There’s a lot of discussion on this site about how the patriarchy is designed so women compete for men, and not the other way around, despite the fact that, with a roughly 50-50 gender breakdown in the population (except maybe in China) this idea is as lacking in plausibility as the one about men sleeping with as few women as possible, but women sleeping with as few men as possible; dude, the maths has gotta give at some point.
And whenever I think of such as statistical paradox, I think of a male friend of mine. He’s intelligent, fiercely loyal, fun to be around, travelled, financially secure, with a great sense of wit. But he can’t find a girl to save his life. You’d think a guy like him would have women lining up around the block. But no. Why not?
Because for all his attributes, he’s got diddly-squat when it comes to what counts. He’s not a great looker (6/10, 7 on a good day), he’s not cocksure and he doesn’t throw his money around.
Now, I’m going to overlook the fact he tends to seek women in pubs and clubs for the sake of my argument, because pubs and clubs are complete meat-markets and bring out the worst mate-seeking behaviour in everyone, men and women. Instead, I want to focus on the fact women can be as discerning – and superficial – as men, and at least as brutal in their rejection.
Going out with my girlfriends, I’ve noticed that they all gravitate towards the best-looking guys, the most cocksure guys, the guys who will buy them and all their girlfriends round after round of drinks. Basically, they want to end up with the best-looking, wealthiest, most cocksure, men there.
And women complain that men zero in on the young, pretty blonds.
I think both genders have been conditioned to seek fairly superficial traits in potential mates. On a basic instinct, I can understand this. We want wealthy mates to provide a secure existence; we want beautiful mates to provide beautiful offspring. But this is the twenty-first century; we’re supposed to be way beyond basic instincts.
That reminds me, I should be getting to that Sharon Stone/The Practice article”¦
My point is, women love to complain that men are choosy and pick women based on superficial criteria. But I’ve met plenty of women who do the exact same thing. Could it be we’re all so concerned with our ability to pick the best mate available to us on an evolutionary instinct that we’ve forgotten to listen to our human instincts to choose mates based on intellectual and emotional fulfilment?
What a revolutionary thought.
PS. And for the record, I have a level of eyesight that’s considered legally blind. On a basic instinct, I should be seeking out men with 20/20 vision or better to improve my children’s chances of better vision. But bf is also short-sighted, although not as much as I am. And I coudln’t be happier. I like to think of it as my human instinct triumphing over my basic instinct.