Not Just Listening – “A Little Big-Dick Energy”

Not Just Listening – “A Little Big-Dick Energy”

by | Apr 26, 2022 | Dating & Mating Economy, Gender Politics, Relationship Issues, Sexuality

According to internet memes and posts by women, Volodymyr Zelenskyy is the sexiest man of 2022. Why is that?

Comedian and television personality Bill Maher gives an explanation during the “new rules” segment of Real Time on March 25. (See link below.) Maher’s critique comports directly with evolutionary mate selection science as he laments the current zeitgeist between men and women in America. Maher notes the ever-increasing lack of passion for the American male and a general lack of sexual passion overall. (I have written about the “sexual deficit” in a prior post; see below.) Maher metaphorically suggests that sometimes women and the world (in tribal conflict) need “a little big-dick energy.”

Nailing It

As a companion piece for this discussion, also watch below the immensely popular satirical video It is Not About the Nail, which makes a reasonable assertion that women want a man who listens and validates – a man who does not jump immediately to “sending solutions.” This video also shows a silly caricature of a woman who refuses to acknowledge the obvious (a nail in her head) or accept a man for doing so.

Listening Is Not Sufficiently Sexy

Succeeding (“nailing it”) in this moment of female testing may be to just listen and resist trying to fix something – an interpretation often given by (especially female) relationship gurus. But as Maher astutely points out and mate selection science proves, women do not want a man who has no solutions and cannot fix anything. That man is not fuckable. Full stop. Men need to listen, validate, and be solid in silence, and yet ultimately, they better have solutions for problems in the real world. Perhaps it is a timing thing that emotionally intelligent men can navigate. But the interpersonal terrain for a man is clouded by this double bind. Those clouds portend possible thunderstorms for male-female understanding and his sanity.

Zelenskyy Has Redefined Manhood?

In her column, Kathleen Parker (Washington Post) addressed the Zelenskyy phenomenon, saying, “Zelenskyy has gone a long way toward redefining manhood. He is the modern-day warrior-artist — political and presidential, fearless and faithful, humble yet cocky. Zelenskyy is an everyman in his trademark T-shirt and half-zip, shouting to the world that he is not afraid. Art and war have been companions through the centuries, but it is rare to discover someone who combines the spirit of both disciplines.”

The Sweet Spot Plus Courage

Parker’s description succinctly captures the preferential sweet spot of female long-term mate selection strategy (see post below). Women seek this perfect blend of masculinity – a man with status, power, and capacity for provider-ship (like an “everyman” who happens to be the alpha male of an entire country) that is also loyal, generous, sincere, and most of all, courageous. This man will protect her at all costs. Courage is sexy for both sexes. But it is indispensable for men to win the hearts of women around the world.

Tension Between Two Mating Priorities

A woman’s long-term mating strategy needs “resources”* (the provision of status and power) and character – especially generosity and loyalty to her and their children. As women may readily tell their female friends, there is often a tension between these two dating/mating priorities. In America, resources usually win this game of mate selection preference, often with rationalization and denial about the lack of optimal character. Good providers and protectors get a more extended mate selection “interview” than “beta” men who are good listeners.**

With Zelenskyy, there is no need to rationalize. He is the sexist man in the world right now because he so obviously hits the sweet spot of these two preferences.

Zelenskyy Has Not Redefined Manhood – Many Came Before

Kathleen Parker is by no means the first to identify the “warrior-artist.” Years ago, Geoffrey Miller and Tucker Max identified this man in their book Mate as the “tender-defender.” Stephen Marche in The Unmade Bed called him the “macho-caretaker.” Sex author and relationship expert Alana Pratt called him a “noble badass.” (Could there be a better description for Zelenskyy?)

Threading the Needle

One of the “needle-threading” double binds that men encounter is reflected by this mate selection request by women: “I want a ‘beast’ for protection — who is dangerous to others but not to me.” Author and couple’s psychotherapist, Esther Perel, is unequivocal on this subject. She calls this man the “tamed beast.”

Masculinity is Like Coffee

Maher said there may be a little but necessary “toxicity” in this sexier “Zelenskyy-man.” Maher uses the term “toxicity” for convenience, not as a psychological or sociological truth. But he says, “masculinity is like coffee; even when you decaffeinate it, there is still a little caffeine in there.” Maher’s overall point, which I generally embrace, is that we need to stop “decaffeinating” our men. Such men are not sexy, and they will not protect us.

Zelenskyy is the Heroic Masculine

Volodymyr Zelenskyy is a hero. He is not an example of toxic masculinity. He is an example of noble male energy. He is a man of action and clarity of purpose, undeterred by rival dictators (or anybody else).

The Way of the Superior Man

Over 25 years ago, David Deida named and described the virtues of the warrior-artist, the sexually and spiritually evolved man, in his seminal work, The Way of the Superior Man. He anticipated the powerful impact of Zelenskyy on women. Chapter 37 of his book is entitled She Wants the “Killer” In You. “Although your woman doesn’t want you to be a killer, she is turned on by your capacity to kill. She is turned off by your lack of this capacity. She does not want you to be a killer, but she does want to feel you are capable of facing death for her. And it is this capacity that makes you trustable as a man, both as a human warrior but also as a spiritual warrior.”

A Superior Man Will Die for You

A superior man, a Volodymyr Zelenskyy and all the Ukrainian men who stayed behind, will die to protect his woman (and his country), but he absolutely will not always do what she wants. Sometimes he will just take the nail out of her head.

Now Please Watch:
Related posts and/or pages:

 

*“Resources” equates to financial/material security and is, therefore, a direct proxy for physical protection.

**Physical attractiveness is heavily weighted in contemporary culture, but is influenced directly, in the female mind, by status, power, and to some degree, character. It is worth noting: Zelenskyy is not tall nor exceptionally handsome.

Please Note: Your comment may take up to 12 seconds to register and the confirmation message will appear above the “Submit a Comment” text. 
Female Sexual Fluidity: Power of Context and the Future of Heterosexual Partnerships

Female Sexual Fluidity: Power of Context and the Future of Heterosexual Partnerships

by | Nov 10, 2021 | Biological Difference, Dating & Mating Economy, Gender Politics, Men's Issues, Relationship Issues, Sexuality, Women's Issues

 

 “Power comes to women who bring gay expectations to their heterosexual couplings.”

~ Jennifer Baumgardner

Mutually satisfying romance, love, and sexuality are teetering on the edge of failure in the modern heterosexual mating economy.  Women are turning away from men and toward other women.  Recognition and knowledge of female sexual fluidity may expand our understanding of human intimacy and improve the quality of heterosexual relationships, perhaps not a moment too soon.  Let me start with a prescription and challenge to men and women in response to this trend.  The rest of this post gives background and rationale for my “solutions,” focusing on nine formulations of context underlying female sexuality and fluidity.

What Can Be Done to Improve Heterosexual Partnerships       

  • Men (and women) need to learn much more about female sexual response, including sexual fluidity.  Men need to accept and be curious about female sexual fluidity for what it can teach them.
  • Men need to further develop the capacity for interpersonal intimacy and connected conversation. Creating that context is crucial for the future of heterosexual relationships.
  • Men need to learn how to “interpret” the individual needs of women and create a sex-positive context specific for that woman.
  • Women need to be patient with men as they learn and apply “gay expectations.”
  • Women need to prefer men with high emotional intelligence over men with greater resources, status, and power. Establishing this preference is a very tall order for women because it runs counter to evolutionary pressures in mate selection.  Female choice is always paramount.  Women shape male behavior by their criteria for sexual access.  The energetic and sexual charge between men and women must “diversify” (somehow) so that the alpha male does not always get the most desirable woman.
  • Men need to reclaim the traits of heroic masculinity while monitoring and reducing particular forms of dominance. Servant leadership is the model.  A man can be heroic without being “toxic.”  Disengaging from the need for status and power is also a tall order.  Male psychology has been shaped by hierarchy over thousands of years of mate selection in collusion with women.
  • Women can readily encourage positive masculinity (heroic masculinity) by respecting and verbally acknowledging men for acts of service and by pushing back against the thinking that (all/most) men are “the problem.”
  • Male sexuality should not be vilified as a malevolent force in nature but understood for its biological basis and evolutionary purpose.  Political feminists who disparage or discourage male sexuality must acknowledge the sexual complexities of women concerning desire, power, and erotic objectification.
  • American economic and social systems must allow average, working-class men to provide for their families and women to be supported in the workforce with a provision of care for their children.

Female Sexuality is Different from Male Sexuality

Women have their unique sexuality, like a fingerprint, and vary more than men in anatomy, sexual response, sexual mechanisms, and how their bodies respond to the sexual world.  Women vary more widely from each other and change more substantially over their lifetime than do men.

 Women’s sexual functioning includes sexual attractions, romantic affections, sexual practices/behaviors, and preference/orientation identities that are different from men’s sexual functioning due to biological and cultural adaptations. 

Female sexuality is different from male sexuality in ways that affect all of us, all of the time.

What is Female Sexual Fluidity?

