Maybe women are indeed smarter than men...

(No. This is not to start a flame war. It`s essentially a discussion of the efficiency of the mechanics and exchanges involved in dating situations, not a judgement on the sexes, because the men/women positions can be interchanged without interfering too much with the underlying offer/demand logic).

Have you ever wondered why, even in 2003, all the usual men and women talks are most probably the same as 100 years back (except women are more free and aggressive nowadays)? You know, the usual men are X, women are Y…ever wondered why things are so and don`t change that much?

When you look at it in terms of offer and demand, interactions, mechanics, patterns, give and takes, I am starting that women, in terms of efficiency, are smarter than men.

Just food for thought. Take what you want. Your mileage may differ. While obviously this does not apply to any cases, it possible covers usual general cases (one nighters and bar/first encounters).

Here are the premises:

  1. Demand (sexual drive) in built-in in men and never in shortage with all the men around.
  2. The same sexual drive makes us men think us think with our little head very often. We are usually far less rational when horny, specially when aroused.
  3. Women know it very well. They can very well control the offer, and make men jump through hoops, for a potential promise of extras (and horny guys feel like in a casino and try their luck). They dont keep the product` easy to buy, so men are willing to bend over, pay more in all domains, just to have a ticket and try their luck.
  4. By the same logic, they can expect to pull stunts that men would not tolerate from other men.
  5. Sure, men can say no. But the sex drive is mighty, and statistically we usually lose patience and cave in to their demands.

Therefore, FOR THE CASES WHERE THIS LOGIC IS APPLIED AND FOLLOWED, you have to admire the efficiency of women in these matters. They are more patient than men, are better bargainers, and therefore wiser than us men. They`ve got us by the balls, litterally.

Following this logic, if we dont like historical rituals and scenarios, mens options are few: either we put up, shut up, wait for something better, better ourselves, look elsewhere or negociate better.

Like I said, this is only for general cases and I do not expect this to apply for any serious, mutual-love relationships founded on respect.

Like economics, this theory works best on large sample observations. Take what you want, feel free to bring in new points. Like Jeet Kune Do, feel free to add, take out, scrap what and define it like you want.

I don’t know that I would consider it smarter, rather I would say they benefit from a more advantageous starting position. Granted a lot of guys let themselves be dragged around by the balls, which I suppose is more to the point.

If you think about it in terms of economic models as you’ve started to though you can find solutions that parallel those in the real world.

Solid insights.

I don’t think I’m ever going to get laid again. I’m thinking with my dick and it’s leading to a lot of frustration. If I were being logical and perceptive, I’d have a better chance of avoiding the drama queens and finding a levelheaded chick. They do exist. They’re the ones you overlook in favor of the little tight ass that jerks you around and rips out your spine. Forget sex, I’d just like a fucking date. I can write my own version of reflections on celibacy. It’s been a loooong time. Sure, there were the occasional drunken makeouts, but never anything real.

Sorry, I’m rambling. I’m in a bad mood again. Uh, carry on.

I don’t think women are any smarter than men; just a lot smarter than men think they are. Just imagine if you were a woman: just about all men are bigger and stronger than you and want to stick their dick in you. Wouldn’t you find ways to protect yourself and get what you want in ways that require brainpower not brawn?

Women, too, have a powerful sex drive. Why is it considered that women are holding an ace, here? Agreeing to sex will fulfill a woman’s needs, too, so why this idea that men need to barter with dinner and flowers?

CMC: If you raise your standards, sure youll have less opportunities, but trust me youll get the most memorable quality ones.

QUANTUMBUTTERFLY: Yep. Women have probably the same sex drive as men. Who would not want a GOOD sex experience, indeed? Give any sex equal opportunity, devoid of negative social feedback (like women bashing themselves harder than men when some driven and active member gets known) and you`ll probably would not be able to distinguish the sex based on behaviour studied.

There are many perceptions of the dinners and flowers issue. People think its an unchallengeable fact of life. I beg to differ. Just like any situation, you have different natures at work (NOTE: For examples sake, it is from a guy`s point of view - I do not dismiss the fact that there are surely some bums who do the same thing to women too):

  1. Some women absolutely think its their godgiven birthright and this cannot be otherwise- like we owe them something - I ditch them. I dont mix well with takers.

