"Golden Penis Syndrome"

[Sagittarius84]

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?

I think we've missed each other's points. I think there's enough space for all types of pairings and relationships on earth. I don't subscribe to monogamy or polygamy being superior to the other, but rather each having their niches to inhabit. The issue is specifically within monogamy; the decisions being made are threatening to upend the entire thing but are consistently scapegoated as some ambivalent biological imperative, or as a necessity for the survival of subject and offspring. The "Golden Penises" predate social media and online dating and are and will always be omnipresent. What ultimately mitigated their power was egalitarian and hypogamic mating decisions practiced by women en masse, which produced a modern world where a womans life limb agency and autonomy have never been better, not to mention the increased survival and success of their offspring. To which in this increased age of choice and options, women seem eager to hand that power right back to all the golden penis archetypes.
If surviving and thriving are the prime imperatives of a mating strategy then you tell me what is going on.

 

[halcyondays]

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.

Science doesn't make value judgements on mating behavior and neither do I. Science reports facts in evidence. Remember that population studies report how most individuals behave, not all. This means there will always be many exceptions.

Yes there are many animal species which are monogamous but relatively few maintain it for life. A recent study showed that in Western Europe and the US 10-40% (it varied by place) of men listed on birth certificates as fathers of children were not their biological fathers.

But that is a problem of society that there are homeless people.

I think you missed my point. I was talking about whether females of our species consider poor males suitable mates. I was not making a statement about homelessness.

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.

How? A simple question like "what do you do for a living?" is an instant wealth/class assessment. If the answer is doctor, lawyer, engineer, CEO or hedge fund manager we're talking $$$. If the answer is slinging hash at a fast food joint probably not.

Again population studies where women are asked to rank in importance a list of characteristics about the opposite sex, how much money a man has is consistently ranked highest by large majorities.

In those same studies women rank male attractiveness (looks) halfway down the list.

There's a ton of other data to support female attraction to high social status males. The extreme is groupie behavior where thousands of women go after and bed famous/wealthy men. Women swooning over and wishing they could marry a prince or monarch is another. Why do girls scream hysterically at boy bands? Because they're all competing with each other for the attention of those males. If one or two girls start screaming all the others have to join in.

I won't go into the studies that show when women are ovulating the pitch of their voice goes up and men notice this.

Another example is younger women marrying older men who are already established in their careers and wealth/social class--even stealing them from wives. I've known many.

As my mother, sisters, aunties, grannies and almost every women I've known have all said, "There's no such thing as an ugly millionaire."

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.

Money IS power & status. There's nothing imaginary about it.

 

[heinz.friedrich]

Science doesn't make value judgements on mating behavior and neither do I. Science reports facts in evidence. Remember that population studies report how most individuals behave, not all. This means there will always be many exceptions.

Yes there are many animal species which are monogamous but relatively few maintain it for life. A recent study showed that in Western Europe and the US 10-40% (it varied by place) of men listed on birth certificates as fathers of children were not their biological fathers.

I think we've missed each other's points. I think there's enough space for all types of pairings and relationships on earth. I don't subscribe to monogamy or polygamy being superior to the other, but rather each having their niches to inhabit. The issue is specifically within monogamy; the decisions being made are threatening to upend the entire thing but are consistently scapegoated as some ambivalent biological imperative, or as a necessity for the survival of subject and offspring.

And how do you know which instinct is stronger in humans? The monogamous or the polygamous? In my opinion, genes seem to be more a excuse by people that cheat. They say things like: " I cannot do anything about it, it is in my genes.

If we have both instincts, we can choose.

Again population studies where women are asked to rank in importance a list of characteristics about the opposite sex, how much money a man has is consistently ranked highest by large majorities.

And the same people did not consider it this way under Communism. So this is more propaganda. Or dont you think?

Money IS power & status. There's nothing imaginary about it

You are 69 % straight. But you cannot say to me that you are more attracted to people like Angela Merkel,
Christine Lagarde or Ursula von der Leyen than to those women here on the list, although they are less powerful: https://womenintheworld.org/most-beautiful-women/

Those three women were the most powerful women in the world according to Forbes.