 According to researcher Lisa Diamond, the fundamental and defining feature of female sexual orientation is fluidity (Sexual Fluidity — Understanding Women’s Love and Desire). 

 Diamond defines sexual fluidity as “situation-dependent flexibility in women’s sexual responsiveness that makes it possible for some women to experience desires for either men or women under certain circumstances, regardless of their overall sexual orientation.”  Further clarifying is the definition of bisexuality by author Robyn Ochs (Getting Bi: Voices of Bisexuals Around the World):  “A bisexual person has the potential to be sexually and/or romantically attracted to more than one sex, but not necessarily at the same time or to the same extent.”

 Female Fluidity is Growing

Female sexual fluidity is on the rise.  There is an increase in the percentage of women who identify as lesbian or bisexual in practice.   Women are more likely to be “hetero-flexible” in their behavior than men, perhaps by a large margin.  Researchers believe this has always been true, but it is a growing behavioral and cultural trend.  Women are turning away from men for romance and connection; they prefer the company of women for a variety of socio-cultural reasons (e.g., response to memes of “toxic masculinity and the “me-too” movement).

A 2005 study by the Centers for Disease Control found that 11 percent of women aged 15-44 reported having some form of sexual experience with women; women were also three times more likely than men to have had both male and female partners in the last year. (1)  

Liberal Generation Zs – An Increasingly Fluid Population

A recent Gallup poll found one in six (15.9%) Generation Z adults (ages 18-23) identified as LGBTQ.  LBGTQ identification is lower in each older generation, including 2% or fewer respondents born before 1965.  Young people who are politically liberal identified as LGBTQ at astronomical rates.  Gallup found nearly thirty-one percent (30.7) percent of Gen Z liberal adults identified as LGBTQ. In 2021, female bisexual behavior is so common, the concept of “orientation” fits women less than men.

Bisexual women reveal preference instead of orientation.

Female Sexual Fluidity Reveals the Power of Context

Female sexuality is more context-specific than male sexuality. All external circumstances of everyday life influence the context surrounding a woman’s arousal, desire, orgasm, choice of partner, and orientation identity. Diamond observed, “the more we learn about women’s desires, the more obvious it becomes that they involve complex interplays between biological, environmental, psychological, and interpersonal factors.” 

Formulations of Female Context

Related to fluidly and context, men and women are not the same sexual species.

Women’s sexual behavior and fluidity emerge out of several formulations of context.

1. Context of emotional connection

More than ever, women feel more emotionally connected to other women than to men. If this emotional trigger is strong enough, same-sex behavior as a preference can easily emerge.  “Straight” women genuinely fall in love with other women; straight men do not often (or ever) fall in love with men in the same way. 

Women Have More Interest in the Character Traits of Connection

Men and women have different preferences and priorities for traits desired in a mate.  While there is some agreement about preferring kindness, stability, humor, and care of children, women overall have much more interest in character traits that may bring interpersonal connection.  Preference for interpersonal connection powerfully drives interest in same-sex behavior.

2. Context of being empowered and politically progressive

As extensively detailed by Jennifer Baumgardner (Look Both Ways – Bisexual Politics), female same-sex sexuality often emerged out of a political context.  It provided a kind of virtue signaling – a badge of cultural wokeness.  Female sexual fluidity was politically in alignment with the movement of women to equalize power dynamics and disengage from men and “structures of patriarchy.”  Segments of the modern feminist movement have demonstrated strident but unexamined misandry.  It has turned many women away from men as a political statement.  Loving and being sexual with women becomes the correct political statement.  

“Gay Expectations” – Contexts 1 and 2 Combined

“There are two reasons to be drawn to women when you are a woman,” explains Baumgardner.  First, “being with a woman provides comfort.  She is like the first person you bonded with, the nurturer; through her, you get understanding.”  The second reason is political, she says, and forces this question:  “Can I have a more satisfying, more equal relationship in which I like myself better with a woman?”  Baumgardner answers this by saying, “I have yet to have a relationship with a man where I feel as strong and independent as I felt with the two serious female relationships I’ve had.”  

“Gay expectations” are essentially the best traits in the character cluster of a heterosexual woman’s long-term mating strategy. Baumgardner says “power comes to women who bring gay expectations to their heterosexual couplings.”  By “power” she means significant benefits of relationship satisfaction produced from asserting the need for a co-equal partnership with a man – a partnership where the woman also “brings” her criteria for emotional affinity.  (To be clear, Baumgardner is not talking about a woman’s erotic power in a heterosexual partnership; Baumgardner may not even acknowledge the privilege of female erotic power.)

3. Context of being hip, renegade, and more sexually interesting

Bisexual or hetero-flexible women may be seen as more interesting, adventurous, and sexual than straight women.  And, there is almost no downside for a woman to fall in love or want to have sex with a woman while continuing to attract men.  Men are often more turned on by the thought of a woman who also loves a woman.  Women who are sexual in a variety of ways are erotic for most men.

4. Context of belonging and community

“Membership” in the bisexual, “queer,” or lesbian community can often bring a powerful sense of belonging, especially for young adults.  In an episode of The Bisexual, a young woman turns to the lead (bisexual) female character and says in a sense of comradeship, “well, you know, I am queer.”  Our 30-something, experienced bisexual protagonist turns to her and says derisively, “well, everyone under 25 thinks they are queer.”

Belonging Is Intoxicating

Belonging is an intoxicating and essential human need.  For marginalized or minority communities of any kind, belonging to a subculture is salvation.  Sexually fluidity brings membership in a tribe that is counter to mainstream culture.  It is potentially a provocative and charismatic club.  Like a tattoo, it is an outward affectation that says, “I am adventurous; I am (paradoxically) unique and sexy.” 

Dissension Within the Fluid Community

It is also true that there are subcultures and dissention within the fluid community, queer umbrella.  Baumgardner details the struggles of bisexuals to be accepted within the lesbian community and the internal tensions about female sexuality within the feminist movement.

“Bi For Now”

We have witnessed popular terms such as “Lesbian until Graduation” (LUG) or “Bisexual until Graduation” (BUG) as sex researchers viewed college as a place where young women explore their sexuality and have their first and sometimes only lesbian relationship. 

In 2003, a New Yorker magazine article, “Bi for Now,” suggested that women’s involvement in their college’s gay scene exposed them to a different culture, like a junior year abroad in “Gay World.”  A large study (13,550 responses) by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that the prevalence of  “gay until graduation” may be overestimated compared to non-college women. Yet, they also found the gender gap on homosexuality remained substantial:  twice as many women as men reported same-sex behavior.

5. Context of men as undesirable and a liability

Men are perceived as less interesting and are less admired by women than ever before. 

Being attracted to only men may even be seen as a liability, a disability, or just provincial.   Women and the popular media often portray men as emotional and moral “children.”    Sometimes bisexual women have to defend or hide their interest in men to self-identified lesbians.

6. Context of safety and a “sex-positive” situation

Women’s sexual functioning is influenced by their internal brain state — how they experience the present moment and how they generally think and feel about sex. Judgment, shame, stress, mood, trust, body image, and past trauma influence a woman’s sexual well-being.  A woman’s brain must create a context that sees the world as a secure, pleasurable, and sexy place.  A sex-positive context for a woman is a moment with low stress, high affection, high trust, and is explicitly safe.

What a woman wants and enjoys will change with her external circumstances and internal state.  Women are often different from one another because a variety of contexts work to create female interest and readiness (female response variability).

7. Context of female competing intentions for erotic intimacy

Satisfaction in long-term relationships often requires balancing a polarity of human needs:  safety, familiarity, attachment, and security on one pole, and adventure, risk, mystery, and novelty on the other.   Bridging this polarity calls for a reconciliation between intimacy and caretaking (human bonding) and the sexual-erotic life, which often relies upon surprise and even distance. 

Human beings want and need both sides of this polarity in order to experience optimal happiness.   The need for familiarity and attachment may be a driver of same-sex behavior among women.  But the need for distance or difference also seems to enter the equation of women’s sexual fluidity, especially for hetero-flexible or bisexual women.  “One of the pleasures of the opposite sex is directly opposed to intimacy,” says Baumgardner.  “It is the fact of our mysteries to them and theirs to us that fires some of the relationship.”

Female Sexual Fluidity Deals With Trade-offs Between Character and Power

Bisexual women want emotional bonding with women, the equality of sameness – politically, physically, and emotionally.  Yet, as detailed by Baumgardner, bisexual women may also want the difference of a male body and the polarity of power experienced with a man – in a vaguely understood psychological soup of dominance and submission, subject and object.   Baumgardner explains: “There is more to life than being a sex object.  But the pleasure of being objectified – thought beautiful, sexy, special, and captivating – was drastically underplayed by feminists.”

“My sense of how hot and foxy a lover found me during sex had always been one of life’s greatest pleasures, and now I had trouble believing that this girl would or could objectify me.”  ~ Jennifer Baumgardner

Author and bisexual sex researcher Lisa Featherstone was asked by Baumgardner what she learned from dating men that she could bring to her sexual relationship with a woman.   “When I first started having sex with women, I remember thinking, I really like this, but I kind of want to be a little more attacked and objectified.”   Featherstone continued: “It sounds weird, but you have more freedom to express the range of your sexuality to a man or another bi woman (than to a lesbian).”

