Want An Equal Marriage? Then Date As Equals

Want An Equal Marriage? Then Date As Equals

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. 

The Male Sexual Deficit: Social Fact of the 21st Century

The Male Sexual Deficit: Social Fact of the 21st Century

the”‘“Feminists insist that men’s greater demand for sexual activity is an outdated myth. Recent sex surveys prove the myth to be a fact and one that the social sciences have yet to address.”  

~ Catherine Hakim

Men want more sex than women (in statistical aggregate with individual differences).  This is not a criticism of men or a judgment of women.  This is just the way it is. We were designed this way over eons of time. The fact that men want more sex than women comports directly with the evolutionary evidence of sexual selection and the science of human mating. It reflects and is predicted by the difference between the sexual excitation system dominant in men versus the sexual inhibition system dominant in women.  (See prior posts.)  Only the questioning of this fact seems surprising.

Unsatisfying Sex Does Not Account for the Deficit

I have recently written about why heterosexual women may not want the sex they are being offered (Why Women Are Bored in Monogamous Relationships and Addressing Barriers to Female Sexual Pleasure – Let’s Get Educated).  But the prospect of unsatisfying sex does not account for the disparity of desire between men and women and ultimately the male sex deficit.  The “male sexual deficit” (also called surplus male sexuality) is the condition of men not getting enough sex.

The Male Sexual Deficit is Caused By:
  1. Women generally have a lower sex drive (sexual motivation) — the predominance of their sexual inhibition system (responsive desire). Men have a higher need for sexual activity and a need for more variety of sexual partners.
  2. Women find only a few men “suitable.” Female selectivity is a critical sex difference and evolutionary adaptation. The criteria of mate choice in a woman’s long-term mating strategy reveals “choosiness” for a narrow cluster of traits that define a “suitable” mate.  Related to “suitability,” there is a wide attraction disparity between men and women; men find a majority of women attractive; women find the majority of men unattractive.  (This fact is mostly undiscussable in the dating advice marketplace.)
  3. A severe supply and demand imbalance in the mating market that disadvantages men – the result of a lower female sex drive and “choosiness.” Available and willing women are in short supply compared to the significant demand by interested men.
  4. Women often do not want the “kind of sex” offered by their male partner, causing relative boredom, disinterest, and reduced sexual activity.
  5. There is an increase in the percentage of women who identify as lesbian or bi-sexual in practice.  Female sexual fluidity is growing. Women’s inherent sexual plasticity is leaving men on the sidelines.
Male Sexual Deficit in the Twenty-First Century

This post is named after and draws from a paper written by British sociologist Catherine Hakim.  It also captures the wisdom of evolutionary psychologists pertinent to this topic, primarily the work of David Buss. (See bios in the Appendix.)

Hakim describes the sexual deficit among men as a universal phenomenon in modern societies.  This phenomenon “emerged” during her research on sexual cultures, internet dating, and marriage markets.

Harbingers and Evidence of the Deficit: Sex Differentials Around the World

“The sex differentials in sexuality remain large, substantively important, and are found in all cultures, including the sexually liberated societies of Scandinavia.”  ~ Catherine Hakim

Hakim reviewed studies conducted worldwide over the last 30 years and reported a long list of “sex differentials” between men and women.  Below are just a few examples from various countries.

  • The most commonly reported sexual problem is the lack of interest in having sex.  In all countries, the rate of women is at least double the rate for men at all ages.
  • Men are four times more likely than women to agree to sexual approaches from their partner (38% of men versus 11% in Finland).
  • A majority of women regard love as a precondition for sex, while a majority of men reject the idea. (Sweden)
  • Men express two to ten times more enthusiasm for trying every variation in sexual activity. (Britain)
  • Men are three times more likely to prefer several concurrent lovers. (Estonia and Sweden)
  • Regular masturbation is two to three times more common among men in Sweden, Australia, Finland, and Britain.
  • Men are three times more likely to have frequent sexual fantasies and to use erotica of all kinds.
  • Casual sex was regarded as acceptable by a two-thirds majority of men vs. a one-third majority of women in Britain.
  • Men reported extra-marital affairs twice as often as women. Only in France, Spain and Italy do men and women begin to converge in their acceptance and practice of affairs.

