Why Do Some Feminists Oppose Evolutionary Psychology?

Why Do Some Feminists Oppose Evolutionary Psychology?

Seven Reasons Fueled by Denial of Sex Differences — Let’s Talk About Them

There exists overwhelming evidence for evolved sex differences in human psychology. Rejection based on the misperception that they interfere with the goal of achieving gender equality degrades science and delays scientific progress.
~ David Buss and William von Hippel, Archives of Scientific Psychology (2018)

 

Evolutionary psychology (EP) is the study of human nature—meaning, the study of evolved psychological mechanisms or psychological adaptations. Adaptations are a product of evolution by natural and sexual selection that allow the human species to solve particular problems, most importantly, the problems of survival and reproduction.

So, why do some feminists oppose evolutionary psychology?

Evolved behavioral sex differences are seen as a barrier to progress for gender equality.   I will expound on this and cite six additional reasons that explain the psychological denial and political rationale for this opposition, addressing sex drive, “erotic capital,” objectification, and cues for fertility.

I suspect this post will trigger discomfort for “some” women.

Support of Feminist Political Objectives

I do not dislike “feminists.” I feel alignment with defenders of women’s rights and freedom of expression in all social and business arenas.

For this post, I will identify those defenders as feminists and speak specifically to female feminists. I am not making assertions about all feminists and certainly not all women.

I realize feminism can mean many things.

To be clear, I support women’s empowerment and nearly all “progressive” political positions women take. (The cause of the wage gap is an important exception.)

Aggregate Differences Between Men and Women

I believe in the aggregate biological and psychological differences between men and women, as revealed by thousands of years of adaptation for sexual selection, reproduction, and survival. These are essential tenets of evolutionary psychology.

In aggregate, men and women differ in physical morphology, emotions, behavior, cognition, hormones, brain structures, and many mechanisms for mate selection and sexual psychology.

Inequities Will Not Be Rectified by Denying Difference

While I agree with feminists politically, I am unwilling to ignore the evolutionary science of mate selection and capitulate to all versions of modern “wokeness.”

I will not rethink the interdependency of “nature-nurture” by elevating nurture over nature.

In matters of human reproduction, nature does trump nurture by more than a little bit, and that reality may not serve feminist political ends.

Furthermore, we will not rectify historical power inequities endured by women by blurring the distinction between biological males and females.

Seven Reasons Why Feminists Oppose Evolutionary Psychology

1. Feminist theory and activism consider the proposition of evolved behavioral sex differences as a barrier to progress for gender equality.

Evolutionary psychology has long been entangled in the philosophical debate of nature versus nurture. EP does not align with the “cultural determinist” or “blank slate” perspective that has dominated the social sciences for 50 years.

However, sociocultural and evolutionary explanations are not necessarily at odds with one another.

Evolutionary psychology explicitly identifies how nature and nurture work together.

“Nature” is not an excuse for bad behavior or the oppression of women. Feminists need not fear the terrain of evolved behavioral sex differences.

The following reasons for opposition to EP follow from this first one.

2. Feminists do not want to accept that men (in aggregate) are more sexual than women.

The fact that men are more sexual than women is supported by evolutionary psychology, evolutionary biology, and every relevant measure of cognition and behavior.

Such research does contradict a singular belief in a sociopolitical and environmental causation of female sexual behavior but need not conflict with a feminist narrative of female sexual empowerment.

There is no need for judgment about male or female sexuality. Female sexuality is more fluid and complex than male sexuality, but that, too, is not to be revered in comparison to men.

3. Feminists do not want to acknowledge that women use sexual power for economic ends — both consciously and unconsciously.

Sex work by women is historically ubiquitous.

But studies also reveal the utility of female sexuality and physical beauty for mate choice hypergamy*, career trajectory, courtship gifts, and receipt of helping behavior in most social interactions and domains of commerce.

Social psychologists and evolutionary psychologists have observed this dynamic. Daniel Hamermesh wrote the book on it: Beauty Pays.

Author Catherine Hakim (Honey Money) calls this “the power of erotic capital.”

Feminists commonly deny the operation of erotic capital.

4. Feminists do not want to admit that women already control men through sex.

Women cannot as easily scream about patriarchy if women control individual men so thoroughly through sex. The Lysistrata phenomenon (“stop fighting or no sex”) is not just a Greek comedy.

Women’s control of men as a gatekeeper to sexual access stems from a simple supply and demand imbalance in mate selection and the differences in sexual initiation by men versus women.

Women are in great demand; interested men are in great supply. Sperm is cheap; eggs are expensive. EP reveals this adaptive feature of human sexual reproduction.

5. Feminists do not want to admit they want to be “objectified” sometimes.

“Objectified” in this context means being “desired with abandon” — a sexual lust that plays consciously with the polarity of subject and object. (Mutual consent is an obvious precondition.)

Preeminent researcher in women’s sexuality, Marta Meana, says, for women, “being desired (being an “object”) is the orgasm.” Evolutionary psychologists, relationship experts, and sexologists understand this.

Women’s sexual desires may include submission — using “role-play” to release control and temporarily suspend responsibility. Submission can be a turn-on and a form of freedom.

Transgression can be erotic, according to international relationship expert Esther Perel.

Feminists may not want to acknowledge their participation in sex play that incorporates a dominance hierarchy.

6. Feminists do not want to admit they want a man who has the capacity to protect and provide.

Heterosexual feminists, like most women, prefer to mate with men who have status, resources, prestige, physical stature, and dominance. (Character and intelligence are always in the mix. Feminists may set a higher bar for men in those realms than the “average” woman.)

The preference for a relatively “high status” man is a “politically incorrect” yet hard-wired female mating strategy predicted by evolutionary psychology.

Here, we see a potential double bind imposed on men: a woman wants a man willing and able to provide and protect while presenting herself (correctly) as independent and self-sufficient.

7. Feminists often deny the truth about cues for fertility that come from the science of body shape, symmetry, facial metrics, skin, and hair.

It is critical for female empowerment (it would seem) to pretend that male attraction to the .7 waist-to-hip ratio is not scientifically proven.

Or that it is some kind of cultural/media artifact — that obese women are as beautiful and sexy to men as fit, youthful women or should be.

Some women need to deny that men are naturally attracted to youth.