Unconscious Double-binds

Below the “surface” of conscious awareness in hetero-flexible or bisexual women are complex unconscious factors and double-binds related to dominance, submission, desire to be desired, desire to be safe, and the internal struggle between preferring alpha traits of dominance and beta traits of kindness loyalty, and commitment.  These are the same competing intentions of heterosexual women for long-term mating, amplified under the influence of modern feminism.

The “modern” woman must juggle her aspiration for personal power with her attraction to traditional forms of male power, embodied, not systemically, but in a particular man.  She must also navigate trade-offs in mate selection between the apparent “polarities” of power and character.  She wants both in different amounts at different times from the same person.

8. Context of supply and demand

One of the most potent “situations” in female heterosexuality is the workings of the overall mating economy – the impact of male spontaneous desire, initiation, and intrasexual competition.  Sex for most women is an abundant resource; it is not in short supply.  It is a need (within self-imposed selection preferences) that willing men can almost always meet. Therefore, there is no need to attend to it.  If the refrigerator is full, there is no need to fantasize or strategize about getting food.  If there is a man “pulling up” (like a bus) every 5 minutes, there is no need to worry about missing or choosing not to take the last bus. 

In the recent opening episode (Half the Money) of Paramount’s Yellowstone, hard-charging Beth Dutton gives a woman direct advice on why she should stand up to her husband:  “You have half the money and 100 percent of the pussy!”   Enough said; Beth Dutton (and the writers of Yellowstone) understand female erotic power and its demand in the mating economy.  This supply and demand dynamic is also salient for practicing bisexual women.

Supply and demand in the mating economy mostly encourages female sexual fluidity.

9. Context of physiological response, subjective desire, and sexual motivation.

As outlined in prior posts (see Appendix), female sexual fluidity is influenced by less testosterone and a weaker “sex drive” compared to men.  Women operate primarily from “response-desire” and an “inhibition-braking” system, whereas men operate from “spontaneous-desire” and an “accelerator-excitation” system.  Women also have very low “concordance” (agreement) between their subjective sexual desire and their physiological arousal compared to men.  All of these factors influence the complexity of female sexual fluidity and undergird all other contextual factors.

Feminism Must Reconcile Complexities of Female Sexual Fluidity and Response

Positions of feminism that disparage or discourage male sexuality must recognize and reconcile the sexual complexities of women concerning desire, power, and objectification.  Heterosexual feminist women sometimes disown the differences in male and female sexuality.  Yet, they may desire “alpha male sexuality” and collude with it when it suits them.  These complexities are also revealed in the multitudes of female sexual fluidity. 

Male Sexuality Should Not Be Uniformly Criticized

We are in an era where masculinity itself is often considered toxic, not just specific inappropriate behaviors.  The impact of the “me-too” movement is mainly a social good, but men are often lumped together as a singular class of predators.   Male sexuality should not be vilified as a malevolent force in nature but understood for its biological imperatives.  Men and male sexuality should not be criticized for “objectification” in many or most cases.  Men are hard-wired and hormonally constructed to look and want.  Bisexual and heteroflexible women (along with their heterosexual “sisters”) still “want to be wanted” and “erotically objectified” by men if the context is sex-positive.

The Drift Away from Men

Women are creating more distance from men, not less. 

The “drift away” from men appears to be an exercise in preference, not orientation.  Female sexual fluidity is emerging in a new context of romantic and sexual preference.  The bisexual behavior of women may be uncovering an inherent female bisexual orientation, and it could also be an expression of disenchantment with men and masculinity in general.  As the tee-shirt says, “the future is female.”

The Future of Male-Female Relationships

This “new” bisexuality and hetero-flexibility of women significantly influences the heterosexual mating marketplace –  a marketplace that already favors the erotic power of women to choose and the struggles of men to be chosen.  Studies have shown that female selectivity for mates is at an all-time high (except on college campuses with a surplus of women). Most men do not “make the grade” – they are not acceptable or attractive to women as mates.  Preferences for same-sex relationships squeeze men even further out of the mating economy.  Men often feel frustrated in their attempts to please women emotionally and sexually.  The future of male-female relationships and heterosexuality depends upon understanding the fluidity of female sexuality emerging in young women (young millennials, Gen Z, and Gen Alpha).  Like climate change, we may already be behind the curve in understanding and adapting to it.

Why does this matter?

 Recognizing the sexual fluidity of women underscores the evolved behavioral sex differences between men and women.  Acknowledging differences between male and female sexuality is a necessary starting point for improving male-female sexual partnerships.  But the truth of evolved differences is often resisted by feminists.  Pockets of academia continue to cling to a “blank-slate,” standard social science model that overemphasizes culture (“proximate” causes) and underemphasizes evolutionary biology (“ultimate” causes).

 Cultural Forces Matter Going Forward

While accepting evolutionary biology and the tenets of mate selection science in the etiology of human sexuality, we must also acknowledge recent cultural forces that have increased female sexual fluidity.   The growing disrespect of male heterosexuality and the drift away from men as sexual partners is probably not healthy or sustainable long-term.  Solutions (“What can be done….?) must come through new knowledge and its application — perhaps a Sisyphean task considering ions of mate preference evolution and the rigidity of political-economic power structures, especially in the U.S.

Understanding Fluidity and Context Can Make Men Better Lovers

In conclusion, the understanding of female sexual fluidity and the formulations of female context can have an immediate positive impact on the quality of sexual relating for heterosexual couples, same-sex couples, and “queer” couple variations. (The effect on gay male couples is probably negligible.)  It can significantly help men better understand female physiology, arousal, and the power of context. 

Bottom line: understanding the power of context for female sexual fluidity can help men become better lovers for women.

Note
  1. Mosher, W. et al; Sexual Behavior and Selected Health Measures: Men and Women 15-44 Years of Age, Advanced Data 2005; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Appendix

Please Note: Your comment may take up to 12 seconds to register and the confirmation message will appear above the “Submit a Comment” text. 

Mate Value of High-Income Men: Seeking Arrangements and the Erotic-Economic Bargain

Mate Value of High-Income Men: Seeking Arrangements and the Erotic-Economic Bargain

by | Oct 12, 2021 | Dating & Mating Economy, Gender Politics, Relationship Issues, Sexuality

“You can lose a lot of money chasing women, but you will never loose women by chasing money.”
                    ~ Chris Rock — I Think I Love My Wife

Evolution and Behavior published (September 2021) a recent study by Rosemary Hopcroft 1 that confirms that high-income men have a higher value as long-term mates in the U.S.   The study’s conclusions are almost too obvious to report given years of data and research that have confirmed this fact of mate selection in America (and around the world), but like climate change, the benefits of Covid vaccines, and the integrity of the 2020 election result, some things bear repeating over and over until the impact is understood.

I will take this occasion to share the conclusions of this study and revisit related posts and pages on Mating Straight Talk (also see concluding Appendix.)  My intent (a return to basics) is similar to that of First Principle: Acknowledge Male-Female Differences, where I reviewed fundamental sex differences as a prologue to understanding the sexual fluidity of women.  In a couple of weeks, I will get back to that topic:  beginning a deep dive into the conditions, context, and politics (all proximate causes) of contemporary female sexuality.

Hopcroft Study

“High-income men have high value as long-term-mates in the U.S.: personal income and the probability of marriage, divorce, and childbearing in the U.S.”  Rosemary Hopcroft in Evolution and Human Behavior, 42 (2021) 409-417.

Study Abstract (abridged)

“Using data that includes complete measures of male biological fertility for a large-scale probability sample of the U.S. population (N=55,281), this study shows that high-income men2are more likely to marry, are less likely to divorce, if divorced are more likely to remarry, and are less likely to be childless than low-income men.

Study Conclusions

• Women Prioritize Earning Capability

Income is not associated with the probability of marriage for a woman and is positively related to divorce.  High-income women are less likely to remarry after divorce and more likely to be childless than low-income women.

These results are behavioral evidence that women are more likely than men to prioritize earning capabilities in a long-term mate and suggest that high-income men have high value as long-term mates in the U.S.”

• Higher-income Men in the U.S. and Scandinavia

Prior research in the U.S., Norway, Sweden, and Finland has shown that higher-income men have more biological children than lower-income men and higher-income women have fewer biological children compared to lower-income women.

• Men with Status in Pre-industrial Societies

Hopcroft says research findings in the U.S. and Scandinavia are relevant to studies in behavioral ecology and evolutionary demography that detail the relationship between status and reproductive success for men in pre-industrial societies.   “Status is positively related to reproductive success for men in pre-industrial societies, whether status is measured as land ownership, hunting ability, prestige, or wealth.”

• Evolutionary Psychology and Mate Preferences

According to Hopcroft, these research findings are also supported by the literature in evolutionary psychology regarding sex differences in mate preferences. The positive relationship between income and fertility is predicted by sexual strategies theory. “Financial prospects and status in a long-term mate are a higher priority for women than for men, according to mate preferences research.”  (Buss, 1989, 2016; Buss & Schmitt, 2019; Fales et al., 2016; Walter et al., 2020; Wang et al. 2018; Williams & Sulikowski, 2020.)

