It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Men are dying for sex: Mating competition explains excess male mortality

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   
www.physorg.com...

Men are dying for sex: Mating competition explains excess male mortality
May 24, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Men die at higher rates than women across the lifespan. A new study suggests that this excess mortality is the price of reproductive competition.


Researchers have long known that women outlive men on average, and more recently have discovered that men have higher mortality risks across the entire lifespan. University of Michigan researcher Daniel Kruger offers this explanation: It is all about sex.

Women invest more physiologically in reproduction than men, thus men compete with other men for mating partners and try to make themselves attractive to women. This competition leads to strategies that are riskier for men both behaviorally and physiologically, and these result in higher levels of mortality.

"If mating competition is responsible for excess male mortality, then the more mating competition there is, the higher excess male mortality will be," said Kruger, an assistant research professor in the U-M School of Public Health. In the current study, Kruger shows that two factors related to the level of male reproductive competition contribute to higher rates of risk-taking and mortality.

The first factor is polygyny, the social situation in which one man maintains sexual relations with many women (the opposite is polyandry—one women and many men). Several species of primates show high levels of polygyny, where one dominant male mates with most of the females in the group, and other males are left out. Human cultures have varying degrees of polygyny, and Kruger found that the more prevalent the practice, the higher the rate of male mortality.

In a polygynous culture, men receive enormous evolutionary benefits from becoming dominant. Those guys get all the gals, almost literally. Non-dominant men are left with few, or none, to choose from. In a polygynous group, winning males reap huge rewards; everyone else gets next to nothing.

The second factor: the degree of economic inequality. In mate selection, men are valued for the resource investment
that they can provide, bringing benefits their offspring. The wider the gap between rich and poor, the more likely men are to die young.In less egalitarian societies, a man with what scientists call "resource control"—money, property and economic security—is more likely to find sexual partners.

In both of these cases, there's a yawning gap between climbing to the top of the heap—either as the dominant male or the wealthiest—and falling short. To lose position in polygynous or economically extreme societies is to lose almost any chance at finding a sexual partner.

What's more, Kruger says, these two factors are related, because getting the lion's share of economic wealth is often virtually the same thing as becoming dominant male.

And so the battle to be "king of the hill" turns deadly. When winners take all, men have very little to lose—and a whole lot to gain—by risking everything to get to the top.

Kruger conducts research in the field of evolutionary psychology, the study of how present-day human thinking and behavior has been shaped by past evolutionary adaptations. It turns out that some other primates display such winner-take-all behavior, and there's a strong evolutionary reason behind it. By dominating most or all of the sexual encounters in a group, males who are higher on the social and economic ladder are more likely to pass their genes onto the next generation.

The opposite case, Kruger found, also holds true: The more egalitarian a society, and the more devoted to monogamy, the less extreme the risk taking. But no human culture, Kruger concluded, is perfectly free of such competition.

More information: The study appears in the current issue of the journal Evolutionary Psychology. (www.epjournal.net...)

Provided by University of Michigan (news : web)

[edit on 11-6-2010 by The Quiet Storm]




posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   
I would say sexual domination is causing men to die. Many times it's actually just sex that makes a man more dominant.

Alpha, doesn't always just mean "dominant" economically. Alpha male usually really has nothinjg to do with being stronger, fitter, tougher physically. Alpha can be a guy who gets a lot of women. One who can control a host a women can control a lot since women are pioneers of culture and society. It's social status, women are the initiators and men are initiates. So just by becoming a pick up artist, one can socially and economically dominant as long as you learn how to seduce women, you don't have to do half as much as the guy who actually just tries to be a good man to get girls. It's the other way around, you become good by getting girls, or you get girls to be a good man.

At least, in this brainwashed culture where evil is good and good is "bad." Do you really think it is about true 'dominance'? It's more about deception, betrayal, infidelity, etc.

And the males just do their part and continue to dominate because they just get all the girls, knowing once you got them you 'have it all'. What do the women do? Can they see any of this? Do they see this "GAME" actually kills us?

When women make us unnecessarily compete, and you know that people who have sex DO live longer than other males, and are more socially supported, are more successful, are emotionally more healthier, stronger, etc.

I think it's genocide.

Sexual selection kills good and innocent men.

[edit on 11-6-2010 by The Quiet Storm]



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   
I blame weman and there gaining of rights. Befor then we had this aspct more in check but now they have us in check. Personally think this is the reaon I treat most weman like trash and have no respect for them once I get what I want. It almost makes me feel justification by lieing and hurting them as they hurt others that would do nothign more than make them happy but dont have my modded car and looks to get in there pants.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   
They feel justified in hurting innocent men in this way.

