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.

 

[POB]

I can't think about this subject as black and white, maybe that's the problem.
If it was like that, based on the evolutionary aspect for sexual conquests, guys would never change or improve and be limited by their own inate characteristics and traits. The fact that a guy can really change his ways and go from broken loser to casanova levels of seduction (if he really commits to this craft) to me is a testment that evolution is not playing a major role in this matter.

Also things are very interchangeable through a man's phases in life.
In my 30s, I was craving more and more women.
Now in my mid 40s, even as a single man, I'm settled for far less numbers and still happy with that choice.
also still trying to find a suitable match for a serious relationship with potential to raise a family.

My guess is you are trying to reconcile your desire to be a dad with the life choices you have made as a seducer.
Is this the root of your concerns?

 

[Skills]

Oh i see... Ok if you want kids and family... The advantage of being good is that you can choose a more suitable partner for procreating since you can have more choices... Higher meaning to have more choices and pick better choices...

 

[Dragonetti]

Well it's obviously reproductive success, right? Genes want to propagate themselves

 

[Jan]

If it was like that, based on the evolutionary aspect for sexual conquests, guys would never change or improve and be limited by their own inate characteristics and traits. The fact that a guy can really change his ways and go from broken loser to casanova levels of seduction (if he really commits to this craft) to me is a testment that evolution is not playing a major role in this matter.

What we get from evolution is only PREDISPOSITIONS. You can think about it as natural talents or anti-talents. Our will and hard work allows everyone to grow in the direction we choose, but nature makes it easier or more difficult for different people to follow the same path.

My guess is you are trying to reconcile your desire to be a dad with the life choices you have made as a seducer.
Is this the root of your concerns?

Indeed, I'm asking myself this question, however this particular question was more an attempt to find an answer to a question: "What nature or God wants from me by making me a high sex drive/high sexual variability male?"

 

[Will_V]

Interesting observations there.

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?

The way a seducer (or at least I do, I can't speak for everybody) looks at sex vs the way most people do is like the way a movie is vs everyday life. It's an attempt to create something of beauty rather than functionality.

People are born with an incredible array of senses, instincts, psychic mechanisms, that create the possibility of profound experiences. When someone finds themselves in a context in which these parts of themselves are enacted, they feel exalted, deeply satisfied in parts of their spirit they never even knew existed, and feel like life is truly worthwhile.

Unfortunately, the opportunity to experience such things (the things we were built for, no less) is rare, because life has become an endless charade of mundane bs - wake up, go to work, get through the day, get some money, come home, watch a bunch of clowns on tv, talk to the significant other about how to deal with a bureaucratic noose some conglomerated entity is trying to put around your necks, go to sleep, rinse, repeat. And on the weekends, go to some social bs gathering that no one there actually wants to be at, pretend to look happy, go home, and start the week again. It's no wonder most of the population is obese and on meds.

People weren't born for that, but that's the life people are supposed to live. Well, enter the seducer. They add whisky to the tepid water of everyday experience for the women they meet.

Most women never or very rarely get to experience:

- Really truly desiring a man they know in the flesh
- Being asked to submit completely to a man and his desires
- Feeling sexually powerful and having a profound sexual effect on a man
- Living out her sexual fantasies

Failure to experience these things, for a woman, is akin to a man who has never had to fight too hard for anything, who has never had to sacrifice a lot for anything, from whom the world has never cared to ask very much, nor offered any of its rarer riches (and there are far greater riches than money).

Because while a man's world revolves around his worldly conquests, a woman's world revolves around her man. Sex and seduction is the medium through which she finds out who she is and what she is capable of.

If you are looking for some understanding of the evolutionary role of seducers in social groups - have you watched Vikings? I liked how the character of Harbard was written. If you look at the constellation of people in the show, and how they were all living out their lives and purposes, you'll understand a bit more about the role of the seducer in amongst all of that.

A seducer's role (as it relates to social groups rather than women) is to light a spark where the embers are going cold, instigate change, upset a calcified order and introduce new possibilities. It's not all kinds of personalities that are capable of that role.

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?

I certainly don't 'sell sex', I offer an experience, that's all. You're looking at everything in terms of provision, but the human experience has room for a lot more than simple pleasures and transactions.

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?

Seduction is not about procreation, obviously. But neither is it about simple pleasures. It's essentially about self discovery. The sexual act is only a part of it.

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?

That's a separate issue. I want to have kids (preferably a bunch of them) but that's not why I seduce women.

 

[Jan]

Because while a man's world revolves around his worldly conquests, a woman's world revolves around her man. Sex and seduction is the medium through which she finds out who she is and what she is capable of.

Nicely put.

If you are looking for some understanding of the evolutionary role of seducers in social groups - have you watched Vikings? I liked how the character of Harbard was written.

I haven't watched it. Are you talking about the Netflix series or the original one?

Seduction is not about procreation, obviously. But neither is it about simple pleasures. It's essentially about self discovery. The sexual act is only a part of it.

I can see your perspective, thanks for the detailed write-up. Essentially, it's about offering her a sublime experience. It's a gift.

 

[Jan]

The advantage of being good is that you can choose a more suitable partner for procreating

@Skills man, this sentence in the original format was much funnier

 

[Will_V]

I can see your perspective, thanks for the detailed write-up. Essentially, it's about offering her a sublime experience. It's a gift.

Not exactly, more like an opportunity.

A gift is something people sort of foist upon eachother, and you're not supposed to refuse. An opportunity is something you have to come and get, and it doesn't really matter to anyone but you if you do or don't.

 

[POB]

"What nature or God wants from me by making me a high sex drive/high sexual variability male?"

The short answer would be self-discovery.
Sex is about self-discovery, at least in my point of view.
You can't have great sex if you don't make yourself available and vulnerable at the same time.
Women become physically vulnerable, but we...we become emotionally vulnerable.
Both are dangerous propositions, because women could be harmed and killed, of course, and we could be left devastated if we catch deep feelings and are not corresponded.

That said, of course this powerfull feeling can be translated into a serious relationship once you find a suitable partner.
Question is, are you willing to go the distance and truly open up once you find her?

Also through seduction (and sex) you can have a lot of amazing experiences, compare between them and fully understand the whole spectrum of the female realm. In return it will give you a broader view of everything related to the man-woman dynamic, which (if you are smart) will yield healthy and fruitfull relationships with the opposite sex.

All this gold is only available to the seducer...the regular John cannot get this kind of experience, because he is trapped in an endless cycle of "getting what I can" in terms of women and sex.

Does that make sense?

 

[Jan]

@POB It makes sense. Thank you for elaborating.

 

[ulrich]

@Jan You seem to be conflating multiple concepts that really don’t gel well together.

Evolutionary theory is mostly conjecture… and then you add purpose which is a nebulous term in itself… and then you want seducers to have a fundamental function for society…

These are the kind of questions that don’t have practical answers.

Life is, in many ways, a competition for resources.
Sexual selection is about filtering the non-attractive from the gene pool.
You may say, seducers put pressure on raising the standards.
I’ll leave for you to decide if that is a good or a bad thing.