What do you think is the origin behind men always being expected to make the first move, ask the woman out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Women used to be property traded among men. The man who wants to marry (or his father) would approach the father of the respective woman and ask to marry her. Notice all the "moves" are made by men.

I'm not remotely talking about modern times so I don't want to hear from anyone who thinks I'm maligning asking parents for their daughter's hand in marriage for those who do that.

Seems like this has been said, sorry for the repeat

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s because women have the upper hand and like to be courted. Go look at animals. Most animals have the men strutting about, fluffing their feathers, having the pretty colors to attract a female mate. I’m sure the opposite exists in nature, but it’s rare.

Women also have to be choosy who they mate with whereas men can mate and run away from any consequences

LOL! The analogy you use about some (not all) male animals strutting is what's starting to happen among humans. Those male animals have had to do it because, unlike with humans, female animals have more agency and choice in choosing their partners. If a male wants to be selected, he must demonstrate his worthiness and make effort to be chosen.

Since women were considered chattel property, their male 'owners' were the ones making the choices. The soliciting male only needed to be attractive to the male 'owner' in order to secure a woman. In this day and age, some men are struggle to recognize women are the ones choosing now and they, therefore, need to make themselves attractive to the type of woman they want.

Please note there are many examples of male animals not strutting/fluffing/courting females. It's far more common when there is a size discrepancy between males and females and where one male reproduces with multiple females. Think lions, horses, walruses, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh lord, it has nothing to do with any kind of social construct, “patriarchy”… whatever you want to call it. These posters have no clue.

It’s biology, duh. Patriarchy comes from biology anyway.

Men are hard wired to want to procreate with as many women as possible, thus are more promiscuous, because the cost/benefit of promiscuity is much more in favor of men than women.

Now, men who are more timid and don’t make the first move historically are less likely to reproduce. Men who are sexually aggressive are more likely to have their genes passed on. These traits didn’t even originate in humans, they came from other species that we descended from. In almost all species the males are more aggressive at pursuing the females for mating, with few exceptions.

This is nothing to do with any kind of artificial social construct.

NP. The artificial social construct arose from biology, which is well described in this post.

[Anonymous]

Simple! Adam was born first then Eve followed. Adam looked around and didn’t see anyone else and so he said to Eve “Wanna have sex?” She did and afterwards since she couldn’t find a cigarette she took a bite of an apple. So, Adam made the first move but Eve screwed it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh lord, it has nothing to do with any kind of social construct, “patriarchy”… whatever you want to call it. These posters have no clue.

It’s biology, duh. Patriarchy comes from biology anyway.

Men are hard wired to want to procreate with as many women as possible, thus are more promiscuous, because the cost/benefit of promiscuity is much more in favor of men than women.

Now, men who are more timid and don’t make the first move historically are less likely to reproduce. Men who are sexually aggressive are more likely to have their genes passed on. These traits didn’t even originate in humans, they came from other species that we descended from. In almost all species the males are more aggressive at pursuing the females for mating, with few exceptions.

This is nothing to do with any kind of artificial social construct.

NP. The artificial social construct arose from biology, which is well described in this post.

That all makes sense for animals. But humans are conscious and capable of making logical decisions, and spiritual and emotional connections. Therefore we are not monkeys at the mercy of our instincts and chemical urges.

Humans date. Animals don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Simple! Adam was born first then Eve followed. Adam looked around and didn’t see anyone else and so he said to Eve “Wanna have sex?” She did and afterwards since she couldn’t find a cigarette she took a bite of an apple. So, Adam made the first move but Eve screwed it up.

"What did Adam say to Eve?"
"STAND BACK! I don't know how long this thing gets!"

[Anonymous]

Men complain about this. Yet if they like a woman, they'll suddenly like her less if she pursues them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I doubt I'm the only person or the only guy in the world that's always had a lifelong hatred or resentment towards this. Guys always being expected to make the first move and ask the girl out, be the initiators,or they say, men court women, etc.

What is the origin behind that you think?

It's probably the main thing or the number one thing I've always hated about being born the male gender, it's like why can't women go after men too right?

There are other things I resent about it to but I don't want to get too much deep into it but I might answer it as I reply to comments.

When people say "that's the way it is", makes me more mad and angry and only adds fuel to fire towards my resentment.

Some people say it's not always like this, and that the world is slowly changing about this.

But I mostly doubt and part of me thinks that it'll be this way for all eternity.

The origin is men never really used to ask. They just took what they wanted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's because women were considered property until quite recently, and men didn't ask women if they could go out with them. They asked their fathers, who owned these women. And then if they married (only with the father's permission), the woman became her husband's property.

