# Why Men Exist



## Constable Odo (Feb 14, 2015)

I'm relieved to know now that nature has evolved me into something more than a mechanism to take out the garbage or kill the creepy-crawlie in the bathtub...

Why Do Men Exist?

I can now charge a premium for my home-insemination kits I sell on eBay...


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Gaack... I think I just lost some I.Q. Points!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Yeswecan (Jul 25, 2014)

Sheesh... I thought I was just a life support system for a penis. Glad that is cleared up.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Ah, evo-psych at its finest.

One day we'll all realize what a load of bunk it is.

I hope.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

My daughter asked me the other day, "why is it that humans are the only living species on the planet where the female are more attractive than the males. In all other animals it is always the male that is more attractive such as the pea**** with its feathers."

I explained that all other creatures on the planet are hunted and eaten. I explained that if other animals hunted us that mommy would be hard to see standing in the yard, that she would be camouflaged, and then daddy would be very bright and decorative to scare everything hunting us the ***** away!

PS: Seriously pea**** (pea¢ock) gets censored?


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

So I'm reminded all the time by angry feminists how the world would be perfect if only there were no men. And then I point to inner city Baltimore, Camden, Chicago, Detroit, Compton where, by their own admission there are no adult men. 

Tell me more about your utopia.


----------



## thatbpguy (Dec 24, 2012)

There's a good joke here, but I refuse to type it in.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

always_alone said:


> Ah, evo-psych at its finest.
> 
> One day we'll all realize what a load of bunk it is.
> 
> I hope.



Well since the Evo psych crap says that women are all slvts and easily replaceable I guess that means we're all worthless.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Forest (Mar 29, 2014)

ConanHub said:


> Gaack... I think I just lost some I.Q. Points!
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



Yeesh.

For an answer all you need to do is look at a bridge.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Strictly speaking, gender and sexual reproduction exists to drive evolutionary advantages in complex organisms. 

If you think nature is done with the human animal, or that one or the other gender is going away, think again.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Why would anyone even think something so stupid as why do men exist? It isn't as if there are a whole lot of female asexual mammals running around on the face of the earth. If there were, it might be a logical question, like why does our species have males but most mammals don't. Who would ever wander down that path to begin with, and why?


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> Why would anyone even think something so stupid as why do men exist? It isn't as if there are a whole lot of female asexual mammals running around on the face of the earth. If there were, it might be a logical question, like why does our species have males but most mammals don't. Who would ever wander down that path to begin with, and why?


Brain....hurting......
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

I'm wrecking the evolutionary future of the human race by refusing to compete for female attention.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Or perhaps I'm saving it?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Mr. Nail said:


> I'm wrecking the evolutionary future of the human race by refusing to compete for female attention.
> .
> .
> .
> ...


Ooooh...... that just makes 'em chase you more. Very competitive strategy you've got there.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> Why would anyone even think something so stupid as why do men exist? It isn't as if there are a whole lot of female asexual mammals running around on the face of the earth. If there were, it might be a logical question, like why does our species have males but most mammals don't. Who would ever wander down that path to begin with, and why?


If it's a guy asking, I'd guess insecurity.

If it's a woman asking, I'd guess anger.


----------



## pragmaster (May 7, 2014)

Why do men exist?? You mean, why do humans exist?

The answer is because of the Annunaki. 

Google it.

Read it and weep.


----------



## earworm (Apr 15, 2015)

I believe than men exist to realize special mission in life. To create something new, to develop skills and learn new directions (fields and areas of knowledge) from day to day.


----------



## bandit.45 (Feb 8, 2012)

Mr. Nail said:


> I'm wrecking the evolutionary future of the human race by refusing to compete for female attention.
> .
> .
> .
> ...


The cuttlefish stratagem.


----------



## morituri (Apr 1, 2011)

Lethal viruses and bacteria are the predators of humanity and they are constantly evolving. Sexual reproduction introduces genetic variability, and makes a species a moving target. Unlike parthenogenesis which makes a species a sitting duck and ripe for extinction by these infinitely small yet infinitely powerful entities.