A cross-cultural study of 29 countries showed that sex differences in desire and sexual interest are universal, but the gap between men and women is larger in male-dominated cultures than in liberal western democracies.

Male Sexual Deficit in the United States

Denise Donnelly (University of New Hampshire) analyzed a sample of 6,029 married persons in the United States to determine the correlates of sexual inactivity in marriage and to see if sexually inactive marriages were less happy and stable than those with sexual activity.  Donnelly found that about 1 in 7 marriages in the U.S. are largely “sexless” — characterized by little to no sexual intimacy (“dead bedrooms” is a popular subreddit). Typically, this happens because one member of the relationship refuses to engage in sex.  It is most often the woman.  Although sexually inactive marriages are not uncommon, Donnelly concluded that they are not happy or stable marriages. Thus, lack of sexual activity may be a danger signal for many marriages.

Adverse Effects of Male Sex deficit

Hakim believes the male sexual drought negatively affects society, fracturing families and potentially leading to violence and crime.

Hakim says, with some controversy, that the male sexual deficit helps to explain sexual harassment, sexual violence, rape, infidelity, and a rising demand for commercial sexual services that is almost exclusively male.  (Below, I will provide some contrary and perhaps more reliable evidence about sexual coercion from evolutionary psychology.)

Commercial Sex Services Demonstrate the Deficit

Commercial sex services have existed in all societies, whether they are treated as legitimate or not.  The male sexual deficit explains why, in all societies, customers for the sex industry are men almost exclusively. For instance, in Greece and Italy, 40% of men have bought sexual services compared to less than 1% of women.

An International Labor Office (ILO) study of the sex industry found that demand for erotic services grows as a country (or individual) becomes more affluent; therefore, overall demand is rising.

Demand for such services from women is minuscule in all cultures, and this is not due to women’s lack of economic resources.  Some poor men will find the money if necessary but affluent women are rarely tempted. The sex industry has always been highly stratified, with a diversity of services at all price levels, because male demand exists at all income levels.

Sex Work is Lucrative But Not a Cure for the Deficit

Men’s ambivalence towards women working in the sexual entertainment industry may be because women exploit men’s “weakness” effectively. Women can earn 10 – 40 times more than in conventional jobs.  The sex industry is the sine qua non of the “erotic-economic” bargain but does not significantly depress the male sexual deficit.  (See “Erotic-Economic Bargain — the Ultimate Exchange in the Mating Economy” in Dynamics in the Mating Economy – Domain #1 of Male-Female Difference.)

Cause #1 of the Deficit:  Lower Female Sex Drive

“This gap in desire between men and women is seen in every country and culture where sex surveys have been done. The received wisdom that men always want more sex than their wives is not a stereotype, but a fact.” ~ Catherine Hakim

Measure of Desire in Developed Countries

Inside Hakim’s data set, Finnish sociologist and sexologist Osmo Kontula identified (2009) 12 measures of sexual desire (see Appendix) and offers this summary of four decades of sex research in developed countries:

  • Younger men experience sexual desire twice as frequently as women.
  • Older men experience sexual desire four times as often as women in the same age group.
  • As a result, male sexual desire is compatible with the level of desire in women approximately 20 years younger.
  • Overall, male sexual desire is manifested at least twice as often as female desire, and men would like to have sex twice as often as women.
  • The gap in sexual desire between men and women grows over time.
Female Sex Drive Is More Plastic

The national surveys on sex differences around the globe are corroborated by more detailed studies of the sex drive by Roy Baumeister and other social psychologists.  Those surveys suggest the differences in sexuality between the sexes may be due to the female sex drive being more plastic, malleable, and responsive to social influences (See Cause #5 below), whereas the male sex drive is less compliant (Baumeister, 2000, 2004).

Women’s Lower Interest Is Not a Disorder

Marta Meana, clinical psychologist and researcher in women’s sexuality, concluded (2010) that discrepancies of sexual desire within relationships are the norm rather than the exception, generally due to the woman’s lower interest in sexual activity.  She says clinicians should not treat this as a sexual disorder since very few women are distressed by their lack of desire per se.  Instead, they are worried about the impact on their relationships.

