Long-term and Short-term Mating Strategies: Domain #2 of Male-Female Difference

Long-term and Short-term Mating Strategies: Domain #2 of Male-Female Difference

by | Sep 22, 2020 | Biological Difference, Dating & Mating Economy, Sexuality

“…to an extraordinary degree, the predilections of the investing sex —females, determine the direction in which the species will evolve. For it is the female who is the ultimate arbiter of when she mates and how often and with whom.” ~Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, The Women That Never Evolved, 1981

Would You Go to Bed With Me?

In a study on a college campus, confederate men walked up to women, and confederate women walked up to men and said:

“Hi, I’ve been noticing you around town lately and I find you very attractive.”

Then they (eventually) asked:

“Would you go to bed with me tonight?”

All the women said “no,” and were offended, insulted, and just puzzled by the request to go to bed.

Seventy-five percent of the men said “yes.” Many of the men who declined the offer were apologetic, citing previous commitments.

This is an often-cited series of experiments in social and evolutionary psychology conducted by Russell Clark & Elaine Hatfield. These experiments were replicated in France with the same results.

How Receptive are Men versus Women to Sexual Invitations?

In a study by Buss and Schmitt (1993), college men and women rated how likely they were to consent to sex with someone they viewed as desirable if they had known them for only an hour, a day, a week, a month, six months, a year, two years, or five years. Both men and women said they would probably have sex after knowing a desirable potential mate for five years. At every shorter interval, men exceeded women in the reported likelihood of having sex. After knowing someone for only one week, men were positive about consenting to sex.

Women Unlikely to Consent to Sex

Women, in sharp contrast, were highly unlikely to consent to sex. Men were only slightly disinclined to having sex with someone they had known for only one hour; for women, sex after one hour was a virtual impossibility.

Long and Short-term Mating Strategies — Differences Between Men and Women

The predominant theory in evolutionary psychology suggests humans have both long-term and short-term mating strategies. These studies unmask the differences between men and women in their mating strategies.

Second Domain of Differences in Sexual Psychology and Response

This is the second in a series of posts that explain the domains (see Appendix) of difference between men and women in their sexual psychology and response. Tendencies related to short and long-term mating strategies apply to the general population of male and female heterosexuals but do not predict the unique sexuality of a particular man or women. (See introduction to the series: Male-Female Differences in Sexual Psychology and Response.)

This post will explore the following differences:

  1. General psychological factors related to mating strategies
  2. Objectives, costs, and benefits of short-term and long-term mating strategies for men and women
  3. Relative importance of trait preferences for each strategy along three dimensions: physical attractiveness, resources, and character, illustrated by Venn diagrams.
At-a-Glance Summary of this Post
  •  A long-term mating strategy is essentially rooted in commitment and monogamy.
  • A short-term mating strategy allows or prefers casual sex with more than one partner.
  • Women’s predominant mating strategy is long-term vs. short-term by a wide margin.
  • Men’s predominant mating strategy is short-term but their long-term strategy is almost equal for reasons also tied to evolutionary benefits.
  • The human mating economy is primarily fueled (implicitly) by the intersection of men’s short-term mating strategy and women’s long-term mating strategy.
  • Men’s short-term mating strategy is emboldened by their perceived mate value.
  • Women’s short-term strategy is correlated with low self-esteem.
  • Lower mate value men benefit most from a long-term strategy.
  • High mate value women (commonly with high self-esteem) choose a long-term strategy and benefit most from that strategy.
  • Men have lower standards for short-term mates, requiring almost no traits other than physical attractiveness.
  • Women’s short-term strategy emphasizes physical stature of the man, with some concern for resources and character.
  • Women’s short-term strategy, while secondary, reveals complex motivations and is used to secure resources, access better genes, switch mates, and sometimes secure a long-term partner.
  • Men’s short-term strategy gives great emphasis to physical attractiveness, has a small concern for character, and no concern for resources.
  • Men’s long-term mating strategy has character requirements, some resource considerations, and an emphasis on physical attractiveness.
  • Women’s long-term strategy has a great need for resources and character, with physical attractiveness prioritized in a third position. Resources and character are often subject to trade-offs in mate selection.
  • Long-term and short-term mating strategies operate as concurrent functions (like dual processing switches) sensitive to context and environmental conditions.
  • Female choice in mate selection is the most powerful force on the planet – determining the mating strategies of both sexes.
General Sex Differences in Long-term and Short-term Mating Strategies

The above studies underscore several differences in male-female sexual psychology and response, as noted in: Dynamics in the Mating Economy: Domain #1 of Male-Female Difference.

  • Women have the psychology of choice and an abundance of sexual attention during their reproductive years; men mostly do not have choice or an abundance of mating opportunities.
  • Men (mostly) have the psychology of sexual scarcity.
  • Women have the psychology of caution and fear — sexual inhibition and “brakes” on sexual activity and the experience of risk. Women fear being physically hurt, left to fend on their own with a child, or suffering reputational damage.
  • Women are prone to have regret or guilt about what they did in the sexual and mating realm.
  • Men are prone to have guilt and regret about what they did not do.
  • Men fear being humiliated and rejected.
  • Men are driven by a spontaneous, initiating sexual psychology (spontaneous desire) and women are characterized by a cautionary, “response desire.”