I meant you are attracted to people that are powerful for you, and that differs from person to person and that does not mean it is the status of society.

What I want to say you imagine who is the most attractive not the society and so you can change your attraction.

To which in this increased age of choice and options, women seem eager to hand that power right back to all the golden penis archetypes.
If surviving and thriving are the prime imperatives of a mating strategy then you tell me what is going on.

There are two type of people, I wanted to say. The media always concentrates on the negative ones. But those women and men exist there is no doubt.

 

[halcyondays]

And how do you know which instinct is stronger in humans. The monogamous or the polygamous. In my opinion, genes seem to be more a excuse by people that cheat. I cannot do anything about it, it is in my genes.

The fact that our species doesn't instinctually form lifetime monogamous heterosexual pair bonds.

Religion forces them on us with death penalties in scripture for any sexual activity outside such a pair bond.

And the same people did not consider it this way under Communism. So this is more propaganda. Or dont you think?

lol! Political systems have nothing to do with sexual selection instincts developed over the 300,000 year history of our species!

Those three women were the most powerful women in the world according to Forbes.

Angela Merkel? Wow. You REALLY missed my point, lol! It's women who are instinctually attracted to wealthy powerful men not the other way around.

Men are attracted instinctually to women at or near the peak of their reproductive years which is early to mid-20s. That's why women are always trying to look young.

The selection pressure for adult female attraction to high social status males and for adult male attraction to young adult females is reproductive success.

 

[Lee_M]

I think the reason there are fewer women on dating sites etc now is because they know the sites are full of creeps and married men just looking for a fuck. So the women who are on there looking for a genuine "man/relationship" do feel the need to compete. And if you are lucky enough to find one of these genuine guys, then indeed it is a prize.

As for the golden penis syndrome, all the articles Ive seen on it refer to younger college age students, so maybe its because im older i don't see things the same. Personally I'm far more confident and content in myself that id rather stay single then feel the need to compete for some "douchebag" just because he is "Marriage material".

And i cant speak for all women (obviously) but of the ones i know, all we want is a good guy who is financially stable, not a millionaire or Adonis or some guys seem to think

 

[Sagittarius84]

And i cant speak for all women (obviously) but of the ones i know, all we want is a good guy who is financially stable, not a millionaire or Adonis or some guys seem to think

"Golden penis syndrome" arose from the fact that "good" guy, and financially stable are no longer objective metrics, they are wholly subjective constructs where "goodness" is more a calculation of amicable behavior(which more often than not translates to objectively bad societal behavior) and financially stable only counts when it exceeds her income.
The reason why so many average men are starting to emulate the behaviors and ideologies of Adonises and millionaires is because for all the truthful possibilities of them appealing to some woman somewhere, the statistical probabilities offered by adhering to proven strategies are consistently higher. This something is playing out both in person and online where women's own accounts and complaints of past and potential partners reveal their preferences' consequences.

 

[Sagittarius84]

You are 69 % straight. But you cannot say to me that you are more attracted to people like Angela Merkel,
Christine Lagarde or Ursula von der Leyen than to those women here on the list, although they are less powerful: https://womenintheworld.org/most-beautiful-women/

Those three women were the most powerful women in the world according to Forbes.

I meant you are attracted to people that are powerful for you, and that differs from person to person and that does not mean it is the status of society.

What I want to say you imagine who is the most attractive not the society and so you can change your attraction.

I think you're operating off of false equivalence because @halcyondays statement was somewhat incomplete: Money is status and power only when Its holders demonstrate a propensity for using it to care for and provide their partners. If upon gaining money and status, women en masse opted to seek male partners(they have no problem doing so in lesbian pairings) that thrust them into the position of primary provider, then it would register as an attractive quality of women. Most high earning/high status women are quite vocal in their preference of holding out for their statistically miniscule preferences, and are demonstrating a willingness to share "attractive" men or to be forever single in lieu of compromising with a man that would be more domestically inclined(which ironically many career women should find attractive as the so called pressures of wifehood, or motherhood would be alleviated).