Yet, there is broad agreement across all cultures about most signifiers of female beauty associated with youth and fertility.

Women in general, and especially women in their 50s and older, may convince themselves that mate selection science is bogus because the alternative is too psychologically painful.

Women secretly (or not too secretly) are glad for the tremendous erotic power rendered by their youth and beauty in their 20s but want to deny that power exists when they no longer have it themselves.

Embracing Differences Empowers Both Women and Men

This post attempts to surface controversial (and largely “undiscussable”) topics addressed by evolutionary psychology and the science of sexuality and mate selection.

If told through the lens of personal experience and handled with grace and patience, these conversations can deepen empathy and connection between heterosexual men and women and empower both sexes.

Here’s the takeaway — talk to each other and listen with curiosity.

Epilogue: The Political Moment

We are entering a moment in American politics when gender tension will be severe.  According to Derek Thompson of the Atlantic (“What Is America’s Gender War Actually About”), the GOP is selling itself as the “testosterone party” with a version of “alpha-victim masculinity.”

As strongly as feminists may oppose evolutionary psychology, I equally oppose that version of masculinity.

In March 2024, the Views of the Electorate Research Survey found 39 percent of men identified as Republicans versus 33 percent of women—a six-point gap. However, when the survey asked participants how society treats, or ought to treat, men and women, the gender gap exploded. The gender-attitude gap was six times larger than the commonly discussed gender gap.

I do not want to exacerbate tension with this post. Discussing the reasons for opposing evolutionary psychology and the differences between men and women is challenging. But, to borrow from Robert Frost, maybe “the only way out is through.”

*Hypergamy is a social science term that describes the act of marrying or dating someone who is considered to be of higher social status, wealth, or sexual capital than oneself. It can also refer to the practice of continuously trying to replace a current partner with someone who is seen as superior.

 

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

Sperm Are Cheap – Eggs Are Expensive

“Men tend to want many more sex partners than women do.”
~ Susan Hughes, Archives of Sexual Behavior (2021)

 

Most of my writing these days is in response to authors on Medium who write about relationships, gender, and sexuality. This community is 80% female. Their “voice” leans feminist and culturally progressive. Carlyn Beccia has been a favorite in this space. She covers many subjects, deeply considered with humor and aplomb — writing that sparkles underneath her own unique illustrations. Occasionally we butt heads; she dismisses and sometimes denigrates evolutionary psychology (EP) and my understanding of mate selection science.

Her latest piece was “Nature Makes Men More Promiscuous is an Evolutionary Biology Myth.” This piece is mainly about the number of sex partners reported by men and women. Beccia asserts that men and women are equally promiscuous, as revealed by research from evolutionary biology. I could not let this go unchallenged. Below is my response to her. My post would make more sense if you read her piece, but I think my statements of fact and opinion stand alone in their retort and rebuke.

Promiscuity Assertions Hurt Women More Than Men.

Becca’s first point. I agree. “Slut-shaming” is unfair and uninformed.

Darwin Revisited

Charles Darwin was not right about everything related to non-human species. Still, in the human population, he was right in his speculations about male desire and interest in multiple partners for sexual reproduction.

“Just So Stories” — An Old Criticism of EP Methodology

“Just so stories” is a “bullshit” (using Beccia’s aggressive word choice) and snarky framing of evolutionary science methodology – a worn-out trope. What Beccia describes as a “just so story” (women’s biological investment in children, etc.) is the way it is. Yes, as Beccia notes sarcastically, “sperm are cheap, and eggs are expensive.”

Women Are More Choosey – Full Stop

Women are more “choosey” than men for sexual partners. This comports directly with the evolutionary science of sexual selection and pretty much every single study of modern sexual selection dynamics, including the latest studies of dating apps. To think otherwise is indeed “bullshit.” (Speaking to Beccia) “hell, use yourself and your girlfriends as anecdotal evidence.” Men find the majority of women attractive. Women find the majority of men unattractive.

Women Are Just Not as Promiscuous as Men

Women are just not as promiscuous as men; that would make no sense for children’s survival and the need for paternal certainty. (I will not itemize here the numerous studies that show the difference between men’s and women’s sex “drive” as evidenced by thoughts, fantasies, spontaneous arousal, masturbation, and willingness to engage in sex.) Interestingly, Beccia and other female authors want to take on the badge of promiscuity. To prove what point? A sign of female empowerment? A way to assert that there are no sexual or biological differences between men and women?

Women Do Have More Opportunity

Women have enormously more choices, sexual access, and sexual opportunity than men, but they generally do not act on it. Sexual opportunity is different from a sexual mating strategy. Men and women are typically on opposite sides of that coin.

Rates of Infidelity and Number of Affairs

Rates of infidelity are indeed narrowing between men and women. Recent studies show that men cheat with a more significant number of partners, and women are choosier even in this domain, typically having a single affair.

Numbers on the Bed Post

EP researcher David Schmitt studied 16,288 individuals residing in 52 nations and found that men said they wanted 1.87 sex partners over the next month; women wanted only .78. (He also found agreement of findings across all nations and cultures.)

Ten Partners or One Partner Ten times?

Susan Hughes’ research (2021) in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found (in a very clever design of choosing, in a continuum, between sex with one partner ten times vs. sex with ten partners one time) “in most cases, the women allotted all ten dates to only one or two men.” Concluding, “The results of this study seem to confirm the observation that men tend to want many more sex partners than women do.”

Male Overestimation and Over-perception Bias

Yes, men overestimate the number of their partners, and women underestimate their number because of the bias against female promiscuity. Men’s inflation is somewhat related to the psychological phenomenon of over-perception bias – a belief that women may possibly (aka the movie Dumb and Dumber) be interested in them romantically and sexually. This sexual section phenomenon is related to error management theory; a man cannot afford a false negative result: NOT pursuing a woman (egg) who might otherwise be interested if a pursuit had taken place.

The Difference in Reporting Numbers of Sex Partners Has Four Causes

1. Promiscuity bias (above), also cited by Beccia in the Alexander and Fisher “bogus pipeline” study. That study had an unimpressive subject sample of 293 General Psychology students.

Most Importantly!

2. Women are having sex with the same lucky small subset of men.

Studies from dating apps reveal that the top 78% of women are fighting over the top 20% of men.

