In a post titled "Germans prefer looks over wallet size," Patrick Morgan has some very bad news for sundry rump evolutionary psychologists, pickup artists, and all-round cranky misogynists (emphasis his)
Results of an explorative empirical study on human mating in Germany: handsome men, not high-status men, succeed in courtship.
Recent research on human mating depicts men as searching for physical attractiveness (PA) and women as searching for status.
...
Surprisingly, the answers given by male and female subjects regarding sociosexual behaviour and mating preferences are predominantly congruent. Sex differences among preferences for good looking and high-status partners were small or even insignificant. Lower educated subjects had considerably higher status preferences than higher educated individuals. In both sexes, PA was much more preferred in a potential partner than status. For both sexes, physical appearance was decisive for the subject’s dating attractiveness.
Source: Discover Blogs NCBI ROFL
Actually it's surprising if and only if you fall for the first bogus Rule of Desire. If you do then you're going to be a lot more comfortable believing that women are more attracted to money or power than to, you know, physical desirability.
If you're over all that then you're probably going to be even more comfortable with (yet, still, further) confirmation that both men and women are human beings.
Technically, most of the PUAs
Submitted by ozymandias (not verified) on Sun, 2011-03-20 15:57.Technically, most of the PUAs argue that women primarily look for "socially dominant" men: men with other mating options (a lot of their core techniques, such as preseleciton and the "neg', are based on this concept), men who take command of situations and don't take shit from people, confident/arrogant men, bad boys and assholes. This research doesn't technically disprove that belief: it's perfectly possible that women prefer good-looking bad boys to ugly bad boys, while simultaneously preferring bad boys to nice guys.
On the other hand, there's some MAJOR confounding variables here: confident assholes tend to hit on more women and ask more women out; insecure but nice men have to be chased. As a pure numbers game, the assholes will get more laid.
Alpha men don't approach
Submitted by tu quoque (not verified) on Sun, 2011-03-20 23:51.Alpha men don't approach women more often; that's why the first behavioral fix PUAs teach men is to adopt an aloof demeanor in social situations. The whole point of being an alpha is that women chase you because they perceive your aloofness as evidence that you're a man with options and therefore "high status."
But aloofness is not the same
Submitted by aliaras (not verified) on Mon, 2011-03-21 05:06.But aloofness is not the same thing as total non-approach. A guy sitting by himself at the bar, no matter how "Alpha" he thinks he's being, is still a guy sitting by himself at a bar. A guy talking to a bunch of women while still acting aloof might actually get laid.
Aloofness means taking no
Submitted by tu quoque (not verified) on Mon, 2011-03-21 21:21.Aloofness means taking no action that suggests a man is making any great effort to score with a woman. Of course alpha males socialize with women, but that's not the same as hitting on them. He interacts with them with the intention of compelling her to make the moves. He seduces them in the same way women are typically thought to seduce men, only with different gender-based signals.
Problem: if alpha males
Submitted by ozymandias (not verified) on Tue, 2011-03-22 00:48.Problem: if alpha males seduce women the same way women seduce men-- i.e., being seductive at people without actually saying anything-- who makes the first move? Someone has to initiate the kiss. Someone has to be the first to say, "You know, you're beautiful, I'd really like to spend more time together." Of course as a feminist I believe women should make the first move more often; but relying on that seems silly as a seduction strategy.
The one who makes the first
Submitted by tu quoque (not verified) on Tue, 2011-03-22 21:38.The one who makes the first move is the one with less game. At least in a society where people aren't pressured to act out a certain role in courtship.
Hmm.... I think if we turn
Submitted by figleaf on Mon, 2011-03-21 15:26.Hmm....
I think if we turn that around you might really be on to something, to quoque.