They and all males who participate.

A person who is alone is weakened. He's not just alone, he's deprived. It kills him. it burns him until he has nothing left inside and outside him to survive. and it starts at the youngest of ages.

[edit on 11-6-2010 by The Quiet Storm]



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by robbinsj
 



At the same time you do nothing but continue what's going on. You also deprive other good men and make them suffer. In the end all it will do for future generations is breed and continue breeding this negativity until all good is lost and society as a whole breaks down.

It's hard to counter this or come up with a strategy when males are always being told to be "mean and grizzly" which is actually feminine because it makes men try to compensate by making them to appear excessively masculine, which is probably homo as well to be obsessive about masculinity or rather a degraded version of masculinity to a point while degrading the truly feminine. but when we have something we have to deal with, we can't express because it doesn't 'fit in'. Women most definitely participate in this and in ways that may not be readily apparent, are at the very least extremely complacent and supportive.

This is one thing in human culture that has not changed in the least bit. You think there's less violence, or that people are a lot more evolved? When it comes down to sexuality, evolution hasn't really been found, because it's still about kill or be killed instead of trying to help.

Not only that, it's about ignorance. We don't even need to be competing. There is abundance, we just need to look for it. In this current state it's hard to find it when the powers that be continue to make us struggle, and continue the drama, and make people addicted.


[edit on 11-6-2010 by The Quiet Storm]



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 12:28 AM
link   
I believe in other factors also. Men have riskey lifestyles....dangerious jobs, vices that effect lifestyle, also how many men have fought over a woman just to kill each other then to be put away. Woman are like catnip for men....drives us crazy!



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 04:38 AM
link   
reply to post by robbinsj
 


I blame weman and there gaining of rights. Befor then we had this aspct more in check but now they have us in check.

You are wrong, my chauvinist friend. This pre-dates women's lib, it pre-dates civilization, it even pre-dates humanity. This is nature's work. This is nature's way.

All social mammals compete for mates. Some species, like elephant seals, battle to the death. Non-mammals such as Siamese fighting fish do it too. I'ts natural. It's normal.


Personally think this is the reaon I treat most weman like trash and have no respect for them once I get what I want. It almost makes me feel justification by lieing and hurting them as they hurt others that would do nothign more than make them happy but dont have my modded car and looks to get in there pants.

It seems you are not entirely reconciled to your evidently subordinate position in the male pecking order. Life is tough, isn't it?

*


reply to post by SPYvsSPY
 


I believe in other factors also. Men have riskey lifestyles....dangerious jobs, vices that effect lifestyle, also how many men have fought over a woman just to kill each other.

That's all part of the competition. We compete with each other, not with the women. The risky lifestyle is a way to show that we are strong and fearless, that we can handle risk and still get on with life. The vices are partly that too, and partly stress relievers. The fighting directly over women is less common, but yes, it happens too. All these are part of the reason why men don't, on average, live as long as women. It isn't the women's fault; this is how nature made us.


Women are... catnip for men.

You are correct, sir. Again, nature made them that way. And I, for one, am profoundly grateful to her. More catnip here, girl!

[edit on 12/6/10 by Astyanax]



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Quiet Storm
Men are dying for sex: Mating competition explains excess male mortality
May 24, 2010


Are you seriously suggesting a theory that significantly vast numbers of men actually deliberately murder each other fighting over women ?

Can you provide links to several examples of very recent murders in the news media to back this strange thesis up ?

Male mortality has always been much higher in quite a few areas, including on the roads, workplace accidents, and warfare, just to name three.
Males also injure themselves more frequently in violent sports.
So what ?

None of which has anything at all to do with chasing skirt.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Silver Shadow
Are you seriously suggesting a theory that significantly vast numbers of men actually deliberately murder each other fighting over women?

No, that isn't what is being said here. Among humans, male sexual competition is competition for social status. Higher-status males get more and better mating opportunities. This competition is the main driver of human cultural achievement.

At the highest level, men compete for women by making pyramids, spaceships, symphonies, wars and multinational corporations. In these attainments men win status and glory, and status and glory win the women.

At a more modest level, the competition is for promotion at work, over consumer status symbols, for victory at sports and games, showing the other guy who's boss or for winning first prize at the State model railroad fair for your 1/32 handmade scale model of the Twentieth Century Limited.

Men are naturally competitive. The competition is stressful. It shortens our lives and often kills us outright. The reason for the competition is women.

This we see by observing other species or the behaviour of human females.