 

[Sagittarius84]

Men are attracted instinctually to women at or near the peak of their reproductive years which is early to mid-20s. That's why women are always trying to look young

Actually, if you want to get technical, men were instinctually attracted to young females shortly after their first menstrual cycle, as the our shorter lifespan and the biological need for many offspring were prime motivators...It isn't really until advances in modern medicine and prenatal knowledge that thousands of yrs of instinct were largely usurped by the biological fact that for health of child and woman, early to mid 20s is most attractive, with the "milf" and "cougar" phenomenon showing no signs of waning in terms of partner preference.

The selection pressure for adult female attraction to high social status males and for adult male attraction to young adult females is reproductive success

I guess I'm going to need a definition of "reproductive success" and an explanation or origin of selection pressure when adherence to it yields significantly worse results than deviance from it(infant mortality, increase of risk to life and limb, ensured competition with the other mothers and children of the high social status males.)

 

[michael_3165]

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 who 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?

I didn't even know this was a thing until I saw this thread.

I think historically women had little power other than sexuality that could be wielded against men. It is almost a stereotype that men "only get a blowjob on our birthday" and many, many comedy movies have cited how women hold the power over men by using sex as a weapon (i.e. withdrawing it if she isn't happy with what the guy does).

As the world has evolved and women have a much more even footing with men, the roles haven't so much reversed but that now men are fighting back with their own version. I read an article saying that college educated women prefer men with at least their level of education and that because they outweigh men in universities that this is likely leading to men that are at universities having a false sense of ego.

There is only one real answer to this... stop being so desperate and going for the guys that are reputed as being assholes when dating. Will this mean a drop in education level in potential dates? Yes. Will it mean earning potential is therefore lowered in a prospective future partner? Yes. But that is what comes with having an equal footing. Interestingly, men have historically had a lot less interest in education or wage earning potential in partners, so maybe women need to be less picky about what they want (as should we all!)

As to the question of why should we care? I don't think anyone is asking us to. Women have to make choices that are right for them. If men aren't willing or able to accommodate that then that really is women's problem.

The book "Women don't owe you pretty" is a good example of how SOME women have begun to think about relationships with men. Men are biting back with "and we don't owe you nice".

As an aside, I don't see this in "real" life and so wonder how common this actually is? We could ask the question of why women opt to date egotistical, asshole men and my answers would be 1) a desire to "change" him 2) financial security (which is, in fairness, much less likely in 2022 due to women having more earning potential than in the past multiple decades) and 3) success which almost inevitably leads to ego, self-interest and asshole-ness unless kept in check.

 

[Sagittarius84]

The book "Women don't owe you pretty" is a good example of how SOME women have begun to think about relationships with men. Men are biting back with "and we don't owe you nice".

I think this is a pretty astute observation of heterosexual gender dynamics today. I'm good with both statements, but I feel women and a lot of the men that seek their favor either think women are entitled to niceness from men, or are too deeply invested in (and/or cognizant of)the socioeconomic construct that commoditizes men's niceness to women to ever divest from it.

 

[michael_3165]

I think this is a pretty astute observation of heterosexual gender dynamics today. I'm good with both statements, but I feel women and a lot of the men that seek their favor either think women are entitled to niceness from men, or are too deeply invested in (and/or cognizant of)the socioeconomic construct that commoditizes men's niceness to women to ever divest from it.

Thanks...ironically I've been gay most of my life!

I am not for a moment making a moral or ethical judgment on this issue, but we must not be naive if we think that men and women don't wield different forms of power. Sadly men have more hard power whereas women have soft power in terms of influence.

Whoever in power will always have the upper hand. If you don't do X then I'll withhold Y. Is it fair or moral? No. But I'm talking from a perspective based on reality.

The question then goes to, why would a person in a powerful position give any of that power up? This is where I think feminists (ultra feminists not your standard champions of equal rights, one of which I count myself as) fail miserably.