Men Want More Sex Partners – More Evidence of the Deficit

Evolutionary psychologist David Schmitt (2003) studied 16,288 individuals residing in 52 nations (2003) and found sex differences to be culturally universal without a single exception.  Men said they wanted 1.87 sex partners over the next month; women wanted only .78.  Over the next decade, men said they wanted six partners on average; women said they wanted two.  In Middle East countries, such as Lebanon and Turkey, men wanted 2.5 sex partners over the next month. In South America, 35% of men wanted more than one sex partner over the next month, but only 6% of women did.  In Japan, where levels of sex drive appear to be unusually low, six times more men (18%) than women (2.6%) wanted more than one sex partner.

Sex Difference in Rates of Infidelity is Narrowing

The infidelity rate between men and women has narrowed since sexologist Alfred Kinsey found (in 1953) that twice as many men as women had experienced at least one sexual infidelity (50% vs. 26%).  Recent studies show that men cheat with a larger number of partners, and women are choosier even in this domain, typically having a single affair.  And of those women, 70% cite love or emotional connection as the key reason for the affair. This finding points more toward the mate-switching function of female infidelity than a woman’s desire for sexual variety.  (See Mate Switching Hypothesis.) Men’s affairs are more motivated by sex with someone new, especially if they have no sex at home.

Consenting to Sex with Strangers – Sex Differences

Studies of consenting to have sex with strangers found that 75% of men approached by female confederates said “yes” to the question: “will you go to bed with me tonight?”  Nearly 100% of women said “no way” to the request from male confederates.   Most men who declined asked for a raincheck.  (The first study was done in Florida in 1989; it was later replicated in Austria, Denmark, and the Netherlands.)

“The psychological and behavioral evidence all points to the same conclusion,” says Buss, “men and women differ profoundly in their desire for sexual variety.”  (As explained in Why Women Are Bored in Monogamous Relationships, a woman may need or want a variety of experiences with the same partner.)

Unfulfilled Longings 

“The large and profound sex difference in the desire for variety is not something that merely rattles around in men’s heads,” says Buss.   “Many men are burdened by lust for a variety of different women, constant cravings that cannot ever be fully satisfied.  Sexual desire sometimes bursts forth into action.”  It explains the philandering of such men like Hugh Grant, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Charlie Sheen, who had wives or girlfriends and presumedly were not experiencing much sexual deficit.  But “it also explains,” says Buss,  “the rage of ‘incels,’ whose sexual desires remain forever unfulfilled as they watch women they want from the sidelines of the mating market.”

Men Have a Higher Sex Drive – Period

“Evolution has equipped men with a higher sex drive,”  says Buss. This is reflected in several sexual adaptations:

  • Men become sexually aroused more easily than women, especially to visual stimuli.
  • Men have more frequent and spontaneous sexual fantasies.
  • Men spontaneously think about sex twice as often as women do every day.
  • Men desire to have sex more frequently than do women.
  • Men average 679 circulating units of testosterone; women’s average is a tenth of that.

“In short,” says Buss, “the gender differences in sex drive create a gap. The less interested person has more power over if and when sex will occur, and women are often less interested.”

Causes # 2 and 3 of the Deficit:  Female Choosiness and the Mating Marketplace

“Female choosiness – deciding who qualifies for interaction, relationship escalation, and sexual access is a first principle in human mating.  ~ David Buss

Women find few men “suitable” as mates.  Female “choosiness” coupled with a lower sex drive creates a severe supply and demand imbalance in the mating market that disadvantages men.  Women who are available and willing are in short supply compared to the great demand by interested men.  As a result, many men lose out or opt-out of the market, causing a vast “surplus” of male sexuality. It is precisely this female selectivity,” says Buss, “that creates sexual conflict, sometimes expressed as resentment by those who fall below the threshold.”

Women Liked Very Few Profiles

Buss cites a study that placed 14 fake male and female profiles on Tinder and analyzed the responses to them.   Over eight thousand (8,288) men liked the female profiles, compared to just 532 women who liked the male profiles.  Although men on Tinder swiped right on hundreds of female profiles, fewer than 1% of women reciprocated that liking.