Think of lethal viruses and bacteria like the borg from Star Trek, they are relentless, tireless and you'll have more appreciation for the genetic variability men introduce to humanity's gene pool.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

The article made me wonder why there are so many humans on earth if only the top ten percent of men have good enough sperm to be attractive enough to be selected by a fertile female. I think factors like the male of the species having some say in which females seem most able to reproduce healthy offspring was missed. These few conditions and many more were not included in the study of beetles. Good luck relying on that study to be an accurate representation of humanity.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

---Inflammatory, ignorant, hack writing at its finest.

It isn't a question of why *men* exist. It's a question of why sexual reproduction exists.

There are species where males are little more than sperm donors.

Humans are not one of them.


----------



## bandit.45 (Feb 8, 2012)

Me? I exist to eat, sleep, work, watch football and...occasionally...fvck. 





That's about it.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

Constable Odo said:


> I'm relieved to know now that nature has evolved me into something more than a mechanism to take out the garbage or kill the creepy-crawlie in the bathtub...
> 
> Why Do Men Exist?
> 
> I can now charge a premium for my home-insemination kits I sell on eBay...


What I read? Men exists to make the species stronger based on female choice of us. Awesome . We all win.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

Thundarr said:


> What I read? Men exists to make the species stronger based on female choice of us. Awesome . We all win.


Problem is, that's not what Alyson Lumley and her colleagues actually said. :smile2:


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

ocotillo said:


> Problem is, that's not what Alyson Lumley and her colleagues actually said. :smile2:


I know but I like my interpretation.


----------



## T&T (Nov 16, 2012)

"Competition among males for reproduction provides a really important benefit, *because it improves the genetic health of populations,"*


Ummm, have these guys looked around lately 

We're doomed...lol


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

T&T said:


> Ummm, have these guys looked around lately


Well ya have to keep in mind that this is what they were looking at:











Everybody knows how this works right?

Articles are published in scientific journals. The subject is usually pretty esoteric; the claims are relatively conservative and restricted in scope and the language is loaded with technical terms and jargon.

Science correspondents subsequently take these articles and 'dumb them down' into a brief summary for consumption by the masses. (i.e. Us.) Unfortunately, some of these writers can't seem to resist the urge to sensationalize the message. And that's what happened here.

The actual article (Lumley _et. al. _(18 May 2015) Sexual Selection Protects Against Extinction. _Nature_) did not directly extrapolate observations about flour beetles to human beings.

Kate Kelland at Reuters did that.

There is a big difference between the terms, "Male" and "Men." The former is simply the gender producing motile gametes. The latter is specific to humans. Men are adult human males.

Further, given the fact that gender evolved at an extremely primitive level, it is a gross oversimplification to focus solely on its original advantages at the expense of others that crept in along the way. Higher mammals do not simply mate; lay eggs and then either walk off and forget about them or simply die.


----------



## moco82 (Jul 16, 2012)

always_alone said:


> Ah, evo-psych at its finest.
> 
> One day we'll all realize what a load of bunk it is.
> 
> I hope.


A little late for the extinct test insect population.


----------



## moco82 (Jul 16, 2012)

lifeistooshort said:


> Evo psych crap says that women are all slvts and easily replaceable


Um... Where? In the pre-urbanization days, anyone could have pointed out that it only takes a couple of bulls to sustain a bovine population. So it's the males who are easily replaceable (and are in nature). Females possess the womb and are irreplaceable, on the other hand.


----------



## Kitt (Jun 3, 2015)

This is Fox News...enough said! :rofl:

Also, spider killer is a very important, valued job in my household. 

PS: Seriously pea**** (pea¢ock) gets censored is the funniest thing I've read all day.


----------



## moco82 (Jul 16, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> If there were, it might be a logical question, like why does our species have males but most mammals don't.


Most mammals don't have males? Did I read that correctly? A quick search didn't reveal the existence of hermaphrodite mammals at all.

