Dominance and the Market Value of a Mate
For a male breeder, the market value of a mate is her healthy and young body, because this is the best precondition for healthy and fit offspring. Therefore it seems logical, that men attempt to get mates as young as they can get accepted.
But for egalitarian non-breeders of both genders, the real value of a mate as a companion is the cognitive quality, which in this context means not an absolute quality like an IQ, but a time-relative quality.
As long as someone is not yet afflicted with dementia of old age, that person gains value with every day of learning, experiencing, maturing. Therefore the older a person, the higher the cognitive value.
A person 20 years younger is 20 years behind and lacking 20 years of mind development compared with someone 20 years older. They could be complete equals, would the older one sleep for 20 years, therefore it is no question of inferiority, but they are not at the same state of development. The older person has advanced 20 years of accumulating knowledge and wisdom.
That leads to an interesting question. When a man gets involved with a woman, who is 20 years younger, does the difference in cognitive quality trigger and justify in his perception his domination? Or does he want to dominate and chooses a younger woman not only for her young body, but also for her lesser cognitive quality, which for him justifies his domination. Does his choice include the expectation, that she may agree to be dominated and resist less than a woman with equal cognitive value, being of the same age as he himself?
More generally, men usually choose women, who are less: Less in years of cognitive development, less in financial and social status, and less in physical size and strength. This is a hen or egg question:
Did the male urge to dominate evolve first, and the choice of the lesser women is the consequence for the purpose to dominate with better success? Or did the opportunity to be able to dominate, because the lesser women were available, cause and trigger the evolution of dominance? Probably the evolution of dominance and of dominability was an interdependent process.
For a male breeder, the market value of a mate is her healthy and young body, because this is the best precondition for healthy and fit offspring. Therefore it seems logical, that men attempt to get mates as young as they can get accepted.
But for egalitarian non-breeders of both genders, the real value of a mate as a companion is the cognitive quality, which in this context means not an absolute quality like an IQ, but a time-relative quality.
As long as someone is not yet afflicted with dementia of old age, that person gains value with every day of learning, experiencing, maturing. Therefore the older a person, the higher the cognitive value.
A person 20 years younger is 20 years behind and lacking 20 years of mind development compared with someone 20 years older. They could be complete equals, would the older one sleep for 20 years, therefore it is no question of inferiority, but they are not at the same state of development. The older person has advanced 20 years of accumulating knowledge and wisdom.
That leads to an interesting question. When a man gets involved with a woman, who is 20 years younger, does the difference in cognitive quality trigger and justify in his perception his domination? Or does he want to dominate and chooses a younger woman not only for her young body, but also for her lesser cognitive quality, which for him justifies his domination. Does his choice include the expectation, that she may agree to be dominated and resist less than a woman with equal cognitive value, being of the same age as he himself?
More generally, men usually choose women, who are less: Less in years of cognitive development, less in financial and social status, and less in physical size and strength. This is a hen or egg question:
Did the male urge to dominate evolve first, and the choice of the lesser women is the consequence for the purpose to dominate with better success? Or did the opportunity to be able to dominate, because the lesser women were available, cause and trigger the evolution of dominance? Probably the evolution of dominance and of dominability was an interdependent process.
Therefore, the best way to form an egalitarian couple is a choice of a mate, which precludes the woman's dominability, by both having similar age, similar height, similar intelligence and formal education in addition to sharing the value of egalitarianism.
