"Golden Penis Syndrome"

Sagittarius84

Legendary Member
Joined
May 16, 2018
Posts
2,108
Media
0
Likes
2,201
Points
158
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Golden Penis Syndrome

As a millennial old enough to remember the classic interviews given by Cher or Eartha Kitt about their opinions of men, how they were embraced as empowering for women, I find it hilarious the faux panic women whom have been dominating the casual and online/app dating game are now having because the attractive guys they're willing to fight and compete for can really cash in on their sexual market value as the women have systemically deemed a smaller and smaller portion of the male as attractive.
Being that the number of men without this gilded moniker attached to their genitalia far outnumber the Golden ones, my guess is the expectation that they will hold their brethren to some sort of accountability, but what's really the motivation? The attractive men are just getting more of what they got before anyways, and the unattractive men largely are going to percieve it as some sort of karmic justice at play. Besides the standard "what about the daughters/mothers/ cousins" argument, why should anyone who isn't successful at casual or online dating(most men) really care about how a dominator at it facilitated their own usurping?
 
  • Like
Reactions: heinz.friedrich

Sagittarius84

Legendary Member
Joined
May 16, 2018
Posts
2,108
Media
0
Likes
2,201
Points
158
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Ok...statistically women have always been much more selective about sexual partners, which has always been a common complaint by men in general. With online dating and social media narrowing that selectivity even further, women whom date or find dates via apps or social media(a significant portion in the West)are now complaining this small percentage of men(golden penises) they deemed as most attractive are exercising their selectivity in a way which doesn't sit well with them..My question is why should anyone really care about this large chunk of women who put themselves in this predicament?
 
  • Like
Reactions: heinz.friedrich

heinz.friedrich

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2017
Posts
255
Media
0
Likes
187
Points
78
Gender
Male
As a millennial old enough to remember the classic interviews given by Cher or Eartha Kitt about their opinions of men, how they were embraced as empowering for women, I find it hilarious the faux panic women whom have been dominating the casual and online/app dating game are now having because the attractive guys they're willing to fight and compete for can really cash in on their sexual market value as the women have systemically deemed a smaller and smaller portion of the male as attractive.
I dont know the interviews and the seconds person I do not even know. But I can say that Merkel was always celebrated by feminists as a powerful women and she has not an husband that is that attractive in my opinion. So it depends who you ask. I would rather say they advertise the opposite but the tech companies and the media are pushing shallowness in general, although there are also good group like the body positivity groups.

Being that the number of men without this gilded moniker attached to their genitalia far outnumber the Golden ones, my guess is the expectation that they will hold their brethren to some sort of accountability, but what's really the motivation? The attractive men are just getting more of what they got before anyways, and the unattractive men largely are going to percieve it as some sort of karmic justice at play. Besides the standard "what about the daughters/mothers/ cousins" argument, why should anyone who isn't successful at casual or online dating(most men) really care about how a dominator at it facilitated their own usurping?
Good topic. And you have interesting views.

In my opinion, the problem is not that the people want to be superficial. The people cannot choose between much information. So the women choose the more attractive person and the men choose the more attractive person. If you talked to all person to know the character, it takes a lot of time and the most people do not have time.

I would probably ban the pictures on those apps. Than it would be more equal.
 

Sagittarius84

Legendary Member
Joined
May 16, 2018
Posts
2,108
Media
0
Likes
2,201
Points
158
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
In my opinion, the problem is not that the people want to be superficial. The people cannot choose between much information. So the women choose the more attractive person and the men choose the more attractive person. If you talked to all person to know the character, it takes a lot of time and the most people do not have time.