If women don't "owe you (men) pretty" then men may respond w "okay, well I'll hire the person who will give me what I want. I don't owe you a job". Men and women need to use their power effectively. I believe the problem lies with women who demand other women don't make an effort to please the "male gaze" (*written eye roll*). If you do pander to men then you aren't for women's rights.

I've gone off topic but you get my point.

 

[Sagittarius84]

I am not for a moment making a moral or ethical judgment on this issue, but we must not be naive if we think that men and women don't wield different forms of power. Sadly men have more hard power whereas women have soft power in terms of influence.

I'd argue the "hard" power men tend to have is more attributed to our collective pursuit for it as opposed to some unfair advantage, especially in the modern world. So that then begs the question, "what is the primary motivation behind seeking such power?", which to me exposes the real power at play

The question then goes to, why would a person in a powerful position give any of that power up?

A person typically doesn't, people, especially when that power is obtained through numbers and progressive solidarity, tend to trend towards the uplifting of those whom aren't empowered. As I've alluded to before, history seems to reflect that women didn't see any significant "hard" power shared with them for most of human civilization until large portions of the average male population saw fit to do so once they wrested it from the powerful few men and factions. The most indicative metric for the rise of women's rights, agency, autonomy, health and reproductive success has been the uplifting of the socioeconomic status of average men, further bolstered by most women then opting for more egalitarian monogamous pairings with these men.

If women don't "owe you (men) pretty" then men may respond w "okay, well I'll hire the person who will give me what I want. I don't owe you a job". Men and women need to use their power effectively. I believe the problem lies with women who demand other women don't make an effort to please the "male gaze" (*written eye roll*). If you do pander to men then you aren't for women's rights.

As the youth say, "That's cap"
The golden penises aren't being deprived of women's attention. Listen to their horror stories in dating, they'll tell you themselves, situations that could not occur unless at some point they were willing to compromise on obvious red flags are what fuel the testimonies that we end up hearing. Then look at locales where the male population actually took it upon themselves to remove the filter of the male gaze upon women's lives, for that grateful population to turn around and consider those men largely unfuckable.

 

[Sagittarius84]

This picture/meme, though geared specifically towards gender inequity in the workplace, in both its perspective and supposed poignancy, is where I think the problem lies

Google Image Result for https://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/woman-achievements-race-illustration-fb17-png__700.jpg

 

[thickgeo]

Women primarily care about money in a partner. Everything else is ancillary. /thread

 

[Sagittarius84]

Women primarily care about money in a partner. Everything else is ancillary. /thread

I mean women are free to answer here, and my guess is the majority of them wouldn't concur. So are they lying to themselves and us or are we not seeing the whole picture? Personally I think money isn't really the primary asset anymore, as mating and dating stats show things like height, notoriety, and popularity amongst other women will often seem to take precedence over actual income.

 

[thickgeo]

Good luck finding women here. Secondly, all those things you mentioned are corollaries to high income. My point still stands.

 

[ronin001]

Women primarily care about money in a partner. Everything else is ancillary. /thread

I am Broke, I guess I am screwed

 

[thickgeo]

I am Broke, I guess I am screwed

You might be able to rise above if you’re over 6’0” and/or have neck tattoos, but make sure to get your money game up while using this advantage.

 

[good_days]

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?

Hold on - I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding the concept of "golden penis syndrome."

The referenced NYPost piece is a watered-down version of a piece on Cosmopolitan, which states that "the term “golden penis syndrome” was allegedly coined by students at Sarah Lawrence College—a place with a student body that’s 75 percent women and 25 percent men—to describe what can happen in environments (schools, cities, states) where heterosexual women far outnumber heterosexual men."

To be clear - these men think they must have a "golden penis" because of the attention they are receiving, when in reality the attention is due to there are literally fewer men than women on a given campus. That's it.

 

[ronin001]

You might be able to rise above if you’re over 6’0” and/or have neck tattoos, but make sure to get your money game up while using this advantage.

Thank you