• Income and Wealth are Most Important in the U.S.

In most modern societies, status is measured by education, occupation, or household income.  Hopcroft reports that in the U.S., education does not have a robust correlation with income.  Income or wealth is the most crucial ingredient for reproductive decision-making in the U.S., while reproductive success is still associated with overall male status.

• Low-Income Men Are More Likely to Be Childless

Men’s income is positively associated with fertility because low-income men are more likely to be childless than high-income men.  “This is further supported,” Hopcroft says, “by evidence that low-income or unemployed men are less likely to be married and more likely to be divorced.”

• Watch What She Does — Not What She Says

Hopcroft cites the research of evolutionary psychologists Paul Eastman, Eli Finkel, and Jeffry Simpson (2019) 3 that showed stated preferences for traits in a partner might not be in alignment with a chosen partner’s actual characteristics.  “Female choice influences the occurrence of marriage, divorce, and childbearing.  This suggests a revealed female preference for earning capability in a long-term mate, regardless of stated preferences or ideals.”  In other words, watch who women marry, not who they say they might want to marry.

• Females Value Resources, Men Not So Much

“While income for men predicted greater success in long-term mating and reproduction, income for women was either unrelated or negatively related to long-term mating and reproduction.”

• It is About Female Choice

“Increased marriageability, lack of divorce, re-marriageability, and increased likelihood of fatherhood by high-income men are evidence that the marriage, divorce, and reproductive behavior of men reflect female choice,” Hopcroft said.

• Societal Norms Are Shaped by Evolved Predispositions

Hopcroft asserts (as do most evolutionary psychologists) that evolutionary approaches and sexual strategy theories take into account societal norms, values, and individual preferences that “are themselves shaped by evolved predispositions, so that sociological explanations do not exclude a role for evolved factors.”

• High-income Men Beat Low-income Men in Intrasexual Competition

Any reproductive advantage that accrued to high-income men stemmed from their marriageability and re-marriageability alone, Hopcroft’s analysis suggested.  “Competition for mates is always intrasexual,” Hopcroft concluded, “and the evidence presented here suggests that in this competition, high-income men win out over low-income men.”

• Higher-income Men More Likely to Have Younger Mates

Hopcroft reminds us that sexual strategies theory predicts male preference for younger women as mates, and men with higher personal income may be more likely to fulfill that preference. 4

Seeking Arrangement

One way for high-income men to fulfill the preference for younger mates is to find motivated and willing women online.  The phenomenon of young women seeking financial and “entrepreneurial” support from rich men has seen a recent uptick.  College is expensive.  The website service Seeking Arrangement matches “sugar daddies” with “sugar babies.”  The site’s mission directly embraces and expresses the perennial exchange between men and women – what sociologist Catherine Hakim calls the use of “erotic capital” to achieve mating objectives.5

Erotic Capital

Hakim defined erotic capital as “an individual’s beauty, sexual attractiveness, enhanced social integration, liveliness, social presentation, sexuality, and fertility that can provide opportunities to advance in life.”  Erotic capital, she says, plays a subconscious role in daily life decisions, such as career offerings, enrichment opportunities, and social networking.    Hakim asserts that current dating apps and subsequent decisions for marriage are driven by a woman’s erotic capital and a man’s economic capital.   I call this the erotic-economic bargain. (See Dynamics in the Mating Economy: Domain #1 of Male-Female Difference.)

Seeking a Wallet in the Form of a Person

Seeking Arrangement implores women to “meet a rich sugar daddy who can provide exotic trips, lavish gifts, financial support, mentoring, and the up-graded lifestyle you desire.”  Every profile comes with a “gift wish list.” One profile I read (for research purposes only) said, “I need a man that gets off by buying me things — seeking a wallet in the form of a person.”

What’s Your Price?

Seeking Arrangement has created several sister sites, including “What’s Your Price?” which allows men to bid against each other for a first date with a beautiful woman.  This bidding process promotes intrasexual economic competition between men that gives the woman a cash reward – a pay-to-play before you even get on the field.

Glorified Escort and Sex Work

Female proponents of the Seeking Arrangement tout it as a vehicle for female empowerment (with some validity).  In reality, the site primarily operates as a glorified escort and sex-worker service, which has existed for thousands of years.  Some of the women may be fantasizing about securing a rich man to marry.  Men, of course,  are fantasizing about having sex with beautiful young women.

Erotic-Economic Bargain – the Unconscious Infrastructure of Heterosexuality

The exchange of physical beauty and fertility (erotic power) for economic power (and/or protection) is the perennial bargain of human mating over eons of time.  This bargain is rooted in the willingness and capacity for parental (economic) investment from the man and the reproductive (sexual) access allowed by the women in response to that investment.  It is the unconscious infrastructure of heterosexuality — the ultimate exchange in the mating economy.

Male Aspiration for Dominance

The ability of a man to protect and provide for children is the crucial ingredient and evolutionary force driving this mate preference by women; it is the trigger for her sexual availability.  Her youth and fertility is her erotic power — a power that controls and influences male aspiration for social dominance, economic power, and competition with other men.   Sexual access to women is the penultimate motivation and prize.

Assortative Paring By Mate Value

The strength of a man’s preference for physically attractive women and a women’s preference for financially successful men works conjointly in relationship to their mate value.   At the upper end of their respective mate value, there is an assortative pairing of the beautiful with the rich.  For the “average” man or woman, the erotic economic bargain is not as stark, but its “hard-ware” (infrastructure) remains an influence along the entire spectrum of class and physical attractiveness. (See Dynamics in the Mating Economy: Domain #1 of Male-Female Difference.)

Renegotiating the Bargain?

In recent decades, the erotic-economic bargain may be undergoing a bit of renegotiation with surface or cosmetic changes that comport with our particular political moment.  Female empowerment and independence from men are progressing and evolving in their influence.   But most evidence “on the ground” of the modern dating scene does not show movement away from our ancient, evolutionary adaptations; there has not been a significant change in the foundational priorities and preferences for a partner by men and women.  Content analysis of dating websites reveals that women explicitly ask for “financially secure” or “professional” partners roughly twenty times more often than men.

Foundational Collusion

Although the exchange of sex for resources is a shared agreement, it is often implicit and “secretly” held – that is what is meant by “collusion.”  Men and women have vastly different parts to play in keeping the agreement in place.  This foundational collusion of exchange influences all other pieces of the heterosexual “puzzle.”  The erotic-economic bargain is often not explicit or conscious; it is largely “undiscussable” (Undiscussables).

“Erotic-Economic Bargain” As  Modern Evolutionary Mismatch

The hard-wired erotic-economic bargain is now destructive to the planet.   Getting off fossil fuel (which is related) may be easier than “getting off” (no pun intended) the desire by women for men with power and resources and the desire by men for women who are physically beautiful (fertile).  The “good news” is that change probably starts (or really must start) with women.

“You’ve Got the Whole World In Your Hands”

When “high mate-value” women TRULY prefer (prioritize) to mate with men of character rather than men of power, status, and money, men will change their behavior, and the planet will be saved.  (Allow me this bit of hyperbole.)  The world may be decidedly less sexy, but women’s capacity for flexibility and fluidity may be part of the roadmap for a more sustainable future.  Sexual access to women by men is a hard-wired co-variant to the desire by men for youthful, fertile, female beauty.  If women changed the criteria for sexual access, there might be a possibility for change.

It’s A Wicked Problem

In addition to hard-wired mating preferences, the intransigence of the erotic-economic bargain presents a “wicked” problem6 with multi-causal systems interacting together – including unregulated capitalism and the myth of unlimited growth.  A social safety net and guaranteed care for children may be needed to change the sexual psychology of men and women in the U.S. .

Sexual Juice Repurposed

Yes, a lot of “sexual juice” between men and women will have to be reconfigured or “repurposed” in a world where alpha-male power can no longer be an energetic-biochemical turn-on.   Women must lead the way.  Female choice is the preeminent dynamic of mate selection.  We could just kill all the men by destroying the Y chromosome – but, if you are watching Last Man Standing on Hulu, that may not be an optimal world for the women (and trans-men) who are left.

Notes

  1. Hopcroft is a Professor of Sociology at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. She has published widely in evolutionary sociology and comparative and historical sociology in journals that include the American Sociological Review, American Journal of Sociology, Social Forces, Evolution and Human Behavior, and Human Nature.  She is the author of Sociology: A Bio-Social Introduction (2010).
  2. Income is from reported monthly earnings and amounts received from all businesses and investments. High vs. low income was determined by a statistical cut-off within the subject sample distribution.
  3. From the University of California-Davis, Northwestern University, and University of Minnesota, respectively.
  4. See “Age Differences of Male Celebrities and Their Partners,” Appendix, Dynamics in the Mating Economy: Domain #1 of Male-Female Difference.
  5. For discussion of Hakim’s research and related issues, see The Male Sexual Deficit: Social Fact of the 21st Century.
  6. From social planning and systems theory, a wicked problem is difficult or impossible to solve because of incomplete, contradictory, and changing requirements that are difficult to recognize. Most importantly, there are multiple interacting variables and no single solution.
References

Buss, D.M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences:  Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures.  The Behavior and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1-14.