Mating Strategies Introduction

“Today’s dating scene has become a global uncontrolled experiment in competing mating strategies. Men and women are locked in a run-away arms race of male sexual escalation tactics vs. female commitment escalation tactics. Science-minded singles have a new self-consciousness as fitness displayers, mate choosers, gene replicators, and social primates.” ~ Evolutionary Psychologist, Geoffrey Miller (YouTube – 2019)

Long-term Mating Strategies

A long-term mating strategy for men involves attracting and securing a mate who will provide sexual fidelity. A long-term mating strategy for women seeks sexual fidelity and provision of resources and protection of children over time. Women have predominantly a long-term mating strategy (and sex “drive”) that most often seeks a single-sex partner who is committed to her and the potential offspring that might result from their mating. A women’s long-term strategy creates caution and selectivity in accepting male advances. The desired benefits of a woman’s long-term strategy influence male sexual access and thus much of male behavior. (See Mate Selection Science.)

Short-term Mating Strategies

A short-term mating strategy attempts to maximize immediate sexual access and sexual partners. Men have evolved with mostly a short-term-mating strategy (and sex “drive”) but also employ a long-term strategy for several evolutionary advantages. A man’s short-term mating strategy fuels desire for contact with women for any possible chance of a romantic or sexual encounter. Although much less predominant, a woman’s short-term mating strategy may include a complex set of motivations. (See Why Women Have Sex.)

Dual Processing Switches

Long-term and short-term strategies for men and women operate as concurrent functions sensitive to context and environmental conditions. They are not binary operations but more like dual processing switches with a range or “volume” on each at any moment in time. They may function in parallel like a thermostat, modulating the influence of other mode to keep a particular sexual personality in balance or at its “set” point. Sexual strategies by men and women are influenced by age and especially a woman’s fertility window.

Big Cojones — Evidence of Short-term mating

Evidence of short-term mating is seen by the size of human male testes; they are larger than the highly monogamous gorillas and orangutans, but smaller than the more promiscuous baboons, bonobos, and common chimpanzees. Bigger testes mean more sperm competition and more short-term mating.

Sperm Volume

Also, sperm volume increases related to the amount of time a couple has been apart since their last encounter. This increase in sperm insemination is precisely what is expected if humans had an ancestral history of casual sex and marital infidelity. The fact that men carry a physiological mechanism that elevates sperm count when their wives may have had opportunities to be unfaithful points to an evolutionary history in which humans had extramarital affairs at least some of the time.

 
“Collision” of Strategies

The human mating economy is primarily fueled (implicitly) by the intersection of men’s short-term mating strategy and women’s long-term mating strategy (See Human Mating Strategies). This “collision” of a man’s short-term mating strategy and a woman’s long-term mating strategy continues to shape gender-specific sexual behavior in modern times and causes more selectivity, caution, and different sexual responses by women as compared to men. Mating strategy “conflict” is resolved by accommodation and negotiation in a process of mate value sorting within the mating economy. It is highly dependent upon individual context. Desire is mitigated by costs, benefits, and availability for both sexes.

Diagram #1: “Collision” of Mating Strategies

venn diagram: collision_of_mating_strategies
Subset Strategies

Humans also have “subset” mating strategies or mating behaviors that intersect with basic long and short-term strategies, including serial mating and extra-pair copulation (EPC) – i.e. infidelity or consensual non-monogamy. Which mating strategy is adopted very much depends on individual mate value. Those higher in mate value can more easily implement their preferred mating strategy. In general, higher mate value women focus even more on a long-term strategy and higher mate value men may focus even more on a short-term strategy. Mating strategy can also be influenced by the sex ratio in the local mating pool and operation of social/cultural norms in the local environment.

Humans Employ Strategic Pluralism

Ultimately, what people want in a long-term mate can be quite different from what they want in a short-term mate. Humans employ “strategic pluralism” — a variety of strategies and tactics when it comes to mating. There are multiple routes to mating success.

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. 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.

Trade-offs Between Resources and Character

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 diagram below.) In America, resources usually win this game of mate selection preference, often with rationalization and denial about the lack of optimal character.

Diagram #2: Women’s Long-term Mating Strategy

Venn diagram: women's long-term mating strategy

Benefits of Women’s Long-term Mating Strategy

  • Significant resources from mate
  • Parental investment
Costs of Women’s Long-term Mating Strategy
  • Restricted sexual opportunity
  • Sexual obligation to mate

The benefits far outweigh the costs and have pre-eminent value in female mate selection — and thus overall power to influence sexual access and all domains of male behavior.

Women’s Short-term Strategy

Women are found to prefer features related to muscularity, strength, fitness, and masculinity – traits associated with symmetry, in their short-term mates. They also look for stable character traits (minimal levels of generosity and kindness) and a fair amount of resources. While the following gives considerable attention to the complexities of a woman’s short-term strategy, it bears repeating that this strategy is not dominant in female mate selection; it is secondary and selective.

Diagram #3: Women’s Short-term Mating Strategy

venn diagram: women's short-term mating strategy
Benefits of a Woman’s Short-term Strategy

Women have a short-term mating strategy that brings several benefits. According to David Buss (Evolutionary Psychology, The New Science of the Mind, 1999), there are three classes of benefits (among a few other hypotheses) that are supported by research:

  1. Resource acquisition. Women could engage in short-term mating for the immediate exchange of meat, goods, or services. Ancestral women may have also engaged in short-term mating in order to obscure the paternity of her offspring (“paternity confusion”) and elicit resources from more than one man. In addition, short-term mating may have brought protection (a resource) from other males when the primary mate was not present.
  2. Genetic benefits. Short-term mating potentially brings enhanced fertility. It may also bring superior or diverse genes from a high-status male, thus giving offspring a better chance of survival against environmental change. Also, the “sexy son” hypothesis suggests that male progeny of such men are very attractive to women in the next generation, thus securing a positive genetic legacy.
    • Physical Stature Equals Genetic Fitness. Women’s prioritization of physical features in short-term partners is consistent with strategic pluralism theory that says women may seek genetic fitness in short-term partners. (Gangestad and Simpson, 2000). According to this “good genes” theory (Thornhill and Gangestad, 1993), women are attracted to men who effectively advertise having genes that are resistant to local pathogens.
    • Ovulation and Short-term Mating Success. Research has found that women value such characteristics (including the scent of symmetrical men) even more around the time of ovulation. As a result, symmetrical and muscular men have greater short-term mating success compared to their relatively asymmetrical and non-muscular peers. They have more sexual partners and are more desirable as affair partner.
  3. Mate Switching Hypotheses. While preferences for traits associated with high-testosterone (muscularity, strength and facial symmetry) tend to support the hypothesis that women seek genetic benefits in short-term mating, recent research and DNA evidence has cast some doubt on this as a motivation and has drawn more attention to the “mate switching hypothesis.” (See Mate Switching Hypothesis).

David Buss (Evolutionary Psychology, The New Science of the Mind, 1999) identifies three reasons for a woman’s short-term mating strategy (infidelity or extra-pair copulations) that confirm a mate switching hypothesis.

Hit the Road Jack

One study found that extra-pair mating made it easier for a women to break up with their current partner — what Buss calls “mate expulsion.” David Buss and Cindy Meston report (Why Women Have Sex, 2009) that women have affairs to test the waters to see if there is someone better out there for them, in an attempt to “trade-up” for a better partner. Women have affairs if they think their relationship may be dissolving. And women cultivate “back-up mates.” As Buss likes to joke in quoting a female research participant, “men are like soup; you always want to have some on the back burner.”

From a Short “Flight” to a Long “Flight”

According to “sexual strategies theory” (Buss and Schmitt, 1993), by being open to short-term relationships, women can increase their options for long-term ones. They can solicit the interest of many men and use this wider net to evaluate long-term mates, or they may be able to turn short-term relationships into long-term ones. If women use short-term mating to assess or attain long-term relationships, they may prioritize the same traits in short-term partners that they prioritize in long-term partners.

More Clues to Mate Switching and Sex Differences

There are other clues to explain the infidelity (short-term mating strategy) of women as reported by Buss –clues that fortify a mate switching objective.

  1. Women who are sexually or emotionally unhappy have affairs. This is not true for men. Men do not often report marital unhappiness as a reason for an affair. According to Buss, men can be relatively happy in their marriage and still have affairs. The issue of emotional dissatisfaction appears to be specific to women.
  2. 70% of women become emotionally involved with or fall in love with their affair partner. In contrast, only about 30% of men do.
  3. As stated above, qualities desired by women in an affair partner are often similar to the qualities desired in a long-term mate. Women want character traits (e.g. kindness) and resources in an affair partner, just not as much as in a long-term mate. This is not true for men. For example, women usually want intelligence in an affair partner. For men, intelligence in an affair partner is mostly irrelevant. Desiring the same qualities in an affair partner further supports a view that the female long-term mating strategy is significantly more adaptive in evolution than the short-term mating strategy.
Self-esteem in Women

Studies have shown that a woman’s self-esteem is a significant predictor of short-term-mating. Women scoring low on self-esteem tended to have a greater number of sex partners, one-night stands, and a preference for short-term sexual relationships.

Costs of Women’s Short-term Strategy
  • Risk of a sexually transmitted disease
  • Risk of pregnancy
  • Reduced value as long-term mate
  • Greater risk of physical and sexual abuse
  • Risk of withdrawal of resources from husband

While the benefits noted above seem compelling, the costs of a woman’s short-term mating strategy far outweigh the benefits and produce a “response desire” and “braking” pattern of female sexual response. These costs directly influence female sexual response and sexual psychology. (See Spontaneous and Response Desire – the Underbelly of Heterosexual Mating.)

Men’s Short-term Strategy

“There seems to be no question but that the human male would be promiscuous in his choice of sexual partners throughout the whole of his life if there were no social restrictions. The human female is much less interested in a variety of partners.” ~ Alfred Kinsey

Evolutionary adaptation has dictated a preference by men for a short-term mating strategy. Trivers’s (1972) theory of parental investment and sexual selection provides a powerful reproductive basis for expecting sex differences. Men, more than women, are predicted to have evolved a greater desire for casual sex and a variety of partners. The same act of sex that causes a woman to invest nine months of internal gestation obligates the man to practically no investment.

Premium On Female Beauty

Men’s short-term strategy puts an immense premium on physical beauty and fertility. Character traits required of a woman are minimal (i.e. “don’t be dangerously crazy”) and resources are not required at all. Men’s short-term strategy is more predominant than their long-term strategy, but the difference is less pronounced behaviorally in modern times.

Diagram #4: Men’s Short-term Mating Strategy

venn diagram: men's short-term mating strategy
Restraints on Men’s Short-term Mating Strategy

Although men could potentially conceive more offspring if they were promiscuous instead of monogamous, there may have been at least two restraining factors of evolution against male promiscuity. Reproductive success depends on the survival of one’s offspring. Children have a better chance of survival if two parents contribute. Men who were highly promiscuous may not have been able to support all their offspring, and thus may not have been as genetically successful as more monogamous men.

Women Have to Consent

As suggested by Roy Baumeister and Dianne Tice (The Social Dimension of Sex, 2001), a second possible restraining factor on male promiscuity is an obvious one: the question of whether a male can get a lot of potential mates if females won’t consent to mate with him.

