iblamemyself!
Warrior of Christ
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2024
- Posts
- 991
- Reputation
- 1,333
what i’m doing
laying out the core claim in one line, then walking it step by step, each step explained, then quick examples. studies are shown as simple domains.
the claim people mean by “bp is only for men”
men face higher filtering and bigger spread in mating and reproduction than women on average, so the harsh math and outcomes people call “bp” mainly apply to men. this is a descriptive claim about averages, not a moral rule, not about individual worth.
step 1, the basic asymmetry
in many species the variance in reproductive success is higher for males. this comes from anisogamy and typical parental investment patterns, which make female reproduction the limiting resource and push stronger sexual selection onto males. explanation: if one sex is the bottleneck, the other competes more and gets filtered harder.
→ wikipedia.org
→ science.org
step 2, humans show the same direction of pressure
genetic work comparing maternal lines mtDNA with paternal Y lines finds that historically fewer male lineages made it through than female lineages, meaning higher male variance. there are also time windows with sharp Y bottlenecks while maternal diversity stayed broader. explanation: more female lines persist, fewer male lines do, consistent with stronger filtering on men.
→ genome.cshlp.org
→ nature.com, naturegenetics via pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
→ biomedcentral.com, investigativegenetics
step 3, what people actually want across cultures
in the big 37 culture study, women on average weight status and resource potential more, men on average weight youth and looks more. explanation: if female choice leans harder on a smaller set of male traits that are unequally distributed, you get more male-side variance and sharper dropoffs.
→ cambridge.org
step 4, motivation differences matter for filtering
broad psych reviews find the male sex drive is stronger on average. explanation: when one side pursues more, competition and within sex sorting intensify on that side. that amplifies male-side winners and losers.
→ journals.sagepub.com
step 5, which male traits actually move outcomes
a big meta-analysis shows strength or muscularity is the clearest predictor of both mating and reproduction for men, with voice pitch, height, and testosterone linked to mating, while facial masculinity and 2d:4d are weak. explanation: not every “masculine” cue pays off, but some traits shift outcomes a lot, which widens male variance.
→ elifesciences.org
step 6, a concrete signal, height
population studies often find taller men or mid-tall men have more children, though the relation can be curvilinear and context dependent. explanation: if a common, visible trait shifts outcomes even modestly, it compounds into more male spread.
→ pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
→ royalsocietypublishing.org
step 7, zoom back to the core logic
putting steps 1 to 6 together, men are filtered harder on average because male reproductive payoffs vary more, male pursuit is stronger, and a few male traits have outsized effects. that is why the “harsh math” framing tends to describe male outcomes. none of this says women never face selection or constraints, only that the variance and competition dynamics are typically steeper for men.
→ science.org, cambridge.org, genome.cshlp.org, elifesciences.org
examples people point to
• genetics, a past Y-chromosome bottleneck with broader mtDNA diversity, consistent with fewer successful male lines. → genome.cshlp.org, pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
• preferences, cross-cultural pattern where women weight status and resource potential more on average, concentrating demand on a subset of men. → cambridge.org
• traits, meta-analysis finding male strength or muscularity relates to both mating and reproduction. → elifesciences.org
• signals, height links to male reproductive success in several populations, sometimes in a curve with best outcomes around average to above average. → pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, royalsocietypublishing.org
scope check
this is about averages and historical patterns, not destiny for any one person. culture, contraception, wealth, norms, and online markets all shift the size of these effects today. the core point remains, male outcomes are more spread out, which is why “bp” arguments are framed as male-specific.
Please dont write dnr
Also this is my perspective correct me if I am wrong
laying out the core claim in one line, then walking it step by step, each step explained, then quick examples. studies are shown as simple domains.
the claim people mean by “bp is only for men”
men face higher filtering and bigger spread in mating and reproduction than women on average, so the harsh math and outcomes people call “bp” mainly apply to men. this is a descriptive claim about averages, not a moral rule, not about individual worth.
step 1, the basic asymmetry
in many species the variance in reproductive success is higher for males. this comes from anisogamy and typical parental investment patterns, which make female reproduction the limiting resource and push stronger sexual selection onto males. explanation: if one sex is the bottleneck, the other competes more and gets filtered harder.
→ wikipedia.org
→ science.org
step 2, humans show the same direction of pressure
genetic work comparing maternal lines mtDNA with paternal Y lines finds that historically fewer male lineages made it through than female lineages, meaning higher male variance. there are also time windows with sharp Y bottlenecks while maternal diversity stayed broader. explanation: more female lines persist, fewer male lines do, consistent with stronger filtering on men.
→ genome.cshlp.org
→ nature.com, naturegenetics via pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
→ biomedcentral.com, investigativegenetics
step 3, what people actually want across cultures
in the big 37 culture study, women on average weight status and resource potential more, men on average weight youth and looks more. explanation: if female choice leans harder on a smaller set of male traits that are unequally distributed, you get more male-side variance and sharper dropoffs.
→ cambridge.org
step 4, motivation differences matter for filtering
broad psych reviews find the male sex drive is stronger on average. explanation: when one side pursues more, competition and within sex sorting intensify on that side. that amplifies male-side winners and losers.
→ journals.sagepub.com
step 5, which male traits actually move outcomes
a big meta-analysis shows strength or muscularity is the clearest predictor of both mating and reproduction for men, with voice pitch, height, and testosterone linked to mating, while facial masculinity and 2d:4d are weak. explanation: not every “masculine” cue pays off, but some traits shift outcomes a lot, which widens male variance.
→ elifesciences.org
step 6, a concrete signal, height
population studies often find taller men or mid-tall men have more children, though the relation can be curvilinear and context dependent. explanation: if a common, visible trait shifts outcomes even modestly, it compounds into more male spread.
→ pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
→ royalsocietypublishing.org
step 7, zoom back to the core logic
putting steps 1 to 6 together, men are filtered harder on average because male reproductive payoffs vary more, male pursuit is stronger, and a few male traits have outsized effects. that is why the “harsh math” framing tends to describe male outcomes. none of this says women never face selection or constraints, only that the variance and competition dynamics are typically steeper for men.
→ science.org, cambridge.org, genome.cshlp.org, elifesciences.org
examples people point to
• genetics, a past Y-chromosome bottleneck with broader mtDNA diversity, consistent with fewer successful male lines. → genome.cshlp.org, pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
• preferences, cross-cultural pattern where women weight status and resource potential more on average, concentrating demand on a subset of men. → cambridge.org
• traits, meta-analysis finding male strength or muscularity relates to both mating and reproduction. → elifesciences.org
• signals, height links to male reproductive success in several populations, sometimes in a curve with best outcomes around average to above average. → pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, royalsocietypublishing.org
scope check
this is about averages and historical patterns, not destiny for any one person. culture, contraception, wealth, norms, and online markets all shift the size of these effects today. the core point remains, male outcomes are more spread out, which is why “bp” arguments are framed as male-specific.
Please dont write dnr
Also this is my perspective correct me if I am wrong