I would probably ban the pictures on those apps. Than it would be more equal.
I somewhat disagree, I don't think online dating/social media is exposing some new phenomenon, it's simply exposing and magnifying antiquated mating and dating strategies whilst simultaneously shielding one side of the equation from the immediate short term effects. Ban the pics, sure might up the interest women are already gathering in droves, but for men those metrics of height, income and status will simply reign supreme; forming the same bottleneck effect.
And it's that long term effect that worries me really, because ultimately all it will do is reconsolidate the power in this world to those chosen few men all over again, which will undoubtedly roll back all of the rights, agency, and autonomy granted to women when average men opted for more egalitarian, monogamous(and age appropriate relationships as opposed to trying to mimic the mating habits of the few men that dominated the mating stats of yesteryear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: heinz.friedrich

halcyondays

Worshipped Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2014
Posts
6,359
Media
2
Likes
10,358
Points
158
Location
US
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
I continue to be perplexed as to why some men think women assess, judge and select males based on penis size. There's no data to support this.

Population studies over many decades have shown again and again that human females select males based primarily on social status--the higher the better--not physical appearance or penis size.

This is instinctual behavior. The selection pressure for this over the last 300,000 years in females of our species is reproductive success.

This is because reproductive success for human females isn't having access to a male or even having a chlld or children. It's raising those kids until they breed. That's right. Reproductive success for a human female is becoming a grandmother.

This success requires 20+ years of resources. High social status males have the material wealth to provide this. Low social status males less so or not at all.

Many behaviors support this thesis:

The desire of women to "marry well."

The fact that few women want to "marry down" socioeconomically.

The princess or Cinderella myth where a woman of low social status marries a prince. Millenia before royal families existed our species lived in tribes and clans. Marrying into the chief's family conferred the best chance of reproductive success for females--and the easiest physical life.

Menopause. So far as we know only human and orca females (possibly giraffes?) stop ovulating yet live on for decades. Again the adaptive advantage of this trait is reproductive success as grandmothers help raise grandkids or even great grandkids. So far as we know females of all other animal species reproduce right up to the year they die.

Polygamy. This usually happens in cultures where the highest status males like chieftains, emirs, monarchs & emperors have harems or multiple wives. Such men can afford to have/raise multiple children with multiple wives. It's even codified in the scriptures of Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity & Islam).

The groupie phenomenon. This is a variation of polygamy. Hundreds if not thousands of women chose to mate with high social status males. In the modern era famous multimillionaire sports, music and movie stars are pursued and bedded by large numbers of women. Not all have children by these men but the behavior proves the instinct is alive and well in our species.

Another subset behavior of polygamy is male popularity among women. Rich or poor a man who attracts & dates many women does not go unnoticed by other women. This makes him appealing to many other women. If THAT many women date him he must have something going on.

Divorce. The number one reason women divorce men is money--meaning not enough of it. "Lose that zero and get you a hero."

Another factor which proves women don't judge men by penis size is that male genitals are not obvious or displayed--hidden by clothing in almost all cultures. Even when it is exposed it's almost always flaccid.

While a good-looking man may get more initial responses from women on dating apps he will not be assessed primarily by his looks subsequently. Men rank female looks highest and objectify women based on it. Women rank male wealth/social status highest and objectify men based on it. Men rank female wealth much lower. Women rank make looks much lower. BTW these are population studies which means there are plenty of individual exceptions. Just don't miss the forest for the trees.

This is why there's a beauty industry for women but not for men. It even explains why so many gay men are attracted to other men based on good looks. That instinct hasn't gone anywhere.

Good (meaning youthful) looks in women confers reproductive success because it's highest at age 18-26 and peaks at age 21. Males of our species know this instinctually. The store is called Forever 21--not 31 or 41 or 51. Even with modern obstetrics any pregnancy at 35+ is still considered higher risk.

As almost every woman I've ever know has said, "there's no such thing as an ugly millionaire."

At huge expense we went to the Moon in the 1960s & 70s. During the same time women in the US alone spent more money on cosmetics.

As for Cher or Eartha KItt they were wealthy high social status females. Note that they did not date or marry down. Multiple studies show that young women coming out of graduate schools with professional degrees and commiserate income are concerned they will have fewer men from whom to chose. This is because females instinctually desire to date/mate UP--not wanting to mate with poorer men than they.

Biology rules. The shift from meeting in person to meeting on apps has not and will not change millennia of instinctual human mating behavior.