Buss, D.M. (2016). The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating.

Buss, D.M., & Schmitt, D. P. (2019).  Mate preferences and their behavioral manifestations.  Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 77-110.

Eastwick, P. W., Finkel, E. J., & Simpson, J. A. (2019). Best practices for testing thy predictive validity of ideal partner preference-matching.  Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(2) 167-181.

Fales, M. R., et al. (2016). Mating markets and bargaining hands:  Mate preferences for attractiveness and resources in two national U.S. studies. Personality and Individual Differences, 88, 78-87.

Hopcroft, R. L. (2006). Sex, status and reproductive success in the contemporary U.S. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 104-120.

Hopcroft, R. L. (2015). Sex differences in the relationship between status and number of offspring in the contemporary U.S. Evolution and Human Behavior, 36(2), 146-151.

Hopcroft, R. L. (2019).  Sex differences in the Association of Family and Personal Income and wealth with fertility in the United States, Human Nature, 30, 477-495

Walter, K. V., et al. (2020) Sex differences in mate preferences across 45 countries:  A large-scale replication. Psychological Science, 31 (4) , 408-423

Wang, G., et al. (2018). Different impacts of resources on opposite sex ratings of physical attractiveness by males and females. Evolution and Human Behavior, 39, 220-225.

Williams, M., & Sulikowski, D. (2020).  Implicit and explicit compromises in long-term partner choice.  Personality and Individual Differences, 166, 110226.

Appendix

From Mate Value and Mating Economy,  Science of Attraction and Beauty, and Long-term and Short-term Mating Strategies: Domain # 2 of Male-Female Difference

 Women’s Long-term Strategy

Women’s long-term mating is driven by genetic characteristics and interests of our species: internal fertilization, an extended period of gestation, prolonged infant dependence on mother’s milk, and the need for relatively “high” male parental investment compared to other primates

Women Prioritize Male Status

Women have evolved to prioritize male status before being concerned about other mate characteristics.   It makes sense for women to first verify that a man has sufficient status/resources and then (and only then) seek positive levels of other characteristics. 

Mate Value Budget

Using a budget–allocation and mating screening method, evolutionary psychologist Norman Li found that under constraints of low budget, men spent the highest proportion of their budget on physical attractiveness, and women spent the highest percentage of their budget on status and resource-related characteristics.  As budgets increased, spending on these traits decreased but increased on other traits, such as creativity and intelligence.  But, when choices were highly constrained, men prioritized some minimal level of physical attractiveness, and women prioritized some minimum level of status.  Both sexes also prioritized kindness.

chart: female preferences for a long-term mate
Trade-offs Between Resources and Character

In addition to protection and a provision of resources, a woman’s long-term strategy seeks character traits that ensure stability and loyalty to her and her children over the long term.

What is often more salient in female mate selection and relationship satisfaction is the tension between the two preferences inside the female long-term strategy:  resources and character.   A woman’s long-term mating strategy often involves ambivalence and internal confusion related to her desire for a mate with resources and status and her preference for loyalty, kindness, intelligence, and character traits for parenting. (See “trade-off boundary” on the diagram below.)  In America, resources usually win this game of mate selection preference, often with rationalization and denial about the lack of optimal character.

Venn diagram: women's long-term mating strategy
Please Note: Your comment may take up to 12 seconds to register and the confirmation message will appear above the “Submit a Comment” text. 
First Principle: Acknowledge Male-Female Differences

First Principle: Acknowledge Male-Female Differences

by | Aug 30, 2021 | Biological Difference, Dating & Mating Economy, Gender Politics, Relationship Issues, Sexuality

As I prepare to address issues of sexual orientation and fluidity (see Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, Presentation, and Biological Sex), it seems appropriate if not necessary to review “first principles” related to my mission and central message, including:

  • Assumptions of Mating Straight Talk
  • General differences between men and women in sexual psychology and response
  • The twenty-two (22) domains of male-female difference. Domain #13 is related to the influence of context, and domain #15 is about sexual orientation, preference, and response variability.  These domains will receive special attention in coming posts. But nearly all domains have an impact on sexual fluidity.
Denial of Sex Differences is Problematic

Part of the mission of Mating Straight Talk is to affirm the differences between the sexes as revealed by evolutionary science and psychological research.  My motivation?  The denial of relevant sex differences in our culture is nearly as problematic as the denial of similarities related to race, ethnicity, and religion.

We Are Uniquely The Same

As a degreed person from a  humanistic psychology graduate program started by a colleague of Abraham Maslow, I am well aware of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.  Although at least one evolutionary psychologist (Douglas Kenrick at Arizona State) has offered a revision of Maslow’s hierarchy to include sex, mate acquisition, and mate retention, I embrace Maslow’s original ideas describing the universal features of human beings – similar needs of all human men and women.  But from an evolutionary perspective, a salient question remains: How do men vs. women uniquely meet the needs of esteem, belonging, and intimacy as a function of their biological sex?  Is it the same in aggregate?  I think not.

Universal Emotions — Sex-Specific Causes

I believe in exploring universal emotional needs as a pathway for healing interpersonal relationships, perhaps, especially for couples.  All men and women experience anger, sadness, fear, joy, anticipation, surprise, disgust, and trust.*  But there are often sex-specific causes for these emotions.

We are “spiritually” all one.  In the quantum universe, we are the same.  In the material world of dimorphic human culture, we are most often diverse and functionally unique as an expression of our gender and sex.

Assumptions of Mating Straight Talk

Men and women have similarities as human beings and aggregate differences that are primarily a function of biology and evolutionary adaptation.  Our similarities do not often cause conflict.  But our differences, and the denial of those differences, often cause “trouble.”

Women and men have differences that we must acknowledge and understand to have satisfying heterosexual (romantic and sexual) relationships.

Men and women have differences that we must acknowledge to “re-balance” and integrate the biological and social sciences in academia and overcome resistance to the facts of evolved behavioral sex differences and evolutionary psychology.

Women and men have differences that we must acknowledge and understand to clarify the “politics” of sex and gender and challenge pockets of censorship in the public domain.

Men and women need “straight talk” (radical honesty) to uncover and accept our differences.

Women and men need “straight talk” about our differences to empower one another for co-creative relationships.

Vive la Différence

Over the millennia, men and women have evolved with different objectives and strategies of sexual psychology and response related to choosing a mate, reproduction, and parental investment.

General Differences between Men and Women in Sexual Psychology and Response
  • Women have their unique sexuality, like a fingerprint, and vary more than men in anatomy, sexual response, sexual mechanisms, and how their bodies respond to the sexual world. Women vary more widely from each other and change more substantially over their lifetime than do men.
  • Women are less likely to have alignment (“concordance”) between their genital response and subjective arousal; this causes confusion and misunderstanding for women and their male partners. Men have dramatically more concordance between their genital response and subjective arousal.
  • All sex happens in context. Women are more context-sensitive than men, and all external circumstances of everyday life influence the context surrounding a woman’s arousal, desire, and orgasm.
  • Women’s sexual functioning is more influenced by their internal brain state — how they think and feel about sex. Judgment, shame, stress, mood, trust, body image, and past trauma influence a woman’s sexual well-being.
  • Men and women have significantly different hormones and some variations in brain structure. Differences caused by the amount of testosterone cannot be overstated.
  • Women and men differ significantly in visual orientation for physical attraction and production of sexual thoughts.
  • Men and women have different preferences and priorities for the traits desired in a mate (with agreement about kindness, stability, humor, and care of children).
  • Human sexual response consists of a “dual control” system with an excitation mechanism (“accelerator”) and an inhibition mechanism (“brake”). Men are accelerator-dominant, and women are brake-dominant.
  • Related to differences between the sexual “accelerator” and “brake,” men operate primarily from “spontaneous desire” triggers, and women operate primarily from “response desire” triggers.
  • Men sell (primarily), and women buy (most often) in the mating economy; this is the predominant evolutionary dynamic. The psychology of the sexual initiator and pursuer is vastly different from that of the one pursued and the one who chooses among her pursuers.
  • The psychology of male intra-sexual competition differs from that of female intersexual selection (preferential mate choice.) Also, women’s intra-sexual competition (competing against each other) for male attention is a different behavioral phenomenon than male-on-male competition.

And last but not least:

  • Women’s sexual functioning includes sexual attractions, romantic affections, sexual practices/behaviors, and preference/orientation identities that are different from men’s sexual functioning due to biological and cultural adaptations. The fundamental and defining feature of female sexual orientation is fluidity.  Men are not nearly as fluid as women.  Researcher Lisa Diamond (Sexual Fluidity — Understanding Women’s Love and Desire) defines sexual fluidity as “situation-dependent flexibility in women’s sexual responsiveness.”

