Men Who Spend Time Around A Lot Of Women Are More Violent, New Study Says
Ladies, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but men are more violent in areas where there are a lot of you.
Weird, right? You'd think that dudes would be more aggressive amongst other testosterone-filled dudes — not women — but the exact opposite was just proven to be true.
A New Scientist article explained a study from the University of Utah in Salt Lake City that examined the ratio of men to women in over 3,000 counties throughout the United States and compared their crime rates.
The results they found were a little unsettling, especially if you're a woman.
They determined in areas with more women than men, guys get a little wilder than normal, which has led to excessive promiscuity and sex crimes.
On the other hand, areas with more men than women have proven to have had less violent crimes committed.
Ryan Schacht, a scientist from the university, explained the bizarre ratio discovery in simple, yet concerning terms. He said,
When women are rare [men] become a valued resource and this gives them more bargaining power over what they expect from a relationship. But when women are abundant, men become less committed to single partners and more interested in pursuing multiple relationships.
Um, I think you know where this is going. He continued,
This brings men into conflict with each other in response to their more uncommitted, promiscuous mating orientation.
In other words, areas with more women create settings where men feel that it's OK to become reckless in their actions of acquiring a woman because their choices aren't limited.
Calm down, guys, will you?
Weirdly enough, Schacht even found the same pattern to hold true with animals. He stated,
Recent work in animals also shows quite similar findings to ours, that when females are abundant and males rare, males are more violently competitive, more promiscuous and less likely to invest in offspring.
If you're a dude, just chill.
Lots of ladies shouldn't give you a reason to fight with one another. That's just silly.
Citations: New Scientist