What is the evolutionary purpose of seducers?

[Jan]

There is a wide range of physical, emotional and psychological diversity among human race.

Some people are strong and tough physically, others are physically weak but can think think long, deep and creatively.

This diversity is humanity's great strength, the actual reason for our dominance on the planet.

We would never be where we are now as a species if all humans were super strong fighters. Same for if all humans were monks.

All our achievements are due to the fact that we have thinkers, builders, warriors, leaders and followers among all of us.

This brings me to wonder about the role of a seducer in the evolutionary context.

What are we supposed to bring to the human species as a whole? What value do we bring to the success of the human species?

If we 'sell sex' as it's sometimes mentioned here, aren't we supposed to fertilize multiple women? Or is the lover's evolutionary role to provide love, pleasure, make women feel good about themselves, but not necessarily fertilize them?

Humans can have sex for two different reasons. Either for procreation (during woman's ovulation phase) or for pleasure and deepening intimacy/connection (outside of ovulation phase).

Are seducers supposed to fill only one of these roles, or both? If one - which one is it?

If it's the fertilization role, then according to my observations, modern seducers are failing at this role! Isn't it weird that men who had sex with dozens or hundreds women, don't have children? Or have very few.

I get that this could be their personal decision, and I'm fine with this. However, I'm trying to look at our role from the evolutionary perspective which doesn't care that much about the personal preference or societal expectations.

Western world is in deep decline and one aspect of it is failing demographics. By having protected sex and not fertilizing women, aren't we failing our evolutionary purpose?

 

[Atlas IV]

I think we are sailing uncharted territory.

The art of seduction as a systematic, analytical practice, like we discuss here, has only really existed for the past few decades. Before that, if you got lots of pussy, you were basically either a natural who figured things out on your own, or you were someone in a position of power/wealth in a culture that allowed you to have multiple wives/consorts.

In monogamous cultures, in the days before contraception, any hopeful seducer would have been finished the moment he got a woman pregnant.

Evolutionarily speaking though, the fact that we have twice as many female ancestors as male is pretty clear evidence that we are originally polygamous by nature. Whoever procreated with the most females (in whatever way courtship worked back then) passed on his genes to the most descendants. Presumably, any man who was good at procreating was probably also good at other things too, such as strength, leadership and decision-making (otherwise he wouldn't have been able to get the women in the tribe), hence survival of the fittest.

We are aberrations of the species. Since we've managed to isolate this one specific activity (the procreation ritual) and apply our rational intelligence to maximizing results without actually needing to procreate, we can just do it over and over again with no consequences.

Nature didn't prepare for something like this. There's no special role for us in evolution.

 

[Jan]

I would recommend you read up about sigma male/lone wolf archetype as well as dualistic sexuality of women. Also, read up the stranger fantasy of women in the Secret Garden book.

Long story short, there was always a small group of men who were not on the top of social hierarchy (alpha male), but who still managed to procreate with lots of women, by the means of being an attractive stranger. A stranger who possesed similar attributes as alpha male but lacked the social position of the alpha males.

If you read up Casanova's story, he was definitely one of these. He travelled from country to country, city to city, doing his adventures. He never had a stable social position in any place, but he always managed to establish himself temporarily, which helped him to perform his sexual escapades.

I would guess that apart from alpha males, sigma male types were the second important contributor to the gene pool across generations.

Apart from Casanova, history knows many others seducers like Don Juan, and so on.

The Top Seducers of All Time

The death of Hugh Hefner in 2017, got us pondering over the meaning and implications of his departure. Is it the end of an era? The end of the golden Playboy era. Perhaps even the end of the archetype of the great seducer? Who these days will dare wander around accompanied by a harem of three...

truetribe.paris

I agree that the seduction was never systemized and distributed the way it is these days, but I'm fully convinced that there were thousands or hundred of thousands of seducers accross history. Obviously, we don't know about most of them, because seduction is a secret society, and most of them never wanted to be known for it.

I mentioned the 'stranger' fantasy in woman's imagination, because this fantasy which exists in women subconsious mind, confirms that their female ancestors met sexy strangers (seducers) in the past, and they crave for it.

 

[Skills]

Why do you care? Care about your own personal and sexual goals... Men in general are biological design to be free and spread his seeds and women for containment and try to keep the best partner to take care of the offspring at least short term during pregnancy and first few years of kid... again all this shit irrelevant for your personal sex, women and social dynamic goals.... I am smelling cope..

 

[Jan]

Why do you care?

