most women are useless to a man except for bearing children and sometimes recreational sex, and men have many uses to women. Women used to have value for a man, but not really anymore. By the way ladies, don’t bother telling me how you cook and clean. You don’t do this anymore. No guy wants a career woman. Generally speaking men do not see value in that. Don’t tell me how you work and then cook and clean. If you want to keep your man around you should. Otherwise you don’t have anything to offer most of us want.

[DWornock]

We don't know exactly how men and women lived during the Stone Age when there were only a few tens of thousands of people. However, first, we can observe how native tribes lived several hundred year ago. Second, we can reason. The Alpha male didn't drive out the other males because, if he did, other tribes with multiple males would invade, kill the Alpha male, and take the best women. Therefore, that is a dead end.

The Alpha may have fucked most of the women but he had to allow other men to fuck women or they would leave and join a tribe that did. Then the Alpha male would be invaded and killed and the best women taken. Therefore, that is a dead end.

Therefore, the remaining choice is similar to native tribes in Africa from hundreds of year ago when the population in Africa was a small fraction of the current population. Half the men had mates the other half were weaklings that never fucked.

[Berethor]

Feminism is a lie, yea youth and fertility are the most important female traits, and it's a fact.

https://allthetropes.org/wiki/Men_Are_Strong,_Women_Are_Pretty

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergamy#Research

[Lliam]

This was a logical, unbiased and well written MyTake. I think it is undeniably true, RingOfFire, based on your broad definitions of wealth and beauty, which are subjective and may vary in different cultures.

I also admire the way you handled disagreeing comments.

[MOII2]

As a general rule, with some exceptions, guys are visually inclined to go for looks combined with an appealing personality depending upon what is there type. Women on the other hand generally speaking looking for a guy who can appease there feeling and emotions. They hate being coming onto. Rather to have a much more indirect approach thus leaving them uncomfortable and tense. They want to feel special and feeling like that they are the only one in the room that matters and special…. A situation ignored way too often from the males perception

[aquamarine321]

It has been so from the beginning of time, plus females in there young age and men with wealth is when they are most vulnerable and relationships have a better chance of survival or lasting longer

[RingOfFire]

"plus females in there young age and men with wealth is when they are most vulnerable"

Fascinating point.

[boobliker]

It has been that way for a long, long time and you can't change what is nature quickly it will take 4 or 5 generations maybe longer

[RingOfFire]

The point I wanted to make with the post is that it isn't something that can be changed by sociological changes but it is coded into human physiology and DNA and can never be changed unless there is some kind of scientific breakthrough that can alter that physical fact. It's nature not nurture that controls this behavior. So it isn't something that can be changed by wishing it was so or making believe it isn't so any more than this notion that men can be women or women can be men changes the fact that physiology and DNA render that belief a fantasy.

[boobliker]

and yes. that is why I said it will take 4 or 5 generations it has got to get in to deep part of our brains

[Dargil]

Youthful women mean fertility and a good help mete. Wealth and strength in men mean stability and protection. Duh.

[Sonorous]

Because:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/G4gcPQs3U6I

[noohair]

Very good. I call it the caveperson brain this it explains a lot. Men had to cooperate to hunt food. That is why men can put differences aside and forget. Women had to compete for food gathering and that nature shows through today too.

[_RebelWolf_]

It's really getting boring now, people are building relationships based on their appearance, money and wealth, you know, they say why relationships don't last long, why so quickly, why there are so many divorce cases in this country or why people are being murdered, that's all just because they have money, just because they have a beautiful back girth. I think it stems from relationships and marriages.

[genericname85]

obviously cause women are most fertile in their youth and men are the best providers when they're middle aged/older.

[AviatorTom]

Well said. Many of our actions go back to basic biology and nature.