And incels? No women or woman owes you anything. Stop whining like entitled wankers. You want to attract women or a woman? Get out there and get success, wealth, social status. Or follow your bliss, do you and be yourself but stop blaming women.
 

heinz.friedrich

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2017
Posts
255
Media
0
Likes
187
Points
78
Gender
Male
I somewhat disagree, I don't think online dating/social media is exposing some new phenomenon, it's simply exposing and magnifying antiquated mating and dating strategies whilst simultaneously shielding one side of the equation from the immediate short term effects. Ban the pics, sure might up the interest women are already gathering in droves, but for men those metrics of height, income and status will simply reign supreme; forming the same bottleneck effect.
I agree with you. I just wanted to say it is better but not perfect.

both sexes are to some extent shallow. Women and men. Otherwise they could not choose who to pick based on the pictures, height, income etc., because everybody would be equally attractive. Only those that have enobled their character and live in the heart and with goodness can overcome the restrictions and biases of society.

Population studies over many decades have shown again and again that human females select males based primarily on social status--the higher the better--not physical appearance or penis size.

I dont know these studies, that says this about physical appearance can link those, please.
That is what I found:
from throughout the U.S., found that 13.5 percent of the men wanted to date only women shorter than they are. In contrast, nearly half of the women -- 48.9 percent -- wanted to date only men taller than they are.
Is height important in matters of the heart? New study says yes

The minority of women and men choose height as a criterion but a significant amount.

his is because females instinctually desire to date/mate UP--not wanting to mate with poorer men than they.
That is why I hope that we raise above our instincts sometime soon and learn to accept all equally.
And incels? No women or woman owes you anything. Stop whining like entitled wankers. You want to attract
women or a woman? Get out there and get success, wealth, social status. Or follow your bliss, do you and be yourself but stop blaming women.
Well some people are not as successful as others. If incels rise to the top, this you would create other people that lack sex, who are having sex now. It is still survival of the fittest and does not solve the problem, in my opinion. That is why I think we need to transcend our need for success, wealth and social status.

@halcyondays@Sagittarius84

I will answer the rest at another time. I have to go.
 

halcyondays

Worshipped Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2014
Posts
6,359
Media
2
Likes
10,358
Points
158
Location
US
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
I dont know these studies, that says this about physical appearance can link those, please.

Read The Naked Ape by Desmond Morris. Three books in the series--get the revised and updated editions.

That is why I hope that we raise above our instincts sometime soon and learn to accept all equally.

Political equality is not the same as socioeconomic equality. Equal rights under law does not mean equal pay or wealth distribution in a free market economic system.

As for pay there's all kinds of inequality. Not only do women get paid less than men for the same work/competence/seniority but on average:

attractive women get paid more
taller women get paid more
overweight women get paid less
women with large breasts get paid more
tall men get paid more than shorter men
attractive men get paid more
overweight men get paid less
bald men get paid less.

The list goes on and on. Add racial, ethnic and minority population differences and the list becomes very long. Those who don't look the same or speak the same or worship the same deities... uh oh.

One problem with pay is that companies keep it secret so employees don't know they're getting less and employees keep it secret because they don't want other employees to know whether they're getting paid more or less than their peers. Until there's complete transparency in pay many of these differences aren't going away.

That is why I think we need to transcend our need for success, wealth and social status.

When it comes to mate selection this is never going to go away. The selection pressure for it has been too great for too long. In other words it'd be fighting millennia of human instinct.

Humans have discriminating brains and we discriminate everywhere--including mate selection.
 

heinz.friedrich

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2017
Posts
255
Media
0
Likes
187
Points
78
Gender
Male
And it's that long term effect that worries me really, because ultimately all it will do is reconsolidate the power in this world to those chosen few men all over again, which will undoubtedly roll back all of the rights, agency, and autonomy granted to women when average men opted for more egalitarian, monogamous(and age appropriate relationships as opposed to trying to mimic the mating habits of the few men that dominated the mating stats of yesteryear.
Yes it is worrying but not different as it has been. But the part with the rights, I did not understand. I hope you understand that we had less rights under Communism when the income was more egalitarian or almost non-existent. All systems have their advantages and disadvantages. You will not necessarily gain rights, if the income is more egalitarian.