Anyways, I think the journalist wrote "men" in the title for click-baiting purposes. The study looked at why more than sex exists in biology at all, since that's not how it always was. Simple organisms reproduced by division, then sexual reproduction came along, but it did not initially divide populations into two sexes. Sexual selection is the mark of highly advanced organisms.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

moco82 said:


> Um... Where? In the pre-urbanization days, anyone could have pointed out that it only takes a couple of bulls to sustain a bovine population. So it's the males who are easily replaceable (and are in nature). Females possess the womb and are irreplaceable, on the other hand.


You're right about evo-psych (Or at least popular forms of it) but that's one of my problems with it.

It's true that among ungulates (e.g. Cattle) and among precocial bird species (e.g. Poultry) the ratio of males to females can be very low. 

But that's hardly a universal constant in the animal kingdom. Generally, the longer the period of care required by the young, the more important the male becomes after the act of fertilization. Emperor penguins, for example would go extinct in short order without a roughly 50/50 mix of males to females. 

So which are humans? I'm aware as much as the next person that one of the revelations of the human genome project is that we have more female ancestors than male, but given how sensitive humans are to inbreeding and how quickly genetic abnormalities like hemophilia, for example crop up and start getting passed around like a football in closed breeding groups, I'm not so sure that it was in our evolutionary interests.


----------



## moco82 (Jul 16, 2012)

ocotillo said:


> but given how sensitive humans are to inbreeding and how quickly genetic abnormalities like hemophilia, for example crop up and start getting passed around like a football in closed breeding groups, I'm not so sure that it was in our evolutionary interests.


I thought one of the advantages of sexual selection was that a female could pass over the sickly male and mate with a healthy one, since in a group setting the offspring was going to get some support even without a separately dedicated pair of parents.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

moco82 said:


> I thought one of the advantages of sexual selection was that a female could pass over the sickly male and mate with a healthy one....


You're absolutely right. (Although to be fair it works both ways.)

But that's the antithesis of comparisons between humans and hoofed animals where a bull or stallion services a whole herd of females. 

With humans, where are these healthy males coming from? We have fairly modern examples of cities in Northern Arizona and Colorado that practiced plural marriage up until fairly recently. It was a genetic catastrophe, because within three generations almost everybody in a town was related in some way to its founder.


----------



## life_huppens (Jun 3, 2015)

Trustfully, with modern science, man will be soon redundant. Test tube babies ... anyone?


----------



## Kitt (Jun 3, 2015)

Men exist because they are wonderful!


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

life_huppens said:


> Trustfully, with modern science, man will be soon redundant. Test tube babies ... anyone?


You think insemination is the only role men have to play in child-rearing? In society? Really?


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Kitt said:


> Men exist because they are wonderful!


I am pretty awesome, thanks :grin2:


----------



## moco82 (Jul 16, 2012)

ocotillo said:


> With humans, where are these healthy males coming from? We have fairly modern examples of cities in Northern Arizona and Colorado that practiced plural marriage up until fairly recently. It was a genetic catastrophe, because within three generations almost everybody in a town was related in some way to its founder.


So basically a population is always in a balancing act between selecting for genetic variability and selecting for desirable traits _de jour_? And things go best when the furthest-removed male also possesses the desired traits/disease resistance?


----------



## life_huppens (Jun 3, 2015)

always_alone said:


> You think insemination is the only role men have to play in child-rearing? In society? Really?


I am sure it is more than this, but with their backs to the wall, women can be pretty resourceful, and will take over men responsibilities when non is available or willing to step up.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Wow... this article really...


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

ocotillo said:


> ---Inflammatory, ignorant, hack writing at its finest.
> 
> It isn't a question of why *men* exist. It's a question of why sexual reproduction exists.


To be fair, that's the article's doing, not the study's. "Why do men exist" is just sensationalist writing.


----------



## moco82 (Jul 16, 2012)

25% of Norwegian men are childless at 45, while only 13% of women are.


A quarter of Norwegian men never father children | ScienceNordic


----------



## moco82 (Jul 16, 2012)

These guys don't have to worry about working out or getting a well-compensated job: Flatworm Reproduces by Using its Penis to Inject Sperm Into its Head | IFLScience


----------