I think it's not that "high status" men are attractive because they have other options, it's that the idea that men who aren't actively "after only one thing" is attractive. *How* they get there, I suspect, isn't as important as that they're there at all. So it could be status, or it could be "negs," or it could be other options, or whatever.
fl
But the reason why "not only
Submitted by tu quoque (not verified) on Mon, 2011-03-21 21:15.But the reason why "not only after one thing" is attractive is because it suggests the availability of options. A man who looks like he's having a good time without putting any effort into obtaining sex gives the impression, ironically, that he's a man who is getting plenty of sex and therefore isn't obsessing over it in every situation. Men who seem "only after one thing" are neither more libidinous nor are their opinions of women more shallow than any other man. It's simply the fact that their low status and celibacy make every situation seem like a "do or die" situation and the nervousness and obsessiveness that understandably comes with that gives them away, hurting their chances further. It's a vicious cycle.
Again, as a gay man, I've experienced what I imagine it is like to be an alpha and beta straight male in terms of sexual confidence in a matter of a couple years. Simple knowledge of your attractiveness can change everything. I think it would blow women's minds to truly understand the stress of being a beta male trying to acquire sexual approval.
Huh. That's interesting!
Submitted by ozymandias (not verified) on Mon, 2011-03-21 20:15.Huh. That's interesting! Admittedly I am generalizing from my experience of Men Who Never Get Laid (given the number of them I've fucked I am... somewhat of an expert), who tend to never ask women to date them ever. (The one exception I can think of off the top of my head is severely handicapped by being a black man at an white-and-Hispanic school.)
I personally, as a woman, have to say that a man's "having options" has never seemed to affect my sexual interest in him whatsoever, except insofar as lack of options would prevent a fuckbuddy from acquiring an inconvenient monogamous relationship. I can certainly see why a man with options would be attractive (out of all the women in the world he picked me!), but it has never been as relevant to me as, say, the possession of pretty long hair or his own copy of Arkham Horror has.
Like the PUAs, you're pretty
Submitted by PattyCake (not verified) on Sun, 2011-03-20 16:19.Like the PUAs, you're pretty quick to dismiss research that does not confirm your notions of desire, and pretty quick to cite research that does.
In this study, subjects were asked about their preferences based upon viewing a 30-second video.
In my experiences in the wild, there are not that many people choosing their partners based upon a 30 second interview shown during the course of a sociological study.
Anecdotal evidence is not something that holds up well to argument, but I can't count the number of guys who achieved dating success (not long-term relationships, which they weren't looking for) by finishing their degrees and getting a decent job, a nice apartment, and a sexy new car.
You often say that your experiences in the 70s were different, but you were good looking, had a charming accent, and don't forget, it was in the 70s. Most plain- to average-looking guys nowadays don't have those advantages. And it's much easier to get a good job and a decent car when you don't have one, than it is to make yourself physically attractive when you're not.
"but you were good looking,
Submitted by figleaf on Mon, 2011-03-21 12:50."but you were good looking, had a charming accent..."
You are so kind to to say that, Patty! But based on an awful lot of feedback at the time I both looked and sounded a lot like a cross between Alfalfa and Gomer Pyle. Both had plenty of fans I'm sure, but I didn't realize it at the time.
You're right that I should have heavily caveated the researcher's conclusions. To be honest I was more taken by their repeated expressions of surprise at the difference between their (highly gendered, PUA-friendly) hypothesis and their findings.
Thanks,
fl
Most of the PUA discussion
Submitted by Eurosabra (not verified) on Sun, 2011-03-20 19:58.Most of the PUA discussion has bifurcated lately, with reminders that the subculture began in Hollywood nightlife culture, an area in which micro-distinctions of status (such as "connected to the band and can get you into the VIP tonight" or "connected to the owners and can get you into the VIP any/every night") have tangible, immediate results in who goes home with whom. The other branch is the recurrent NiceGuy(tm) discussion, which leads PUAs to remind people that dominance is so essential for straight women that assertive, approachable, actively approaching men do not have success AT ALL except with a tiny subset of women (1 in 500 approaches, say, compared to a PUA's 1 in 50) without good looks, money, social dominance, exceptional fashion or connections. I tend to agree with this because I am fairly embedded in the middle-brow segment of high-end club culture, where upper-crust nerds try to hook up, and the dynamic from the women is pure Game, sniping, baiting, snobbery "are you famous or do you work in an office?" People get horribly rejected and horribly baited and none of it counts, it's not REAL.