Few Women Actually On Ashley Madison

Investigative research revealed that 99% of female profiles on Ashley Madison were fake.  In reality, although there were 20 million men actively using the cheating site, only 1,492 women, less than 1% of the total user base, actively used the site.

Examples of Female Choosiness

Buss shares the story of a female friend who tried online dating.  She was described as a successful, intelligent, and attractive academic, no doubt with high mate value. She received more than 500 responses in two weeks.  However, after the end of her exhaustive screening process, she sent only one reply out of the 500.   And after a coffee date with him, “she concluded he did not exceed threshold.”  Another woman told Buss that she used Tinder and swiped right on less than .8 % of the men she saw and met only .6 % of that group, resulting in a .005 % of the total men she saw.

Attraction Disparity – the Pernicious Underbelly of the Deficit

The choosiness and caution demonstrated by women as compared to men are reiterated in Buss’s new book:  When Men Behave Badly.  Buss found that men, on average, find women more attractive than women find men attractive.  The difference is BIG!

In a study, men rated women’s attractiveness along a bell curve.  Sixty (60) percent of the women were rated by men as “average” to “very attractive.”  The women rated only 17% of the men from “average” to “attractive.”  Women rated 58% of the men as below threshold or unattractive.  Ouch.

Eons of Sexual Selection Demonstrate the Disparity

The attraction disparity is demonstrated by eons of sexual selection for the alpha male and men’s behavioral co-evolution to acquire hierarchal power and social status to be that alpha male.  Attraction disparity gives women the upper hand in the sexual marketplace.

Men Lower Their Standards

Contributing to the attractive threshold gap is men’s willingness to lower their standards for casual sexual encounters.  Men are willing to date down when it comes to sex.

Supply and Demand Forces in the Mating Marketplace

In the human mating economy, men primarily sell, and women mostly buy; this is the predominant evolutionary dynamic. Thus, the buyer (female chooser) significantly controls the marketplace.

All mate selection behaviors are driven by supply and demand forces for sexual access to the best or 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.

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 plentiful 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 and Pursued “Are Not” The Same People

The 180% difference between a buyer and a seller in the mating-sexual economy is dramatic in its psychological impact.   It affects motivation, the 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. (See “We Are Not the Same People” in Appendix)

Mate Value is the “Currency” of the Deficit

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.

Reproductive Variance – There Has Always Been a Male Sexual Deficit

“Reproductive variance” refers to the variability of reproductive success for human males and females.  More women have sex and reproduce in the general population than do men, as shown by genetic studies.  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.

Most Men are Losers in the Mating Game

DNA studies by Jason Wilder and colleagues revealed that approximately 80% of women in human history have reproduced compared to about 40% of men.  The human population is descended from twice as many women as men.

Male Sexual Deficit and Female Choice

The male sexual deficit is an expected “collateral damage” of female preferential mate choice.   Men operate as best they can within this power imbalance, and women use their “erotic capital” (a term coined by Hakim, see Appendix) to achieve their mating objectives.

Less Deficit On Campus

There are now fewer men than women on U.S. college campuses.  That gives those men a sex-ratio advantage and works against a pervasive male sexual deficit.  A sexual deficit remains for the male “losers” of mate competition on college campuses, but some men are getting laid right now that might not have 10 to 15 years ago.

Misperceptions About Mate Value – An Artifact of the Deficit

People differ profoundly in how desirable or valued they are on the mating market.  Differences in desirability create havoc in at least two fundamental ways, according to Buss.  The first centers around misperceptions.  Although both men and women can err in their self-perceived mate value, research shows that men are more likely than women to be overconfident in a variety of domains.

Men experience higher self-esteem than women – a sex difference that emerges at puberty. Men have higher estimates than women of their physical attractiveness.  Consequently, men are more likely to err in overestimating their desirability on the mating market.

Some Men Are Dumb and Dumber

                                    “So you are telling me there is a chance?”  Lloyd, Dumb and Dumber

In the movie Dumb and Dumber, Lloyd (Jim Carey) asks Mary (who is comically out of his league), “so what are my chances?  “Not good,” she says.  “You mean not good like one in a hundred,” Llyod optimistically inquires. “No, not good like one out of a million,” Mary concedes. Nevertheless, Lloyd’s optimism is undeterred.  He thinks he has a chance.