Promiscuous Male At Possible Disadvantage

Men not predisposed to mate in long-term relationships might not have left enough offspring for a totally promiscuous genetic tendency to proliferate. According to Baumeister and Tice, males thus evolved to mate in long-term relationships to raise their children to adulthood, and also evolved a tendency to be more open than females to a wider variety of mating opportunities. Perhaps this greater need for compromise between monogamy and promiscuity can also explain why men have a greater variety of sexual practices and interests than women.

Put A Ring On It

David Buss suggests (Evolutionary Psychology, The New Science of the Mind, 1999), that men, even in ancestral times, who failed to commit might not have attracted any women at all. Women’s requirement for consenting to sex could have made it costly for men to pursue a short-term strategy exclusively. In the economics of reproductive effort, the costs of not pursuing a permanent mate may have been prohibitively high for most men.

High Mate Value Men Like Short-term Mating

High mate value men (on the “Self-perceived Mating Success Scale”) tended to have sex at an earlier age, a greater number of sex partners, and more sex relative to their lower mate-value counterparts. And high mate value men scored higher on the “Sapiosexuality Inventory” suggesting that they are pursuing a short-term mating strategy. These are measures of the holy grail of sexual turn-on for women: self-confidence. This is what “cocky” really means. (BTW, penis size does indeed contribute to this self-confidence — to being “cocky.” (See Undiscussables.)

Men Lower Their Standards

Buss and Schmitt (1993) found that men desire more partners and lower their standards for short-term mating. Men in this study expressed lower standards than women on forty-one of the forty-seven characteristics named as potentially desirable in a casual mate. For brief encounters, men required a lower level of charm, athleticism, education, generosity, honesty, independence, kindness, intelligence, loyalty, sense of humor, sociability, wealth, responsibility, spontaneity, cooperation, and emotional stability.

Closing Time Phenomenon

Relatedly, men shift perceptions of attractiveness near closing time in a singles bar regardless of how much alcohol they have consumed. With this “closing time phenomenon,” women just look better and better as the night wears on. In contrast to men, most women can obtain a desirable temporary mate without having to relax their standards at closing time.

Sex Ratio Effect on Short-term Mating for Both Sexes

Men shift to brief encounters when more women are sexually available (positive sex ratio), satisfying their desire for variety. Correlated to that, women on college campuses today will shift toward more short-term mating because the surplus of women causes more intra-sexual competition. When there is a surplus of men, in contrast, both sexes shift toward a long-term mating strategy marked by stable marriages and fewer divorces.

Benefits of Men’s Short-term Strategy
  • Potential to reproduce; more sex partners
  • No parental investment
Costs of Men’s Short-term Strategy
  • Risk of sexually transmitted diseases
  • Some resource investment
  • Less protection for genetic children
  • Acquiring a reputation as a womanizer
  • Suffering violence from husbands, brothers or fathers
  • Retaliatory affairs by wives or a costly divorce

The benefits of the male short-term mating strategy have shaped the evolution of male neurology and physiology and influenced male behavior, especially sexual initiation and intra-sexual competition. But costs do mitigate this strategy, especially in modern times.

Men’s Long-term Strategy

For long-term mates, men still put a premium on physical beauty and markers of health and fertility for initial attraction. Buss and Schmitt (1993) studied 37 cultures and confirmed the universal desire for physical attractiveness in a long-term mate. But men also want a woman who is faithful and kind. Resources are considered but are usually a distant third in importance. As stated above, men who are willing to commit to a long-term relationship have a wider range of women from which to choose.

Marriage in the U.S. Favors Men With Resources

As discussed in Dynamics in the Mating Economy: Domain #1 of Male-Female Difference, marriage patterns in modern America confirm the fact that men with resources are most able to actualize their preferences.

Diagram #5: Men’s Long-term Mating Strategy

venn diagram: men's long-term mating strategy
Benefits of Men’s Long-term Strategy
  • Increased paternity certainty
  • Improved social competitiveness of children
  • Sexual and social companionship, especially for “beta” males
Costs of Men’s Long-term Strategy
  • Restricted sexual opportunities
  •  Heavy parental investment
  • Heavy relationship investment

The benefits of men’s long-term mating strategy tend to outweigh the costs in most cultures in modern times. Pair-bonding and relative monogamy is the norm in most modern societies.

References

Buss, D. M., (1999). Evolutionary Psychology, The New Science of the Mind.

Buss, D. M. & Schmitt, D.P. (1993) “Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating.” Psychological Review, 100, 204-232.

Clark, R. D. & Hatfield, E. (1989). “Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers.” Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 2, 39-55.

Dibble, et al (2015, June 11). “Simmering on the back burner: communication with and disclosure of relationship alternatives.” Communication Quarterly, 63(3), 329-344.

Gangestad, S.W. & Simpson, J.A. (2000). “The evolution of human mating: Tradeoffs and strategic pluralism.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573-587.

Li, P. (2008). “Intelligent Priorities: Adaptive Long- and Short-term Mate Preferences,” in Mating Intelligence, eds., Geher, G., & Miller, G.

Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S..W. (1993). “Human facial beauty: Averageness, symmetry and parasite resistance.” Human Nature, 4, 237-269.

Trivers, R. L. (1972). “Parental investment ad sexual selection.” In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man, (pp.136-179).

Appendix

 
Domains of Male-Female Differences in Sexual Psychology

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 bind 

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

 

*Assumptions of Mating Straight Talk
  • Men and Women have similarities as human beings, and aggregate differences from each other, 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”.
  • Men and Women have differences that we must acknowledge and understand in order to have satisfying heterosexual (romantic and sexual) relationships.
  • Men and Women have differences that we must acknowledge and understand in order to bring clarity to the “politics” of sex and gender.
  • Men and Women need “straight talk” (radical honesty) in order to uncover and accept our differences.
  • Men and Women need straight talk about our differences in order to empower one another for co-creative relationships.