  2. Worse, some women have no problem with getting wined and dined and thinking Hey, what is 150$ for an evening of pleasant company. I know I am worth it., whether it goes somewhere after that or not. Can you spell golddigger or lowlife? These women reason that if the guy is dumb enough to think hell get something from them hes the chump. REVERSE THAT LOGIC TO SEE THE DOUBLE WHAMMY. If the woman is not willing to take her share of the bill, what does it say about the guy? His company is not worth the price! Once again - striked out at first sign!

  3. The independent ones. Takes her half of the bill. Never takes advantage and never gets taken advantage of (or put in a IOU situation for long, if it ever happens). Usually have something called dignity, honor and respect. Always nice to know.

You get the idea. You can learn a lot from the first date. A nice sample of things to come. If you keep your eyes open. Ehehehe.

Thanks for the feedback!

 Sorry but I completely disagree, and here's why,

 If it werent for the edge it gives us with girls, and how these things somehow separate us from ther men, would we care as much about...

 ...driving a REAL nice car?
 ...being in top physical shape? more mature so as not to be known as a child in a mens body?
 ...Have a great job (pilot, doctod, cop, lawyer, own a club) instead of being a regeular guy working at a supermarket cutting meat all his life?
 ...Making 6 figures insteadd of 5 or even 4 figures?
 ...would we  be singing songs and have great bands such as AC/DC, Van Halen, and well, pretty much any band in existence?

 I think not. And it comes to reason that in order to get those things - to have a greater edge and stand out from all men with the girls - that one would work hard to save the money for those wheels, study to get a good enviable job, become a guitar/drums/bass pro like Eddie Van Halen and stand out from all others...and in order to get that enviable job it stands to reason youd learn to make connections and develop leadershhip traits and good social skills that will land you that job, tnat will pay you that much money and give youthat prestige and recognition, which will allow you to buy hot wheels and spend tons of money in gifts for girls, and whichh would make you much more of a catch for girls.

 I firmly believe if it werent for sex men would never have accomplished some of its most ingenious things its done. I dont thing sex makes you dumb - on the contrary, the desire for sex forces you try harder to stand out from other men...dont ell me you really believe sex ISNT the main motivator for young guys who walk into the gym for the first time. If it didnt help you get laid to start with, would you have decided to live this lifestyle, which can be very strict? At least at first the main reason is to be more atractive to the opposite sex. And as everyone here knows, to succed in being in good shape takes: discipline, commitment, challenge, education, perseverance. Guess what - those are the traits of a leader.
 Just a final touch to my last reply:

 Girls would choose a leader over someone with no direction, who is in bad shape, has no discipline and is weak-minded and uneducated. Just ask a girl, all else being the same, who would you prefer, a cop or a cashier? A Marine or a janitor? A guy who owns a night club or the guy who comes in afterhours to clean up his night club? A pilot or a cook at pizza hut?

  Someone with a Porsche or someone with a 15 yr old car that embarrasses you just looking at it?
  Someone in shape, or someone out of shape?
  Someone who leads the bunch...or someone who is lead in the bunch?

  I think its pretty clear - in some very real way sex makes u want to be leaders... and to work to become leaders.

  Just my take.

Diesel: I am not sure with who you are in disagreement, but your post raised some questions on my part. I understand your logic. And it bring me the chicken or the egg debate for the competition concept. Is manly behavior the result of limited sex opportunities or the reverse? Here is what I mean:

If quality sex was a dime a dozen even playfield (no competition needed, everybody could get laid fine without kicking their own butts), people would have no incentive to evolve that more - they would get all they want without doing a thing more. I doubt, in that context, that the drive the impress women would be so strong. No competition, no added scarcity, no challenge, no drive to get more and more.

That is a theoric example. Real life does not go like that. Women are not supposed to be able to be an easy lay.

  1. Who would be proud of having a special something with Daisy-everything-passed-on-her-except-the-train? Few self-respecting men indeed. Like in a hunt, too easy = bad.
  2. Females in nature generally do not seem slutty for extended periods of time and usually have a need to have the male figure somewhere in the background, whether for protective or survival-related issues. Therefore, female species can be slutty at time but this is not to bet expected as the life trend - specially if offspring enters the picture. In short, females are expected to be, most of the time, selective and/or not that available. I could even venture that this is the main reason why the offer/supply side is restricted by women, by natural instincts and evolutive reasons. (What they do consciously on top of that to restrict even more is a thread by itself). Males` built-in demand has already been addressed.
  3. Competition: Since their is supply vs demand, competition is to be factored in too. Whether it is men vs men, or females vs females, each sex does its best to get the best it can with what it has. Diesel detailed pretty much in detail the mechanics and behaviors.
  4. Females also have their sex drive, so this general logic can be applied to their side too (except the gender-specific-roles, as a rule, males are not supposed to be the nesting figure, all of our manly traits are mainly combative).