I'm looking for some higher meaning to all of it

 

[POB]

This brings me to wonder about the role of a seducer in the evolutionary context.

No role in this context.
This is where our human side comes before our animal side.

What are we supposed to bring to the human species as a whole? What value do we bring to the success of the human species?

Right now, we are the last bastion of healthy sexual masculinity.

If we 'sell sex' as it's sometimes mentioned here, aren't we supposed to fertilize multiple women? Or is the lover's evolutionary role to provide love, pleasure, make women feel good about themselves, but not necessarily fertilize them?

Again, no evolutionary role.
The context here is social, emotional and physical, not biological (although biology plays a role of course).

Humans can have sex for two different reasons. Either for procreation (during woman's ovulation phase) or for pleasure and deepening intimacy/connection (outside of ovulation phase). Are seducers supposed to fill only one of these roles, or both? If one - which one is it?

No!
Seducers are supposed to give and have fun while creating the perfect environent for sex to happen.
Do you think Casanova, Jack Nicholson or Hugh Hefner were thinking about having kids when the slept with all those women?

If it's the fertilization role, then according to my observations, modern seducers are failing at this role! Isn't it weird that men who had sex with dozens or hundreds women, don't have children? Or have very few.

Having kids to form a family has nothing to do with seduction!
Yes, you can seduce their mother, but that stops there.
Two very different set of skills, and yes, you can be good at both.

I get that this could be their personal decision, and I'm fine with this. However, I'm trying to look at our role from the evolutionary perspective which doesn't care that much about the personal preference or societal expectations.

Again there's NO evolutionary role in being a seducer.

Western world is in deep decline and one aspect of it is failing demographics. By having protected sex and not fertilizing women, aren't we failing our evolutionary purpose?

Maybe, but does it really matter?

 

[Jan]

No role in this context.
This is where our human side comes before our animal side.

Let me clarify two more distinctions.

1) There are men with high, medium and low sex drive.
2) There are also men who have a high need for a fresh pussy all time, and there are those who seem pretty satisfied with a single woman over a long time.

Why would nature create men with low sex drive? I'm speaking sex drive towards opposite sex. Therefore we can include both heteresexuals as well as homosexuals in this bracker. It's pretty obvious, that these men were not created by nature to spread their seed. They don't have internal drive/motivation to do this. I know one guy like this. He is in a committed, long term relationship but he is actively avoiding sexual encounters with his girlfriend. He always finds some excuses to have sex with her. I know this from this girl's best friend. His girlfriend loves him as a mate partner, and she would like to have more sex with him, but dude is just not interested. This is her main frustration in the relationship. My main point here is that men with low sex drive were not created to spread their seed. The proof of that is that nature didn't provide them with inner drive to pursue this goal.

Now let's talk about men who have a decent sex drive and who at the same time are happy with a single woman over long time. Seems like a perfect hubby candidate. Perfect match for many women - on the material, emotional and sexual side. However, this type of men invalidates the hypothesis that all men are looking to spread their seed into as many wombs as possible. Sure, they have a sex drive, but it's a sex drive directed towards a single woman. They are not internally motivated to spread seed in MULTIPLE women's seed.

Then finally, the high drive - high variety man. A guy who is constantly motivated to have sex and he wants to have sex with as many women as possible. He is like many of us, here. Only this guy seems to fit the description of a man as you see it. But it's not really his choice to be that man. Nature equipped him with high sex drive and with curiosity and motivation to pursue multiple women.

You see, nature clearly created different profiles of men when it comes to sexual motivation, and motivation by diversity. Is that a random coincidence? I don't think so. As I mentioned in the opening post, this diversity is very obvious in other aspects of human characteristics - size, physicial prowess, inteliigence, patience, dominance/submission. As I said, this diversity is evolutionary speaking, the source of homo sapiens strength. A society full of leaders and no followers would collapse as fast as the society full of leaders only (who would have had not followers). That's why nature creates so much personality diversity.

I'm trying to apply the same reasoning to sexual diversity part among humans. So my question really was: what is the evolutionary purpose of men with high sex drive and high preference for sexual diversity?

Again, no evolutionary role.
The context here is social, emotional and physical, not biological (although biology plays a role of course).

Seducers are supposed to give and have fun while creating the perfect environent for sex to happen.

I hear ya. You view the role of the seducer purely as someone who provides a fun, pleasant experience to women.

Maybe, but does it really matter?

It matters to me, because I believe that a world full of kids and youth is a happier world.