The over-perception bias among men – a belief that women may be interested in them, is a much-studied tenet of mate selection and is related to error management theory.  It is better to lose a potential mating opportunity with a direct pursuit (a false positive) than lose an opportunity by not trying (a false negative).

Everybody Wants the Best Deal in the Mating Market

According to researchers Bruch and Newman (2018), both sexes pursue partners in the mating market who are 25% more desirable than they are.  One of Buss’s colleagues asked, “why am I being pestered by men I don’t care about, but the men I am genuinely attracted to seem to show so little interest in me?”  Buss told his colleague that she is an “8” chasing after “10s” but being pursued by “6s.”

Cause #4 of the Deficit:  Women Do Not Want the “Kind of Sex” Being Offered

Repetitious, unimaginative sex by a long-term partner may produce relative boredom, disinterest, and reduced sexual activity by women.  See post Why Women Are Bored in Monogamous Relationships for discussion of this cause of the male sexual deficit.

Cause # 5 of the Deficit:  Female Sexual Fluidity is Growing

Female sexual fluidity is growing. There is an increase in the percentage of women who identify as lesbian or bi-sexual in practice.   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., memes of “toxic masculinity and the “me-too” movement).

Liberal Generation Zs – An Increasingly Fluid Population

A recent Gallup poll found one in six (15.9%) Generation Z adults (ages 18-23) identify as LGBTQ.  LGBTQ identification is lower in each older generation, including 2% or less of respondents born before 1965.  Young people who are politically liberal identify as LGBTQ at astronomical rates.  Gallup found nearly thirty-one percent (30.7) percent of Gen Z liberal adults identified as LGBTQ.

This phenomenon and female sexual fluidity is an extremely important topic for one or more future posts on this site.

Buss Disputes Male Sexual Deficit as Source of Sexual Coercion

Buss disputes that the male sexual deficit is the primary source of sexual coercion – an idea called the “male deprivation hypothesis” studied by evolutionary psychologists. Buss shares his research findings and a prolific body of research in his new book When Men Behave Badly.  Sexual coercion is more often perpetrated by high-status males than by low-status males suffering from a sexual deficit. (Buss disagrees with Hakim’s assertions on this point.)

Buss would agree that the male sexual deficit is a contributing cause of infidelity and the demand for commercial sex services because it triggers the powerful motivation by men for sexual variety.  From zero sex partners in a “dead bedroom” marriage to one or more partners outside of that marriage is a significant improvement in sexual variety.

But Male Violence and Sexual Deficit May be Linked

There is compelling evidence that overall male aggression, violence by so-called “incels” (involuntary celibate men), and mass shootings are linked to a lack of sexual relationships, male loneliness, and a condition of low status. Low status is perhaps the most salient, but all three are related.  This topic deserves separate treatment in this space and will be done along with a review of Buss’s books When Men Behave Badly and The Murderer Next Door.  Suffice to say, Hakim and evolutionary psychologists may agree on the general point about violence and the male sexual deficit.

Future Trends of the Male Sex Deficit

According to Hakim, several factors suggest that the male sex deficit will not disappear and might even grow in the 21st century:

  • A decline in the frequency of sexual intercourse (inside and outside marriage) in Britain, the USA, Germany, Finland, Japan and other countries.
  • Women’s increasing economic independence allows them to withdraw from sexual markets and relationships that they perceive to offer unfair bargains, especially if they do not want children.
  • Changes in national sex ratios towards a numerical surplus of men help women re-set the rules in developed societies. (I am dismissive of the influence of more males as an important driver of the male sexual deficit. There would be a deficit even if the sexes were equal in numbers.  Female preferential choice primarily determines the deficit.)
Conclusions

According to Catherine Hakim, the male sexual deficit in developed societies is an indisputable, universal social fact of growing importance.  The research appears to support this conclusion.

Evolutionary psychologists believe the male sexual deficit is predicted by female preferential choice in mate selection.  Also, the sexual deficit among heterosexual men helps explain why men are the principal customers for commercial sexual entertainment, most likely to have affairs, and engage in some forms of violence.

References

Anderson, E. (2012).  The Monogamy Gap:  Men, Love, and the Reality of Cheating.