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

Dynamics in the Mating Economy: Domain #1 of Male-Female Difference

Dynamics in the Mating Economy: Domain #1 of Male-Female Difference

by | Sep 8, 2020 | Dating & Mating Economy, Sexuality

“There are a number of mechanical devices which increase sexual arousal, particularly in women. Chief among them is the Mercedes-Benz SL500.” ~ Lynn Lavner

Twenty-two Domains of Difference (See list in Appendix)

This is first in a series of posts that will explain the twenty-two domains of difference between men and women in their sexual psychology and response. (See introduction to the series: Male-Female Differences in Sexual Psychology and Response.) Differences are based on statistical aggregates of all men and women from authoritative research studies. These are tendencies that apply to the general population of male and female heterosexuals but do predict the unique sexuality of a particular man or woman. It may be instructive, however, to understand our foundational “wiring” – the evolutionary adaptations that remain active in modern human mating. Most of these domains of difference can affect the equilibrium of our relationships.

Behavioral Dynamics in the Mating Economy – Domain #1
This post will explore differences related to:

  1. General psychological sex differences in the mating economy (an overview)
  2. The influence of money, status, and resources in the mating economy
  3. The operation of the mating economy as a market place – the haves and have-nots
  4. The nature and influence of the “bargain” of exchange between men and women
  5. The psychological difference between the pursuer and the one pursued

General Sex Differences in the Psychology of the Mating Economy:

  • Women have the psychology of choice and an abundance of sexual attention during their reproductive years (this is mostly good, but sometimes bad); men mostly do not have choice or an abundance of mating opportunities. Beautiful women have immense choice in the mating economy and rich men have the greatest opportunity to be chosen.
  • Men (mostly) have the psychology of sexual scarcity and activation of the sympathetic nervous system as pursuer and competitor with other males.
  • Women have the psychology of caution and fear — sexual inhibition and “brakes” on sexual activity and experience of risk. Women fear being physically hurt, left to fend on their own with a child, or suffering reputational damage.
  • Women are prone to have regret or guilt about what they did in the sexual and mating realm.
  • Men are prone to have guilt and regret about what they did not do. (Lack of courage to initiate toward a woman.)
  • Men have fear of humiliation and being rejected. This fear is “existential” in its impact – it evokes the very essence of manhood and worth because it goes to the core of evolution: male sexuality and the passing on of the genetic code. Men’s fear of humiliation is mostly understood by women but the male psychology of existential threat is not acknowledged, understood, or given an empathic ear.
  • Men have anger that comes from this threat and the lack of sexual access; there are no easy answers to this in the mating economy. The psychology of the haves and have-nots is ubiquitous across many domains of social life in the West.
  • Some women experience their own existential angst related to the need to have a child; this too is encoded into sexual expression. The female sexual “instinct” interfaces with the maternal/care-taking instinct.
  • Women also have fear, anger, and grief about being over-looked or no longer being desired by the men that are acceptable to them as mates. This is a loss of “erotic power.”
  • Women often experience a significant trade-off problem in their mate selection decision-making between choosing a man of status (financially successful) and choosing a man with a loyal and generous character. Both trait profiles are required. Men do not have this particular trade-off dilemma in their mate selection psychology nor any other trade-off problem as significant as that in their long-term mating strategy. (This will be explored in a future post, Domain #3: Trait Preferences and Priorities in Mate Selection.)
  • Men are driven by a spontaneous, initiating sexual psychology (spontaneous desire) and women are characterized by a cautionary, “response desire.” (See Spontaneous and Response Desire – the Underbelly of Heterosexual Mating.) I will explore this in Domain #6: Spontaneous Desire vs. Response Desire.
  • Finally, the psychology of the mating economy is haunted by the undertow of the erotic-economic bargain: the exchange of beauty and fertility for resources and protection. The dynamic of this exchange is anchored in the fundamental objectives of human mating strategy and reproduction. In modern times, it is characterized by motivated reasoning used to deny its existence. This is the psychology of collusion, rationalization, and avoidance. The erotic-economic bargain has political implications.

Supply and Demand Forces in the Mating Marketplace
In the human mating economy, men mostly sell and women mostly buy; this is the predominant evolutionary dynamic. The buyer (female chooser) significantly controls the marketplace.

All behaviors of mate selection (intersexual selection by women and intra-sexual competition primarily by men) are driven by supply and demand forces for sexual access to the best (highest mate value) mates. Fertile (and consensually most “beautiful”) women are in great demand and the supply of men interested in them creates significant differences in behavioral dynamics – leading to a multitude of male initiation strategies, misreading of signals by women (male “over-perception bias”), and a reproductive variance curve in the human population: more women have sex and reproduce in the general population than do men, as shown by genetic studies (see below).

Most Men Want the Same Women

Simply said, roughly 80% of men compete for 20% or less of the same (highest mate value) women in the overall mating economy. Interested men are in great supply in this market (as driven by biological-hormonal imperatives), and receptive women are scarce. Supply and demand forces skew odds in favor of female choice and dramatically work against the odds of a man being chosen.

Pursuer vs. Pursued

The 180% difference between a buyer and a seller in the mating-sexual economy is dramatic in its psychological impact. It affects motivation, origination of desire, perceptions of risk and safety, and ultimately the experience of sexual scarcity or abundance.