Terms of Engagement – Prelude to Understanding Female Sexual Fluidity

Diamond uses the term “sexual orientation” to mean a consistent pattern of sexual desire for individuals of the same-sex, other-sex, or both sexes, regardless of whether this pattern of desire is manifested in sexual behavior.

Sexual Identity

“Sexual identity” refers to a culturally organized conception of the self, usually “lesbian/gay,” “bisexual,” or “heterosexual.”  As with “sexual orientation,” Diamond says we cannot presume that these identities correspond with particular patterns of behavior, especially for women.  Nor can we assume that they correspond with specific patterns of desire.  Women often reject conventional labels in favor of “queer,” “questioning,” “pansexual,” or simply “unlabeled.”

Same-Sex and Other-Sex Orientation

Diamond uses the term “same-sex orientation” to refer to all experiences of same-sex desire, romantic affection, fantasy, or behavior.  She uses “other-sex” sexuality instead of “opposite sex” because (she says) it is more scientifically accurate.  She uses the terms “lesbian” and “bisexual” but considers them problematic (to be addressed later.)  If a person is 100 percent attracted to one sex, they are “exclusively” attracted (in Diamond’s terminology).  All other patterns of attraction are “nonexclusive.”

Domains of Male-Female Differences in Sexual Psychology

Here is a list of the twenty-two domains of male-female differences in sexual psychology and response.  There is overlap and synergy between the domains, but the underlying distinctions are clarifying. These differences are based on statistical aggregates of all men and women from authoritative research studies and cannot predict the unique sexuality of a particular man or woman.

  1. Behavioral dynamics in the mating economy
  2. Long-term vs. short-term mating strategies
  3. Trait preferences and priorities for mate selection
  4. Physical attraction and perceptions of beauty
  5. Concordance between physiological response and psychological desire
  6. Spontaneous desire vs. response desire
  7. Sex and love-making that fuels desire
  8. Accelerator vs. brake: sexual excitation and inhibition systems
  9. Brain structures: sexual pursuit and visual stimuli
  10. Hormonal differences
  11. Variety and novelty
  12. Sexual mentation and “sex drive”
  13. Influence of context
  14. Female competing intentions and imposed double binds
  15. Sexual orientation (and preference) fluidity and response variability
  16. Orgasm – purpose and characteristics
  17. Meta emotions
  18. Romance and desire, together and apart
  19. Psychology of monogamy
  20. Infidelity – reasons and response
  21. Jealousy – triggers, tactics, and consequences
  22. Sexual fantasies

I will eventually examine each domain as a distinct phenomenon of difference. However, some domains will be addressed together because they are related or parallel in physiological or psychological response.  Differences between men and women in genetic make-up and physical morphology are not included as separate domains (see Biological Differences).  But genetic differences will be addressed in a future post about “biological sex.”

*In modern-day “assortative mating” — the economy of mate selection — a similarity of interests, values, and background works better for relationship satisfaction than “opposites attracting.”

 

Please Note: Your comment may take up to 12 seconds to register and the confirmation message will appear above the “Submit a Comment” text. 
Side-Swiped: Evolutionary Mismatch and Sex Differences with Mobile Dating

Side-Swiped: Evolutionary Mismatch and Sex Differences with Mobile Dating

by | Jun 7, 2021 | Dating & Mating Economy, Relationship Issues, Sexuality

“With the rise of the mobile dating app, we are in evolutionary unprecedented waters.” 

                        ~ Justin Garcia, Kinsey Institute

Set in the cities and college campuses of Austin, New York City, Santa Cruz, and Plainfield, Illinois, HBO laid bare the lives of Gen Zers and their use of dating apps in the 2018 documentary, “Swiped – Hooking Up in the Digital Age.”  Based on what they uncovered, HBO may have intended “swiped” as a metaphor for being disappointed or blind-sided, in addition to noting the addictive action built into the phone and app design. 

A Generation Built to Swipe

Gen Zers (up to 24 years of age) and a small number of Gen Y.1 (25-29 years of age) were exposed to the internet and computers from a very young age. It is natural (if not cognitively conditioned) to connect to their world and others through a display screen.  But Tinder, Snapchat, Instagram, and Facebook deliver and create a reality that sometimes interferes or competes with real-life (IRL).  In “Swiped,” we see scenes of young people in a crowded New York City bar – but their attention is only on their phones.  One HBO interviewee said folks are “almost zombified, looking at their phones even when all together in the same space.”  “If you called someone these days, you would probably get labeled a psychopath,” joked another young man.

“Swiping” Market is Huge

Tinder estimated there were 1.5 billion swipes per day in 2018.  As a part of a 2.5 billion dollar dating industry, 40 million Americans use online dating.   Adults age 18 to 30 spend an estimated 10 hours a week on dating apps.  One out of two single people in the US has a profile on a dating app.

We Evolved in Small Groups with Few Potential Mates

Dating by mobile device may conflict with our evolutionary hard-wiring.  In an interview for “Swiped,” evolutionary psychologist David Buss explained the problem with dating apps:  “We evolved in the context of small groups ranging from 50 to 150 with limited geographical mobility. You would encounter perhaps a few dozen potential mates in your entire lifetime.  We take this small-group dating psychology and transplant it in the modern world with thousands of mates, and it triggers this short-term mating psychology in a way that never would have been triggered ancestrally.”  And with all of these options, the value of each person in the mating economy goes down.

Evolutionary Mismatch

The field of evolutionary psychology has become more interested in these instances of modern “evolutionary mismatch.”    “Since organic evolutionary processes take a long time to effect change, our minds are better suited to ancestral, pre-agricultural contexts than they are to modern contexts,” says Glenn Geher and Nicole Wedberg in their book Positive Evolutionary Psychology (2020).  Studies of pre-agricultural forms of diet and exercise (paleo fitness and movement) and ways to increase “social capital” in our cities are examples of solution-focused evolutionary psychology.  Mobile apps as currently designed may not be part of the solution.

“We are engaging ancient biological parts of our behavior, but the platform is novel and unprecedented. With the rise of the mobile dating app, we are in evolutionary unprecedented waters,”  cautions Justin Garcia of the Kinsey Institute.

A Picture is Worth a Thousand Deceptions

The dating app photo, especially on Tinder, is everything.   Physical appearance overwhelms all other information and takes on a disproportionately larger role.  As described in the film by clinical psychologist Jennifer Powell-Lunder, mating strategies are evident on the apps: “men present in a very stereotypical male way – providers, hunters, puffing up their chests.  And women present in more sexual ways.”  Powell-Lunder identified a phenomenon brought on by the relative anonymity of the mobile app.  She called it the “Clark Kent syndrome.”  “Mild-mannered average guys get to feel like a Superman, powerful and sexually aggressive.”  This kind of dating is all “performative,” she says.

Male-Female Difference

Men and women use these apps differently.  Hinge CEO and founder, Justin McLeod, was interviewed in the HBO film:  “Women are more selective.  On the whole, a majority of women are looking almost exclusively for a relationship on these services.  The majority of the men are primarily looking to hook-up.”  Those looking for a hook-up have the upper hand in this new world.  Women in the documentary lamented: “Guys will have one girlfriend per network (Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, and Snapchat).”

Traditional Romantic Relationship vs. a Hook-Up

In a lecture to the Feminist Student Association at the University of Indiana, Garcia presented data from college students about which type of relationship they preferred — a traditional romantic relationship (TRR) or a  hook-up.  Sixty-three percent (63%) of the men said they preferred TRR, and 34% said they favored a hook-up.  Eighty-three percent (83%) of the women preferred TRR and just 13% wanted a hook-up.  One woman in the documentary said, “I want a boyfriend; I don’t want a fuck buddy.”  CEO and founder of Tinder, Sean Rad noted “80% of users are looking for a serious relationship.”  This is about right for the women, but not overall.  Rad might be exaggerating a big to make Tinder look a bit nobler.  In the film, females actively looking for hook-ups on Tinder were derisively called (by the men) “tinderellas.”

Men and Women Differ in Comfort Level of Hook-up Behaviors

Garcia also reported on women’s comfort level for certain hook-up behaviors compared to what was attributed to them by men (on a scale of -5 to +5).  Men overestimated a women’s comfort level with sexual intercourse and oral sex (both giving and receiving) by a significant margin.

 Design and Addiction of the App Architecture

The architecture of dating apps is built for split-second decision-making  – are you “hot or not?”

Gamification is a well-researched design feature.  Swiping produces unpredictable yet frequent rewards – intermittent reinforcement based on the operant conditioning studies of B.F Skinner.  (Pigeons are the precursors to swiping-obsessed GenZers.) Visual pop-ups show a match with fanfare and a dopamine rush.  Yet, anticipation is a greater rush than the reward.  Like gambling addiction, swiping or sexual compulsion is more of a “high” than a genuine pleasure.

Effects On Emotional Health and Relationship Satisfaction

“I hate it that everything depends upon how you look,”  said a young woman from Austin.  One clinical expert interviewed by HBO said, “mobile apps cause us to feel like we are always dating, always promoting your product.”   A black woman from New York City spoke of emotional abuse from an online relationship.  “I was heartbroken.  I feel like he treated me like an object almost.”   A college student in Santa Cruz gave a male perspective:  “if you do care, you have to not show it; you act like you don’t.”