Mechanically speaking, I think the healthy natural scarcity of sex is excellent for the long-term health and evolution of populations. Each sex has its role and complements the other in some fashion. Goes with the way the species evolved to survive.

Feminists (and most possibly lesbians) will disagree, surely. That is to be expected. But, bizarrely, all their decades of talk have not spread out as a general population mindframe. Could it be that the nature remains the driving force? You bet. Feminists still remain a minority, a loud one for that, and for most people natural instincts (gender identity) make more sense than the i-can-be-anything-your-sex-is-and-even-more-and-i-don`t-need-you feminist propaganda. IMHO, feminists are fighting the wrong battle : fight for rights of the individual, not for the rights of sex A VS sex B. At least, with INDIVIDUAL rights (equal opportunity, equal breaks, equal healthcare, equal liberty), sex does not become a discriminator (women are this, men are that, ideological turf wars) and prevents double standards: same rights for everyone or no rights at all for no one.

 Feminists fight for the same rights until it's time to get their asses in an intense conflict and see their fellow soldiers be massacred into bloody pieces... or until someone sends them into a construction field and rudely tells them to haul ass to get their job done... Then it's suddenly TOO rough for a female, the boss is suddenly too rude for treating them the same way he treats his men, and they claim they're  badly treated simply because of their sex.

  Feminists piss me off.

Same feeling here Diesel. I have yet to see the exception to that rule.

DanC-I’m going to suggest that it’s nature that makes women behave the way they do sexually. I think it’s basic biology. A man can go out do his thing, and make a dozen women pregnant in the space of a few days. (Or one night, depending on his recovery!) And then we’re done. The woman, on the other hand, has another nine months of pregnancy, plus nurturing/raising the kid for however long. What was it Bill Cosby said? “Human beings are the only species that let their kids come back home. Even an elephant will run and hide. Do you know how hard it is for an elephant to hide?” So a woman has to make sure that a man isn’t going to leave town once he’s done, that she’ll actaully have some help in caring for the child. At least, that’s the way it used to be. Modern advances in birth control have allowed women to have sex in much the same manner that men once did, without concern for the consequences, but I still think that basic biology plays a role here. As far as women being smarter than men, I’m not so sure. I just think that they’re different. Men are first and foremost attracted to the physical aspect, and only later go through mental and emotional attraction to a woman. But hell, even if we never progress beyond that physical stage, we’re still happy. I think that women go through an emotional and mental attraction first, and only later wind up at physical attraction. Ever wonder why really attractive women wind up with not-so-attractive men? Because they find themselves emotionally or mentally attracted. When women do find themselves physically attracted to a man before anything else, I’ve noticed that they project their “perfect man” fantasy onto the guy. So even if he’s a total dirtball, she’ll think that he’s all these wonderful things, that he’s just … well, misunderstood. Just my thoughts. Hell, I could be way off base, why else am I still single?

Deisel-You bring up some good points, but I think that as we grow older, our motivations change. Yeah, we walked into the gym for a variety of reasons (to look good so women would want to see us naked, and ummm … I forget the other reasons) But as time went on, our motivations changed. You’re right, it takes a lot of dedication and discipline to stay with it, and I don’t think that the desire for sex is the thing that keeps us there. I know that my own feelings for sex and the desires for it changed over time, and I think that people’s desires for success change as well. Yes, sex may be one of the motivations to succeed, and thus make ourselves desirable to the opposite sex, but I don’t think it’s the most important one.

 Once you've matured enough you realize the most important reason for staying in outstanding shape, having a great career, some hot wheels, a real nice house, and so forth, are for yourself REGARDLESS of the edge it gives you with girls.

 However, at least in the initial stages of any 'project', especially when you're young, but often even when you're older, one of the main motivators tends to be sex, and to have an edge over other males, which leads to...more sex.

"Why is it considered that women are holding an ace, here? "

I believe that if a woman wants to get laid, she can go out any night of the year and will have an extremely high success rate (maybe over 99%).

On the other hand, a guy can go out every night for a month and not find a willing person.