The psychology (lived experience) of the sexual initiator and pursuer is vastly different than the psychology of the one pursued and the one who chooses among her pursuers. This general difference between men and women cannot be overstated.

Male intra-sexual competition (men competing against one another) has unique behavioral and psychological dynamics. The psychology of female intersexual selection (preferential mate choice) – the experience of being pursued, is a mixed bag. It can be exhilarating to be adored and desired, until it is not. Women’s intra-sexual competition (women competing against one another) for male attention is a different behavioral phenomenon than male-on-male competition. (I will explore intra-sexual competition in Domain #2: Long-term vs. Short-term Mating Strategies.)

Erotic-Economic Bargain – the Ultimate Exchange in the Mating Economy

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 ability of a man to protect and provide for children is the key 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. Female erotic power fuels the fire of male sexuality. Sexual access to women is the penultimate motivation and prize. The strength of a man’s preference for physically attractive women and a woman’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.

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 is progressing and evolving in its influence. But most evidence “on the ground” of the modern dating scene (with some nuances related to older or senior Americans) does not show a 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 reveal that women explicitly ask for “financially secure” or “professional” partners roughly twenty times more often that men do.

 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 holding the agreement in place. This foundational collusion of exchange influences all other pieces of the heterosexual “puzzle.” To be clear, even though the erotic-economic bargain is often not explicit or conscious, it fertilizes (sorry for the pun) the soil of human reproduction.  The erotic-economic bargain is largely “undiscussable.”

Mate Value is the “Currency”

Mate value (and assessed mate value trajectory of men) rules the marketplace. Men with resources, status, and larger physical attributes (especially height) have greater mate value than men who do not. Women’s mate value is primarily determined by physical characteristics of beauty, waist-to-hip ratio, and other signals of fertility. Mate value drives the initial mate selection process. Mate value includes elements of character and other preferred traits as courtship continues into the period of relationship maintenance. But human sexuality is primarily designed to choose and access sexual partners, not keep them over time.

“In or Out of Your League”

It is no accident that we commonly rate ourselves and others on a “1-10” point scale. While there is a tendency for both sexes to over-rate vs. under-rate themselves, we generally know if our desired partner is “in or out of our league.” If we are a “7”, we strive to bargain successfully for a “7-9.” Men, especially, who know they are seen as a “5” or below, lust hopelessly after unattainable women who are a “9” or “10.” This understandable tendency is biologically, not rationally inspired. There is painful despondency for both sexes related to the invisibility of low mate value. Narratives in comedy, television, literature, and film often use mate value mismatches as fodder for entertainment.

Assortative Mating is the Visible Part of the Iceberg

Assortative mating is the tendency to be attracted to someone who is similar in age, socio-economic status, educational attainment, geographic location, physical appearance, and facial attractiveness. Someone who is “in our league.” Linked to mate value, assortative mating is the dominant process in the mating market. Assortative mating is the part of the iceberg that is visible above the water; below the surface is the erotic-economic bargain that may influence how things sort out.

Definition of a Good Deal

Assortative mating demonstrates the power of “mate value” attributions about self and others. These value assessments fuel strategic mating behavior toward the people we desire, or at least determine who we actually end up with. People self-sort according to their mate value; traits and priorities are unconsciously or consciously ranked and considered as a whole. The mate value of most people is limited, so one cannot attract a committed partner who is at the maximum of every desired trait. Trade-offs are made. But the definition of a “good” deal in the mating game can be traced to how well the erotic-economic bargain is maximized in the favor of each person, considering their individual mate value and the availability of potential partners in the local mating pool.

Mate Value Sex Differences and Assortative Mating
Assortative mating is a neutral process with regard to sex differences over-all. Men and women seek similarities along many dimensions of background, and the market naturally brings them a partner with an equal mate value. The assortative mating process does match for equivalent mate value, but the mate value of a woman is powerfully defined by her physical beauty, and the mate value of a man is largely based on the size of his financial resources.

Trait Preferences and Perceptions of Attraction

Mate selection research has documented many shared preferences of men and women; they seek love, kindness, intelligence, and good health in their mates (as they uniquely define those traits). When entering a relationship, women place greater emphasis on the immediate access to resources in order to assess a potential mate’s willingness and ability to invest in her; if a man does show immediate investment in a relationship, the woman is typically more likely to have sex with him. (Spreecher, Sullivan, & Hatfield, 1994).

“The two sexes often engage in this exchange of reproductive currencies with men looking to exchange investment for sex and women preferring to exchange sex for investment.” (Kruger, 2008).

Emphasis on Attractiveness and Financial Prospects

Males and females rate the characteristics of physical attractiveness and financial prospects differently. The degree of emphasis that women place on the importance of a man’s financial prospects has been well documented (see references). The different valuation of these two traits is consistent throughout the world, with men placing a higher value on physical attractiveness and women placing a higher value on financial prospects. Men are generally indifferent to the financial prospects of women (Buss, 1989). But a woman’s preference for a mate with financial prospects also influences her perception of a man’s physical attractiveness.

Money and Beauty are Directly Correlated

Psychological researchers Richard Urdy and Bruce Eckland did a study of men and women to predict marital and socio-economic status fifteen years into the future. They used attractiveness ratings based on high school annual pictures. Results showed that a man’s level of resources was directly correlated with the level of physical attractiveness of his partner. Attractiveness allowed females to secure highly educated husbands with a high income. Money and beauty were correlated in a positive and linear relationship. 