Essentially, multiple women are having sex with the same man: one man has sex with five women. He accurately reports five partners. Each of the five women accurately reports one partner.

Reproductive Variance

Reporting of the number of sex partners is not only influenced by the overreporting by men and underreporting by women but, more importantly, by the operation of a “micro” version of the macro reproductive variance phenomenon, i.e., more women are having sex than the number of men having sex, by perhaps a large margin. Researchers call this the modern male sexual deficit. The number of women who have sex is more than the number of men who have sex.

More Mothers Than Fathers Throughout History

The macro reproductive variance refers to the variability of reproductive success for human females and males throughout human history. The difference between men who do not reproduce (the have-nots) and those who reproduce prolifically (the haves) is vast. DNA studies by Jason Wilder and colleagues revealed that approximately 80% of women in human history have reproduced (have children), compared to 40% of men. More women are mothers than men are fathers. The human population is descended from twice as many women as men. A few men are siring many children (the Genghis Khan effect).

College Dating Environment – Slightly Better Deal for the Average Guy

One unique dating environment (mating pool) is on modern college campuses, where the sex ratio is approximately 60% women to 40% men. On college campuses, women lower their standards a little bit. They are slightly less choosey. With that ratio, more men of lower mate value/attractiveness get to have sex than in the average population. But even there, the most attractive guys get most of the action.

On the Other Hand – More Women Are Having Sex With Each Other!

3. The mathematical asymmetry of the number of reported partners by men and women (in some reports) is also because more women are having sex with women and not men!

4. Finally, according to Kristen Mitchell (Journal of Sex Research), men might include non-penetrative sexual encounters in their tally of sex partners. Women did not. Hey women, cunnilingus and fellatio are not sex?

Male Promiscuity Can Negatively Affect Genetic Legacy

It is true (as Beccia implies) that there is a point at which male promiscuity negatively affects the survival of his children. Children need the support of both parents to secure a genetic legacy.

Will Not Debate Bateman’s Principle Here*

I will spare the reader an attempt to unpack Beccia’s assertion that geneticist Angus Bateman cherry-picked his data or the integrity of Patricia Gowaty’s biology lab at U.C.L.A. But I don’t believe the studies of fruit flies or even other primates are decisively instructive or preclude the vast evidence related to human sexual selection and reproduction. Yes, the research on the mating habits of non-monogamous female birds is notable, but birds are not homo sapiens. Humans have a 9-month gestation and prolonged infant dependency.

The Coolidge Effect** Is Real

But if you want to use primates, the Coolidge Effect holds up. And it is operative for human males. Novelty works for both sexes, but it is compelling for human males. Beccia’s post does not really dispute the truth of the Coolidge Effect. It is worth noting that women need more novelty inside a pair bond than that required by a man because male sexuality is less complicated.

The Honeymoon Effect

The “honeymoon effect” – bonds caused by the “love hormone,” oxytocin, is also real. But oxytocin is more instrumental to women’s sexuality and sexual functioning than to men’s. (This leads to the conversation about the female orgasm as a male mate selection strategy –- female orgasm increases the chance of being chosen and being retained as a mate.)

Honeymoon Effect Coexists with Coolidge

Bottomline: the honeymoon effect does not preclude the male need for partner novelty; it does not contradict the operation of the Coolidge Effect.

What is Beccia’s Beef – Really?

Finally, I do not understand Beccia’s psychological schema around these issues. Why does she refuse to accept the evolutionary and biological science of human sexual selection and human sexuality? Why does she misrepresent the claim and evidence of evolutionary psychology? EP is not “bullshit.” “Boys will be boys” is never uttered by reputable researchers in this field. Beccia is an empowered woman. She is probably sexier and more sexual than average. Good for her. Many men desire her, no doubt (she is quite attractive), but I bet she chooses very few. Beccia probably exists on the robust side of the bell curve from the average woman in terms of sex drive/desire, access, and socio-sexuality.

Rectify Inequities – But Don’t Blur Biological Distinctions Between Male and Female

I have studied the hard biological science of aggregate populations throughout human history. I study researchers who do not, as a rule, have an agenda or bias to shape the nature-nurture debate in favor of women to rectify historical power inequities. The Beccia post is representative of this bias. Let’s rectify power inequities without blurring the biological distinctions between males and females. 

*Bateman’s principle (in evolutionary biology): since males produce millions of sperm cells with little effort and females invest much higher energy levels to nurture a relatively small number of eggs, the female plays a more significant role in their offspring’s reproductive success. Bateman’s paradigm views females as the limiting factor of parental investment, over which males will compete to mate successfully.

**The Coolidge effect is a biological phenomenon seen in animals whereby males exhibit renewed sexual interest whenever a new female is introduced, even after sex with prior but still available sexual partners.

 

Please Note: Your comment may take up to 12 seconds to register and the confirmation message will appear above the “Submit a Comment” text. 
Gamma Bias: Cognitive Distortions About Sex and Gender

Gamma Bias: Cognitive Distortions About Sex and Gender

“Although we live in times where we rightly talk about the conscious and unconscious bias against women, we are not yet conscious of our biases against men.” ~ Martin Seager and John Barry

A bias is a prejudice in favor of or against a thing, person, or group usually considered unfair, misleading, or a direct distortion of the truth.

“Gamma” bias is a form of cognitive distortion that builds on the existing concepts of alpha bias and beta bias. Alpha bias is the magnification of gender differences. Beta bias* is the minimization of gender differences. Gamma bias illustrates how these opposing distortions can operate simultaneously.

Gamma Bias and Gender
Gamma bias is a form of cognitive distortion that operates within a matrix of four possible judgments about gender**: 
  1. Doing good (celebration/valuing)
  2. Doing harm (perpetration)
  3. Receiving good (privilege)
  4. Receiving harm (victimhood)
Gamma Bias has an Ugly, Unfriendly Face

As described recently by British psychologists Martin Seager and John Barry in “Gamma Bias: A New Theory” (The Psychologist), the theory predicts:

  • Within mainstream Western cultures, masculinity is highlighted only in the domains of privilege (receiving good) and perpetration (doing harm).
  • Masculinity is hidden in the domains of celebration (doing good, heroism, etc.) and victimhood. Heroism may be gender neutralized (“firefighters”), and male victimization by women domestically is excluded in gender narratives.

