Are these Podcast's onto something about gender roles in modern dating regarding evolution?

 Sex and attachment involving hormones:

Found in many debates between men and women, men are conveyed to be less emotional and not as easily attached through sex, "allowing" them to sleep around as they are more predisposed to see sex differently. Is this however true? Sex is very prominent in its attachment and bonding properties, due to it releasing hormones to gain connection. Although, we can infer that naturally we all bond through sex, science does show us how men and women differ. When a person orgasms it naturally releases oxytocin and dopamine. However, men's higher levels of Testosterone does block the love-feeling hormone oxytocin, decreasing a mans likelihood to be affected emotionally through sex and his hormones. Commitment nonetheless, is shown to lower testosterone by at least 21%, so when a man is mentally committed, he is more likely to experience the same feelings of attachment through the release of oxytocin in an orgasm. Yet, for a female to experience the same, this still involves the female to experience an orgasm, because of the orgasm gap between men and women, women aren't likely to experience the same release of oxytocin during sex. This conclusively leaves both parties, majority of the time, not always impacted through sex emotionally. Implying how although men need commitment to experience the same type of oxytocin as women, women's sexual interactions through hook-ups majority of the time won't permit for the love-hormone oxytocin to be released. Explaining how the impacts of sex can differ massively within the hook-up culture, and is not dependent on gender. 

Does science agree that men are still the hunter-gatherer by nature?

Within the newly male dominated podcasts, we see a rise in the discussion of the man being the "hunter-gatherer" by nature however, what does science say about this and the nature of humans? The biosocial model explains the role of men being hunter gatherers and obtaining such skills to be that in order to survivie, whilst women gained skills to become domesticated. However, this model is actually shown to be from gender-stereotypes, patriarchal society and unlike evolutionary psychological theories, not taking into account sexual selection. The limitation of the "hunter-gatherer" mindset shows how it was merely  provided as a source for survival when resources were scarce and limited. These gender inequalities shown in "traditional" roles are explained to be strategies adapted for high-risk environments resulting from societal competition. Is this something we still need to use in today's society? or is it merely an excuse for men to blame their biology for not adapting to the modern world?

Are we monogamous naturally? 

Many "High-Value" men use such information from our biological history to explain the reasoning of their promiscuous nature and to also demean a woman who may involve herself in similar behaviours. These involve the concept of "spreading the seed" as a biological trait of being a male. Men have consistently stood by this "natural" stance of a man where they are born to impregnate multiple women. However, evidence shows that due to women having concealed ovulation (not being able to tell when a woman is capable of becoming pregnant), linked with pair-bonding mechanisms this actually increases male motivation towards long-term investment. Wherein men who are more willing to invest in a woman were shown to out-reproduce, in favour of paternal investment. Paternal investment is vital in childhood development, where many studies have conveyed the importance of both parental figures within a household. The impact of both parental figures, especially the presence of a father figure, is shown to influence personality, mental health and child temperament. If a males purpose was to "spread his seed" and not be monogamous then why would these factors such as out-reproducing other males through commitment and importance of father figures be so prevalent in human existence?

Although fewer than 10% of mammals are monogamous, even with polygamous relationships existing amongst human relationships, the majority of humans still go towards monogamy.  Pair-bonding as explained through science, was a part of humans evolutionary success and thus, we actually have a bigger advantage over other mammals because of this rare factor we inhabit. The evolution of this trait was shown to emerge as a result of men no longer fighting one another and becoming food gathers 4.4 million years ago. Where concealed ovulation, the adaptation of arms to carry food and pair-bonding led to the tribal way of living, just after the early humans diverged from chimpanzees. Thus, conveying although limited in our monogamy on a comparative scale to other animals, it was primitive in our evolutionary success and has been for millions of years. Does this de-bunk the whole narrative of the "man just had to spread his seed" thus leading to him not being instinctively monogamous?

Have external factors influenced a males perception of mating and bonding?