The Car Makes the Man

Gregory Shuler & David McCord (Western Carolina University) used subject ratings from the website “Hot or Not” and found a linear and positive relationship between the value of a man’s car and the degree of attractiveness perceived by women. A man was depicted with three different cars: a decrepit Dodge Neon, a Ford Focus, and a Mercedes C Class C300. He was rated most “hot” when pictured with the Mercedes.

As reported in the British Journal of Psychology (April, 2009), researchers Michael Dunn and Robert Searle found that men positioned with a high-status, silver Bentley Continental GT were rated significantly more attractive than when the man was positioned with a red Ford Fiesta ST. When the conditions were reversed by sex, men did not rate women as more attractive in the high status vs. low-status condition; it had no influence. 

“Costly-signaling” by Men

Since women have a preference for men with resources, men have evolved strategies for the purpose of demonstrating this characteristic for women. Strategies include boasting about one’s resources, the derogation of a competitor’s status, ambition or resources, and displaying conspicuous consumption when in potential mating scenarios. Men tend to increase spending on luxury items (like a car) that indicates “costly-signaling” as a display of expendable income that could be potentially be allocated to a mate.

Diamonds Are A Girl’s Best Friend

Other studies have shown a positive and linear correlation between female physical beauty and the monetary values of engagement and wedding rings. The value and expenditures for courtship and nuptial gifts increase with the physical attractiveness of the female. In a study by researchers Jaime Cloud and Madalyn Taylor (“The Effect of Mate Value Discrepancy on Hypothetical Engagement Ring Purchases”), women desired greater resource investment to compensate for a lack of physical attractiveness in their male partners.

Reproductive Variance: the Haves and the Have-nots

“Reproductive variance” refers to the variability of reproductive success for human males and females. For men, the difference between men who did not reproduce (the have-nots) and the men who reproduced prolifically (the haves), is very wide. For women, there is much less variance; most women reproduce and the number of children they have is constrained by their biology.

DNA studies by Jason Wilder and colleagues revealed that approximately 80% of women in human history have reproduced compared to approximately 40% of men. The human population is descended from twice as many women as men. Author and influential social psychologist, Roy Baumeister, (Is There Anything Good About Men), says reproductive variance between men and women was probably even greater through much of human history, and especially human prehistory. “In many animal species, close to 90% of the females but only 20% of the male reproduced. In modern times, human monogamy has spread across the globe. But in past eras, polygamy (one husband, multiple wives) was the norm, the reproductive imbalance would have been more severe” than 80% to 40%.

Most Men are Losers in the Mating Game

Put another way, a woman’s odds of having a line of descendants down to the present is double those of a man. Most women who ever lived to adulthood probably had at least one baby and in fact have a descendant alive today. Most men did not. Baumeister again: “Most men who ever lived, like all the wild horses that did not ascend to the alpha males’ top spot, left behind no genetic traces of themselves. Of all the humans ever born, most women became mothers, but most men did not become fathers.” Baumeister considers this “the single most underappreciated fact about the difference between men and women.”

The Super-Haves – Men at the Top of the “Economic”- Status Hierarchy

One of the greatest conquers in world history (13th century), Genghis Khan, is reported to have sired hundreds and possibly over a thousand children. In 2003, an international team of geneticists published a DNA analysis of central Asians. Researchers found that one in twelve men in Central Asia had the same Y chromosome. Genghis Khan had roughly 16 million descendants in 2003. 

Other Males Who Got More than Their Share

Other male all-stars in the genetic/Y chromosome reproductive hall of fame are: Middle Age king, King Nail. One in 12 in Ireland are genetically linked to King Nail, possibly 2-3 million worldwide. Manchu ruler (17th century), Nurhaci, or perhaps his grandfather Giocangga, has 1.6 million descendants alive today. Moulay Ismail ibn Sharif, a warrior King who ruled Morocco from 1672-1727, had 500 concubines and 888 children. King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. Idi Amin, Ugandan despot in the 1970s had 4 wives and 30 children. Large harems were the order of the day for the Egyptian Pharaohs, the Aztec kings, the Turkish sultans, the African kings, and the Chinese emperors. (Laura Betzig, Despotism and Differential Reproduction).

Incas Allocated Women According to Status

Inca law allowed male aristocrats 50 women apiece; the leaders of vassal nations (Inca feudal territories) were allotted 30, the heads of 100,000 men were given 20 women, and so on down to leaders of ten men, who were allotted 3. The men at the bottom often went unmarried (Sex and War, Malcom Potts and Thomas Hayden, p. 18-19). 

Erotic and Economic Power – the Age of Celebrity

At the high end of male and female mate value, rich men and beautiful women find each other. The erotic-economic bargain is commonly demonstrated by the preference and ability of older men to partner with significantly younger women – women usually in their fertile years at the time of the union. Take a look at the list below (Appendix) of high status, celebrity, rich men, and their wives. You will see up to 60+ years of age difference. Money can allow men to “mate down” decades to find beautiful women who will choose to partner with them.

Of course, many of these celebrities have attractive intellectual, physical, and emotional qualities (i.e. their talent), but what they have most importantly is high status and great wealth.

 Undeniably we see evidence of:

  • the power of fame and money to attract younger women – with relative doses of charm, talent, and physical attractiveness.
  • how resources, prestige, and status drive the mating system and female choice.
  • how men, given options literally “afforded” them, will naturally pursue the most beautiful women.
  • how the resistance against age difference, proclamations of “he is too old,” are relative to the degree of fame and money the man possesses.

All the men included here are rich and famous. All the women are beautiful. The erotic-economic bargain in stark terms.

