A really insightful article…
A few comments:
Men evolved a scatter-gun approach to reproduction, throwing their seed around in the hope that at least some of it would stick (apologies for that metaphor).
More than just men. Most of nature seems to work this way. Seed is everywhere at saturation levels. Most of it never ‘germinates’.
The irony is that … she’s now free to indulge in no-strings-attached sex with a degree of anonymity that carries little risk of shame. This is one of the disruptive impacts dating apps are having.
Technically this may be true, but it is very difficult to gauge the level at which any human behaviour is embedded. You seem to be assuming that the no hook-ups message is just window dressing, whereas it is very arguable that it is still the female being highly selective — in the same way that some women will dress as impressively as they can to get seen in public, but that doesn’t mean they are ready to hook up with any guy that makes a move.
Dating apps are triggering two disruptions to the mating strategies that have served our species since the dawn of mankind: for guys, online dating creates the illusion of an unlimited supply of consenting women. For gals, it provides them with an outlet for pursuing shame-free casual sex.
As a guy I can only surmise, but I think a lot of women’s emotional involvement with men runs a lot deeper than targeting ‘shame-free casual sex’. I have to say you’re maybe thinking a bit with your dick there.
I would summarise what you are stating as yet another perspective on the seemingly unstoppable march of technology into more and more areas of our culture. Dating apps may provide today’s ‘story’ of how that is happening, but the mere invention of money started ‘the oldest business there is’ a long time ago. Like everything else on the planet, sexuality has been commercialised with ever-increasing effectiveness. And I am not sure that if the government shut down every dating app out there it would make much difference to that overall trend.
BTW: your closing phrase is odd. The rest of the article seems to argue that equality is an impossibility — something I would agree is every bit as true by definition as x=y is obviously false.