Effects of Gamma Bias on Men and Women 

  • Men receive less credit for doing good and less support for being victimized.
  • Women receive more significant support for being victimized and are held less accountable for being perpetrators.
Summary of Four Judgments Related to Gender
revised gender distortion matrix
Female Privilege is Ignored in Gamma Bias

Though not explicitly addressed by Seager and Barry, female privilege (female receipt of “good” benefits) is almost entirely unaddressed because of gamma bias. This is a critical oversight for understanding the preeminence of female choice in mate selection as a gender-specific privilege.

This privilege is demonstrated by the exchange of sexual access (fertility) for resources and security inherent in the unconscious sexual psychologies for reproduction and childrearing — the supply and demand dynamics of millions of sperm (and hundreds of men) chasing one, quite privileged egg. Physically attractive, fertile-aged women (in the West) have significant privilege in securing mates and advantages in other domains of life.

The Four Judgments Operate Independently

All four judgments can operate concurrently; the opposing distortions are not zero-sum.

  • Women can be victims and perpetrators.
  • Women can be privileged and be victims.
  • Men can be heroes and perpetrators.
  • Men can be privileged and victims.

The four cognitive distortions function as independent “dials” of influence.  Each dial operates on a continuum or gradient of strength; they are not on-off switches.

Gamma Bias is Pernicious – Let’s Do Better

Gamma bias has an ugly, unfriendly face. It has never been more pernicious in American culture than it is now. Let’s be aware of our judgments, pay attention to our narratives, and be fair to all.

 

Notes:

*Beta bias is more characteristic of today’s narrative about gender and sex. It often includes minimization of biological differences between males and females.

**“Gender,” used here, means biological females (presenting as women) and biological males (presenting as men).

Please Note: Your comment may take up to 12 seconds to register and the confirmation message will appear above the “Submit a Comment” text. 
Why Bella’s Sexuality in Poor Things Disturbs Men

Why Bella’s Sexuality in Poor Things Disturbs Men

“You mean I actually get paid for that?”
~ Bella Baxter

Bella is a female Frankenstein “monster” in the movie Poor Things. For most of the film, she is an unbridled child with primal sexual urges detonating within her adult female body – a kind of “erotomania.” Bella scares the sh…t out of men.

Bella does some “whoring” in a Paris brothel to find herself. She discovers that her sexuality is easily exchanged for money. Bella acknowledges and accepts the utility of her sexual passion, saying, “I am my own means of production.” But that is not what scares men. She most disturbs men when she inquires with amazement: “You mean, I actually get paid for that?” Let me explain.

Bella’s Sexuality is Outside the Norm

Evolutionary psychology, mate selection science, and studies of female sexuality describe long-term and short-term mating strategies of women, both ancient and modern in their relevance. Bella’s sexuality is outside the understood norms of mate selection science. (See Long-term and Short-term Mating Strategies: Domain #2 of Male-Female Differences.)

 
Women’s Long-term Mating Strategy

A woman’s long-term heterosexual mating strategy seeks a sexual relationship with a man who has the resources and character traits that ensure stability, protection, and loyalty to her and her children over the long term.

Women’s Short-term Mating Strategy

A woman’s short-term mating strategy seeks, first and foremost, genetic fitness in male sexual partners – traits of muscularity, strength, masculinity, and features associated with symmetry. Short-term mates need only minimal generosity and kindness – but may require a modest amount of resources (less than required in the long-term strategy) in case of pregnancy or the desire to switch mates. (See Mate Switching Hypothesis).

A woman’s short-term strategy is not dominant in female mate selection; it is secondary and selective. But rarely is the sex act itself the only reason.

Why Women Have Sex

In research for their book Why Women Have Sex, Cindy Meston and David Buss surveyed 1006 women in seven countries about their reasons for having sex (defined as sexual intercourse.) Two-hundred and thirty-seven (237) reasons were identified. The number one reason given was related to “biochemical attraction” – what Buss and Meston said conferred unconscious signals for genetic and resource benefits. The #2 reason was “because it feels good” – to experience pleasure. But this was never the only reason. Of paramount importance was the need to experience love and enhance an emotional bond.

Buss and Meston concluded: “What motivates a woman to have sex is often multifaceted, containing various combinations of motivation. It is a fungible asset that provides great utility to secure many tangible and intangible benefits.” For more on the topic, see the Mating Straight Talk page Why Women Have Sex.

But Bella Wants Sex Only for the Sensory Feedback

A woman’s short-term, potentially non-monogamous mating strategy is concerned with a man’s genetic material, resources, and sometimes the goal of securing a long-term mate. It is not about sex as an end in and of itself.

That is why Bella in Poor Things is so disturbing. In her sexual awakening, Bella seeks a singular experience of titillation and release. Her pleasure is entirely a personal event of her nervous system; it is not interpersonal.

Male-oriented porn depicts sex as an end in and of itself. No form of women’s erotica (or modern female sexuality in practice) depicts sex that way.

Sex For Money

Bella eventually discovers the “fungibility” of her sexuality in the Parisian bordello. Sex for money becomes her motivation. Her sexuality is a business. But sex for resources is not where she starts. Initially, she can’t believe she will be paid for something so inherently pleasurable. Bella’s lesbian encounters with her female bordello friend are not in the context of her sexual fluidity or bisexuality. No, Bella, at that point, is more of a pansexual – up for anything that turns her on

Females Sexuality with No Moral Compass

Bella scares heterosexual men because, in the early exploration of her sexuality, she acts like a man with a strong sex drive and no moral compass. She acts like some gay men who have unrestrained access to express their sex drive with like-minded men. (No judgment here — just the statistical facts about the ease and frequency/quantity of lovers for gay men.) Ultimately, Bella’s early sexuality is an existential threat to men and their evolutionary need to be chosen in competition with other men. There would be no loyalty to a man who had “competed” successfully for her because she cannot be “won.” There would be no paternal certainty or genetic legacy with Bella, which is a preeminent directive of sexual selection.