Women overall are wary and disappointed in the digital online environment.  Men are pleased and discouraged by dating using the apps.

The Hinge Difference?

McLeod says Hinge is “designed to be deleted.” Unlike his swipe-centric rivals, McLeod doesn’t want his user base to stay endlessly glued to the app. McLeod has drug addiction in his history – he understands this problem.  McLeod described Tinder “as a numbers game where users were betting to find a match after never-ending swipes.  It just turned into a game in a casino.”  McLeod realized that it was time for love-seekers to put themselves out there.  “It is about vulnerability and opening up and softening your edges.”

Hinge no longer conforms to the swipe template. Instead, users (as of in 2019) have to answer a choice of three prompts that encourage sensitivity.  Instead of the “hot selfie,” Hinge encourages “photos that lend themselves to a conversation.”

Hinge Inspired Modern Love

McLeod’s own love story is depicted in Episode 2 of Amazon’s highly praised Modern Love.   Dev Patel’s character builds an app called Fuse and reconnects with his soulmate just before she was supposed to marry another man.  In real life (IRL), McLeod flew to Europe and declared his love for his long-lost soulmate, Kate, one month before her wedding to another man.  McLeod and Kate got married and have a child.  McLeod’s real love story informs his approach to Hinge, although Hinge has been fully acquired by dating monopolist IAC Match Group, which also owns Tinder.

Does Bumble Empower Women?

“Bumble is a site where only women are going to make the first move,” explains a female Bumble executive interviewed for the documentary.   But does Bumble empower women?   Zoe Strimpel, a dating historian and columnist for The Sunday Telegraph, said, “Bumble is just codifying that women have to do more work – have the burden of dating – the communication and emotional work.”   Regardless of the questionable premise (IMO) that women have “the burden of dating,”  Strimpel “does not see how Bumble fixes the mistakes that Tinder has made.”

Gay Apps Maybe Provide a Needed Service

The documentary explains how dating apps and the internet generally have given gay men and lesbians more access to each other.  Garcia said the internet is good for the LGBTQ community in that regard.  But one man complained that it has cut down on “cruising” in person, which he described as fun and, more importantly, part of gay culture.  One gay Austinite said that when he sees a guy in a bar, he immediately goes to Grindr to find out more about him and even communicates to him through the app as he stands just 30-feet away.  One gay site gets a favorable mention.  SCRUFF is supposedly a top-rated and reliable app for gay, bi, trans and queer guys to connect. 

Physical Risk in the App Ecosphere

Online-related sexual assault has multiplied over the years.  According to general news and wellness site, Phactual, one out of every ten sex offenders uses online dating to meet people.  A 2018 Buzzfeed article told the story of an alleged “Tinder Rapist” who said he felt entitled to sex from a female he’d met on the dating app because “she wanted it and the Tinder app was for that.”

“Are dating apps contributing to rape culture?”   Mandy Ginsberg, CEO of IAC Match Group, avoided answering that question in the documentary, citing the company’s focus on safety tips for women.  (IAC Match Group owns Match, Tinder, Plenty of Fish, OK Cupid, Black People Meet, Senior People Meet, and now Hinge.)

Revenge Porn is a Nasty Artifact

As starkly depicted in the HBO documentary, sexting is also a risk.  One in 25 Americans has been the target of revenge porn – the unauthorized use and spread of nude photos.  Instagram photos of all types may lend themselves to reputation damage, even affecting employment and careers.  Tinder co-founder and CSO Jonathan Badeem seemed sympathetic but had no concrete plans (at the time of filming by HBO) to stop revenge porn or reduce the incidence of sexual assault associated with the app.

Future of the Apps and Mobile “Dating” Experience

“The use of apps will not slow down because there is too much money to be made,” according to Adam Alter, a social psychologist at New York University. He added, “the apps are getting better and better at designing experiences that are addictive.” Furthermore, virtual and augmented reality apps are coming!

 Through Eyes of Alex and Kyle

Midway through the documentary, we are introduced to an adorable couple in New York City.  Alex and Kyle found each other on an app and felt authentically connected as friends and lovers.  They had great simpatico and playfulness — enough trust and comfort to try to be with a third person.  (Alex, the woman, is a self-proclaimed “heteroflexible”).  They swiped together as a couple, looking for a woman to join them.  It was exciting and fun.  Their coupling seemed to work.  At the end of the documentary, we see them for the third time. Kyle and Alex sat on the bed and reflected on their relationship together. Now, it seems, they are not a couple.

 But Love is Sweet

 Kyle became distant, and he does not know why.  Kyle hooks-up with other women on Tinder. Alex seemed sad and resigned.  She wanted a real relationship with Kyle.  She tells the camera that expressing love is sweet. She can have other sexual encounters if she wants to (and does), but we get the impression that she just wanted a committed relationship with him.

“Tinder Exhausts Me”

 Alex finally says, “Tinder exhausts me but I use it to judge people, and I like to swipe.  I like doing the swiping, I always have.”  “Nothing good happens from Tinder,” says Kyle in response. Then, Alex turns to Kyle and gives him a penetrating look, “we met on Tinder.”

Summary

  • Digital apps produce a vastly different environment for short-term mating from what existed in our evolutionary past.
  • The focus on physical looks has dramatically increased in the digital environment. This change is especially significant in the overall mix of female sexual strategies.  Short-term mating for women has always put more emphasis on physical attractiveness, facial symmetry, and a man’s v-torso.  A woman’s predominant long-term strategy, which still operates on the apps, emphasizes character, resources, and commitment.
  • Young women are having a bit more casual sex because of this environment, but they are not necessarily more satisfied. (There was only one woman depicted in “Swiped” that seemed centered and comfortable with a non-monogamous lifestyle.)
  • Though women are experimenting more with casual sex and non-monogamy, 80% of women want or use the apps in hopes of developing a long-term relationship.  This confirms the hard-wired difference of mating strategies between men and women.
  • Few long-term relationships come from dating app hook-ups.
  • Women overall are wary and disappointed in the digital online environment.
  • Men are pleased and discouraged by dating using the apps.
  • HBO’s documentary does not explore the sex-ratio difference on college campuses (more women than men) that has also contributed to changes in the female approach to casual sex and intrasexual competition between women, and is the cause of multiple partners for men.
  • Women rightly fear rape and other kinds of abuse (physical and emotional) or assault.
  • Reputation damage and revenge porn have dramatically increased with the use of dating apps and the reach of the internet.

 

Please Note: Your comment may take up to 12 seconds to register and the confirmation message will appear above the “Submit a Comment” text. 

Want An Equal Marriage? Then Date As Equals

Want An Equal Marriage? Then Date As Equals

by | May 24, 2021 | Dating & Mating Economy, Gender Politics, Relationship Issues

Based on “If You Want a Marriage of Equals, Then Date As Equals,” by Ellen Lamont in The Atlantic, February 14, 2020.

“I know it feels counterintuitive…..I’m a feminist,” the first woman said.  “But I like to have a guy be chivalrous.”

Heterosexual women with progressive-liberal political leanings often say they want an equal partnership with men. “But dating is a different story entirely,” according to feminist sociologist Ellen Lamont of Appalachian State University and author of  The Mating Game: How Gender Still Shapes How We Date. Lamont’s research found that such women expected men to ask for, plan, and pay for dates.  They also expected men to initiate sex, confirm the exclusivity of a relationship and propose marriage.  “After setting all those precedents, these women then wanted a marriage in which they shared the financial responsibilities, housework, and child care relatively equally,” wrote Lamont in an article for The Atlantic.  Very few of Lamont’s female subjects saw these dating practices as a threat to their feminist credentials or their desire for egalitarian marriages.  Lamont says they are wrong on both counts.

Glaring Disconnect – Progressive Beliefs vs. Lived Experience

Lamont noticed a glaring disconnect between straight women’s views on marriage and thoughts on dating.  Lamont found that once these women were married, it was difficult to “right the ship.”  The same gender stereotypes that they adopted while dating played out in their long-term partnerships.

Interviewing “Woke” Millennials

Lamont interviewed heterosexual and LGBTQ people in the San Francisco Bay area – highly educated, professional-track young adults.  Everyone she interviewed was quite vocal in their support of gender equality and readily accepted the label “feminist.”

Three-quarters of millennials in America support gender equality at work and home and agree that the ideal marriage is equitable.  Consequently, Lamont expected her female interviewees to epitomize feminist liberation.  Yet, when they thought of equality among men and women, they focused more on professional opportunities than on interpersonal dynamics.

Gender Equality Gains at Work – Not at Home

Lamont had long been interested in how gender influences behavior in romantic relationships. She was well aware that research showed more significant gains in gender equality at work than at home.   Americans with a college education now get married in their early 30s on average.  Young adults put their love life on hold while they invest in their education and establish a career.  Lamont’s female subjects expected their partner to support their ambitious professional goals.  The men said they desired and respected these independent, high-achieving women and saw them as more compatible partners as a result.