I continue to be perplexed as to why some men think women assess, judge and select males based on penis size. There's no data to support this.

Population studies over many decades have shown again and again that human females select males based primarily on social status--the higher the better--not physical appearance or penis size.

This topic is not about penis size. Sagittarius called it this way because the media article in the first post is called this way.
 

heinz.friedrich

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2017
Posts
255
Media
0
Likes
187
Points
78
Gender
Male
This success requires 20+ years of resources. High social status males have the material wealth to provide this. Low social status males less so or not at all.

Many behaviors support this thesis:

The desire of women to "marry well."

The fact that few women want to "marry down" socioeconomically.
The goal should be that everybody is happy and has a considerable amount of wealthy but that is independent of the mating behaviour. But we have to work together as a world. You only need a specific amount of wealth for the children. Everything else is luxury. The children do not need caviar for breakfast or somthing like that.

The princess or Cinderella myth where a woman of low social status marries a prince. Millenia before royal families existed our species lived in tribes and clans. Marrying into the chief's family conferred the best chance of reproductive success for females--and the easiest physical life.
I agree.

Menopause. So far as we know only human and orca females (possibly giraffes?) stop ovulating yet live on for decades. Again the adaptive advantage of this trait is reproductive success as grandmothers help raise grandkids or even great grandkids. So far as we know females of all other animal species reproduce right up to the year they die.
Hmmm.
Polygamy. This usually happens in cultures where the highest status males like chieftains, emirs, monarchs & emperors have harems or multiple wives. Such men can afford to have/raise multiple children with multiple wives. It's even codified in the scriptures of Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity & Islam).
Those religions often have monogamous religionships as ideal form. Although a some of their prophets werent this way and did not practice what they preached (also on other topics).


The groupie phenomenon. This is a variation of polygamy. Hundreds if not thousands of women chose to mate with high social status males. In the modern era famous multimillionaire sports, music and movie stars are pursued and bedded by large numbers of women. Not all have children by these men but the behavior proves the instinct is alive and well in our species.
They were also worshiped them when they had no wealth. Soccer stars like the world cup winners were not that wealthy in the first world cups and still you hear people talk about it.

Another subset behavior of polygamy is male popularity among women. Rich or poor a man who attracts & dates many women does not go unnoticed by other women. This makes him appealing to many other women. If THAT many women date him he must have something going on.

Divorce. The number one reason women divorce men is money--meaning not enough of it. "Lose that zero and get you a hero."
Some animals have monogamous relationships. You do not really know what is normal behaviour and what are the instincts in humans. You concentrate on a negative image of humanity. Not all is about status.

While a good-looking man may get more initial responses from women on dating apps he will not be assessed primarily by his looks subsequently. Men rank female looks highest and objectify women based on it. Women rank male wealth/social status highest and objectify men based on it. Men rank female wealth much lower. Women rank make looks much lower. BTW these are population studies which means there are plenty of individual exceptions. Just don't miss the forest for the trees.
That does not mean we cant change it. But the system is wrong, the goal be that we should not care about wealth because everybody is wealthy everywhere in the world.

As almost every woman I've ever know has said, "there's no such thing as an ugly millionaire."

At huge expense we went to the Moon in the 1960s & 70s. During the same time women in the US alone spent more money on cosmetics.
That was the time of the Cold War. In my country, some women planed the world revolution against women like that because they rejected the capitalist system.
As for Cher or Eartha KItt they were wealthy high social status females. Note that they did not date or marry down. Multiple studies show that young women coming out of graduate schools with professional degrees and commiserate income are concerned they will have fewer men from whom to chose. This is because females instinctually desire to date/mate UP--not wanting to mate with poorer men than they
Interesting. I did not know the interviews and did not know that they did not marry down. So the "empowering of women"(in the first post of the thread opener) was to marry a man that is more powerful? But would that really empower them? It is just another system where the men has more power than the women, in my opinon.