Bella As Feminist Crusader

By the conclusion of this science fiction story, Bella’s primitive self “evolves” into a wise philosophical narrator (even a philanthropic “do-gooder”). Along her journey of adult self-discovery, Bella articulates a clear, feminist, anti-misogynist message, adding a dose of sweet revenge. Good for her. “Evolved” Bella does seem to have some allegiance to the doctor scientist who wants to marry her.

The Book Behind It All

Poor Things, the movie, is based on Alasdair Gray’s novel (of the same name) about a young woman who frees herself from the confines of the suffocating Victorian society she was created to serve. Poor Things (the book) is a hilarious political allegory and a thought-provoking duel between men’s desires and women’s independence.

Who Are the “Poor Things?”

Bella develops an awareness of the poor and oppressed while in Alexandria. However, some reviewers have said that it is the men of that time (including her sadistic former husband) who are the “poor things.” But modern male moviegoers may also be troubled by Bella’s sexual liberation and independence from the rules of romantic partnership.

Bella is a Heroine

For all its explicit sex and foul-mouthed dialogue, Poor Things (the movie) is a romance about a woman learning to fall in love with herself, no matter what others think she should be. For that reason alone, Bella is a cinematic heroine, and Poor Things is a unique piece of artistry.

 

Please Note: Your comment may take up to 12 seconds to register and the confirmation message will appear above the “Submit a Comment” text. 
Synergy of Beauty, Youth, and Erotic-Economic Exchange – the Sex Work Studies

Synergy of Beauty, Youth, and Erotic-Economic Exchange – the Sex Work Studies

Author’s Note:

This post has been sitting in my queue for months. I withheld it for fear of being perceived as insensitive to the plight of young women, especially economically-disadvantaged women in the third world who are coerced and abused. However, this post is not about those women.

I fell prey to my own avoidance and denial of “undiscussable” content. That lack of candor is not in keeping with the mission of Mating Straight Talk. I decided to release this post about sex work because it is based on credible economic research and underscores critical issues about the evolutionary dynamics of mate and sexual selection.

I am not endorsing prostitution, especially for women under the age of 18. Based on the study appearing in Evolution and Human Behavior, I assume that Indonesian authorities (more or less) monitor the safety and informed consent of their regulated sex worker industry.

Prostitution is indeed the oldest profession, but modern-day sex work is ubiquitous and comes in many different manifestations, as described below.

Preference for Younger Women – the Prostitute Studies

My last post about Chris Rock* provided research that explained why men are attracted to younger women. Pretty obvious stuff — based on evolutionary biology. In compiling that information, I ran across studies about the age of prostitutes and their earnings, and also a little nugget about why older women disapprove of sex work (I will start there). I have no salacious interest, moral judgments, or personal experience with sex workers, but find the topic fascinating, primarily in its revelations about the complexities of female sexual psychology. But female sexual psychology is not the main focus of this post except as it relates to a service agreement: sex (or “comfort”) provided to men willing to pay for it.

Motivations of Men in the Context of Barter and Trade

The pertinent psychological spotlight here is more about the motivations of men. This post is primarily an addendum to prove further the point of men’s intractable, mainly hard-wired attraction to young fertile women. But, I will also provide brief commentary on sex for barter and trade from the book, Why Women Have Sex, which directly comports with three truths delivered by Chris Rock about sexual selection. I will revisit those truths and examine the direct and indirect manifestations of sex work and how female sexuality is a fungible asset.
*Chris Rock’s Selective Outrage – The Truth of Sexual Selection and Preference for Younger Women

Disapproval of Sex Work and Age-Discrepant Couples

Yael Sela at Oakland University did a study with 430 men and women to determine why men and women might condemn age-discrepant couples. She found a unique variable. Older women’s condemnation of relationships between older men and younger women was partly explained by their greater disapproval of sex work. Younger women expressed less disapproval of prostitution. Sex work was correctly perceived as an exchange-based relationship – money for sex, inspiring more moral outrage from older women than from younger women.

Prostitute’s Age and Earnings Research

As I reported in a prior post** (proving that the male sex drive is more robust than a woman’s), men pay for sex – not women. The professions of prostitution, escort, and other forms of sex work are almost exclusively a business where women provide the service and men pay for that service. **Biological Differences – Part 5.2: Aggression, Risk-Taking, and Sex Drive

The Price of Younger Prostitutes

A study published (2016) in the journal Evolution and Human Behavior, examined the link between a prostitute’s age and the price she charges. Economist Kitae Sohn used prostitutes’ earnings to address a much broader scientific question that applies not only to paid sexual exchanges, but to everyday concerns: what does the opposite sex actually find attractive in a partner?

Universal Biological Constraints on Mate Choice

The age women and men desire in a mate is important because it addresses interesting questions about the relative importance of universal biological constraints on human mate choice. In particular, biological theorists expect that men’s uniform attraction to women should be altered because female fertility peaks in early adulthood, drops from 25 to 45, and goes to zero after age 50. Hence male teenagers and their grandfathers may be similarly desirous of women in their early 20s. However, each may have difficulty attracting a woman of that age for different reasons.

“Revealed Preference” for Choice of Prostitutes

By examining what men are willing to pay for sex, Sohn provided a new “window” into the issue of fertility and attraction. Men have a restrained choice in whom they marry or date, but they do get to choose whether or not to pay a prostitute for sex, and the amount they are willing to pay reveals something about what they most prefer. Economists call this “revealed preferences,” assuming that the amount we are willing to pay for any commodity gives a good index of how much we value it.

Prostitutes of Indonesia

Sohn’s sample included 8,560 prostitutes from 15 different cities in Indonesia. As Sohn notes, Indonesia provides an ideal place to examine this issue because prostitution is “quasi-legal” and tacitly supported by the government, which keeps official records on prostitutes’ income alongside incomes from other professions.

Prostitutes Aged 35-40 Earn Much Less

When hiring the short-term services of a prostitute, men pay the most for women between their late teens and early twenties. Between the ages of 25 and 35, the price men are willing to pay for a prostitute drops significantly.

An Equation Related to Prostitute’s Earnings

Sohn provided an exact equation related to age and a prostitute’s earnings.
For each increase of a year in age, a prostitute’s hourly wage decreases by 4.5 percent. Sohn found that prostitutes between the ages of 35 and 40 earned 52.8 percent less per hour than women under 20.