In this instance, the women do seem to “hold the ace.”

[b]Feminists fight for the same rights until it’s time to get their asses in an intense conflict and see their fellow soldiers be massacred into bloody pieces… or until someone sends them into a construction field and rudely tells them to haul ass to get their job done… Then it’s suddenly TOO rough for a female, the boss is suddenly too rude for treating them the same way he treats his men, and they claim they’re badly treated simply because of their sex.

Feminists piss me off.[/b]

hi, these are kind of moronic statements. did you know that in the israeli army, women were actually allowed on the front lines…WERE allowed until it became clear that men were getting their heads blown off trying to protect women. I really don’t see what basis in fact your first sentence has.
So, from what you wrote women shouldn’t have the same rights as men because of biological differences that prohibit them from doing the most dangerous combat assignments? I don’t think that it is because of feminists that women are not allowed in combat. Aside from the example given above there are also the intense physical standards that most women cannot meet…not for lack of trying, you will see that the number of stress fractures incurred in training is vastly greater for women then men. so on a very basic level women cannot handle the rigors of combat training.

I think, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt in regard to your last statement as feminists just want equal rights as men, maybe what you mean is that you hate man-hating lesbian types…i don’t know. but maybe you could explain a little because what you said makes no sense whatsoever. last i checked the feminist movement wasn’t centered around war or construction sites…so…anyway.

i have a question for guys that is kind of on topic. guys like the chase…so a girl that wants to have sex on the first date is automatically a slut? Girls do have an intense sex drive also…guys say they don’t want to play games but a girl is supposed to act in a certain way just to trick a guy into wanting to go out again. I don’t understand dating at all. I think it comes down to whether or not you feel another person…irrespective of games and rules and cars and money. I keep hoping thats the case anyway…

While not taking exception to your arguments I would like to look at your first point ?Maybe women are indeed smarter than men?. Research has shown that Estrogen increases the incidence of Alzheimer?s; therefore, the premise can be made that do the presence of estrogen, women have more memory problems. While this explains many things we as men have noted in our day to day lives, it also further demonstrates that women who do intense weight training have more Testosterone in their systems and this protects them from the ravages of estrogen induced memory loss.

The problem with feminists is the agenda: Feminists are a group of persons that are always against something, want many many things while never being expected to be anything specific or do something at start(always against, never for something). I’d even venture that their logic must be based on ‘because X does Y’ and cannot do anything without having men to bash or being the cause of their own anger. Could it be their (women’s) own fault? Nooo! Never! Listen closely to the propaganda. You’ll never hear any admittance of responsibility or guilt. Sad but true. Always ‘We do this because men do that’ trash arguments. Reactive barkers. How can you expect to have a sane debate and exchange with a party that has no form or spine? Reminds me kids:

Am too. Am NOT! What are you then? Er…dunno…but I’m certainly not (degrading term) like YOU!

I’ll go barf.


 Must I fuckin explain every sentence I write?

 Lets use some logic shall we?

 Step 1: Feminists fight for the same rights until these feminists find themselves in a field of dying men or in a construction setting where their boss tells them to haul ass and get the job done the way he does to his men.

 Step 2: Feminists are a small group of women.

 Step 3: Just because a small group of women fight for the same rights as men until they find themselves in a field of dying men, or get rudely treated in a harsh environment, DOESNT FOLLOW that ALL WOMEN fight for the same rights as men until they find themselves in those circumstances.

 Im sure you learned this in highschool?

 Esmee, Im referring specifically to FEMINISTS, who fight for the same rights as men for themselves, but complain when THEY (again, the feminists, not some other females) get treated rudely as does every man in the same circumstances, or find themselves in an 'inhumane environment' full of bodyparts, blood, torsos, dying men, and moans and screams. All men in these scenarios face these things and take them as natural to their job. Feminists, on the other hand, fight for the 'same rights' - with the exception of the 'bad rights' which put them in a field of dying men, performing men jobs, and so forth.

  If men and women are in fact alike, then how come you dont hear them fighting for equality in constrcution jobs? Why arent the FEMINISTS fighting for equal rights to serve in the infantry units in combat in the UNITED STATES MILITARY (because the feminists WE are talking about, are those of our own cuntry, not those in Israel, if Israel even has FEMINISTS).


Could feminism be wide-scale nagging?

I sincerely hope for these activists that the truth is not that simple. If that were so, it would almost be like asking for being laughed at by men.