And probably because the young women had to be virgins. She wouldn't have been able to approach a man without creating a scandal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh lord, it has nothing to do with any kind of social construct, “patriarchy”… whatever you want to call it. These posters have no clue.

It’s biology, duh. Patriarchy comes from biology anyway.

Men are hard wired to want to procreate with as many women as possible, thus are more promiscuous, because the cost/benefit of promiscuity is much more in favor of men than women.

Now, men who are more timid and don’t make the first move historically are less likely to reproduce. Men who are sexually aggressive are more likely to have their genes passed on. These traits didn’t even originate in humans, they came from other species that we descended from. In almost all species the males are more aggressive at pursuing the females for mating, with few exceptions.

This is nothing to do with any kind of artificial social construct.

NP. The artificial social construct arose from biology, which is well described in this post.

That all makes sense for animals. But humans are conscious and capable of making logical decisions, and spiritual and emotional connections. Therefore we are not monkeys at the mercy of our instincts and chemical urges.

Humans date. Animals don't.

Do you believe in evolution?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh lord, it has nothing to do with any kind of social construct, “patriarchy”… whatever you want to call it. These posters have no clue.

It’s biology, duh. Patriarchy comes from biology anyway.

Men are hard wired to want to procreate with as many women as possible, thus are more promiscuous, because the cost/benefit of promiscuity is much more in favor of men than women.

Now, men who are more timid and don’t make the first move historically are less likely to reproduce. Men who are sexually aggressive are more likely to have their genes passed on. These traits didn’t even originate in humans, they came from other species that we descended from. In almost all species the males are more aggressive at pursuing the females for mating, with few exceptions.

This is nothing to do with any kind of artificial social construct.

NP. The artificial social construct arose from biology, which is well described in this post.

Women are equally as predisposed to non monogamy as men are. It’s just that the consequences for it were often death for women historically. Just look at the sheer number of women who want to stop having sec with their DH after a few years. We need variety WAY more
Than you do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh lord, it has nothing to do with any kind of social construct, “patriarchy”… whatever you want to call it. These posters have no clue.

It’s biology, duh. Patriarchy comes from biology anyway.

Men are hard wired to want to procreate with as many women as possible, thus are more promiscuous, because the cost/benefit of promiscuity is much more in favor of men than women.

Now, men who are more timid and don’t make the first move historically are less likely to reproduce. Men who are sexually aggressive are more likely to have their genes passed on. These traits didn’t even originate in humans, they came from other species that we descended from. In almost all species the males are more aggressive at pursuing the females for mating, with few exceptions.

This is nothing to do with any kind of artificial social construct.

NP. The artificial social construct arose from biology, which is well described in this post.

That all makes sense for animals. But humans are conscious and capable of making logical decisions, and spiritual and emotional connections. Therefore we are not monkeys at the mercy of our instincts and chemical urges.

Humans date. Animals don't.

LOL that you think humans aren’t animals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh lord, it has nothing to do with any kind of social construct, “patriarchy”… whatever you want to call it. These posters have no clue.

It’s biology, duh. Patriarchy comes from biology anyway.

Men are hard wired to want to procreate with as many women as possible, thus are more promiscuous, because the cost/benefit of promiscuity is much more in favor of men than women.

Now, men who are more timid and don’t make the first move historically are less likely to reproduce. Men who are sexually aggressive are more likely to have their genes passed on. These traits didn’t even originate in humans, they came from other species that we descended from. In almost all species the males are more aggressive at pursuing the females for mating, with few exceptions.

This is nothing to do with any kind of artificial social construct.

+1000

Although social constructs are at play, they stem from biology.

[Anonymous]

I love how men are all about evolution to back up that they're "hard wired" to sleep around, and preferably with the youngest female persons possible.

But when women sleep with the most virile men and choose to live with docile men to raise their children, that's not evolution it's just women being dumb for liking bad boys and gold digging opportunists for marrying nice ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh lord, it has nothing to do with any kind of social construct, “patriarchy”… whatever you want to call it. These posters have no clue.

It’s biology, duh. Patriarchy comes from biology anyway.

Men are hard wired to want to procreate with as many women as possible, thus are more promiscuous, because the cost/benefit of promiscuity is much more in favor of men than women.

Now, men who are more timid and don’t make the first move historically are less likely to reproduce. Men who are sexually aggressive are more likely to have their genes passed on. These traits didn’t even originate in humans, they came from other species that we descended from. In almost all species the males are more aggressive at pursuing the females for mating, with few exceptions.

This is nothing to do with any kind of artificial social construct.

NP. The artificial social construct arose from biology, which is well described in this post.

Evolutionary psychology is mostly bullshit. Red pill types like to throw it around to put a pseudoscientific gloss on their assertions.