Evolution Predicts Similar Results in Other Countries

Although this data comes only from Indonesia, Sohn argues that: “evolution influenced all humans, so we expect that future research will find similar results in other countries.” Evolutionary psychologist Douglas Kenrick supports Sohn’s argument and asserts that age preferences found in this research are consistent with findings from other methods in other societies worldwide.

Sex Work Manifestations and Sexual Selection

The Synergy of Beauty, Youthfulness, and Erotic-Economic Exchange

In my post about Chris Rock’s Selective Outrage, I said that Rock told the truth about three things related to sexual selection:

  1. There is a collusion between men and women related to sex and money – i.e., the “erotic-economic bargain” is the underbelly of sexual selection (with ancient and modern forms) that includes sexual access granted in exchange for provision and protection – calculations of mate value for mate selection.
  2. Female beauty provides immense power and particular privileges.
  3. Men have a powerful and evolutionarily sensible sexual attraction to young women.

In that previous post, I outlined studies and data sets that illustrate the ubiquitous nature of men’s attraction to young women. Now I have described research that shows that younger prostitutes are valued more by their clients than prostitutes above the age of 25. Obviously, there is a direct synergy between youthfulness, beauty (as a signal of fertility), and the economic “bargain” afforded a woman because of male sexual attraction.

“Sex-Work” Has Direct and Indirect Manifestations

The “sex industry” has many manifestations. There is a robust and diversified market created by the supply of men desirous of (in demand for) young beautiful women who will pay for the opportunity to be with them. Researchers define prostitution in two broad categories, “direct” and “indirect.” Direct prostitution includes everything from the brothel or street women in Indonesia to exclusive and expensive “escorts” in major cities worldwide. “Indirect” prostitution (sexual favors for money in some form) includes lap dancing in strip clubs, massage parlor services, internet modeling (e.g., Onlyfans), and chat lines, to name a few. The possibilities are nearly endless.

One “Possibility” — Men Want to Be Cuddled

Liz Plank in For the Love of Men says that men need intimacy (a point that seems correct and inarguable***) by citing the booming “cuddle industry,” where “someone meets up with you and will nuzzle you for a set amount of time for a set amount of money.” As Plank explains, “most of the clients seeking out this service aren’t ladies; they’re straight men in their fifties.” Yikes, Liz, of course, the clients are men in their fifties! These men are desperate for female attention and touch. They are willing to pay for that! (***All humans seek cuddling as a return to the mother-child attachment bond.)

Is Cuddling Indirect Sex Work?

Maybe cuddling is an indirect form of “sex work.” The absence of intercourse or other overt sexual activities is irrelevant to the central male-female sexual dynamic. Straight men are paying for female company, not the warm arms of other men. It may or may not prove the point about the male need for intimacy, but in no way does it prove (as Plank implies) that the male sex drive is subservient to the need for intimacy. It is (I contend) the heterosexual male sex drive that is the driving force underneath the willingness to pay to be cuddled – the emotional connection is an artifact, a bonus. Cuddle contracts just prove that men need female touch, and some men can only get it by swiping their credit cards.

Why Women Have Sex – One Reason Among Many

Let me close by offering the sobering (and revealing) words of researcher and evolutionary biologist Nancy Burley: “Gift giving or even cash payment for sexual intercourse cannot be used as criteria to define prostitution, for these occur in courtship or even marital situations. Since prostitution and courtship exist as a continuum, the vast majority of copulatory opportunities involve costs to males in terms of time and/or material goods.” These thoughts appear in Chapter 8 – “Barter and Trade,” in Why Women Have Sex by David Buss and Cindy Meston. The narrative stories from women in this chapter are stunning in their descriptions of how sex is used to acquire goods and services. However, the motivation to receive something of material value is just one of the many reasons women have sex, according to Buss and Meston.

Female Sexuality and Beauty is a Fungible Asset

Buss and Weston asserted that “these observations, along with an avalanche of other findings, strongly support a basic fact about human economics: women’s sexuality is something that women can bestow or withhold, something that men want and value highly, and consequently, something that women can use to secure resources they desire. Women, in short, have the power [apropos to Rock’s statement in my prior post] in many sexual transactions.” Buss and Weston continue: “Because women’s sexuality is so highly prized, it can be regarded as an asset that economists call fungible — it can be transposed or exchanged for many other kinds of resources” — from a comfy cave with fresh-killed meat to an address in a tony modern neighborhood where (to use Rock’s words) “women wear yoga pants at 12:15 on a Wednesday afternoon.”

References

Harcourt, C. & Donovan, B. “The Many Faces of Sex Work,” Sex Transm Infect, 2005.

Sohn, Katie. “Men’s revealed preferences regarding women’s ages: evidence from prostitution.” Evolution and Human Behavior, Volume, 37, Issue 4, July 2016.

Additional Related Posts

Dynamics in the Mating Economy: Domain #1 of Male-Female Difference
• erotic-economic bargain – the ultimate exchange in the mating economy

Mate Value of High-Income Men: Seeking Arrangements and the Erotic-Economic Bargain
• research by Rosemary Hopcroft: Evolution and Behavior (September 2021)
• research by Catherine Hakim (Univ. of North Carolina) on “erotic capital”

Why Women Have Sex

Science of Attraction and Beauty

Notes about Future Writings
  • I will suggest a new frame for male behavior and character (what I call): the “nice guy – bad boy sweet spot” — how to find “edge” and empathy in the age of consent, and how to provide “edge” and empathy as an “integrated” man in a heterosexual relationship, with forward-looking lessons and understanding for both men and women.
  • I will share an updated version of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs from a prominent evolutionary psychologist – a new pyramid of human motives.
  • I may outline the gender divide in American dating and relationships as revealed in recent surveys and illuminated in a video with Scott Galloway.

 

Please Note: Your comment may take up to 12 seconds to register and the confirmation message will appear above the “Submit a Comment” text. 
Chris Rock’s Selective Outrage: The Truth of Sexual Selection and Preference for Younger Women

Chris Rock’s Selective Outrage: The Truth of Sexual Selection and Preference for Younger Women

Don’t hate the player; hate the game. ~ Chris Rock

Chris Rock was sharply criticized for some of his comedic riffs in his Netflix special Selective Outrage. Speaking to a predominantly Black audience in Baltimore, he delivered incisive observations about the American obsession with attention and being a victim. He joked about the many abortions he paid for and cathartically unleashed his feelings about the infamous slap by Will Smith and the “entanglements” of Smith’s wife, Jada Pinket Smith.