Baumeister, R. (2000). “Gender differences in erotic plasticity: The female sex drive as socially flexible and responsive.”  Psychological Bulletin 126 (3): 347-374.

Baumeister, R. (2004). “Gender and erotic plasticity: Sociocultural influences on the sex drive.”  Sexual and Relationship Therapy. 19: 133-139.

Bruch, E.E. and Newman,  M.E.J. “Aspirational pursuit of mates in online dating markets.”  Science Advances, 4, no. 8 (2018).

Donnelly, D; (1993).  “Sexually inactive marriages;” The Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 30, Issue 2.

Kontula, O. (2009). “Between Sexual Desire and Reality: The Evolution of Sex in Finland.” Population Research Institute, Helsinki.

Meana, M. (2010). “Elucidating a women’s (hetero) sexual desire: definitional challenges and content expansion.”  Journal of Sex Research,  47 (2-3): 104-122.

Mustanski, B. (2011)  “How often do men and women think about sex?”  Psychology Today, December 6.

Peplau, LA. (2003). “Human Sexuality: How do men and women differ?” Current Directions in Psychological Science 12 (2): 37-40.

Schmitt, D.P.  “Universal sex differences in the desire for sexual variety: Tests from 52 nations, 6 continents, and 13 islands.”  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, no. 1 (2003).

Appendix

Kontula’s 12 Measures of Sexual Desire

  1. thoughts, fantasies, and spontaneous arousal
  2. desired frequency of sex
  3. desired number of sexual partners
  4. frequency of masturbation
  5. continuous willingness to engage in sex
  6. the emergence of sexual desire in youth
  7. seeking out experiences and initiating them
  8. desiring a variety of experiences
  9. investing resources for sex
  10. attitudes favorable to sexuality
  11. infrequent absence of sexual desire
  12. self-assessed degree of desire

Catherine Hakim

Catherine Hakim is a British sociologist who specializes in women’s employment and women’s issues.  She is currently a Professorial Research Fellow at the Institute for the Study of Civil Society (Civitas). She has published over 100 articles in academic journals and over a dozen textbooks and research monographs. 

Hakim is best known for her criticisms of many feminist assumptions about women’s employment.  Her “preference theory” seeks to provide an empirically based predictive explanation for the differentiated choices women make between paid productive work and unpaid “reproductive” work in affluent modern societies.

Hakim defines “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. Hakim says erotic capital 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 have named this the erotic-economic bargain.)

David Buss

David Buss is a professor of psychology at the University of Texas at Austin.  He is the author of leading textbooks on evolutionary psychology,  The Evolution of Desire, The Dangerous Passion, The Murderer Next Door, and Why Women Have Sex, co-authored with Cindy Meson.  His most recent book is When Men Behave Badly – The Hidden Roots of Sexual Deception, Harassment, and Assault.  Buss has written for multiple publications and received numerous awards, including designation as one of the fifty most influential psychologists in the world.

We Are Not the Same People
(Steven Fearing, 2010)

You are the people of the Adored

I am the people of the Longing. 

We are not the same kind of people at all.

You are the people who receive the desire;

I am the people who feel the desire like a wound in my body. 

You are the people who receive “gifts”.

I am the people who fight other men in the material world so that gifts may be given. 

You are the people (who are not fat or ugly) who live in the act of choosing.  I am of the people who hope to be chosen.

You are of the people who choose when you want love and sex.

I am of the people who wait with longing to be chosen.

You are the people who enjoy the adoration of 50 offers.

I am of the people who are mostly lost, one among the 49 others.

You are the people who receive the gifts and the offers with no risk.

I am of the people who must constantly risk and suffer the feedback of a hundred offers avoided, discounted, or rebuked.

You are of the people who speak of no jealousy because you rarely lose love to another person who was chosen instead, and because 50 more offers to you await your response.

I am of the people who have lost you to another person many times.  That wound in my heart is a gaping, angry hole.

Sometimes the people of the longing try to fill the hole with God, with service, with drugs, or a belief in the possibility of a transformed world. The people of the longing try to fill the hole with meaning.  It rarely works to stop the longing. 

You are the people of the adored.  I am the people of the longing. 

We are not the same people.

 

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