“It’s a Deal Breaker If He Doesn’t Pay”

“Can I be a self-sufficient, empowered woman and still enjoy it when a guy picks up the check?” appeared as a question in a recent Vogue opinion column.  Apparently, the answer is “yes.”  Many of the women Lamont spoke to enacted strict dating rules.  “It’s a deal-breaker if a man doesn’t pay for a date,” one 29-year-old woman said.  A 31-year-old woman said, “if a man doesn’t pay, “they just probably don’t like you very much.”  The women assumed that many of the men were looking for nothing more than a hook-up, so some of these dating rituals were tests to see whether the man was truly interested in a commitment.  A third woman, also 31, told Lamont, “I feel like men need to feel like they are in control, and if you ask them out, you end up looking desperate, and it’s a turnoff to them.”

Risk of Not Paying: Reduced Mate Value

Female commentators in the relationship advice genre for men have suggested that men pay for first dates (at least) as a default position, lest the man is viewed as:

  • Cheap (unnecessarily frugal and no fun)
  • Ungenerous of character (does not readily give to others – a serious red flag)
  • Poor (on a tight budget – definitely a limitation as a potential mate)
  • Not interested in the woman (a possible false negative)

It is no wonder that men err on the side of paying even if they hope for equity in a long-term relationship.  First, they have to “win the day” and protect their first impression – and their perceived mate value.

“I Like a Guy to be Chivalrous”

On dates, the women talked to Lamont about acting demure and allowing men to do more of the talking.  Women, they said, were more attractive to men when they appeared unattainable, so women preferred for the men to follow up after a date.  None of the women considered proposing marriage; that was the man’s job.  “I know it feels counterintuitive…..I’m a feminist,” the first woman said.  “But I like to have a guy be chivalrous.”

Men Want These Rituals?

Not all of the heterosexual women Lamont interviewed felt strongly about these dating rules.  “Yet even the few women who fell into this category,” says Lamont, “tended to go along with traditional dating rituals anyway, arguing that the men they dated wanted these rituals, and the women just didn’t care enough to challenge the status quo.”  Yet, some men admitted to Lamont that they had run into “conflicts” with strong-willed women.

Men Sometimes Resisted

The heterosexual men Lamont interviewed claimed that a woman’s assertiveness took the pressure off them.  While some liked paying for dates, feeling that the gesture was a nice way to show they cared, others were resistant.  One man told Lamont that he splits the cost of a date fifty-fifty.  “Just because I carry the penis does not mean that I need to buy your food for you.  You’re educated or want to be educated; you want to be independent  – take your stance.”

Undoing Gender Roles in Marriage Was Difficult

Lamont found that when men and women endorsed these traditional gender roles early in their relationship, undoing those views in marriage was difficult. The married men she interviewed often left caregiving and housework to the women and considered themselves primarily breadwinners and decision-makers.  Time-use surveys in the U.S. show that women still do about twice as much unpaid labor in the home as men.  One woman said of her husband, “he’ll take our son on bike rides with him.  But in the middle of the night, I’m the one getting up.”

Set Up Expectations from the Outset

The majority of LGBTQ people Lamont interviewed wanted no part of the dating scripts they saw as connected to gender inequality.   “We have explicitly said we’re not normal or traditional so that we can write the script ourselves.”  Most noteworthy, the LGBTQ interviewees set up the expectations of equality from the outset of dating, not after it. This approach shifted their understanding of what was possible for intimate relationships, and they, for the most part, had more equal long-term relationships as a result.

Outside of the Heterosexual Mating Dynamic

LGBTQ individuals espoused similar ideals about equity but were more likely to reject and resist dominant courtship scripts.  This resistance is not surprising to evolutionary psychologists.  Once outside of the male-female mating dynamic (based on sexual selection for reproduction) and the co-evolutionary “arms race” of competing male-female sexual psychologies, it is expected that such courtship rituals would have less relevance.

Sociology vs. Evolutionary Psychology

According to fellow academics who reviewed her book, Lamont uses the “sociological imagination” to interpret her data.  A focus on the relationship between individual agency and larger social structures represents the customary sociological view of the bidirectional relationship between individuals and society.

Lamont does not seem to understand or acknowledge the evolutionary power of male-female differences in mating strategy that undergirds traditional courtship scripts.  Traits that have a long evolutionary history for successful mating either supersede or interact with existing social structures.  Confidence and displays of status and competence are critical attractors for women; they are unconsciously embedded in many traditional courtship rituals.

It is Not “Counterintuitive” – It is Sexual Selection

“I want a man who’s kind and understanding. Is that too much to ask of a millionaire?”  ~ Zsa Zsa Gabor

Women want both power (resources) and kindness in their mates. Women have a natural attraction and sexual charge for alpha traits (which are preeminently desired) but also have a secondary need for safety and loyalty (beta traits) to ensure long-term mating success and ongoing provision and protection of children.  Male beta traits are more correlated with progressive-liberal political leanings and likely incorporate favorable views of feminist ideology; these traits mostly signal kindness, not power.

Female Competing Preferences – the Trade-off Problem

Because status and power do not easily co-exist with loyalty and kindness, women must often choose between these traits (what evolutionary psychologists call the “trade-off problem”) in an attempt to find the right combination in a chosen mate.  Men of status and power usually get the first or longest “interview” with women.  The sexual attraction to them is strongest; the hope is that the man will turn out to be loyal and authentically generous – at least for that particular woman.

Double Trouble for Men

Women’s competing mate preferences often cause double binds for men.  (See Psychological Double Binds Imposed on Men.)  The man wants to please a woman, but she may be confused from moment to moment or in a constant state of dilemma and tension about what she wants and needs.  She wants a chivalrous suitor AND an egalitarian partner.  (To be fair, those behaviors are not necessarily mutually exclusive.)

Trade-off Problem in Era of Female Empowerment

“A showdown between traditionalism and egalitarianism is underway.”  ~ Ellen Lamont

The “trade-off” problem for women has become particularly acute during the modern era of female empowerment and feminist cultural framing; the “shadow self” of female biological imperatives has become more hidden yet prone to “leak out” with mixed messages to the surface of present-day male-female mate selection and romantic-sexual relating.

Lamont uncovered these mixed messages in her research. The first step in addressing a double bind, hypocrisy, or a mixed message is to see it and name it for what it is – or write a book about it, in Lamont’s case.

Dating As Equals – “I Want This and That”

Here are a few mixed messages (expression of needs) from women related to the issues of “dating as equals.”  Men often process them as menacing double-binds.   It is challenging to find a compromise or middle ground in response, although it is not impossible for an emotionally intelligent and strong man.

As Lamont discovered, these needs often lurk underneath the contemporary tension between men and women in heterosexual relationships.  They operate on a continuum but are magnified here without nuance to bring clarity to their evolutionary roots and power —  and to demonstrate the reason why they are so “undiscussable.”

Even liberated women might say:

  • “I want full equality of economic power and opportunity, but I also want to mate with a man who has as much or more power than me, and preferably more power than other men.”
  • “I will rail against gender power inequality while I actually want to partner and have sex with a man who is at the top of the power hierarchy.”
  • “I want a man who embraces feminist positions politically while being an alpha among his peers.”
  • “Please have the willingness and capacity to provide, be generous, make decisions, be chivalrous, and offer protection. I prefer that you offer to pay for most everything and never expect me to pay for you.  I do not want to embrace the role of ‘receiver of gifts’ even though it turns me on.”
  • “I want to be seen as taking care of myself. Provide for me in some way but do not patronize or disempower me as you do that.”
  • “Please help around the house! But your domestication may remove my sexual charge for you.”  (This possibility has been found in a study or two.)
How “Gender” Still Shapes How We Date

Lamont’s research and book look at how people with diverse gender identities and sexualities date, form relationships, and make decisions about commitments as they negotiate an uncertain romantic landscape.  She uncovers how “gender” still shapes how we date.

Lamont’s decidedly liberal subject sample makes a strong case that espoused progressive cultural values do not dramatically change the courtship behavior of heterosexuals.  Evolutionary mate selection dynamics, biological imperatives, and the nature of male and female sexuality most often supersede new cultural norms.  Women want men who show confidence, initiation, and generosity –  the capacity to use resources on their behalf.

Conclusion

Lamont says that most heterosexuals engage in courtship rituals that reinforce gender differences despite claiming a desire for egalitarian relationships with equal division of work/household labor and financial independence of both partners.  Lamont makes the case that by clinging to traditional courtships scripts, young adults unwittingly undermine the gender revolution they say they embrace.

Epilogue

 “Ultimately, what was revealed (it seemed to me), unspoken but acted upon, was that the ‘old male’ was still very much desired by women for the security they delivered.” 

~ Steven Fearing, Origins of Mating Straight Talk – Reasons and Reflections

References

Lamont, E. “If You Want a Marriage of Equals, Then Date As Equals,” The Atlantic, February 14, 2020.

Lamont, E. (2020). The Mating Game: How Gender Still Shapes How We Date.

Please Note: Your comment may take up to 12 seconds to register and the confirmation message will appear above the “Submit a Comment” text.