Rock also told the truth about sexual selection, illustrating three points (Chris Rock in red):

1. There is a collusion between men and women about sex and money – the “erotic-economic bargain.”

I have made millions of dollars. And every dime I have made, I have spent on pu..y or pu..y adjacent.

Younger women just want you to buy them shoes, but the 45–50-year-old woman wants a new roof.

I’ve paid more college loans off than Joe Biden!

I want to live in a place where women are voluntarily not working and wear yoga pants in the middle of the afternoon.

You can lose a lot of money chasing women, but you will never lose women by chasing money. (From I Think I Love My Wife.)

2. Female beauty has immense power and privilege.

Nothing more powerful than female beauty. Nothing.

A beautiful woman can stop traffic. There is nothing about a man that can stop traffic.

Beyonce is so fine, that if she worked at Burger King, she could still marry Jay Z. Now if Jay Z worked in a Burger King….

3. Sexual attraction for younger (fertile) women versus older women is a male evolutionary adaptation thousands of years in the making.

I didn’t get rich and stay in shape to talk to Anita Baker. I am trying to f…k Doja Cat.

I am interested in women my age — that is 10-15 years younger.

Important note:

Before I go any further with the studies about age preference, let me assure you (if assurance will make this fact of life more palatable) the average man does not usually pursue the younger women he desires. He is more “interested,” as a practical matter, in women closer to his age. The average man has no relationship with a much younger woman unless it is a paid sex worker, of which there are several versions. (I will address “sex work” in my next post, also related to age.) But what rich and famous men do in practice is another story. More on that below.

Criticism From the Left Prompted This Post

Let me also remind my readers: I am progressive in my worldview of politics, female equality, and social justice. But, I push back against the critique from the Left that denies biological differences between the sexes and vilifies male sexuality in broad terms. It is the criticism of Rock from the liberal media that prompted me to do this post and trot out research evidence — at the risk of beating a dead horse. Otherwise, I would have (perhaps more wisely) left the “Chris Rock thing” alone.

In this post: preference for younger women and age discrepancies:

• Data from OkCupid and Zoosk
• Research from Finland and other cultures
• “Most desired” is not the same as “most interested in”
• Ages of famous movie couples
• “Chris Rock Effect”
• Age differences of 68 celebrity partnerships

Liberal Media Not Happy with Rock

Predictably, there was considerable “selective outrage” of a different kind against Rock from the liberal media. About his attraction to younger women, NPR media critic Eric Deggans called Rock “sexist.” The woman interviewing Deggans on NPR said Rock would be lucky to have Anita Baker. Anita Baker is 65. Chris Rock is 58. Doja Cat is 27, 31 years younger than Rock. See below the age differences between male celebrities and their partners.

Sexual Attraction to Younger Women – Let’s Look at the Data

Most Desirable Age for Men and Women from OKCupid

Christian Rudder, co-founder of OKCupid (and Harvard math major) collected data from millions of users on the website to reveal the ages men and women found “most desirable” in the opposite sex. The data was analyzed for men and women in their 20s up to the age of 50. Rudder displayed the resulting (now infamous) graphs in his book, Dataclysm: Who We Are When We Think No One’s Looking.

Here is what the data revealed:

Heterosexual Men Most Desire a Woman in Her Early 20s

Rudder reported that men in their twenties clicked on pictures of women about two years younger. But men in their 50s clicked on women 25 years younger than themselves.

“No matter how old a man gets, he will be attracted to a woman in her early twenties,” Rudder asserts. Twenty-year-old and forty-nine-year-old heterosexual men cite women aged 20-24 (average age was 20.77) as the most desirable.

Women Are Different

Women preferred someone roughly their own age. Before 30, they’re looking for slightly older men. Throughout her forties, a woman is most attracted to men at around the age of 40. A 50-year-old woman will most like the looks of a 46-year-old man. Forty-year-old men will likely provide “true signals” of achieved status, position, financial resources, and career trajectory.

“If we want to pick the point where a man’s sexual appeal has reached its limit, it’s there: 40,” Rudder explains.

Zoosk Dating App Data

According to data from the dating site and app, Zoosk, which claims 40 million members, 60% of men are attracted to women younger than them, and nearly 56% of women prefer older men.

The Design of Human Reproduction

Data from dating websites is just one piece of a mountain of scientific evidence backing the theory that men almost always prefer younger women for short-term and long-term mating. This preference comports directly to the psychological and physiological design of human reproduction.

Finnish Study Aligns with OkCupid

Results from research conducted (2014) in Finland were directly aligned with OKCupid’s findings and other prior research. Reporting in Evolution and Human Behavior, the study found that men of all ages fantasize about one type of woman: the 20-something female.

Researchers surveyed 12,656 men and women aged 18 to 49 to study age preferences in sexual partners. They asked each participant which age group they were most sexually attracted to during the last 12 months and which age group they engaged in sexual activity with.

Age Preferred by Finish Men and Women

Just as the researchers hypothesized, the results varied by gender. Women tended to be interested in men who were similar in age or slightly older. Specifically, women in their late teens and twenties preferred male partners about four years older, and the age gap preference lessened as women got older.

Again, men tended to be interested in one single age group: women in their mid-twenties, and this held true even in younger men in their late teens or early twenties.

Roots in Evolutionary Biology

Finnish researchers argued (as do hundreds of scientists) that both male and female age preferences have roots in evolutionary biology. They hypothesize that women go for older men due to the “resources” they can offer, including the ability to help with offspring: “Men mature later than women, and in our evolutionary past, raising human offspring to nutritional independence necessitated bi-parental care.”

Men Are Interested in Fertile Women

The researchers also asserted that men’s sexual preference is shaped with offspring in mind; specifically, they are interested (even unconsciously) in women who are fertile.

“The highest fertility has been estimated to occur in the mid-twenties, with a decline after the age of 35,” the researchers explain. “Especially for short-term mating, men show a high interest in fertile women, that is, women in their twenties.”