So the Germans just told us that women in the aggregate actively want only the most attractive men, we knew that already. At least Germany has legal brothel sex work, whereas the Swedish model (selling okay, buying banned) has produced a blogger like Eivind "Rape is Equality" Berge in Norway.
Technically I believe what
Submitted by figleaf on Mon, 2011-03-21 12:38.Technically I believe what the Germans just told us was that *people* in the aggregate only want the most (physically!) attractive partners. Which, I believe, we now both agree we knew already.
"...dominance is so essential for straight women..." Looks like we don't agree about that.
figleaf
To paraphrase Bill Clinton:
Submitted by Sungold (not verified) on Tue, 2011-03-22 20:32.To paraphrase Bill Clinton: It all depends on what the meaning of dominance is.
(Crappy paraphrase, yes? Let me explain.)
Dominance can mean oodles of different things to different people. It might mean a "neg" for a PUA (eww!), or a $300,000 annual salary (similary unerotic, for me), or a willingness to lead while dancing vertically or horizontally (mmmmmmmm! 'nuff said). Introduce latex hoods and ball gags, and you've lost me again.
Other women will see "dominance" differently.
This is seriously anecdatal, but I suspect you could come up with 100s of definitions of dominance, if only someone would both to ask. And I'm only speaking - very tentatively! - for straight women - and only speculating for those who like being on the receiving end of domination. As the study I linked the other day indicates, there are also oodles of men who get their rocks off on imagining women dominating them, and I can't imagine their fantasy lives are any less rich than my own.
Also, re: Germany: to make a
Submitted by Sungold (not verified) on Tue, 2011-03-22 20:35.Also, re: Germany: to make a general argument for women exercising sexually autonomous choices in the absence of other constraints, you'd want to examine a society where women are relatively independent according to other measures, including especially financial autonomy. Germany is really, really not that country. Too few institutional supports for combining family with career - too many impediments to pursuing a career as a woman.
Dude, maybe you should stop
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2011-03-23 13:38.Dude, maybe you should stop hanging out around shallow douchebags. At least stop assuming they are representative of all straight women.
Yeah, pretty much nothing
Submitted by Pepper Lee Hales (not verified) on Thu, 2011-03-24 13:49.Yeah, pretty much nothing shocking here. I mean even intuitively, "status" is a silly idea in terms of mate selection. If you end up with an older "high status" mate who dies, in a world without inheritance as we know it, well, you have nothing AND you've lowered the fitness of your offspring. Why this is complicated I don't know. The whole notion of "alpha" and "beta" people sort of gives me the LULz anyway, because of my gawd how people are not wolves. Cryptic ovulation and clitori should lead to the suspicion that reproduction for humans is a side effect rather than the main point of sex. Nature doesn't have to push us to bang each other, we're doing it for fun!
This kind of nonsensical posturing is what happens when you absolutely decline to actually listen to women about what they desire, and decide that no, goddamnit, you know the truth!
Thomas at yes means yes looks at some similarly non-surprising research here: http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2011/03/08/conleys-casual-sex-research-sexual-strategies-theory/
What's that you say? Make it safe and pleasurable and it is so on? Naaaah, that's just crazy talk.
Re. looking at the other side
Submitted by figleaf on Thu, 2011-03-24 14:34.Re. looking at the other side of the Conley casual sex study, I think pretty much anyone's going to balk at sex if they face a) an only 35% chance of getting off, b) a 65% chance of being socially ostracized. No gender hypothesis required.
Thanks, Pepper Lee,
figleaf