Biology rules. The shift from meeting in person to meeting on apps has not and will not change millennia of instinctual human mating behavior.
Some animals are monogamous. How do you explain that with biology?
 

heinz.friedrich

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2017
Posts
255
Media
0
Likes
187
Points
78
Gender
Male
Read The Naked Ape by Desmond Morris. Three books in the series--get the revised and updated editions.
Thanks.
Political equality is not the same as socioeconomic equality. Equal rights under law does not mean equal pay or wealth distribution in a free market economic system.
I meant it on a social basis. We do not need politics for that. If we accept all equally, all other problems will dissolve including the political ones.
As for pay there's all kinds of inequality. Not only do women get paid less than men for the same work/competence/seniority but on average:

attractive women get paid more
taller women get paid more
overweight women get paid less
women with large breasts get paid more
tall men get paid more than shorter men
attractive men get paid more
overweight men get paid less
bald men get paid less.
I agree. Those things are not a good development. Also Men with big penis size get paid less. One of the reasons why the Large Penis Support Group is important.
https://nypost.com/2020/11/19/heres-how-salary-corresponds-to-penis-size-study/

One problem with pay is that companies keep it secret so employees don't know they're getting less and employees keep it secret because they don't want other employees to know whether they're getting paid more or less than their peers. Until there's complete transparency in pay many of these differences aren't going away.
Either that or we change the system how humans think and change it to a more heartcentered and kindnesscentered thinking. Then, nobody wants to deceive anybody.

When it comes to mate selection this is never going to go away. The selection pressure for it has been too great for too long. In other words it'd be fighting millennia of human instinct.

Humans have discriminating brains and we discriminate everywhere--including mate selection.
The left brain is the logical brain, we have to think more with the right brain. But we have both brains and both instincts. It is possible not to judge. There are a lot of spiritual instructions about that and a lot of people have already achieved it.
 

Sagittarius84

Legendary Member
Joined
May 16, 2018
Posts
2,108
Media
0
Likes
2,201
Points
158
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Biology rules, and yet, at least in the West We've managed to instill a social stigma against and laws to deal with men whom act on what biology has dictated for millennia; secure a mating female shortly after her first menstrual cycle.
I'm not blind to the historical context of biological imperatives and how that still impacts our mating and dating strategies today, but I am also not content(nor should any society seeking progression) to simply rest upon the haunches of "that's just the way it has been" as some sort of collective scapegoat for modern bad decisions.
 

heinz.friedrich

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2017
Posts
255
Media
0
Likes
187
Points
78
Gender
Male
Biology rules, and yet, at least in the West We've managed to instill a social stigma against and laws to deal with men whom act on what biology has dictated for millennia; secure a mating female shortly after her first menstrual cycle.
Yes, I agree. The West (Africa, West Asia, Europe) and the East(China, India, East Asia) and I think also the native Americans usually have the monogamous mating as the recommended and best systems. Also Communism and Capitalism had both monogamous relaitonships as the usual mating, if you consider that as West and East.

But monogamy could also be interpretated in a biological way as security in terms of survival for the women and their children.

But what I dont get is, that your arousal is not really bound on how much money someone makes, because you do not know it, unless you are taught. That reminds me of people that claim to have psychic abilities. How does a woman (or man) know this, before they know the person? That is why I am sceptical.

ur mating and dating strategies today, but I am also not content(nor should any society seeking progression) to simply rest upon the haunches of "that's just the way it has been" as some sort of collective scapegoat for modern bad decisions.
Yes, that is true. And they do not even know if that was really the case. These are usually just claims.
 

yearites

Admired Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2012
Posts
413
Media
0
Likes
788
Points
213
Location
Ellensburg (Oregon, United States)
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Still word vomit...
I will say what you've said in one sentence and maybe youll see why what you've said isn't worth even talking about. I am curious why you care.

