I’m speaking of a simple mean average.

1 man = 1 woman 
10 men = 10 women
50 men = 50 women 
200 men = 200 women
200 men = 199 + 1 women 

Your example with 10 instead of 200:
men: 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1
women: 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,  10

In your example, the mode and median values are 1 for men and 0 for women, but the mean average remains 1 for men and women.

Andrew, I didn’t major in math, but I don’t understand how you conclude that for every man having intercourse there is one woman assuming there is a 50-50 sex ratio. Technically, 200 men could all be doing it with the same prostitute while 199 other women remain virginal or committed sexually to one man each.  And, even evolutionary psychologists (with whom I’ve been known to disagree) say that gay men’s sexual behavior (some tending to have multiple, even hundreds, of partners) shows “male nature” is different when not forced to compromise with women’s.  I am not interested in defending evolutionary psychologists’ view on male sexuality here. But I am interested in basic math equations.

Discussions on posts like this tend to generate a lot of cringeworthy moments. 🙂

I’m still wading through the recent additions to the conversation in the May 2011 Sex Roles – with an eye to updating some of my thoughts on this.

Your work is appreciated.

Man, it sure would be nice to be able to dominate women and control their poor widdle minds. *sigh* If only.

Well, nah, actually the fun ones are fun precisely because that's a no-go.

As it is, I've spent vast hunks of my life trying to impress them, and then another vast hunk trying to curb that tendency because it's so unbecoming (and ultimately self-defeating). I don't think this is uncommon for males, and does indeed tell you a lot about where the power lies. Guys compete for women, women compete *with* women. Women don't compete with men (unless there's some kind of interesting bisexual love triangle going on) for about the same reason that timber wolves don't compete with schnauzers (not that I'm saying women are ruthless, cunning pack predators or that men are domesticated pets, but… you get the idea).

Speaking of, a lot of the 'pickup artists' and other successful players are having such easy success because of the targets they choose. Multiple multiples of men have tried the 'Mystery method' and similar techniques on bright, attractive female friends of mine, and been brutally dealt with. It only works when you're a beta male using it on gamma females. In other words, you're a high weight class of scum, relatively speaking, who's still managing to find insecure women even further down on the mating food chain.

As I alluded to in the comment to Dana, we can't simply assume signals employed by women are imposed by patriarchy. Do we blame matriarchal domination when men do stupid and dangerous stuff to show off for women? Signaling works in both directions without even a hint of domination.

Women's fashion trends tend to be motivated by intrasexual (female-female) competition, not male-driven imperative.

I'm not saying that there's no such thing as behavior influenced by "domination", only that we can't assume that behaviors – that seem silly to "us" – are motivated by power, dominance, violence, et cetera.

I believe high heels are a form of foot binding forced upon women by men as a way to feminize women to an extreme. A ploy to keep women from running away, being active, embracing their masculine qualities in any way.

A finer line runs between sexual dimorphism and patriarchal agenda than the human hand can draw. I do not feel comfortable defining for biological women what their psychology should be, what they should wear, etc. Sure, I like a woman in a nice summer dress. But please be barefoot and leave the heels at home, thanks. We're going for a walk on the beach for our first date. Maybe then we can go surfing together, unless you parents taught you that the ocean is scary and full of sharks.

"The handicap principle suggests that reliable signals must be costly to the signaler, costing the signaler something that could not be afforded by an individual with less of a particular trait." – Wikipedia