 

Appendix

 
Age Differences of Male Celebrities and their Partners – The “Haves” of Erotic-Economic Exchange
Jay Marshall and Anne Nicole Smith 62 years
Hugh Hefner and Crystal Harris 60 years
Dick Van Dyke and Arlene Silver 46 years
Mick Jagger and Melanie Hamrick 43 years
Robert Duval and Luciana Pedraza 41 years
Patrick Stewart and Sunny Ozell  38 years
Rupert Murdoch and Wendy Deng 38 years
Charlie Chaplin and Oona O’Neill 36 years
Clint Eastwood and Dina Ruiz  35 years
Woody Allen and Soon-Yi Previn 35 years
David Foster and Katharine McPhee 34 years
Doug Hutchinson and Courtney Stodden 34 years
Lee Majors and Faith Noelle Cross 34 years
Gary Grant and Dyan Cannon 33 years
Dennis Quaid and Santa Auzina 33 years
Aristotle Onassis and Jackie Kennedy 33 years
Billy Joel and Alexis Roderick  33 years
Bing Crosby and Kathryn Grant  33 years
David Lynch and Emily Stofle 32 years
Billy Joel and Katie Lee  32 years
John Cleese and Jennifer Wade  31 years
Ronnie Wood and Sally Humphreys 31 years
Jeff Goldblum and Emilie Livingston 30 years
Frank Sinatra and Mia Farrow 30 years
William Shatner and Elizabeth Anderson 30 years
Alan Thicke and Tanya Callau  28 years
Rod Stewart and Penny Lancaster 27 years
Eric Clapton and Melia McEnery  27 years
Nelson Mandela and Graca Machel 27 years
Larry King and Shawn Southwick  26 years
Alec Baldwin and Hilaria Thomas 26 years
Bill Murray and Jenny Lewis 26 years
Steve Martin and Anne Stringfield 26 years
Rupert Murdoch and Jerry Hall  26 years
Dane Cook and Kelsi Taylor  26 years
Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall 25 years
Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones 25 years
Rod Stewart and Rachel Hunter 25 years
Kelsey Grammer and Kayte Walsh 25 years
Bruce Willis and Emma Heming 24 years
Rene Angelil and Celine Dion 24 years
Donald Trump and Melania  24 years
Christopher Knight and Adrianne Curry 23 years
Johnny Depp and Amber Heard 22 years
Harrison Ford and Calista Flockhart 22 years
Sylvester Stallone and Jennifer Flavin 22 years
Kevin Costner and Christine Baumgartner  22 years
Carlo Ponti and Sophia Loren 22 years
Glen Campbell and Kim Campbell 21 years
Floyd Mayweather and Raemarni Ball 20 years
Prince Albert of Monaco and Princess Charlene 20 years
Warren Beatty and Annette Bening 19 years
Jason Statham and Rosie Huntington-W. 19 years
Anthony Hopkins and Stella Arroyave  19 years
Eddie Murphy and Paige Butcher  19 years
Jason Statham and Rosie Hunington-W. 19 years
Dominic Purcell and AnnaLynne McCord  18 years
Christian Slater and Brittany Lopez 18 years
Howard Stern and Beth Ostrosky  18 years
Paul McCartney and Nancy Shevell 18 years
Jerry Seinfeld and Jessica Sklar 17 years
Oliver Sarkozy and Mary-Kate Olsen 17 years
George Clooney and Amal Alamuddin  17 years
Bradley Cooper and Suki Waterhouse 17 years
Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes 16 years
Kevin Kline and Phoebe Cates 16 years
References

Buss. D. M. & Schmitt, D.P. (1993) “Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating.”  Psychological Review, 100, 204-232.

Buss, Shackleford, Kirkpatrick & Larsen, (2001). “A half century of mate preferences: the cultural evolution of values.”  Journal of Marriage and Family, 63 (2), 491-503.

Dunn, M. &  Searle, R., (2009). “Effect of manipulated prestige-car ownership on both sex attractiveness ratings.”  British Journal of Psychology, 101, (Pt 1) 69-80.

Gangestad, S.W. & Simpson, J.A. (2000). “The evolution of human mating: Tradeoffs and strategic pluralism.”  Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573-587.

Kruger, D. J. (2008). “Young adults attempt exchanges in reproductively relevant currencies.” Evolutionary Psychology, 6(1), 204-212.

McAndrew, F., “Costly Signaling Theory,” Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Science, 2019.

Shuler, G., & McCord, D. (2010). “Determinants of Male Attractiveness: “Hotness” Ratings as a Function of Perceived Resources,” American Journal of Psychological Research, Vol. 6, No. 1.

Spreecher, S., Sullivan, Q., & Hatfield, E. (1994).  Mate selection preferences: Gender differences examined in national sample.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(6), 1074-1080.

Udry, J.R. & Eckland, B.K. (1984).  “The benefits of being attractive: Differential payoffs for men and women.” Psychological Reports, 54, 47-56.

Wilder, J.A. et al, (2004). “Genetic evidence for unequal effective population sizes of human females and males.”  Molecular Biology and Evolution, 21, 2047-2057.

 
Domains of Male-Female Differences in Sexual Psychology

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 bind 

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

 

*Assumptions of Mating Straight Talk
  • Men and Women have similarities as human beings, and aggregate differences from each other, 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”.
  • Men and Women have differences that we must acknowledge and understand in order to have satisfying heterosexual (romantic and sexual) relationships.
  • Men and Women have differences that we must acknowledge and understand in order to bring clarity to the “politics” of sex and gender.
  • Men and Women need “straight talk” (radical honesty) in order to uncover and accept our differences.
  • Men and Women need straight talk about our differences in order to empower one another for co-creative relationships.

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