As mentioned in my previous blog about the brain on porn, excessive consumption of sexualised images have great impacts on the brain, inhibiting self-control and increasing objectification, especially of women from men. Are these factors most likely contributing towards these ideologies of "the man isn't monogamous" due to the changes in the brain found through pornography? Men have been shown to consume porn four times more than women, whilst boys are accessing porn from as young as 7 or 8 and with the consistent access to soft porn on all social media platforms, are we merely finding that people are becoming desensitised towards sex and it's natural properties involved in attachment? As mentioned in my previous blog about TikTok and its addictive properties, the hormone dopamine is responsible for addictive behaviours. Whereby, dopamine is one of the two prominent hormones released during orgasm. Because the male is much more likely to reach orgasm within sex than a woman, does that put him in a position to be more addicted to having sex? seeking pleasure? and thus, feeling as though it his duty is to "spread his seed"? Could this explain how princes and kings, who were historically promiscuous weren't innately inclined to have orgies and get involved with multiple women, but were merely dealing with the biological addiction from the accessibility of sex for such men at that time? Are men now just using such past behaviours to explain their promiscuity and hypocrisy ?

Attractiveness of Women and fertility in early 20's:

Science for many years has tried to explain if evolutionarily women are more "desirable" in their early 20's and if they truly have a cut-off point in attractiveness because of fertility. There is no historical data regarding marriage, age difference and success in these relationships and how DNA may still exist in us to inhibit these factors. Research has suggested however, that seeking a partner of the same age is actually advantageous towards co-parenting. As mentioned earlier, it is a big factor in raising a child. Social structural theorists also found that societally determined gender roles such as, "bread-winner" and "house wife" actually plays a role in the trait of seeking a younger woman. Wherein cultures where there is more gender equality, the age gaps between older men and younger women are lessened. Conveying how these attributes to seek a younger woman, might actually be a societal construct and not an evolutionary one. 

This can also be explained through how younger men have been shown to be attracted to older women, especially over the "fertile" youth and reaching that of over 40. This attraction can be shown to be due to many reasons. They're attracted to the experience, of an older women, whilst their ego gets a boost when being able to say they're with an older woman. It also is shown to give them more time to grow, where men believe that women of their own age put pressures on them to change over-night whilst older women give them the space to be themselves, limiting the control they have over their partners lives. Additionally they are also attracted by the transparency that older women display through laying everything on the table, and they also appreciate the emotional stability that older women bring in a relationship. This isn't very indicative of a species who prefers to endeavour in the young females, but it can be seen how society may have more influence on the male behaviour than we thought. 

What can we suggest from the information being spread by the male podcasters?

It is very evident that these podcasters are using out-dated science and merely a bunch of excuses to explain their promiscuous behaviour. They excuse themselves by being the "hunter-gatherer", the "seed spreader", biologically "polygamous as a man", yet none of their stances lean towards what science says today and what empirical evidence we have to prove such ideas. It is merely a social construct, led by misogyny, hypocrisy and patriarchal views on women. The hierarchal system shows that they attempt to explain their own behaviours through biological aspects of their being, yet have seemed to massively fail on the accuracy and evidence to support such claims. Male podcasters are poisoning the male brain, spreading views about "traditional roles" and "biological needs of a man" yet such ideas are now very much out-dated. Additionally, Pearl, a very privileged woman, also seems to agree with such mindsets. Adhering to the patriarchal systems set in place by these men, but is that really her fault? The money she comes from will evidently have the patriarchal system imbedded in it, making her an easy target to be indoctrinated with the concept that "men are just like this". These podcasts use in-experienced, young women who are mainly from social media backgrounds, to debate these topics. It is very evident that these podcasters use such people to manipulate, indoctrinate and just argue without intellectual consequence. Although the people involved in these podcasts could very much be intellectual individuals, within the topics they discuss it isn't merely a discussion of fact vs fiction. These women are exploited on these podcasts as a ploy to show just how fucked up the modern dating scene is. Yet, there is no variability in the type of people put on these podcasts and their intellects. Leading women to be at a disadvantage in their representation across these platforms. Are these podcasts the up rise of misogyny? and is the exploitation of these women going to taint the mind of young men into believing that everything said and seen on these podcasts are true?