"Golden Penis Syndrome"

[Sagittarius84]

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.

They don't "think", they do, because the entire clause of "on campus " is reflective of the selection bias at play. As college enrolled, typically upper classmen it's starting not to matter what the gender split is for a given population or area because women typically narrow their focus on acceptable partners in ways men do not. Because even in campuses where the gender split is neutral average college men find out that even non enrolled nearby women tend to prefer the "golden penises" as opposed to average enrolled and noncollegiate men in their area.
Sure the problem is much more clearly defined within the collegiate genre but it is increasingly present in all dating situations from late high school on, junior and senior young men are often looked over for adult and college aged golden penises.
It's easy and comforting to think this is simply a college campus problem and not indicative of fundamentally flawed mating and dating strategies all too prevelant in the modern western world

 

[heinz.friedrich]

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

And you have no proof of that. That is why I mentioned the animals, because I think humans have this instinct, too.

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

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

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.

You have to decide. at one time, you are saying the selection is instinctual, then you say it is not.
I think this can be both: instinctual and other factors.

But another of my points was that your assumption of instinctual behavior is incomplete, because I think we have a lot of different instincts in us (the monogamous and the polygamous, the one instinct for people of status and the one instinct for people in general regardless the status). You are generealizing one of the instinct and assume that is the dominating instinct.
Fact is there are both instincts in animals. So I think we have both instinct as humans, too.

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

Ok so you dont desire wealthy men (as part of you being gay?), but you have similar DNA than women. If it is instinctual it is probably on the X-chromosoms or other chromonsoms and you have that, too.

Furthemore: my point is that women are also sexually attracted to men about whom they dont know the status (men in porn videos as an example). That would not be possible if they are only attracted to wealthy men.

In addition to that, you can equalize the status in a society so that everyone has the same status and then you cannot decide again as a women (if they all decide this way).

 

[heinz.friedrich]

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).

I think society determines the status, so women and men are attracted to the biases of society and to some extent this is because of the instinct. But the programming of society is far stronger than the instincts, in my opinion. The society has such a strong influence, thus your preferences will change when you can change society.

A woman can imagine a unwealthy man as a man with high status or a woman can imagine a men with low status in general as a man with high status.

(not to you but to the topic):
I said a couple of time that the attraction of wealthy men was different under Communism. So women usually did not attract wealthy men back then. The attraction of wealth is not that strong, in my opinion. The societies in a lot of countries have a lot of care programs for children and families, so the care system is usually not a factor anymore.

 

[halcyondays]

And you have no proof of that.

There's overwhelming proof that our species doesn't form exclusive lifetime heterosexual pair bonds.

- the death penalty taboo in scripture for any sexual activity outside it

- the existence of divorce

- physically, emotionally or both we cheat or are tempted to do so

- average number of lifetime sex partners is greater than 1

- polygamy (as you correctly point out)

You're right that we do have the instinct to form exclusive pair bonds but not lifetime ones. If we did none of the above would exist.

Ok so you dont desire wealthy men (as part of you being gay?),

lol no I don't... as male I'm attracted instinctually to beauty not wealth in both sexes. That instinct is alive and well in males of our species regardless of sexual preference.

In addition to that, you can equalize the status in a society so that everyone has the same status and then you cannot decide again as a women (if they all decide this way).

Universal human equality has yet to happen and never will. Human brains are highly discriminating. That instinct is going nowhere. Equal by law does not mean equal in our minds. Want proof of this? Just look at our world as it is. It's highly discriminatory everywhere not just in the biology of human mate selection.

BTW half my DNA came from a woman but half of hers came from a man.

 

[techpump]

Wow, this thread. What a dive!

Have any of y'all read any anthropology or taken any anthropology courses on human culture and society?
Have any of you been on a college campus in the last few to 10 years? Do you actually know what a student population looks like on a college campus?
And, do any of y'all actually believe that love can be created and exist among any two people (man and woman since this thread is about men and women) regardless of social or economic standing?

I'm an anthropologist and teach anthropology at a few different colleges and universities. I've recently been in grad school twice, taught undergraduates both times, and have been a part of the student body on campus for many years now. If any of you commenting on college anything have not been on a college campus in the last 10+ years you'd be surprised when you put what you see and experience around you into context with your comments.
Lastly, I believe love is so weird and etheric that it can be created and exist between two people regardless. The one thing missing from this thread is what love has to do with women's selection of men. This discussion leans heavily towards dichotomous definitions of men and women: men and women 'choose' who they want based on some innate and/or social urge/s. I get everything being said here, but it still kind of sounds like the issue is

why do normal men have to resort to not-the-best women for their sexual realities?

What I want to know is: is it possible that a man and woman can make their decision to choose each other together?

 

[Sagittarius84]

Have any of y'all read any anthropology or taken any anthropology courses on human culture and society?
Have any of you been on a college campus in the last few to 10 years? Do you actually know what a student population looks like on a college campus?

Yes to all

And, do any of y'all actually believe that love can be created and exist among any two people (man and woman since this thread is about men and women) regardless of social or economic standing?

I think the realm of possibilities of what can happen are endless, unfortunately when it comes to reality , we are better served by observing what actually does happen.