It isn't about men battling each other for mates the way elephant seals do. But the mountaineer who falls off a cliff, the explorer who vanishes into the mists, the scientist blown up with his experiment, the rock star who destroys his body with drugs, the corporate warrior who is felled by a coronary in middle age are all, equally, casualties of the great mating competition. So are these -


the roads, workplace accidents... warfare... and violent sports.

- all well-known arenas of male sexual competition.


None of which has anything at all to do with chasing skirt.

Everything in life has to do with chasing skirt, in a manner of speaking.

[edit on 12/6/10 by Astyanax]



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by SPYvsSPY
I believe in other factors also. Men have riskey lifestyles....dangerious jobs, vices that effect lifestyle, also how many men have fought over a woman just to kill each other then to be put away. Woman are like catnip for men....drives us crazy!


It drives us even more crazy when we find the girl likes girls only.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 07:15 AM
link   
So whats the problem? I'm failing to see why any of this is an issue. Welcome to the animal kingdom? The stronger of the species reproduces and weaker doesnt..?

OOOO wait. We're humans so we're not animals lol. You'd be surprised how much we have in common with these savage "animals".



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 08:09 AM
link   
I'm sorry but this theory is seriously flawed and has no scientific basis. The only reason it gave as to why men's libidos would kill them is "higher rates of risk taking". Exactly what risks are they talking about? Also, why do they assume differences in mortality between economical gaps is caused by the sex drive? Wouldn't it be more logical to assume there is a difference in mortality because poor people can't afford as good a quality medical care as wealthy people?



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 08:13 AM
link   
I have never wanted a mate in my life, so this theory is bull.

General statements like this are bull, as my life has proven these people are planks of wood.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Interesting discussion!

Internet porn is a great weapon in combatting the female dominance via sexual power. It is just a basic biological fact that men seek sex more then women. 'she who has the goods dictates the price.'

Not anymore! fool yourself into settling for porn, and be healthier and richer by ignoring the women and all the expenses they cause!



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by above
 


Too right males can pick all sorts of things these days, not just females. I personally will not be looking to females ever thankfully.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Of course then you get married and the woman still refuses to put out until shes fat and old then all of a sudden you have a problem when you cant get it up to the heffer you're now forced to be married to.

If you still get a woody to that 18 year old on the porn site but cant get it up for your wife you dont need Viagra. You need a divorse.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by AndrewJay
 


Viagra could possibly save the marriage. Sharing your life with someone is so much more then sex. So what if your physicality says this one is conquered, lets move on.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by AndrewJay
 


It's not even about who's strongest. Many times the strongest DO NOT win, especially when there is corruption.

And no, we're not like most animals, we have a different kind of brain where we are supposed to be able to think with, and to make technology and make use of what we got. We also are supposed to have the brains to think that we are supposed to actually be picking mates with REAL good traits and not just mating unconsciously.

[edit on 12-6-2010 by The Quiet Storm]



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 02:37 PM
link   
In a sense it is not just men killing men but women also killing men. You'll never see a good guy with a girl, you'll only see 'badboys' and 'bad guys' with men but never the good ones with someone, only rarely. Every time he is left alone with nothing, there is no fidelity, or a girl cheats on him, and he has nothing else, every time a girl is promiscuous with the "badboys" it kills him. So when these guys are so lonely, they burn by sexual deprivation as well as simple health, social mental, spiritual and emotional deprivation. They force themselves to turn into badboys, or just die a slow death or commit suicide naturally, and it doesn't even have to happen consciously as their very own cells turn against themselves and kill you from the inside out. It scorches them for the rest of their short lived lives.


And what do guys tell you?

Go learn PUA techniques... which as most don't know is filled with misogyny and deceptive tactics (game) and techniques to make you appear to be a badboy. PUA culture is a joke. And the girls take it like they are masochists, or unconscious. Most if not all PUA stuff is either misogynist or just BS, based on deceptive tactics. It's BS because we wouldn't even need PUA stuff if things were alright. It wouldn't be PUA stuff if it wasn't BS.

There will of course always be guys who will defend it saying "oh it's evolutionary psychology, girls like to be mistreated, they are stupid". I can understand using power for good but when it's without good intent it's no good.


[edit on 12-6-2010 by The Quiet Storm]



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nosred
I'm sorry but this theory is seriously flawed and has no scientific basis.

You mean you don't like it. There's plenty of evidence.

Only look at nature and you will see male animals competing for mates all over the place. Rutting stags, fighting robins, peacocks showing off their tails, guppy fish flaunting their colours. The females pick the winners.