Women who were choosy are now upset that hot guys are now choosy and their getting rejected perhaps in part due to online dating.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tight_End_SC

Sagittarius84

Legendary Member
Joined
May 16, 2018
Posts
2,108
Media
0
Likes
2,201
Points
158
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Still word vomit...
I will say what you've said in one sentence and maybe youll see why what you've said isn't worth even talking about. I am curious why you care.

Women who were choosy are now upset that hot guys are now choosy and their getting rejected perhaps in part due to online dating.
I've expressed my insight and have conversed with someone interested in a dialogue on the matter. If all you're getting is word vomit condensed to a singular point then perhaps this isn't a discussion or dialog that needs or seeks your input. Different strokes for different folks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: heinz.friedrich

Sagittarius84

Legendary Member
Joined
May 16, 2018
Posts
2,108
Media
0
Likes
2,201
Points
158
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
When it comes to mate selection this is never going to go away. The selection pressure for it has been too great for too long. In other words it'd be fighting millennia of human instinct.

Humans have discriminating brains and we discriminate everywhere--including mate selection.
From a biological standpoint, one could point to women's widespread capitulation to monogamous pairings with average men as the best thing to happen to women's life and limb in the past 1000yrs or so. So it's just hard to rest upon this argument of "undying mating strategies" motivating modern mate choices when those very choices contribute to the fragility of a woman's existence; i.e., what should be the antithesis of this supposed strategy. If anything hypergamy guarantees a solid ceiling of rights, agency, and autonomy, never to be breached, and an unstable present floor, set to go from bad to worse at any slight socioeconomic or biological upheaval. Once the monsters were tamed and slain and the Earth was laid claim to, to maintain a strategy of dating and mating up predominantly as opposed to pluralities of hypogamy or lateral decisions just tightens the proverbial noose tighter for when the floor inevitably falls out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: heinz.friedrich

halcyondays

Worshipped Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2014
Posts
6,359
Media
2
Likes
10,358
Points
158
Location
US
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
From a biological standpoint, one could point to women's widespread capitulation to monogamous pairings with average men as the best thing to happen to women's life and limb in the past 1000yrs or so.

It's a cultural capitulation not a biological/instinctual one.

An "average" male may still represent a hypergamous pairing for many females. In most cultures he is expected to be the breadwinner.

Women empowered with divorce leave husbands over financial issues (not enough money) more than any other single reason.

Nothing is less attractive to human females than a poor man. Ask any woman to consider the poorest man she can think of. Here's a homeless man asleep on a sidewalk under cardboard, Are you going to date this man? No. Marry him? Have kids with him? No!

The selection pressure for this instinct in females of our species is reproductive success.
 
  • Like
Reactions: heinz.friedrich

heinz.friedrich

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2017
Posts
255
Media
0
Likes
187
Points
78
Gender
Male
From a biological standpoint, one could point to women's widespread capitulation to monogamous pairings with average men as the best thing to happen to women's life and limb in the past 1000yrs or so.

It's a cultural capitulation not a biological/instinctual one.

You both ignored my point that there are monogamous animals. How did those relationships form? You claim the matings are instinctual. So there are both instincts. The instinct to be monogamous and polygamous. Otherwise there would not be both in nature. Or do you think animals think a lot of their decisions? How do you explain that?

You just assume that the best mating behaviour is polygamy and the culture is responsible.


Women empowered with divorce leave husbands over financial issues (not enough money) more than any other single reason.

Nothing is less attractive to human females than a poor man. Ask any woman to consider the poorest man she can think of. Here's a homeless man asleep on a sidewalk under cardboard, Are you going to date this man? No. Marry him? Have kids with him? No!

The selection pressure for this instinct in females of our species is reproductive success.
But that is a problem of society that there are homeless people. You should not have those people anywhere on the planet. And I think we could solve the problem, if the most intelligent people of the world think of something to solve the problem.

The selection pressure for this instinct in females of our species is reproductive success.
And how will they know of the status of the men if they dont know how rich and influential somebody is? You can be aroused by someone without having any information on him or her. The arousal is not responsible on that in my opinion. I think it is more on the look and appearance.

And later a little bit on the status. But the status is more a imaginary power. Powerful are those people who society thinks are powerful.