What I want to know is: is it possible that a man and woman can make their decision to choose each other together?

Again, it's hypothetically possible a new awakening begins tomorrow and a benevolent matriarchy leads our species unto new heights, what's exponentially more probable however is this bad faith attempt at a more egalitarian mating and dating construct will put women right back to the socioeconomic purgatory from whence they came, and men yet again will either adapt or die to the new expression of patriarchy.

The college scene is just one canary in this coal mine. I have a teenager and and these same issues resonate in their dating and social lives
. I'm a black man living in America, acutely aware of how this same syndrome has translated into only 1 in 4 of our women(cishetero) will actually die having had the long term committed relationship they seek in life, and how almost 80%of our children are born out of wedlock(not really that big an issue in of itself given a modern interpretation of the long term relationship) somehow fathered by only 16%of our available men; definitely seems like "golden penises" to me.
I think if men generally truly thought women couldn't make better mating and dating decisions to avoid what seem like obvious consequences this wouldn't be a thing; what makes it a thing is a lot of us are starting to see the only way history has produced a population of women that have generally and predictably behaved in such a manner is when they were not afforded the choice, which is counterintuitive to a lot of men's desire to back up and defend the autonomy and agency of women. And so I think it drives a lot of men to look at history and try to identify times when women did make those decisions en masse, and try to replicate those conditions, only to find out women are largely no longer interested in that deal, no matter how beneficial it was for them in the long run.

 

[Sagittarius84]

said a couple of time that the attraction of wealthy men was different under Communism. So women usually did not attract wealthy men back then. The attraction of wealth is not that strong, in my opinion. The societies in a lot of countries have a lot of care programs for children and families, so the care system is usually not a factor anymore.

I would think there's levels. About how long ago are we talking, because I suspect within the locales you are speaking, the agency and autonomy of the average women wasn't exactly equivalent to the average man. That, combined with Communism, at least ideologically elevating the socioeconomic status of the average working man would mean women there were simply settling for a much more widely accessible version of hypergamy.
And wealth is just one aspect of the appeal, the bases of which seem to be either notoriety, or power, neither of which continued to be an asset for women once an established "middle classc was formed.

 

[halcyondays]

The one thing missing from this thread is what love has to do with women's selection of men.

What does love have to do with it?

Whatever it is it's not strong enough to create an exclusive lifetime heterosexual pair bond. Otherwise no one would ever break up or divorce.

 

[good_days]

They don't "think", they do, because the entire clause of "on campus " is reflective of the selection bias at play. As college enrolled, typically upper classmen it's starting not to matter what the gender split is for a given population or area because women typically narrow their focus on acceptable partners in ways men do not. Because even in campuses where the gender split is neutral average college men find out that even non enrolled nearby women tend to prefer the "golden penises" as opposed to average enrolled and noncollegiate men in their area.
Sure the problem is much more clearly defined within the collegiate genre but it is increasingly present in all dating situations from late high school on, junior and senior young men are often looked over for adult and college aged golden penises.
It's easy and comforting to think this is simply a college campus problem and not indicative of fundamentally flawed mating and dating strategies all too prevelant in the modern western world

The conversation fundamentally misinterprets of the study and concept of "golden penis". I take no issue with discussion of how dating and mating practices are changing but it's counterproductive to ground that with a misunderstanding.

The idea of the "golden penis syndrome" is that these men are in high demand because they are in short supply. That's all ! More women, fewer men. The men's egos are artificially inflated. There cannot be a preference for "golden penis" because the "golden penis" only exists in a situation with little opportunity for choice.

 

[Sagittarius84]

The idea of the "golden penis syndrome" is that these men are in high demand because they are in short supply. That's all ! More women, fewer men. The men's egos are artificially inflated. There cannot be a preference for "golden penis" because the "golden penis" only exists in a situation with little opportunity for choice

The reality is men aren't in short supply in the least, it only seems that way if you disqualify men as acceptable partners, which most women do on average to most men, before any college enrollment standards are even implemented. The golden penis ego can survive in a college campus no matter what the gender split is because it is bolstered by women that will not date non enrolled college aged men in the vicinity, underclassmen and the like. That and a "golden penis" isn't really so unless it is getting implemented, which further fuels the ego because these men realize they no longer have to play to women's amicability to get the casual sex and relationships they desire, because the women themselves will enthusiastically weed out the legions of unseen men that are more likely to act in such a manner. The complaint isn't "I'm not getting laid, because these few guys are jerks that think their penis is God's gift to women." , it's more of a, "I'm frustrated that the only men I want to sleep with and end up sleeping with don't cater to my relationship preferences, how dare anyone suggest I compromise or settle in my sexual preferences to up my chances of getting the relationship I want(or need). No, those men that garner most of the attention from women should just shape up, and those that don't, should just disappear, but not in a way to where I can't glean the attention and societal benefits that I've grown accustomed to"

 

[Sagittarius84]

As if the universe wanted to reaffirm that this golden penis syndrome isn't some isolated construct on select college campuses, it gives us "West Elm Caleb"
Believe me you will start to see this archetype become that much more ubiquitous and complained about with time.