It's called sexual selection, and it has been known about since Darwin published his second great work, The Descent of Man, in 1871. The work was refined and placed on a solid basis of modern science by R.A. Fisher in 1930. It is not a new theory.

And anyone who thinks human males don't compete over mates has badly forgotten their teenage years, I think. Not that there isn't a ton of evidence for human mate competition, too.

The OP article is just a report on a new statistical study showing that men in societies where mate competition is intensified by polygamy have relatively shorter lifespans. It helps support the theory but is not essential to proving it. The theory is already widely accepted among evolutionary biologists. There are volumes of observational data to support it.

If you'd like to read a simple but eye-opening explanation of the theory, I recommend The Mating Mind by Geoffrey Miller, a book which shows how the higher functions of the human brain may have evolved through sexual selection - that is, mating competition. My own view is a little more conservative; whether or not mating competition made us what we are, it certainly created much of human culture.

*



Originally posted by andy1033
I have never wanted a mate in my life.

And look, you're not dead yet!


General statements like this are bull, as my life has proven these people are planks of wood.

A sample of one - in this case, you - is not statistically significant. Besides, would you call yourself an average person, Andy? I know you from our encounters on ATS, and I certainly wouldn't.

*



Originally posted by The Quiet Storm
It's not even about who's strongest. Many times the strongest DO NOT win, especially when there is corruption.

The phrase is 'survival of the fittest', not 'survival of the strongest'. Physical fitness is not necessarily evolutionary fitness. Evolutionary fitness is measured in reproductive terms.


And no, we're not like most animals, we have a different kind of brain where we are supposed to be able to think with, and to make technology and make use of what we got.

Both the brain and the technology it produced were probably created by mating competition in the first place. Getting hold of the best mates and having as many grandchildren as possible are the reasons why those brains evolved in the first place.


We also are supposed to have the brains to think that we are supposed to actually be picking mates with REAL good traits and not just mating unconsciously.

Your 'unconscious mind' is also part of your brain, and far stronger than the part that is conscious. Your conscious decisions are critically influenced by it. Unfortunately, our unconscious minds judge mates mostly by the quality of their genes, not necessarily by their niceness or faithfulness or performance in bed. Your unconscious mind isn't really interested in you. It serves your genetic agenda, not your personal one.

*



Originally posted by The Quiet Storm
In a sense it is not just men killing men but women also killing men. You'll never see a good guy with a girl, you'll only see 'badboys' and 'bad guys' with men but never the good ones with someone, only rarely. Every time he is left alone with nothing, there is no fidelity, or a girl cheats on him, and he has nothing else, every time a girl is promiscuous with the "badboys" it kills him.

Well done; you've grasped the principle of how male mating competition shortens men's lives. It's even worse than you think, though. Women tend to like what you call 'bad boys' because their 'badness' is a sign of good genes. Strong, self-confident, aggressive, sexually promiscuous males are, in evolutionary terms, the fittest - they have the Genes Most Likely to Succeed. So women - unconsciously, perhaps - prefer to be impregnated by these men.

On the other hand, bad boys tend not to be good long-term relationship prospects. They tend, like the fellow earlier who was boasting about his looks and car and how he maltreats his sexual partners, to do the dirty deed and vanish. This is not so good for a woman, who could use some help raising the babies she's left holding - and some male protection from the big bad world too, if she can get it.

This puts nice guys in with a chance, too. Once she's had her fill of flashy bad boys who dump her, a girl may conclude that something more stable is required for the long term. A good provider, a good co-worker in the business of life and child-rearing, someone who evidently cares for her and will provide her with a secure and comfortable life - these things begin to have a greater appeal.

Now here's the twist in the tale: on average, women find both these kinds of men attractive, but at different points in their menstrual cycle. During the fertile phase, they tend to be attracted to macho men; for the rest of the cycle, they are attracted to good providers. This is a well-established effect nowadays. It's not hard to see what it implies: women are genetically programmed to marry nice guys, cheat with bad boys, bear the bad boys' kids and get the nice guy to help bring them up.

Terrible, isn't it? But you can't blame women, any more than you can blame men for competing over them. These things are genetically programmed into us, and although we are not the helpless slaves of our genes, we are equally helpless to escape their influence altogether. However rational we are, and however much self-control we may seem to ourselves to possess, all our behaviour is driven by instinct in the first place, and instinct comes from the genes. Women, like men, are just doing what comes naturally to them. Unfair as it seems, this is the way human beings are made. It's not a moral issue; it's a biological one.

By the way, do you know which category of men in Western society have the most mates per lifetime, on average? Creative types, artists, musicians and the like. At the very top of the pyramid stand - believe it - photographers.




top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join