Sexual Preference for Younger Women is World-wide

Across cultures, men marry women around their own age when they are young, but much younger women if they remarry later in life (Kenrick, 2010; Kenrick & Keefe, 1992). For example, evolutionary psychologist Douglas Kenrick studied the ages of spouses on the Pacific Island of Poro in the Philippines. Young men on Poro married women around their own age. But older men married women almost two decades younger than them (Kenrick & Keefe, 1992).

Marriage Data Across History and Geography

As reported on background by Kenrick, marriage data reflect these preferences in a diverse array of historical and geographical conditions, including North Americans, Brazilians, Moroccans, the Herrero in Africa, and inhabitants of prosperous 17th-century Amsterdam.

Men and Women Seek Different Resources

Like the Finnish researchers, Kenrick suggested that age differences in mating preferences seem to be linked to the fact that women and men seek relatively different resources in their mates. Quoting Kenrick:

“Women around the world and throughout history have placed relatively more emphasis on a man’s social status and ability to provide resources (which tend to increase as the man gets older). Conversely, men tend to seek features associated with fertility, such as a healthy appearance and relative youth (a woman’s fertility is high in her twenties, but declines as she ages).”

More Evidence from the Netherlands

Evolution and Human Behavior (2001): “Age preferences for mates as related to gender, own age, and involvement level.” (Kenrick, et al.)

Kenrick and colleagues also examined the minimum and maximum ages for mates in the Netherlands across five different levels of relationship involvement (marriage, serious relationship, falling in love, casual sex, and sexual fantasies), comparing individuals who were 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60 years old. Consistent with previous findings, women preferred partners of their own age, regardless of the level of relationship involvement. Men, on the other hand, irrespective of their own age, desired mates for short-term mating and for sexual fantasies who were in their reproductive years. However, regarding long-term mates, men preferred mates who, although younger than them, were sometimes above the age of maximum fertility.

Desires Unconstrained in Sexual Fantasies

What would adults ask for if their desires were unconstrained by the marketplace? One way to address this question is to consider sexual fantasies. Sexual fantasies, which do not involve pragmatic constraints, demonstrate the most robust evidence of male sexual attraction towards women in the years of peak fertility, according to Kenrick.

Most Desirable is Not the Same as “Most Interested In.”

The OKCupid study found that men are “most interested in” women closer to their own age. There is an essential distinction between what men desire and how they act. Being “interested” in a woman means someone that a man might pursue with a realistic chance of reciprocity.

Despite older men finding much younger women extremely attractive, men on OKCupid were highly unlikely to message any of these women. Men most often messaged women closer to their own age.

“Matched” with Women 1-3 years Younger on Zoosk

According to Zoosk researchers, “though men are often attracted to women up to 10 years younger than them, the women they match with (the women who like them back) tend to be only 1-3 years younger.” Indeed, according to the 2014 Current Population Survey, the average age difference for heterosexual couples was a man 2.3 years older than a woman.

Assortative Mating – Age and Other Similarities

Research in mate selection by evolutionary psychologists and sociologists confirms that men and women tend to “sort” along the lines of age, background, proximity, education, and relative mate value – a value determined primarily by physical attractiveness for women and wealth and status for men. Physical attractiveness and stature (being “tall, dark, and handsome”) are assets for men but are secondary to their status and resources for female preference in a long-term mate.

A Younger Woman is Mostly “Out of Your League”

Men desire younger women, but the average man knows he can only realistically pursue a much younger woman if he brings great assets to the table. The mating market tends to match people at the level of their “mate value” with such precision that most men and women know not to go completely “out of their league.” Since men do 95% of pursuing, this calculation is made primarily by men. For the average guy, the women he is “interested” in are preset or dictated by the parameters of the sorting process in his mating pool. Most men have received many direct refusals and turndowns. Avoiding more rejections also shapes his perceptions of who he “should” be interested in.

Older Hollywood Actors and Celebrities Paired with Young Women

Phantom Thread was nominated for the 2018 Academy Award for best picture. Daniel Day Lewis’s character is a highly successful dressmaker — wealthy and well-connected to London’s social elite. He has a passionate relationship with a young, beautiful waitress, played by Vickie Krieps.

 

phantom thread movie poster

Daniel Day Lewis is 26 years older than Vicki Krieps. This kind of age spread is not unusual in Hollywood. In the classic romantic movie Casablanca, which won the Academy Award for Best Picture in 1942, Humphrey Bogart was 43, and Ingrid Bergman was 24.

In Gone with the Wind, Clark Gable was 37, and his romantic interest, Vivien Leigh, was 25. People magazine’s cover once asked, “Why are leading actors matched with costars half their age?” The magazine article suggested the possibility that it was because Hollywood directors tend to be older males, who are “trying to relive their youth.”
A look at the research findings on actual mating preferences suggests that normal human preferences drive the Hollywood director’s choices rather than the other way around.

The Chris Rock Effect – In a League of Their Own

Men of great wealth, talent, fame/status, and a modicum of charm, can pursue their preferences for younger women much more readily than the average man. There is no evidence that Chris Rock is actually pursuing Doja Cat, but he has the assets to date a woman who is 31 years younger.

Erotic and Economic Power – the Age of Celebrity

Rich men and beautiful women find each other at the high end of male and female mate value. 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. Please take a look at the list below of high-status, celebrity, rich men and their partners. You will see up to 60+ years of an 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.

Male Celebrities with Younger Women

Male celebrities with younger women demonstrate evidence of the following:

• 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 and proclamations of “he is too old” are relative to the degree of fame and money the man possesses.

Age Differences Between Male Celebrities and their Partners

All the men listed below are rich and famous. All the women are beautiful. This is the “economic-erotic bargain” in stark terms.

• Jay Marshall and Anna 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
• Tony Bennet and Susan Crowe, 40 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
• Nicolas Cage and Riko Shibata, 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
• 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

Related Posts

Dynamics in the Mating Economy: Domain #1 of Male-Female Difference
• erotic-economic bargain – the ultimate exchange in the mating economy

Mate Value of High-Income Men: Seeking Arrangements and the Erotic-Economic Bargain
• research by Rosemary Hopcroft: Evolution and Behavior (September 2021)
• research by Catherine Hakim (Univ. of North Carolina) on “erotic capital”

Science of Attraction and Beauty

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